Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Patty
|
|
Last Name
|
Shirk
|
|
Decision Date
|
2/20/2018
|
|
Docket Number
|
2017-2494-CONS
|
|
ALJ
|
WBM
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Highways
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Supervisor I
|
|
Topics
|
Written Reprimand; Suspension
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent had good cause to discipline Grievant.
|
|
Outcome
|
Granted/Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
29 U.S.C. § 2612(a); 29 CFR 825.112(a); 29 CFR 825.303(c); 825.304(3)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Leichliter v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 92-HHR-486 (May 17, 1993); Brown v. Auto. Components Holdings, LLC, 622 F.3d 685, 689 (7th Cir. 2010); Ervin v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 2011-1794-CONS (July 24, 2012)
|
|
Keywords
|
Suspension; Reprimand; Leave Restriction; Leaving Work Early; Unauthorized Leave; FMLA
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant receive an unwritten reprimand and a record of significant occurrence for leaving work early without prior approval and failing to complete an important assignment within the time frame established. Respondent proved the allegations related to this discipline by a preponderance of the evidence.
Grievant received a one-day suspension for violating Respondent’s call-off policy when she overslept and was late for work. Grievant argued that her absence was caused by her FMLA covered illness and Respondent restrained her lawful use of the leave in violation of the federal act. Respondent noted that employees on FMLA leave may be required to follow employer call-off policies and Grievant’s failure to do so allowed refusal to honor the leave request and impose discipline. Grievant demonstrated that her failure to follow the call-off procedure resulted from unusual circumstances related to her FMLA claim. Accordingly, the consolidated Grievances are GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part.
|
Back to Results
Search Again