Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Mark
|
|
Last Name
|
Shuff
|
|
Decision Date
|
2/9/2021
|
|
Docket Number
|
2020-1565-CONS
|
|
ALJ
|
LRB
|
|
Respondent
|
West Virginia State University
|
|
Employment Type
|
HE
|
|
Job Title
|
Trade Specialist – Lead
|
|
Topics
|
Dismissal; Termination
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent had good cause to terminate Grievant’s employment.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
|
|
Related Cases
|
Oakes v. W. Va. Dep't of Finance and Admin., 164 W. Va. 384, 264 S.E.2d 151 (1980); Lanehart v. Logan County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 95 23 235 (Dec. 29, 1995); Holmes v. Bd. of Directors/W. Va. State College, Docket No. 99 BOD 216 (Dec. 28, 1999); Butts v. Higher Educ. Interim Governing Bd./Shepherd Coll., 212 W. Va. 209, 212, 569 S.E.2d 456, 459 (2002); Wiley v. W. Va. Div. of Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation, Docket No. 96-DNR-515 (Mar. 26, 1988); Lilly v. Dep’t of Transp., Docket No. 07-DOH-387 (June 30, 2008); Goff v. Dep't of Transp./Div. of Highways, Docket No. 03-DOH-048 (Apr. 7, 2003); Coster v. W. Va. Div. of Corrections, Docket No. 98-CORR-506 (Feb. 24, 1999)
|
|
Keywords
|
Termination; Suspension; Gross Misconduct; Insubordination
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
Grievant appealed to Kanawha County Circuit Court; Judge Webster, Civil Action No. 21-AA-13; Reversed 3/14/22
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was employed with Respondent, West Virginia State University in a position recognized as an essential worker. During the time period of relevant events, the area was experiencing the onset of Covid-19. Grievant had misgivings regarding his employer’s position that he and other co-workers were required to report and perform assigned duties. After not reporting to work for three days, Grievant confronted management regarding personal protection equipment and the necessity of attendance. After the confrontation, Grievant and several co-workers abandoned their respective job duties. Respondent maintains that Grievant’s actions merit disciplinary action in that Grievant engaged in conduct which constitutes “gross misconduct” in accordance with applicable rules and regulations. Grievant disputes Respondent’s determination and the sanction levied. Proper grounds are established, by a preponderance of the evidence, for suspension and/or termination of Grievant’s employment. It is not determined that Respondent abused its discretion in the circumstances of this case. This grievance is denied.
|
Back to Results
Search Again