Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Chelsea
|
|
Last Name
|
Narkevic
|
|
Decision Date
|
5/3/2019
|
|
Docket Number
|
2019-0473-DHHR
|
|
ALJ
|
JSF
|
|
Respondent
|
Department of Health and Human Resources/Bureau for Children and Families
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Child Protective Services Worker
|
|
Topics
|
Termination; Dismissal
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent had good cause to terminate Grievant.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-10.1.a. (2016)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Livingston v. Dep’t of Health and Human Res., Docket No. 2008-0770-DHHR (Mar. 21, 2008); Hammond v. Div. of Veteran’s Affairs, Docket No. 2009-0161-MAPS (Jan. 7, 2009); Hackman v. Dep’t of Transp., Docket No. 01-DMV-582 (Feb. 20, 2002); Graley v. Parkways Econ. Dev. & Tourism Auth., Docket No. 91-PEDTA-225 (Dec. 23, 1991); Martin v. W. Va. Fire Comm'n, Docket No. 89-SFC-145 (Aug. 8, 1989); Conner v. Barbour County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 94-01-394 (Jan. 31, 1995), aff’d, Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Docket No 95-AA-66 (May 1, 1996), appeal refused, W.Va. Sup. Ct. App. (Nov. 19, 1996); Phillips v. Summers County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 93-45-105 (Mar. 31, 1994)
|
|
Keywords
|
Termination; Probationary Employee; Gross Misconduct; Relationship With A Client; Sexual Contact; Ethics; Training; Arbitrary and Capricious; Mitigation
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
Grievant appealed to Kanawha County Circuit Court 6/6/19, CA # 19-AA-59 (Tabit);
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was a probationary employee as a Child Protective Service Worker Trainee when Respondent dismissed her for gross misconduct. Respondent contends that Grievant started a romantic relationship with a client’s father while working on the child’s abuse and neglect case. Respondent asserts that Grievant’s conduct was unethical, even though the father was the non-offending parent, because the father also became a client once listed on the petition filed by DHHR on behalf of the child. Grievant contends that Respondent did not provide sufficient ethics training or adequately define “client”. Respondent counters that it was Grievant’s responsibility to familiarize herself with her ethical obligations through the resources made available to her. Grievant asserts that these resources did not define “client” to include the father and that, even if she committed an infraction, Respondent’s harsh penalty warranted mitigation, given her lack of training and resources, and her stellar employment record. Even though it is not clear that the father was a client under the resources provided Grievant, these resources do make clear that Grievant engaged in misconduct by violating her ethical obligations when she had sexual contact with the father of a known client. Grievant did not prove her punishment was arbitrary and capricious or warranted mitigation. Accordingly, the grievance is DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again