Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Nellie
|
|
Last Name
|
Payne-Lesher
|
|
Decision Date
|
3/1/2022
|
|
Docket Number
|
2020-0745-MAPS
|
|
ALJ
|
WBM
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation/Bureau of Prisons and Jails
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Facility Coordinator 1
|
|
Topics
|
Accommodation
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant proved that Respondent’s failure to make the accommodation when requested was arbitrary and capricious.
|
|
Outcome
|
Granted
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 5-11-9; W. VA. CODE ST. R. § 143-1-14.4.h.3
|
|
Related Cases
|
Martin v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res./Jackie Withrow Hosp., Docket No. 2011-1590-DHHR (May 18, 2012), aff’d, Kanawha County Circuit Court, Civil Action No. 12-AA-79 (December 7, 2012); Ruckle v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res./Office of Maternal and Child Health, Docket No. 04-HHR-367 (December 22, 2005); Vest v. Bd. of Educ., 193 W. Va. 222, 455 S.E.2d 781 (1995)
|
|
Keywords
|
Accommodation; Medical Condition; Miscommunication; Job Duties; Medical Leave; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant had a very serious medical condition which resulted in her requesting certain accommodations to her regular work schedule. Those accommodations were to be placed where she could use the restroom as needed and to work no more than eight hours per day. Respondents had legitimate concerns regarding the second accommodation because there are emergency situations where Mt. Olive is “locked down” and all employees must stay until the matter is resolved. The accommodation was originally denied. For reasons discussed herein, the accommodation was later allowed. It is established that if the matter had been appropriately discussed with Grievant the accommodation could have been made all along. Grievant’s circumstances did not change in any way between the time the accommodation was denied and the time it was granted. There was only a problem with communication. Respondent’s denial of the accommodation was arbitrary and capricious.
|
Back to Results
Search Again