Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Christopher
|
|
Last Name
|
Peck
|
|
Decision Date
|
4/28/2023
|
|
Docket Number
|
2023-0067-DOT
|
|
ALJ
|
RLR
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Highways
|
|
Employment Type
|
State
|
|
Job Title
|
Transportation Division Manager 2
|
|
Topics
|
Termination
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant proved that his services as a probationary
employee were satisfactory or that the termination of his
employment was retaliatory.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W.VA. CODE § 6C-2-2(o)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Bonnell v. W. Va. Div. of Corr., Docket No. 89-CORR-163 (Mar.
8, 1990); Bowman v. W. Va. Educ. Broadcasting Auth., Docket
No. 96-EBA-464 (July 3, 1997); Walker v. W. Va. Public Serv.
Comm’n, Docket No. 96-PSC-422 (Mar. 11, 1992). Hackman v.
W. Va. Dep’t of Transp., Docket No. 01-DMV-582 (Feb. 20,
2002).
|
|
Keywords
|
Probationary Employee; Termination; Unsatisfactory Performance; Retaliation
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant’s probationary employment was terminated, due to
DOH’s determination that his performance was unsatisfactory,
specifically regarding behavior that was in violation of policy.
When a probationary employee is terminated, it is his burden to
prove his services were satisfactory. In this case, Grievant failed
to meet this burden, and the evidence supported the conclusion
that Grievant repeatedly failed to follow proper procedures for
performing his assigned duties. Grievant established a prima
facie claim of retaliation; however, Respondent established a
non-retaliatory motive.
|
Back to Results
Search Again