Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Debbie
|
|
Last Name
|
Pigman
|
|
Decision Date
|
3/24/2023
|
|
Docket Number
|
2023-0312-DHHR
|
|
ALJ
|
CHL
|
|
Respondent
|
Department of Health and Human Resources/Bureau of Social Services
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Child Protective Services Worker
|
|
Topics
|
Suspension
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant proved that Respondent violated her constitutionally guaranteed due process rights to continued employment by suspending her without proper notice and an opportunity to be heard while an unreasonably long investigation is conducted.
|
|
Outcome
|
Granted/Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W.Va. Code St. R. § 156-1-3 (2018); W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-12.3.b; W.Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-12.3.b. (2022)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Ferrell and Marcum v. Reg'l Jail and Corr. Facility Auth./W. Reg'l Jail, Docket No. 2013-1005-CONS (June 4, 2013); West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection v. Falquero, 228 W. Va. 773, 778, 724 S.E.2d 744, 749, (2012); Major v. DeFrench, [169 W. Va. 241, 255], 286 S.E.2d 688, 697 (1982); Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 [84 L. Ed. 2d 494, 105 S. Ct. 1487] (1985); Kendall, et al., v. Department of Health and Human Resources Bureau for Children and Families, Docket No. 2019-1336-CONS (May 19, 2020), aff’d in part, denied in part, Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Civil Action No. 20-AA-60 (Mar. 31, 2022)
|
|
Keywords
|
Suspension; Investigation; Due Process; Arbitrary and Capricious
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
On October 7, 2022, Respondent suspended Grievant without pay pending investigation into allegations of inappropriate and unprofessional comments with clients. Respondent referred the matter to the Department of Health and Human Resources Office of Inspector General (OIG) for investigation. As of the date of the level three hearing on January 18, 2023, OIG had not completed its investigation and Grievant was still suspended without pay. Further, as of that date, Grievant had exhausted all her accrued annual leave, which she had been using to cover her absence, and was no longer receiving income. Grievant asserts that her suspension is disciplinary, and that it was improper and violated her due process rights. Respondent denies Grievant’s claims arguing that Grievant was properly suspended pending investigation into complaints it received about her performance as a CPS crisis worker, that such suspensions are permitted by the Division of Personnel Administrative Rule, and that the suspension is not disciplinary. Grievant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated her constitutionally guaranteed due process rights to continued employment by suspending her without providing her notice of the reasons for her suspension and for suspending her without an opportunity to be heard while an unreasonably long investigation was conducted. Grievant failed to prove her claim that her suspension is disciplinary. Therefore, the grievance is GRANTED, in part and DENIED, in part.
|
Back to Results
Search Again