Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Steven
|
|
Last Name
|
Henry
|
|
Decision Date
|
8/15/2019
|
|
Docket Number
|
2019-0378-DOT
|
|
ALJ
|
JSF
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Highways
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Telecommunicator
|
|
Topics
|
Suspension
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent proved by a preponderance of evidence that it had good cause to suspend Grievant.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
|
|
Related Cases
|
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); Sloan v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., 215 W. Va. 657, 600 S.E.2d 554 (2004); Graley v. Parkways Econ. Dev. & Tourism Auth., Docket No. 91-PEDTA-225 (Dec. 23, 1991); Buskirk v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 175 W. Va. 279, 332 S.E.2d 579 (1985); Freeman v. Fayette Cty. Bd. of Educ., 215 W. Va. 272, 277, 599 S.E.2d 695, 700 (2004); Williamson v. Division of Highways, Docket No. 2016-0608-CONS (September 22, 2016); 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); Kimzey v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 107 F.3d 568, 573 (8th Cir. 1997); Ball v. Dep't of Transp., Docket No. 96-DOH-141 (July 31, 1997)
|
|
Keywords
|
Suspension; Sleeping on the Job; Public Safety; Progressive Discipline; Retaliation; Harassment; Mitigation
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant has been employed as a lone night shift telecommunications worker in Wheeling Tunnel for the Division of Highways, Respondent. Grievant had previously been suspended by Respondent three times for sleeping on the job. After Grievant’s current supervisor, Paul Hicks, returned to that role, he began making surprise visits and twice caught Grievant on camera sleeping. Mr. Hicks warned Grievant against sleeping on the job through a performance appraisal, but stated no action was being taken. When Grievant insisted on making a written contest of the facts, Mr. Hicks handed him a notice of recommendation for 20-day suspension. Grievant claims his eventual suspension was in retaliation for exercising his right to challenge his appraisal and an attempt to get back at his dad, a prior subordinate of Mr. Hicks. He further claims hostile work environment and implies that his suspension should be mitigated. While Grievant made a prima facie case of retaliation, Respondent rebutted the presumption and Grievant did not prove that the reasons were pretext for retaliation. Grievant did not prove harassment or mitigation. Accordingly, this grievance is Denied.
|
Back to Results
Search Again