Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Frank
|
|
Last Name
|
Hutton
|
|
Decision Date
|
1/22/2018
|
|
Docket Number
|
2018-0017-DOT
|
|
ALJ
|
WBM
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Highways
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Project Inspector / TRET
|
|
Topics
|
Termination; Dismissal
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent proved that Grievant’s misconduct constituted to gross misconduct.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-12.2.a
|
|
Related Cases
|
Graley v. W. Va. Parkways Econ. Dev. & Tourism Auth., Docket No. 91-PEDTA-225 (Dec 23, 1991); Hudson v. Dep't of Health & Human Res./Welch Cmty. Hosp., Docket No. 07-HHR-311 (March 21, 2008); McVay v. Wood County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-54-041 (May 18, 1995)
|
|
Keywords
|
Termination; Gross Misconduct; Using a State Vehicle for Personal Use; Policy and Procedure; Administrative Rule; Mitigation
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was dismissed from employment for operating an agency owned vehicle for personal pursuits, transporting a person who was not a state employee in the vehicle without business necessity, removing the license plate from the vehicle to elude discovery of its personal use, and having controlled substances in the agency owned vehicle. Grievant had been previously suspended for unauthorized use of an agency owned vehicle to transport a person who was not an agency employee.
Grievant admitted to all the allegations except possession of a controlled substance. He alleged that he knew nothing of the drugs and syringes found in the car and that they could have belonged to the person to whom the vehicle is normally assigned. He also argued that he was denied due process.
Respondent proved the allegations which were the basis for terminating Grievant’s employment except the possession of drugs and paraphernalia. Respondent complied with the Division of Personal Administrative Rule when terminating Grievant’s employment. Given Grievant’s prior offence, dismissal was justified.
|
Back to Results
Search Again