| First Name | William |
| Last Name | Thornton |
| Decision Date | 4/20/2022 |
| Docket Number | 2021-2337-CONS |
| ALJ | CHL |
| Respondent | Mercer County Board of Education |
| Employment Type | SERV |
| Job Title | Custodian |
| Topics | Written Reprimand |
| Primary Issues | Whether Respondent proved that Grievant was insubordinate and that he violated the Employee Code of Conduct numerous times and that the disciplinary actions imposed on him were justified. |
| Outcome | Denied |
| Statutes | W.Va. Code St. R. § 156-1-3 (2018); W. Va. Code §18A-2-8; W. Va. Code § 18A-2-12a |
| Related Cases | Leichliter v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 92-HHR-486 (May 17, 1993), aff’d, Pleasants Cnty. Cir. Ct. Civil Action No. 93-APC-1 (Dec. 2, 1994); Bell v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 91-20-005 (Apr. 16, 1991); Beverlin v. Bd. of Educ., 158 W. Ca. 1067, 216 S.E.2d 554 (1975); Graham v. Putnam County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 99-40-206 (Sep. 30, 1999); Allen v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 90-31-021 (July 11, 1990); Duruttya v. Mingo County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 29-88-104 (Feb. 28, 1990); State ex rel. Eads v. Duncil, 196 W. Va. 604, 474 S.E.2d 534 (1996); Bedford County Memorial Hosp. v. Health and Human Serv., 769 F.2d 1017 (4th Cir. 1985); Yokum v. W. Va. Schools for the Deaf and the Blind, Docket No. 96-DOE-081 (Oct. 16, 1996); Trimboli v. Dep’t of Health and Human Res., Docket No. 93-HHR-322 (June 27, 1997); Trimboli v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 93-HHR-322 (June 27, 1997); Blake v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 01-20-470 (Oct. 29, 2001); Sexton v. Marshall Univ., Docket No. BOR2-88-029-4 (May 25, 1988), aff'd, Sexton v. Marshall Univ., 182 W. Va. 294, 387 S.E.2d 529 (1989); Gunnells v. Logan County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 97-23-055 (Dec. 9, 1997); Sinsel v. Harrison County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 96-17-219 (Dec. 31, 1996); Seddon v. W. Va. Dep't of Health/Kanawha-Charleston Health Dep't, Docket No. 90-H-115 (June 8, 1990); Maxey v. McDowell County Bd. of Educ., 212 W. Va. 668, 575 S.E.2d 278 (2002); Mason County Bd. of Educ. v. State Superintendent of Sch., 165 W. Va. 732, 274 S.E.2d 435 (1980) |
| Keywords | Employee Code of Conduct; Written Reprimand; Correctable Conduct; Insubordination; Arbitrary and Capricious |
| Intermediate Court of Appeals | G appealed to ICA, 22-ICA-96, March 6, 2023 ICA reversed and remanded to Circuit Court |
| Circuit Court | Grievant appealed to Kanawha County Circuit Court on May 24, 2022; Civil Action 22-AA-22 (Akers) Dismissed |
| Supreme Court | |
| Synopsis | Grievant was employed by Respondent as a custodian. Respondent issued Grievant two separate written reprimands for alleged violations of the Employee Code of Conduct and insubordination dated February 9, 2021, and March 18, 2021. Sometime later, Respondent issued him three more written reprimands in May 2021 that pertained to his conduct toward the principal, failing to complete his assignments, and failing to follow the protocol for being late to work. Grievant did not specifically grieve those. It appears though, that he was suspended without pay as a result of one, or more, of the May 2021 written reprimands, which he mentioned in his statement of grievance. Respondent subsequently terminated Grievant’s employment contract for misconduct and insubordination. Grievant denies Respondent’s allegations. Grievant raises harassment, reprisal, and hostile work environmental as defenses to the charges. Respondent proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Grievant was insubordinate and that he violated the Employee Code of Conduct by his actions toward the school principal and his coworkers. Respondent failed to prove that Grievant violated Policy 3.2 which was the subject of the February 9, 2021, grievance. Respondent proved the charges against Grievant set forth in the March 18, 2021, written reprimand. Accordingly, the discipline imposed was justified. Grievant failed to prove that Respondent’s actions in imposing discipline were the result of harassment, reprisal, or hostile work environment. Accordingly, the grievance is DENIED. |