Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Randall
|
|
Last Name
|
Morrison
|
|
Decision Date
|
10/9/2019
|
|
Docket Number
|
2019-0786-MU
|
|
ALJ
|
RLR
|
|
Respondent
|
Marshall University
|
|
Employment Type
|
HE
|
|
Job Title
|
Campus Service Worker
|
|
Topics
|
Suspension; Reasonable Accommodation
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent had good cause to suspend Grievant. Whether Grievant established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent’s failure to return him to his transitional administrative position was arbitrary and capricious.
|
|
Outcome
|
Granted
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 23-5A-31
|
|
Related Cases
|
McComas v. Public Service Commission, Docket No. 2012-0240-PSC (Apr. 24, 2013); Koblinsky v. Putnam County Health Department, Docket No. 2010-1306-CONS (Nov. 8, 2010); Griffon v. West Virginia Division of Transportation, Department of Motor Vehicles, Civil Action No. 09-AA-177 (March 24, 2010); Beaton, et al., v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, Docket No. 2013-0496-CONS (Dec. 20, 2013); Tracy v. Cottrell, 206 W. Va. 363, 524 S.E.2d 879 (1999); Hannah v. Heeter, 213 W. Va. 704, 584 S.E.2d 560 (2003)
|
|
Keywords
|
Suspension; On-the-Job Injury; Workers’ Compensation; Preferential Recall; Right to Representation; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was employed as a Campus Service Worker at Marshall University. Grievant suffered an on-the-job injury and was on workers’ compensation. Grievant suffered another on-the-job injury subsequently, and was once again on workers’ compensation. Grievant suffers from other health issues. Grievant was placed back on the job in an administrative transitional position. For reasons not entirely clear in the record, Grievant was suspended for five days related to an allegation of falsification of sick leave applications. Grievant was also informed after this suspension that he would not be returned to work due to the discipline and work performance concerns. Respondent failed to establish the charge by a preponderance of the evidence that led to Grievant’s suspension. Grievant established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent’s failure to return him to his transitional administrative position was arbitrary and capricious. This grievance is granted.
|
Back to Results
Search Again