Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Mark
|
|
Last Name
|
Hooker
|
|
Decision Date
|
2/28/2020
|
|
Docket Number
|
2019-0505-DOR
|
|
ALJ
|
BTC
|
|
Respondent
|
Offices of the Insurance Commissioner
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Insurance Company Examiner Supervisor
|
|
Topics
|
Termination
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant proved he had a permanent employment contract or other substantial employment right. Whether Grievant proved his termination was motivated to contravene a substantial public policy.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 29-6-2(g); W. Va. Code § 29-6-10; W. Va. Code § 5-11-2; W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-12.2.b
|
|
Related Cases
|
Bellinger v. W. Va. Dep't of Pub. Safety, Docket No. 95-DPS-119 (Aug. 15, 1995); Eggleton v. Div. of Culture and History, Docket No. 03-C&H-273 (Nov. 24, 2003); Carter v. Public Broadcasting, Docket No. 2013-1556-DEA (Feb. 4, 2014); Roach v. Reg’l Jail Auth., 198 W. Va. 694, 699, 482 S.E.2d 679, 684 (1996); Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc., 194 W. Va. 52, 63, 459 S.E.2d 329, 340 (1995)
|
|
Keywords
|
Termination; At-Will Employee; Classified-Exempt Employee; Sex Discrimination, Age Discrimination; Severance Pay
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was employed by Respondent as an Insurance Company Examiner Supervisor. Grievant was suspended and then terminated from his position after he was arrested for domestic battery against his girlfriend, who was also employed by Respondent, and his bond agreement required he have no contact with her. Grievant asserted he was entitled to civil service protection, however, Grievant was a classified-exempt employee who is presumed to be at will. Grievant failed to establish a permanent employment contract or other substantial employment right by clear and convincing evidence that would change his status as an at-will employee. As an at-will employee Grievant could be terminated for any reason that did not contravene a substantial public policy. Grievant was a member of a protected class and adverse employment action was taken against him but Grievant failed to prove that but for his protected status, the adverse decision would not have been made. Therefore, Grievant failed to prove his termination was motivated to contravene a substantial public policy. As a classified-exempt employee, Grievant was not entitled to severance pay. Accordingly, the grievance is denied.
|
Back to Results
Search Again