Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Kevin
|
|
Last Name
|
McHenry
|
|
Decision Date
|
1/20/2022
|
|
Docket Number
|
2020-0577-CONS
|
|
ALJ
|
BTC
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Highways
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Highway Equipment Supervisor 2
|
|
Topics
|
Dismissed; Termination
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent proved the charges against Grievant and whether Respondent had good cause to terminate Grievant’s employment for the proven misconduct.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-12.2a (2016); W. Va. Code, 6C-2-4(a)(3); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-2(o)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Oakes v. W. Va. Dep't of Finance and Admin., 164 W. Va. 384, 264 S.E.2d 151 (1980); Wiley v. Div. of Natural Res., Docket No. 96-DNR-515 (Mar. 26, 1988); Linger v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 2010-1490-CONS (Dec. 5. 2012); Gunnells v. Logan County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 97-23-055 (Dec. 9, 1997); Comfort v. Regional Jail & Corr. Facility Auth., Docket No. 2013-1459-CONS (Apr. 18, 2013); Seddon v. W. Va. Dep't of Health/Kanawha-Charleston Health Dep't, Docket No. 90-H-115 (June 8, 1990); Freeman v. Fayette Cty. Bd. of Educ., 215 W. Va. 272, 277, 599 S.E.2d 695, 700 (2004); Martin v. W. Va. Fire Comm'n, Docket No. 89-SFC-145 (Aug. 8, 1989); Overbee v. Dep't of Health and Human Resources/Welch Emergency Hosp., Docket No. 96-HHR-183 (Oct. 3, 1996); Phillips v. Summers County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 93-45-105 (Mar. 31, 1994)
|
|
Keywords
|
Termination; Workplace Harassment; Sexual Harassment; Misconduct; Inappropriate Conduct; Policy; Discrimination; Retaliation; Investigation; Credibility; Mitigation
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was employed by Respondent as a Highway Equipment Supervisor 2. Grievant’s employment was terminated for violation of the West Virginia Division of Highways Standards of Work Performance and Conduct and the West Virginia Division of Personnel Prohibited Workplace Harassment Policy. Respondent proved charges sufficient to establish good cause to terminate Grievant’s employment. Grievant failed to prove that the termination of his employment was discriminatory or retaliatory. Grievant failed to demonstrate that mitigation of the penalty was warranted. Accordingly, the grievance is denied.
|
Back to Results
Search Again