Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Dennis
|
|
Last Name
|
Bennett
|
|
Decision Date
|
1/18/2018
|
|
Docket Number
|
2017-2115-DOT
|
|
ALJ
|
LRB
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Highways
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Transportation Worker 3 Equipment Operator
|
|
Topics
|
Termination; Dismissal
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether the termination of Grievant’s employment was excessive.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
|
|
Related Cases
|
Yerrid v. Div. of Highways, Docket No. 2009-1692-DOT (Mar. 26, 2010); Redfearn v. Dep't of Labor, 58 MSPR 307 (1993); Fonville v. DHHS, 30 MSPR 351 (1986) (citing Glover v. DHEW, 1 MSPR 660 (1980); Graley v. W. Va. Parkways Econ. Dev. & Tourism Auth., Docket No. 99-PEDTA-406 (Oct. 31, 2000); Lanehart v. Logan County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 97-23-088 (June 13, 1997); Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998); Rogers v. W. Va. Reg’l Jail & Corr. Fac. Auth., Docket No. 2009-0685-MAPS (Apr. 23, 2009)
|
|
Keywords
|
Termination; Inappropriate Conduct; Sexual Harassment; Workplace Harassment; Hostile Work Environment; Mitigation
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was terminated from his employment. Grievant filed a grievance stating that he had been falsely accused and requested to be reinstated with the DOH as a Transportation Worker III Equipment Operator. Grievant alleges pretext and retaliation for voicing opposition to other actions he believed to be unlawful conduct. Respondent maintains Grievant participated in multiple instances of inappropriate conduct of a sexually harassing nature perpetrated in the workplace. The alleged behavior included, but not limited to ‘flipping’ a female employee’s breast by forcefully flipping the employee’s breast upward. Evidence throughout this matter is both direct and hearsay in nature.
It is acknowledged there was inappropriate behavior in the workplace happening in District 9, Summer County, interestingly, a good number contend varying degrees of others’ complicity while readily expressing individual innocence. Respondent has a responsibility to remedy unlawful workplace behavior. Respondent established with a reasonable degree of certainty that Grievant participated in behavior toward a female co-worker rationally viewed as inappropriate conduct of a sexually harassing nature. Employees have a duty to refrain from work place harassment. Sexual harassment can be perpetrated with or without physical touching in the workplace. Respondent established a violation of applicable Prohibited Workplace Harassment Policy by a preponderance of the evidence. Grievant did not persuasively establish that termination of his employment was too sever of discipline. This grievance is DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again