Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Pamela
|
|
Last Name
|
McNeely
|
|
Decision Date
|
5/30/2019
|
|
Docket Number
|
2019-0673-MAPS
|
|
ALJ
|
WBM
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation/Bureau of Prisons and Jails
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
CO II
|
|
Topics
|
Return to Work
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant proved that she has been placed off work, exhausted leave, and required to take unpaid leave due to Respondent’s violation of the Return to Work policy.
|
|
Outcome
|
Granted
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code R §156-1-3; W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-14.4(h)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Powell v. Brown, 160 W. Va. 723, 238 S.E.2d 220 (1977); Bailey v. W. Va. Dep’t. of Transp., Docket No. 94-DOH-389 (Dec. 20, 1994); Layne v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 2008-0172-DHHR (Jan. 8, 2009); Cassella v. Div. of Highways, Docket No. 2011-0379-CONS (Dec. 18, 2012); Griffin v. Div. of Motor Vehicles, Docket No. 2008-1271-DOT (Aug. 17, 2009); Smith, et al. v. West Virginia Div. of Rehabilitative Services and Div. of Personnel, 208 W. Va. 284, 540 S.E.2d 152 (2000); Ferrell et al. v. Reg. Jail & Corr. Facility Auth., Docket No. 2013-1005-CONS (June 4, 2013); Beaton et al. v. Dep’t of Health & Human Ser., Docket No. 2013-0496-CONS (Dec. 20, 2013)
|
|
Keywords
|
Return to Work Policy; Work Assignments; Light Duty Assignments
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was working as a Correctional Officer 2 at the Southwestern Regional Jail after returning to work from a sever work related injury. Grievant had been placed on light duty for a month upon return to work and was only assigned to the Central Control post. At the month expired Grievant was assigned to additional posts in the Jail including the tower. An incident occurred related to Grievant’s ability to perform essential functions of her position. Respondent place Grievant off work where she stayed because she was unable to procure a doctor to complete a Functional Capacity form required by Respondent. Grievant alleges she was placed off work as a disciplinary measure and the Respondent violated the provisions of its Return to Work policy. Grievant did not prove that Respondent placed her off work as discipline. Grievant did prove that Respondent violated its own policy.
|
Back to Results
Search Again