Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Richard
|
|
Last Name
|
Vance
|
|
Decision Date
|
8/21/2019
|
|
Docket Number
|
2019-1632-CONS
|
|
ALJ
|
LRB
|
|
Respondent
|
Department of Environmental Protection
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Environmental Inspector
|
|
Topics
|
Termination; Dismissal
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent had good cause to terminate Grievant’s employment.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
156 C.S.R. 1 § 3
|
|
Related Cases
|
Elmore v. Dep’t of Transp., Docket No. 2010- 1042-DOT (May 26, 2010); Loudermilk v. Div. of Highways, Docket No. 2010-0558-DOT (Oct. 8. 2010); Rockwell v. Dep’t of Transp./Div. of Highways, Docket No. 2010-1070-DOT (June 25, 2010); Smith v. Dep’t of Transp./Div. of Highways, Docket No. 2010-0972-DOT (June 17, 2010); Reed v. Dep’t of Transp./Div. of Highways, Docket No. 07-DOH-023 (May 16, 2007); Loudermilk v. Div. of Highways, Docket No. 2010-0558- DOT (Oct. 8. 2010); Carper v. Clay County Health Dep’t, Docket No. 2012-0235-ClaCH (July 15, 2013); Cook v. Div. of Natural Res., Docket No. 2009-0875-DOC (Jan. 22, 2010)
|
|
Keywords
|
Termination; Minimum Qualifications; Essential Job Duties; Driver’s License; Discrimination; Reprisal
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Respondent argues that Grievant was properly disciplined for failure to meet the minimum qualifications of his classification. After an extended period Grievant lost his driver’s license convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol. Grievant asserts Respondent can and should allow him to work in an alternative position, where the status of his license was not an issue. Grievant argues that he was treated differently than other employees, who have been allowed to work at desk duties for the periods of their license revocation and were not dismissed from employment by Respondent.
Grievant was employed as an Environmental Inspector. One of the specific qualifications of the position is “[m]ust be eligible for license to operate a motor vehicle in West Virginia.” Respondent proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Grievant no longer met the minimum qualifications for his classification and position. It was not persuasively demonstrated that Respondent is obligated to provide Grievant with alternative employment position until such time as his ability to lawfully operate a motor vehicle is restored. Accordingly, this grievance is DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again