Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Angela
|
|
Last Name
|
Kargul
|
|
Decision Date
|
5/1/2018
|
|
Docket Number
|
2018-0528-MU
|
|
ALJ
|
LRB
|
|
Respondent
|
Marshall University
|
|
Employment Type
|
HE
|
|
Job Title
|
Lead Gardener
|
|
Topics
|
Suspension
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether suspension of Grievant’s employment was an excessive disciplinary action.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
|
|
Related Cases
|
Williams v. Kanawha Cty. Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 98-20-321 (Oct. 20, 1999); Aglinsky v. Bd. of Trustees, Docket No. 97-BOT-256 (Oct. 27, 1997); Crites v. Dept. of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 2015-0163-DHHR (Aug. 29, 2016); Casto v. W. Va. Dep't of Educ., Docket No. 00-DOE-143 (Aug. 28, 2000); Nagel v. Dep't Health & Human Srvs., 707 F.2d 1384 (10th Cir. 1983); Stover v. Mason County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-26-078 (Sept. 25, 1995)
|
|
Keywords
|
Suspension; Progressive Discipline; Inappropriate Comments; Workplace Behavior; Mitigation
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant protests the severity of the sanction levied for a list of alleged ‘mis’ and ‘mal’ feasance actions by Grievant. Representative agent(s) of Respondent and Grievant disagree on select courses of action with regard to Grievant’s employment. Grievant provides some explanation for her actions but acknowledges the majority of the contended conduct. Respondent established grounds for disciplinary action. Respondent chose to suspend Grievant for five days without pay. Respondent maintains its actions were lawful and consistent with the principles of progressive discipline. Grievant is now readily aware of Respondent’s earnestness to the correction of her workplace activity. In considering the totality of the circumstances, the undersigned is conflicted but acknowledges suspension is not necessarily an excessive disciplinary action. This grievance is DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again