Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Joshua
|
|
Last Name
|
James
|
|
Decision Date
|
10/1/2020
|
|
Docket Number
|
2020-0275-DOT
|
|
ALJ
|
LRB
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Highways
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Transportation Worker 1 Craft Worker
|
|
Topics
|
Suspension
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent established that there was a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for disciplinary action and Grievant did not prove that the reason was pretextual.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
|
|
Related Cases
|
James v. West Virginia Division of Highways, Docket No. 2019-1353-DOT (Mar 26, 2020); Clagg, et al., v. West Virginia Division of Highways, Docket No. 2015-1631-CONS (Feb. 10, 2016); Reynolds v. Kanawha-Charleston Health Dep't., Docket No. 90-H-128 (August 8, 1990); Vickers v. Bd. of Directors/W. Va. State College, Docket No. 97-BOD-112B (August 7, 1998); 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
|
Suspension; Investigation; Harassing a Coworker; Workplace Security Policy; Standards of Work Performance and Conduct; Mitigation
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant is employed as a Transportation Worker 1 Craft Worker with the Division of Highways at Cabell county in Respondent’s District 2. Grievant alleges that cited investigation and disciplinary action(s) were improper and he was retaliated against for filing a grievance. On August 22, 2019, Respondent orally suspended Grievant for refusing an assigned job duty and threatening his crew chief. Additionally, Respondent suspended Grievant for one (1) day (served on October 1, 2019) for harassing a coworker who provided a statement for the investigation into the incident of August 22, 2019, and other attempts to interfere with Respondent’s investigation.
Respondent met its burden of proof justifying disciplinary action. Grievant failed to demonstrate that the disciplinary action taken against him was inappropriate, an abuse of discretion, or excessive. Respondent established by a preponderance of the evidence that Grievant violated recognized and applicable Administrative Operating Procedures. Grievant’s violation of Respondent’s Standards of Work Performance and Conduct; violations of the West Virginia Division of Personnel’s Workplace Security Policy and violations of DOP’s Prohibited Workplace Harassment Policy justified disciplinary action. Mitigation is not warranted. This grievance is DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again