Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Paul
|
|
Last Name
|
Gill
|
|
Decision Date
|
12/19/2018
|
|
Docket Number
|
2018-1118-DOT
|
|
ALJ
|
WBM
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Highways
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Inspector 2
|
|
Topics
|
Termination
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent had good cause to terminate Grievant’s probationary employment.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-10.1.a; W. Va. Code § 2-2-1 (d); W. Va. Code St. R. § 156-1-3 (2008)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Cosner v. Dep’t of Health and Human Resources/William R. Sharpe, Jr. Hospital, Docket No. 08-HHR-008 (Dec. 30, 2008); Livingston v. Dep’t of Health and Human Res., Docket No. 2008-0770-DHHR (Mar. 21, 2008); McCoy v. W. Va. Dep’t of Transp., Docket No. 98-DOH-399 (June 18, 1999); Nicholson v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health and Human Res., Docket No. 99-HHR-299 (Aug. 31, 1999).
|
|
Keywords
|
Termination; probationary employee; misconduct; arbitrary and capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was employed to inspect highway accident scenes and report damage to State property so the responsible parties may be required to compensate the State. Inspectors must work closely with police agencies investigating the accidents to avoid impeding those investigations. Grievant had a successful probationary performance until an incident occurred less than a week before the end of his probationary period. Respondent terminated Grievant’s probationary employment as a result of complaints received from an officer with the Charleston Police Department as a result of this incident.
Grievant contends that his conduct was generally proper during the incident and his words and actions were misinterpreted by the police officer. He also points to his past experience, and successful probationary service, to argue that he should not be terminated for this one incident which he believes was overblown. The standard for dismissal of a probationary employee is much lower than for a regular full-time employee. Respondent presented sufficient evidence to justify the decision to not retain a probationary employee.
|
Back to Results
Search Again