Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Paul
|
|
Last Name
|
Hileman, et al.
|
|
Decision Date
|
3/26/2018
|
|
Docket Number
|
2017-2054-CONS
|
|
ALJ
|
BLG
|
|
Respondent
|
Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority/Southwestern Regional Jail
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Corporal Correctional Officer III
|
|
Topics
|
Disciplinary Demotion
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievants demonstrated that the penalty imposed was excessive or an abuse of discretion.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
|
|
Related Cases
|
Floyd v. Floyd, 148 W. Va. 183, 133 S.E.2d 726 (1963); Martin v. W. Va. Fire Comm'n, Docket No. 89-SFC-145 (Aug. 8, 1989); Meadows v. Logan County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 00-23-202 (Jan. 31, 2001); Huffstutler v. Cabell County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 97-06-150 (Oct. 31, 1997); Wiley v. W. Va. Div. of Nat'l Res., Parks & Recreation, Docket No. 96-DNR-515 (Mar. 26, 1988); Cobb v. Dep’t of Admin./General Services Div., Docket No. 97-Admin-404/455 (May 26, 1999); Snedegar v. W. Va. Div. of Corr./Anthony Correctional Center, Docket No. 2008-1889-MAPS (Jan. 15, 2009); Mitchell v. Sanborn, 536 N.W.2d 678 (Aug. 29, 1995); Vermett v. Hough, 627 F. Supp. 587 (W. D. Mich. 1986)
|
|
Keywords
|
Demotion; Code Of Conduct; Horseplay; Inappropriate Behavior; Mitigation; Supervisor
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
Grievants Napier (18-AA-206/Bloom) and Hileman (18-AA-205/Bailey) appealed to Kanawha County Circuit Court 4/2018; Bloom Affirmed Napier, 10/30/2018; Bailey affirmed Hileman 11/29/18
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievants were employed by Respondent in supervisory positions at the Southwestern Regional Jail. They were both demoted to Correctional Officer 2 positions, which are non-supervisory positions, after engaging in horseplay, which involved touching subordinates with cut off broom handles and play-fighting each other and subordinates with the broom handles during work hours. They were also found to have engaged in calling subordinates inappropriate names. Grievants did not deny the charges, but argued demotion was too severe a penalty. Grievants did not demonstrate that the penalty imposed was clearly excessive or an abuse of discretion.
|
Back to Results
Search Again