Database Search Result Details

First Name Jared
Last Name Wiggins
Decision Date 7/7/2022
Docket Number 2022-0212-DOT
ALJ CHL
Respondent Division of Highways
Employment Type STATE
Job Title Transportation Worker II
Topics Dismissal; Termination
Primary Issues Whether Respondent’s decision to dismiss Grievant from his probationary employment was arbitrary and capricious, or otherwise unreasonable.
Outcome Denied
Statutes W. Va. Code ST. R. § 157-12-1.1 (2018); W. Va. Code ST. R. § 157-12-2.29 (2018); W. Va. Code § 17-2A-24; W. Va. Code ST. R. § 143-1-10.1(a) (2016)
Related Cases Cosner v. Dep’t of Health and Human Res., Docket No. 08-HHR-008 (Dec. 30, 2008); Livingston v. Dep’t of Health and Human Res., Docket No. 2008-0770-DHHR (Mar. 21, 2008); 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); Bonnell v. Dep't of Corr., Docket No. 89-CORR-163 (Mar. 8, 1990); Roberts v. Dep’t of Health and Human Res., Docket No. 2008-0958-DHHR (Mar. 13, 2009); Hammond v. Div. of Veterans Affairs, Docket No. 2009-0161-MAPS (Jan. 7, 2009); Hackman v. W. Va. Dep’t of Transp., Docket No. 01-DMV-582 (Feb. 20, 2002); McCoy v. W. Va. Dep’t of Transp., Docket No. 98-DOH-399 (June 18, 1999); Nicholson v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health and Human Res., Docket No. 99-HHR-299 (Aug. 31, 1999); Lott v. W. Va. Div. of Juvenile Serv., Docket No. 99-DJS-278 (Dec. 16, 1999); State ex rel. Eads v. Duncil, 196 W. Va. 604, 474 S.E.2d 534 (1996); Bedford County Memorial Hosp. v. Health & 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 & Human Res., Docket No. 93-HHR-322 (June 27, 1997), aff’d Mercer Cnty. Cir. Ct. Docket No. 97-CV-374-K (Oct. 16, 1998)
Keywords Termination; Probationary Employee; Drug Test; Refusal to Test; Drug and Alcohol Testing Policy; Arbitrary and Capricious
Intermediate Court of Appeals
Circuit Court
Supreme Court
Synopsis Grievant was employed as a probationary employee by Respondent as a Transportation Worker (TW). Respondent dismissed Grievant for “refusal to test” after he was unable to produce enough urine for a drug test. Grievant argued that Respondent failed to follow its drug testing policy in that Respondent failed to refer him to a physician to determine if he had a medical condition preventing him from producing an adequate sample, and that, as such, he should not have been dismissed from employment. While Respondent violated a provision in its Drug and Alcohol Testing Policy, Respondent cured the same by offering Grievant additional time to submit documentation and informing him that upon receipt, Respondent would re-evaluate Grievant’s employment status. Respondent proved by a preponderance that Grievant failure to produce enough urine for the drug test constituted a refusal to test thereby justifying his dismissal as a probationary employee. Therefore, the grievance is DENIED.

Back to Results Search Again