Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
S.
|
|
Last Name
|
B.
|
|
Decision Date
|
7/20/2018
|
|
Docket Number
|
2018-0632-CONS
|
|
ALJ
|
BTC
|
|
Respondent
|
Department of Health and Human Resources/Bureau for Child Support Enforcement
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Child Support Specialist 2
|
|
Topics
|
Termination; Dismissal
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent proved it was justified in suspending and then terminating Grievant’s employment for insubordination.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
29 U.S.C. § 2601(a)(4)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Day v. Morgan Co. Health Dep’t, Docket No. 07-CHD-121 (Dec. 14, 2007); Ball v. Dep't of Transp., Docket No. 96-DOH-141 (July 31, 1997); Mickles v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., Docket No. 06-DEP-320 (Mar. 30, 2007), aff’d, Fayette Cnty. Cir. Ct. Docket No. 07-AA-1 (Feb. 13. 2008); Martin v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res./Jackie Withrow Hosp., Docket No. 2011-1590-DHHR (May 18, 2012), aff’d, Kanawha County Circuit Ct., Civil Action No. 12-AA-79 (December 7, 2012); Freeman v. Fayette Cty. Bd. of Educ., 215 W. Va. 272, 277, 599 S.E.2d 695, 700 (2004); Burkhammer v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 03-HHR-073 (May 30, 2003)
|
|
Keywords
|
Termination; Insubordination; Retaliation; Reasonable Accommodation; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was employed by Respondent as a Child Support Specialist 2 within the Kanawha County office of the Bureau for Child Support Enforcement. The Kanawha County office is divided into separate units, and Respondent moved Grievant from the enforcement unit to the customer service unit, both of which are staffed by Child Support Specialists. Grievant continuously refused to be moved, stating that she could not answer telephones due to her generalized anxiety disorder. Grievant failed to present appropriate medical documentation that she could not answer telephones or that she was entitled to a reasonable accommodation. Respondent issued a verbal and then written reprimand, suspended Grievant for five days, and then terminated Grievant’s employment, all for insubordination. Grievant filed five grievances that were consolidated into the instant grievance protesting the following: involuntary transfer, attendance improvement plan, written reprimand, suspension, and termination. Grievant alleged Respondent’s actions were unreasonable and retaliatory. Respondent proved it was justified in suspending and then termination Grievant’s employment for insubordination. Grievant made a prima facie case of retaliation, but Respondent rebutted the presumption and Grievant failed to prove Respondent’s stated reasons for terminating Grievant were pretextual. Grievant failed to prove she was denied representation during the predetermination conference for her termination. The remaining issues presented are moot. Accordingly, the grievance is denied.
|
Back to Results
Search Again