Database Search Result Details

First Name Amanda
Last Name Justus
Decision Date 9/27/2022
Docket Number 2022-0365-DOT
ALJ CHL
Respondent Division of Highways
Employment Type STATE
Job Title Transportation Worker I
Topics Dismissal; Termination
Primary Issues Whether Respondent proved by the preponderance of the evidence that Grievant violated its policy on substance abuse thereby justifying Grievant’s dismissal.
Outcome Granted
Statutes W.Va. Code St. R. § 156-1-3 (2018); W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-12.02 (2016)
Related Cases Jones v. W. Va. Dept. of Health & Human Resources, Docket No. 96-HHR-371 (Oct. 30, 1996); Stamper v. W. Va. Dept. of Health & Human Resources, Docket No. 95-HHR-144 (Mar. 20, 1996); Womack v. Dept. of Admin., Docket No. 93-ADMN-430 (Mar. 30, 1994); Perdue v. Dept. of Health & Human Resources, Docket No. 93-HHR-050 (Feb. 4, 1994); Aglinsky v. Bd. of Trustees, Docket No. 97-BOT-256 (Oct. 27, 1997), aff’d, Monongalia Cnty. Cir. Ct. Docket No. 97-C-AP-96 (Dec. 7, 1999), appeal refused, W.Va. Sup Ct. App. Docket No. 001096 (July 6, 2000); 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); Oakes v. W. Va. Dep't of Finance and Admin., 164 W. Va. 384, 264 S.E.2d 151 (1980); Guine v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 149 W. Va. 461, 141 S.E.2d 364 (1965); Sloan v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., 215 W. Va. 657, 600 S.E.2d 554 (2004); W. Va. Dep't of Corr. v. Lemasters, 173 W. Va. 159, 162, 313 S.E.2d 436, 439 (1984)
Keywords Termination; Good Cause; Drug Test; Drug Screening; Substance Abuse; DOT Policy 3.15; Confirmation Test; Return to Duty; Follow-Up; Substance Abuse Professional; SAP; Refusal to Test; Testing Procedures; Medical Review Officer; MRO; Collector; Positive; Negative
Intermediate Court of Appeals
Circuit Court
Supreme Court
Synopsis Grievant was employed by Respondent as a Transportation Worker 1 Craft Worker (TW1CW). After being off work for more than thirty days, Grievant was required to submit to drug testing before returning to work. At this drug test, Grievant was unable to provide an adequate urine sample; therefore, it was considered a “refusal to test.” Respondent then suspended Grievant for “at least five working days,” then referred to a substance abuse professional (SAP). Grievant did not grieve this suspension. After completing the SAP’s program, she was scheduled to do a series of follow-up tests, the last of which performed indicated the presence of cocaine in her sample. Respondent dismissed Grievant for violating its policy on “Drug and Alcohol Testing.” Grievant grieved her dismissal asserting that she did not use cocaine, that the test results were incorrect, and that she was not given a second drug test to confirm the first test’s accuracy. Respondent failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Grievant’s October 5, 2021, drug test was positive for the presence of cocaine and that Grievant’s dismissal was warranted. Accordingly, this grievance is GRANTED.

Back to Results Search Again