Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Simona
|
|
Last Name
|
Southall
|
|
Decision Date
|
5/30/2018
|
|
Docket Number
|
2018-0658-CONS
|
|
ALJ
|
WBM
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Corrections/Parole Services
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
PPO/1
|
|
Topics
|
Termination; Dismissal
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent proved a Probation Officer knew about and failed to report her domestic partner hiding drugs and money in her home.
|
|
Outcome
|
Granted
|
|
Statutes
|
|
|
Related Cases
|
Galloway v. W. Va. Bd. of Trustees, Docket No. 90-BOT-388 (Nov. 22, 1991); Bailey v. Logan County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 93-23-383 (June 23, 1994); Kirk v. Mingo County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 89-29-99 (Sept. 12, 1999); Shannon v. Workforce W. Va., Docket No. 2012-0959-DOC (Jan. 29. 2013); State v. Guthrie, 194 W. Va. 657, 669, 461 S.E.2d 163, 175 (1995); Jones v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 96-HHR-371 (Oct. 30, 1996); Pine v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 95-HHR-066 (May 12, 1995); Serreno v. West Va. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 169 W. Va. 111, 115, 285 S.E.2d 899, 902 (1982)
|
|
Keywords
|
Termination; Circumstantial Evidence; Work History; Misconduct
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
Respondent appealed to Kanawha County 6/7/2018, Civil Action #18-AA-220 (Tabit); Reversed 9/20/2018
|
|
Supreme Court
|
Grievant appealed to Supreme Court 10/19/2018, #18-0931; Supreme Court Final Decision 10/11/19; Affirmed Circuit Court Reversal
|
|
Synopsis
|
Respondent suspended and dismissed Grievant after her home was raided and searched by Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) Agents as part of a drug related investigation. Grievant’s domestic partner, and more than a dozen other people, were arrested and charged related to drug activity. A large stash of illegal drugs, cash and firearms were seized in the raid. Grievant was not arrested, charged, or interrogated concerning any of this activity. Respondent dismissed Grievant arguing that she knew or reasonably should have known about the illegal activities and did not report them to law enforcement.
Respondent did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Grievant participated in, or knew about the illegal activities of her domestic partner, or that she knew about the contraband in her home. Accordingly, the grievance is GRANTED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again