Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
John
|
|
Last Name
|
Powell
|
|
Decision Date
|
9/21/2022
|
|
Docket Number
|
2022-0763-BVCTC
|
|
ALJ
|
LRB
|
|
Respondent
|
BridgeValley Community and Technical College/ AND
|
|
Employment Type
|
HE
|
|
Job Title
|
Chief Procurement Officer
|
|
Topics
|
Dismissal; Termination
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant proved that his employment termination was the result of reprisal or was otherwise imposed in violation of a substantial public policy.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code §§ 18B-1-2 and 18B-2B-3; W. Va. Code 18B-9A-2(11)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Williamson v. Division of Highways, Docket No. 2016-0608-CONS (Sept. 22, 2016); Freeman v. Fayette Cty. Bd. of Educ., 215 W. Va. 272, 277, 599 S.E.2d 695, 700 (2004); McGraw v. Dep’t of Educ., Docket No. 2015-0666-DOE (Apr. 24, 2015); Young v. W. Va. Dep't of Health and Human Res., Docket No. 90-HHR-541 (Mar. 29. 1991)
|
|
Keywords
|
Termination; At-Will Employee; Public Policy; Retaliation
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was employed by Respondent as the Chief Procurement Officer, an at-will position. Grievant contends he was wrongfully terminated. Grievant alleges Respondent retaliated against him for reporting concerns regarding institutional obligations. Grievant has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the termination of his employment is in contravention of substantial public policy.
As an at-will employee, Grievant could be terminated at any time for a good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all, but not for rationale which contravene a substantial public policy. At the time of dismissal, Respondent did not provide Grievant with any reason for his termination. Over the course of time, and especially during the level three of this grievance, Respondent has identified and established legitimate, nonretaliatory rationales for terminating Grievant’s employment. Grievant failed to prove that his termination was the result of reprisal or was otherwise imposed in violation of a substantial public policy. Accordingly, this Grievance is DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again