Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Angela
|
|
Last Name
|
Benedum
|
|
Decision Date
|
2/4/2019
|
|
Docket Number
|
2019-0040-DHHR
|
|
ALJ
|
JSF
|
|
Respondent
|
Department of Health and Human Resources/Bureau for Child Support Enforcement
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Child Support Specialist II
|
|
Topics
|
Resignation
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant proved by a preponderance of evidence that Respondent coerced her resignation and that she resigned involuntarily, resulting in constructive discharge.
|
|
Outcome
|
Granted
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-12.1.b. (2016); W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-6.4.a.5. (2016)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Quigley v. Kanawha County Board of Education, Docket No. 01-20-105 (Aug. 30, 2001); W. Va. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. V. Falquero, 228 W. Va. 773, 780, 724 S.E.2d 744, 751 (2012); Welch v. W. Va. Dept. of Corrections, Docket No. 95-CORR-261 (Jan. 31, 1996); Miller v. Balt. City Bd. of Sch. Comm'rs, 565 Fed. Appx. 262 (2014); Slack v. Kanawha County Housing, 188 W. Va. 144, 423 S.E.2d 547 (1992); Preece v. Public Serv. Comm'n, Docket No. 94-PSC-246 (Apr. 25, 1997); Smith v. W. Va. Dep’t of Corrections, Docket No. 94-CORR-1092 (Sept. 11, 1995); Welch v. W. Va. Dep’t of Corrections, Docket No. 95-CORR-261 (Jan. 31, 1996); Scharf v. Dep't of Air Force, 710 F.2d 1572, 1574_75 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Quigley v. Kanawha County Board of Education, Docket No. 01-20-105 (Aug. 30, 2001); Richardson v. DHHR, Docket No. 2013-0144-DHHR (May 13, 2015); Dawson v. DNR, Docket No. 2015-1301-DOC (Dec. 14, 2016)
|
|
Keywords
|
Resignation; State Policy; Constructive Discharge; Credibility
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant alleges that Respondent coerced her resignation by misrepresenting state policy in telling her she would not work for the state again if she was fired but that she could work for the state by resigning. She contends that her resignation is constructive discharge and that she should be reinstated. In the alternative, Grievant alleges that she never technically resigned, but that even if she did she rescinded her resignation prior its acceptance. Grievant failed to prove that she rescinded her resignation prior to acceptance. However, Grievant proved she was constructively discharged when Respondent’s misrepresentation of the state policy induced her to resign in lieu of termination. Respondent’s misrepresentation created a false distinction between the future employability of state employees who are terminated verses those who resign in lieu of termination. Accordingly, the grievance is GRANTED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again