Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Leslie
|
|
Last Name
|
Bragg
|
|
Decision Date
|
3/18/2022
|
|
Docket Number
|
2022-0303-DACH
|
|
ALJ
|
WBM
|
|
Respondent
|
Library Commission
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Library Assistant
|
|
Topics
|
Dismissal; Termination
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Grievant brought alcohol and a controlled substance into the workplace in violation of the DOP Drug – and Alcohol – Free Workplace policy.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-12.2a
|
|
Related Cases
|
Cosner v. Dep’t of Health and Human Resources/William R. Sharpe, Jr. Hospital, Docket No. 08-HHR-008 (Dec. 30, 2008); Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 [84 L. Ed. 2d 494, 105 S. Ct. 1487] (1985); Buskirk v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 175 W. Va. 279, 332 S.E.2d -12- 579 (1985); Board of Education of the County of Mercer v. Wirt, 192 W. Va. 568, 453 S.E.2d 402 (1994)
|
|
Keywords
|
Termination; Controlled Substance; Division of Personnel Drug – and Alcohol – Free Workplace Policy
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was dismissed for possessing a controlled substance (methamphetamine) and alcohol in the workplace in violation of the Division of Personnel Drug – and Alcohol – Free Workplace policy. Grievant argues that the dismissal is invalid because Respondent did not provide her required constitutional due process protections as a result of considering her to be a probationary employee instead of a permanent employee. The employment status of Grievant did not matter because she was provided the required constitutional due process necessary for a permanent employee.
Grievant also argues that her confession to bringing the barred substances into the workplace was improperly obtained as set out in the United States Supreme Court decisions in Miranda v. Arizona and Garrity v. New Jersey. For reasons fully set out below, these holdings have no relevance to the present case. Respondent proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Grievant violated the Division of Personnel Drug – and Alcohol – Free Workplace policy.
|
Back to Results
Search Again