Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Michael
|
|
Last Name
|
Trotto
|
|
Decision Date
|
1/28/2019
|
|
Docket Number
|
2017-2085-CONS
|
|
ALJ
|
RLR
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Highways
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Transportation Worker 2 Equipment Operator
|
|
Topics
|
Discrimination
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant established that he was eligible for leave under FMLA. Whether Grievant established that he was the victim of discrimination under the applicable statute.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 6C-2-2(d)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Cassella v. Div. of Highways, Docket No. 2011-0379-CONS (Dec. 18, 2012); Griffon v. Div. of Motor Vehicles, Docket No. 2008-1271-DOT (Aug. 17, 2009); Delp v. Mercer County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 06-27-219 (Jan. 3, 2007); Nestor v. W. Va. Dep t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 2012-0652-DHHR (Aug. 29, 2012); Frymier v. Higher Education Policy Comm’n., 655 S.E.2d 52, 221 W. Va. 306 (2007)
|
|
Keywords
|
Discrimination; Workers’ Compensation Claim; Family Medical Leave Act; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant suffered multiple back injuries while he was on the job for the Division of Highways. As a result, Grievant was unable to work and on workers’ compensation for a period of time. When Grievant challenged the Division of Highways’ refusal to return him to work, his treating physician had not authorized his return to work, nor had Grievant provided his employer with any documentation by his treating physician returning him to work. After Grievant’s treating physician authorized his return to work with restrictions, the Division of Highways created a return to work plan. Grievant declined to return to work under the plan because he wanted to remain home to care for his ill wife. Grievant was unable to establish that any actions taken by his employer were arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion. Grievant also failed to establish that he was the victim of discrimination. Accordingly, this grievance is denied.
|
Back to Results
Search Again