Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Janelle
|
|
Last Name
|
Pekarek
|
|
Decision Date
|
3/17/2023
|
|
Docket Number
|
2022-0838-CONS
|
|
ALJ
|
JSF
|
|
Respondent
|
Department of Health and Human Resources/Bureau for Child Support Enforcement
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Child Support Specialist
|
|
Topics
|
Dismissal
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Respondent proved by a preponderance of the evidence that dismissal was justified.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code R. § 143-1-12.2.a. (2016); W. Va. Code R. § 143-1-14.8.a. (2016); W. Va. Code R. § 143-1-14.8.c.1.D. (2016)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Adkins v Division of Labor, Docket No. 04-DOL-071 (Jan. 25, 2005); Burkhammer v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 03-HHR-073 (May 30, 2003); Jones v. W. Va. Dept. of Health & Human Resources, Docket No. 96-HHR-371 (Oct. 30, 1996); Baker v. Bd. of Trs./W. Va. Univ. at Parkersburg, Docket No. 97-BOT-359 (Apr. 30, 1998); Dunlap v. Dep't of Environmental Protection, Docket No. 2008-0808-DEP (Mar. 20, 2009)
|
|
Keywords
|
Dismissed; Job Duties; ADA accommodation; Discrimination; Failure to Return to Work; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was diagnosed with agoraphobia and given a work at home ADA accommodation. When Grievant’s doctor later deemed Grievant permanently unable to perform her job duties even with an accommodation, Respondent terminated Grievant’s employment. Grievant does not seek reinstatement but requests a different position, backpay, future pay, lost wages, medical expenses, removal of both her prior discipline and dismissal, $100,000 for each act of discrimination, and $35,000 for each dollar of lost income to compensate for her emotional distress. Respondent proved good cause for dismissal due to Grievant’s inability to perform even with an accommodation. Respondent was justified in ending Grievant’s medical leave of absence since this inability was permanent. Respondent acted reasonably in its discretionary denial of a personal leave of absence. Thus, claims related to conditions of employment and prior discipline are moot. Grievant failed to prove her dismissal was discrimination; that she was entitled to wages, benefits, or a different position; or that she was entitled to use of paid leave. Further, the Grievance Board lacks authority to award the tort-like relief requested. Accordingly, this grievance is DENIED.
|
Back to Results
Search Again