| First Name | Wendy |
| Last Name | Smith |
| Decision Date | 6/25/2020 |
| Docket Number | 2019-1889-CONS |
| ALJ | BTC |
| Respondent | Housing Development Fund |
| Employment Type | STATE |
| Job Title | Mortgage Loan Closer |
| Topics | Termination |
| Primary Issues | Whether Respondent had good cause to terminate Grievant. |
| Outcome | Denied |
| Statutes | W. Va. Code § 31-18-5(a); W. Va. Code § 31-18-6(12); W. Va. Code § 5-11-2; W. Va. Code § 6C-2-3(q)(1) |
| Related Cases | 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); Wounaris v. W. Va. State Coll., 214 W. Va. 241, 588 S.E.2d 406 (2003); Birthisel v. Tri-Cities Health Services Corp., 188 W. Va. 371, 424 S.E.2d 606 (1992); Wounaris v. W. Va. State Coll., 214 W. Va. 241, 249, 588 S.E.2d 406, 414 (2003); Conaway v. E. Associated Coal Corp., 178 W. Va. 164, 167, 358 S.E.2d 423, 426 (1986); 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); Burkhammer v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 03-HHR-073 (May 30, 2003) |
| Keywords | Termination; Written Reprimand; At-will Employee; Discrimination; Substantial Public Policy; West Virginia Human Rights Act; Mitigation |
| Intermediate Court of Appeals | |
| Circuit Court | |
| Supreme Court | |
| Synopsis | Grievant was employed by Respondent as a Mortgage Loan Closer. Grievant’s employment was at will. Grievant grieves a written reprimand and subsequent termination from employment. Grievant alleged that she was terminated due to her race and protected activities of participating in the grievance procedure and Respondent’s EEO procedure, all of which would be substantial public policies. Grievant failed to make a prima facie case of protected class discrimination. Grievant made a prima facie case of protected activity discrimination but Respondent showed legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the termination that Grievant could not prove were pretextual. Grievant failed to prove mitigation of the punishment is warranted. As the termination of Grievant’s employment is upheld, the grievance protesting the written reprimand is moot. Accordingly, the grievance is denied. |