Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Ramhazz
|
|
Last Name
|
Corley
|
|
Decision Date
|
5/7/2019
|
|
Docket Number
|
2019-0532-DHHR
|
|
ALJ
|
BTC
|
|
Respondent
|
Department of Health and Human Resources/Bureau for Children and Families
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Social Service Worker III
|
|
Topics
|
Suspension
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant proved his suspension pending the resolution of his criminal charges was improper.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code St. R. § 156-1-6.19.2; W. Va. Code St. R. § 156-1-3; W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-12.3.b
|
|
Related Cases
|
Bragg v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 03-HHR-348 (May 28, 2004); Burkhammer v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 03-HHR-073 (May 30, 2003); Ferrell and Marcum v. Reg'l Jail and Corr. Facility Auth./W. Reg'l Jail, Docket No. 2013-1005-CONS (June 4, 2013); Maxey v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, Docket No. 93-HHR-007 (Feb. 28, 1995), aff'd, Wyoming Cnty. Cir. Ct. Docket No 95-C-110 (Mar. 4, 1997), appeal refused, W.Va. Sup. Ct. App. Docket No. 971494 (Dec. 3, 1997)
|
|
Keywords
|
Motion to Dismiss; Moot; Jurisdiction; Suspension Pending Investigation; Job Duties; Criminal Charges; Leave
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was previously employed by Respondent as a Social Service Worker III. Following his arrest on misdemeanor charges, Grievant was suspended pending investigation. Although the criminal charges were later dismissed, Grievant had already resigned from his position. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss alleging the Grievance Board lacked jurisdiction and that the matter was moot due to Grievant’s resignation. The Grievance Board does not lack jurisdiction as Grievant was still an employee at the time of his resignation. The grievance is not moot as back pay would be available if Grievant should prevail. The Division of Personnel’s administrative rules permit the unpaid suspension of an employee while criminal charges are pending and does not provide for the payment of back wages if the employee resigns prior to the resolution of the criminal charges. Grievant failed to prove his suspension pending the resolution of his criminal charges was improper or that he was entitled to back pay or restoration of leave when he resigned prior to the dismissal of the criminal charges. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss and grievance are denied.
|
Back to Results
Search Again