| First Name | Wolf |
| Last Name | Roggenbach |
| Decision Date | 1/6/2022 |
| Docket Number | 2019-1514-DHHR |
| ALJ | JSF |
| Respondent | Department of Health and Human Resources/Hopemont Hospital |
| Employment Type | STATE |
| Job Title | Clinical Applications Specialist |
| Topics | Suspension; Resignation |
| Primary Issues | Whether Grievant proved that his email was not a tender of resignation, that it was involuntary, or that he rescinded prior to Respondent’s acceptance. |
| Outcome | Denied |
| Statutes | W. Va. Code § 6C-2-3(a)(1); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-4(a)(1) |
| Related Cases | Sayre v. Mason County Health Dep't, Docket No. 95-MCHD-435 (Dec. 29, 1995), aff'd, Circuit Court of Mason County, No. 96-C-02 (June 17, 1996); Ball v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 94-20-384 (Mar. 13, 1995); Lough v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 99-HHR-323 (Aug. 29, 2000); Messer v. Mingo County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 00-29-332 (May 16, 2001), aff’d, Kanawha Cty. Cir. Ct. Civil Action No. 01-AA-80 (Oct. 22, 2001); Slack v. Kanawha County Housing, 188 W. Va. 144, 423 S.E.2d 547 (1992); Preece v. Public Serv. Comm'n, Docket No. 94-PSC-246 (Apr. 25, 1997); Smith v. W. Va. Dep't of Corrections, Docket No. 94-CORR-1092 (Sept. 11, 1995); Perkins v. Dep't of Health & Human Ser., Docket No. 2012-0885-DHHR (Oct. 1, 2013); Dep't of Envtl. Prot. v. Falquero, 228 W. Va. 773, 724 S.E.2d 744 (2012); Bragg v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 03-HHR-348 (May 28, 2004) |
| Keywords | Suspension; Resignation; Untimely Filing; Moot Claims |
| Intermediate Court of Appeals | |
| Circuit Court | |
| Supreme Court | |
| Synopsis | Grievant emailed all employees and management on Wednesday, stating, “I am turning in my resignation effective immediately on Monday.” While not then apparent, Grievant only intended to threaten resignation. Before Grievant could clarify, management accepted via text, reasonably interpreting the immediacy of his tender. Within minutes, Grievant texted back that he had not resigned but simply proposed the possibility based on work conditions. The next day, management barred Grievant from work, telling him he was suspended without pay pending investigation into alleged misconduct. Grievant timely grieved this suspension. Two months later, Grievant finally learned he was processed as resigned and made two amended filings. The amended claims related to resignation were filed timely, but the remainder were untimely. Grievant did not prove that Respondent was unreasonable in interpretating his email as a tender of resignation rather than a promise of future tender. Grievant did not prove that the resignation was coerced or that he rescinded his resignation before it was accepted. As such, this grievance is DENIED. |