Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Brenda
|
|
Last Name
|
Justice
|
|
Decision Date
|
8/17/2018
|
|
Docket Number
|
2018-0362-DEP
|
|
ALJ
|
WBM
|
|
Respondent
|
Department of Environmental Protection
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Office Assistant 3
|
|
Topics
|
Termination; Dismissal
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent had good cause to terminate Grievant.
|
|
Outcome
|
Granted
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 55-7E-3(a)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Martinez v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 239 W. Va. 612, 613-614, 803 S.E.2d 582, 583-584, (2017); Coleman v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 03-HHR-318 (Jan. 27, 2004); Mason County Bd. of Educ. v. State Superintendent of Schools, 170 W.Va. 632, 295 S.E.2d 719 (1982)
|
|
Keywords
|
Termination; DOP Drug-and Alcohol-Free Workplace Policy; Mitigate Damages; Back Pay
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Based upon reasonable suspicion that Grievant was impaired at work, Respondent sent Grievant for drug and alcohol testing. Grievant was administered three tests related to blood alcohol content. Additionally, the lab techs were unable to draw blood from Grievant for the most accurate method of determining blood alcohol content. The tests produced contradictory results. Respondent terminated Grievant’s employment for a violation of the Division of Personnel Drug- and Alcohol-Free Workplace Policy based solely upon a positive test result indicating Grievant had alcohol in her body while at work. Respondent did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Grievant had alcohol in her body while at work. The issue of mitigation of damages is also raised. While Respondent proved that Grievant failed to seek other employment to mitigate her damages, Respondent provided no evidence that such employment was available or what amount Grievant could have been paid had she exercised due diligence.
|
Back to Results
Search Again