Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Jessica
|
|
Last Name
|
Chapman
|
|
Decision Date
|
1/3/2019
|
|
Docket Number
|
2018-1321-JefED
|
|
ALJ
|
RLR
|
|
Respondent
|
Jefferson County Board of Education
|
|
Employment Type
|
SERV
|
|
Job Title
|
Cook II
|
|
Topics
|
Termination; Dismissal
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent had good cause to terminate Grievant.
|
|
Outcome
|
Granted/Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 18A-2-7; W. Va. Code § 18A-2-8; W. Va. Code § 18A-2-12a(b)(6)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Beverlin v. Bd. of Educ., 158 W. Va. 1067, 216 S.E.2d 554 (1975); Maxey v. McDowell Cnty Board of Educ., 212 W. Va. 668, 575 S.E.2d 278 (2002); Bd. of Educ. v. Chaddock, 183 W. Va. 638, 398 S.E.2d 120, 122 (1990); Sinsel v. Harrison Cnty Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 96-17-219 (Dec. 31, 1996); Martin v. W. Va. State Fire Comm'n, Docket No. 89-SFC-145 (Aug. 8, 1989)
|
|
Keywords
|
Termination; Attendance; Policy; Plan of Improvement; Correctable Conduct; Willful Neglect of Duty; Mitigation; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
Respondent appealed to Kanawha County Circuit Court 2/5/19, CA #19-AA-7 (Salango); Affirmed, 5/10/19; Amended Final Order 6/5/19, corrected civil action number
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was employed by the Jefferson County Board of Education as a Cook II. It is undisputed that Grievant’s work performance has always met or exceeded expectations in all respects, with the exception of attendance. Grievant has never received any form of prior discipline for absenteeism or for any reason. Grievant was terminated from her position as a Cook II for willful neglect of duty stemming from violation of Jefferson County Schools’ attendance policy. During the twelve months prior to her termination, Grievant had successfully completed two plans of improvement regarding attendance, demonstrating that her conduct was correctable.
During the 2017-2018 school year, Grievant was absent a total of 16 days, but only 3,5 days after the start of her second plan of improvement on December 14, 2017. Grievant contends that her historical attendance issues were extraordinary and caused by extreme, extenuating circumstances. Grievant contends that her termination was too harsh and not warranted; that her conduct was correctable; that her conduct had been corrected; that Respondent’s decision to terminate her was arbitrary and capricious; that her punishment should be mitigated. A three-day suspension was sufficient discipline given the facts of this case. Accordingly, this grievance will be granted, in part, and denied, in part.
|
Back to Results
Search Again