Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Andrew
|
|
Last Name
|
Jensen
|
|
Decision Date
|
6/19/2019
|
|
Docket Number
|
2019-0220-DOR
|
|
ALJ
|
BTC
|
|
Respondent
|
Offices of the Insurance Commissioner
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Office Assistant II
|
|
Topics
|
Dismissed; Termination
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent had good cause to terminate Grievant for job abandonment.
|
|
Outcome
|
Granted
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-12.2.c (2016); W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-3.48 (2016); W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-12.02 and 12.03 (2016); W. Va. Code § 29-6-10(12)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Williams v. Precision Coil, 194 W. Va. 52, 63, 459 S.E.2d 329, 340 (1995); Oakes v. W. Va. Dep't of Finance and Admin., 164 W. Va. 384, 264 S.E.2d 151 (1980); Guine v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 149 W. Va. 461, 141 S.E.2d 364 (1965); Waite v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 161 W. Va. 154, 241 S.E.2d 164 (1977); Hamilton v. Dep’t of Health and Human Res., Docket No. 2008-1591-DHHR (Nov. 9, 2009); Adkins v. Dep’t of Health and Human Res., Docket No. 2011-1392-DHHR (Dec. 22, 2011); Clark v. Dep’t of Military Aff. & Public Safety, Docket No. 99-DJS-428 (Nov. 30, 1999); Hall v. Dep’t of Health and Human Res., Docket No. 2014-1713-DHHR (Nov. 9, 2015); Quesinberry v. Quesinberry, 191 W. Va. 65, 70, 443 S.E.2d 222, 227 (1994)
|
|
Keywords
|
Termination; Job Abandonment; Due Process; Attendance Policy; Incarceration
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
Respondent appealed to Kanawha County Circuit Court 7/22/19, CA #19-AA-79 (Webster);
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was employed by Respondent as an Office Assistant 2 and was terminated from his employment for job abandonment. Grievant was absent due to his incarceration on criminal charges that were later dismissed. While Grievant was incarcerated, he was denied access to a telephone and had no ability to contact Respondent personally. Grievant provided notice of the reason for his absence through an intermediary as soon as he was permitted a visitor at the jail. Respondent failed to prove it was justified in terminating Grievant’s employment for job abandonment under those circumstances. Accordingly, the grievance is granted.
|
Back to Results
Search Again