Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Cassi
|
|
Last Name
|
Smith
|
|
Decision Date
|
3/4/2020
|
|
Docket Number
|
2020-0403-DVA
|
|
ALJ
|
WBM
|
|
Respondent
|
Department of Veterans Assistance
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Veterans Service Officer Assistant II
|
|
Topics
|
Dismissed; Termination
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant proved that dismissal was clearly excessive given or disproportionate to the misconduct.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 6C 2 2 (d)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Earls v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 2015-1269-DHHR (July 7, 2016); Loudermilk v. Dep’t of Transp./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); Hudson v. Dep't of Health and Human Res./Welch Cmty. Hosp., Docket No. 07-HHR-311 (March 21, 2008); McVay v. Wood County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95-54-041 (May 18, 1995)
|
|
Keywords
|
Termination; Violation of Policy; Veterans database; Essential Job Duties; Mitigation
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Respondent terminated Grievant’s employment as a Veteran Officer Assistant II after it was discovered that she and a United States Department of Veterans Affairs (“USDVA”) employee accessed a veteran’s confidential records on the USDVA database system without authorization which at some point became public. The USDVA revoked Grievant’s access privileges to utilize their database rendering Grievant unable to perform the essential duties of her job. Grievant argues that she made a simple mistake without intent or malice, and there was insufficient cause to release her, a tenured civil servant, from employment. She also argues that an employee, working for the USDVA also gained access to the same information without losing access to the database or being dismissed. Respondent proved that there was sufficient reason to dismiss Grievant, that she was not subject to discrimination and that mitigation of the punishment was not required.
|
Back to Results
Search Again