Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Jennifer
|
|
Last Name
|
Wentz
|
|
Decision Date
|
5/6/2021
|
|
Docket Number
|
2021-1916-CONS
|
|
ALJ
|
WBM
|
|
Respondent
|
Department of Health and Human Resources/Bureau for Public Health
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
ASA 1
|
|
Topics
|
Dismissal; Termination
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether proved by a preponderance of the evidence that her performance was satisfactory.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-10.1.a; 143 C.S.R. 1 § 12.2(a)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Cosner v. Dep’t of Health and Human Resources/William R. Sharpe, Jr. Hospital, Docket No. 08-HHR-008 (Dec. 30, 2008); Bonnell v. W. Va. Dep't of Corrections, Docket No. 89-CORR-163 (Mar. 8, 1990); Catalina v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 2011-0885-DHHR (Aug. 11, 2011); Buskirk v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 175 W. Va. 279, 332 S.E.2d -12- 579 (1985); Hackman v. Dep't of Transp./Div. of Motor Vehicles, Docket No. 01-DMV-582 (Feb. 20, 2002); Cosby v. Div. of Juvenile Ser., Docket No. 2009-0086-MAPS (Nov. 13, 2008)
|
|
Keywords
|
Termination; Probationary Employee; Insubordination; Job Duties; Misconduct
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was dismissed form her probationary employment in the Office of Subrecipient Grants for failing to meet employment standards during her probationary period. Among other reasons, Grievant allegedly failed to consistently complete grant submissions without numerous rejections for errors, including the same grants being rejected twice for the same reasons. Grievant argues that she did not receive an EPA 2 and the predetermination notice did not advise her that dismissal was being contemplated. She alleges that these errors resulted in her not receiving adequate notice that her performance was substandard. Grievant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her performance was satisfactory. Respondent demonstrated that Grievant was regularly counseled and advised that her performance needed to improve. Additionally, the predetermination conference notice set out specific allegations and Grievant was given the necessary written notice and opportunity to respond to the allegations before her dismissal.
|
Back to Results
Search Again