Database Search Result Details

First Name Annette
Last Name Daniels-Watts
Decision Date 1/27/2021
Docket Number 2020-0715-MAPS
ALJ JSF
Respondent Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation/West Virginia Corrections Academy
Employment Type STATE
Job Title Captain-CO 6
Topics Dismissal; Termination
Primary Issues Whether Respondent proved that Grievant committed gross misconduct and that it was justified in terminating her employment.
Outcome Denied
Statutes W. Va. Code 6C-2-4(a)(3); W. Va. Code 29-6A-6(e); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-2(d)
Related Cases Graley v. Parkways Econ. Dev. & Tourism Auth., Docket No. 91-PEDTA-225 (Dec. 23, 1991); Kirk v. Cole, 169 W. Va. 520, 524, 288 S.E.2d 547, 550 (1982); Smith v. DVA, Docket No. 00-VA-248 (Nov. 22, 2000); W. Va. DOT v. Litten, 231 W. Va. 217, 222, 744 S.E.2d 327, 332 n.6 (June 5, 2013); Jones v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 96-HHR-371 (Oct. 30, 1996); Cobb v. Dep’t of Admin./General Services Div., Docket No. 97-ADMN-404/455 (May 26, 1999); Wiley v. Dept. of Natural Res., Docket No. 96-DNR-515 (March 26, 1988); Lilly v. Dep’t of Transp., Docket No. 07-DOH-387 (June 30, 2008); 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); Frymier v. Higher Education Policy Comm., 655 S.E.2d 52, 221 W. Va. 306 (2007)
Keywords Termination; Gross Misconduct; Graduation Photo; Nazi Salute; Discrimination; Mitigation
Intermediate Court of Appeals
Circuit Court Grievant appealed to Kanawha County Circuit Court 2/28/2021; Judge Bailey, Civil Action No. 21-AA-9; AFFIRMED/REVERSED 7/26/22
Supreme Court
Synopsis Grievant was employed by the Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DCR) as a supervising officer at the Corrections Academy when a graduation photo was taken of Class 18 cadets performing a Nazi salute. Grievant saw the photo on the desk of a subordinate but failed to stop its dissemination. Grievant was summarily dismissed. DCR alleged but did not prove that Grievant directed the inclusion of the photo in graduation packets, that she failed to promptly report the photo in violation of the Workplace Harassment Policy, or that she was duty bound to immediately reprimand participants. DCR did prove that Grievant carelessly failed to stop the photo from being disseminated and that this was gross misconduct resulting from reckless disregard of proper standards. Grievant did not prove discrimination, lack of due process, or that her punishment was excessive. Accordingly, the grievance is DENIED.

Back to Results Search Again