Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Rodney
|
|
Last Name
|
Goff
|
|
Decision Date
|
4/5/2019
|
|
Docket Number
|
2018-1013-DOT
|
|
ALJ
|
JSF
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Highways
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Transportation Worker 2 Equipment Operator
|
|
Topics
|
Written Reprimand
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent was obligated to consider removing the written reprimand from Grievant’s personnel file.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
|
|
Related Cases
|
Cunningham v. County Court of Wood County, 148 W.Va. 303, 310, 134 S.E.2d 725, 729 (1964); West Virginia. Pub. Employees Ins. Bd. v. Blue Cross Hosp. Serv. Inc., 174 W. Va. 605, 328 S.E.2d 356 (1985); Freeman v. Poling, 175 W. Va. 814, 819, 338 S.E.2d 415, 421 (1985); Carducci v. Regan, 714 F.2d 171, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1983); Adams v. Reg’l Jail & Corr. Facility Auth., Docket No. 06-RJA-147 (Sept. 29, 2006); Miller v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 05-20-252 (Sept. 28, 2005); Martin v. W. Va. Fire Comm'n, Docket No. 89-SFC-145 (Aug. 8, 1989); Phillips v. Summers County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 93-45-105 (Mar. 31, 1994)
|
|
Keywords
|
Written Reprimand; Removal Policy; Arbitrary and Capricious; Mitigation
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
During the course of his ongoing employment with Respondent, Grievant was disciplined through a written reprimand. Grievant contends he did not grieve the reprimand because the district human resource director informed Grievant he could request its removal from his personnel file after a year. Two years later, Grievant did request removal of the written reprimand. Respondent refused to consider Grievant’s request, citing its unwritten policy of not removing written reprimands from employee personnel files. Grievant contends that Respondent’s refusal is arbitrary and capricious, because Respondent has no such policy. Consequently, Grievant argues, the Division of Personnel’s Supervisor’s Guide to Progressive Corrective and Disciplinary action obligates Respondent to remove, or at least consider removing, the written reprimand from his personnel file. While Grievant proved that Respondent did not have a removal policy, he did not prove that Respondent was obligated to even consider his request for removal. Accordingly, the grievance is Denied.
|
Back to Results
Search Again