Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Carrie
|
|
Last Name
|
Thomas
|
|
Decision Date
|
2/15/2019
|
|
Docket Number
|
2018-0903-DHHR
|
|
ALJ
|
JSF
|
|
Respondent
|
Department of Health and Human Resources/William R. Sharpe, Jr. Hospital
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
RN III
|
|
Topics
|
Annual Leave
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant proved by a preponderance of evidence that Respondent discriminated against her.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 6C-2-2(d); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-2(h); W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-14.3.a. (2018)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Stuart v. Lake Washington Realty Corp., 141 W. Va. 627, 629, 92 S.E.2d 891, 894 (1956); Jenkins v. West Virginia University, Docket No. 2008-0158-WVU (June 2, 2009); Ball v. Dep’t of Transportation/Division of Highways and Division of Personnel, Docket No. 96-DOH-141 (July 31, 1997); Gibson v. Div’n of Natural Res., Docket No. 2009-0773-DOC (Apr. 23, 2009)
|
|
Keywords
|
Annual Leave; Length of Service; Discrimination; Favoritism; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant lost 11.3 hours of excess annual leave at the end of 2017. Grievant claims discrimination due to Respondent’s failure to inform her of her leave balance in a timely manner and to provide a substitute to process leave requests in place of her absent supervisor. Grievant contends equitable estoppel should reinstate her lost leave. Respondent counters that it emailed leave balances to employees at work on November 14, 2017, and provided a substitute supervisor to process leave requests. Grievant was on extended leave so did not have access to her work email. Grievant claims she never received her balance even after her return on December 18, 2017. Grievant did not prove that Respondent had a duty to ensure that Grievant knew her leave balance without her asking or that Respondent failed to timely inform her of her annual leave balance, let alone define the requisite period of time in which it was obligated to inform her. Grievant did not prove that Respondent failed to provide her a substitute supervisor to process her leave request. Grievant did not prove that Respondent discriminated against her or failed to fulfill any duty under equitable estoppel. Accordingly, the grievance is Denied.
|
Back to Results
Search Again