Database Search Result Details

First Name Ronald
Last Name Efaw
Decision Date 8/8/2023
Docket Number 2022-0623-DOT
ALJ JSF
Respondent Division of Highways
Employment Type Respondent
Job Title Transportation Worker 2 Equipment Operator
Topics Discrimination, Accommodation
Primary Issues Whether Grievant can prove that DOH failure to accommodate was unreasonable or discrimination.
Outcome Denied
Statutes W. VA. CODE § 6C-2-2(d). W. VA. CODE ST. R.§ 156-1-3 (2018).
Related Cases Bragg v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 03-HHR-348 (May 28, 2004); Burkhammer v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 03-HHR-073 (May 30, 2003); Pridemore v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 95-HHR-561 (Sept. 30, 1996); Pritt, et al., v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 2008-0812-CONS (May 30, 2008). Smith v.Lewis County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 02-21-028 (June 21, 2002), aff’d, Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Civil Action No. 02-AA-87 (Aug. 14, 2003); Spence v. Div. of Natural Res.,Docket No. 2010-0149-CONS (Oct. 29, 2009). Dooley v. Dep’t of Transp., Docket No. 94-DOH-255 (Nov. 30, 1994);Pascoli & Kriner v. Ohio County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 91-35-229/239 (Nov. 27,1991).& Priest v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 00-20-144 (Aug. 15, 2000). Bedford County Memorial Hosp. v. Health and Human Serv.,769 F.2d 1017 (4th Cir. 1985); Yokum v. W. Va. Schools for the Deaf and the Blind,Docket No. 96-DOE-081 (Oct. 16, 1996).” Trimboli v. Dep’t of Health and Human Res.,Docket No. 93-HHR-322 (June 27, 1997), aff’d Mercer Cnty. Cir. Ct. Docket No. 97-CV-374-K (Oct. 16, 1998).
Keywords Discrimination, Accommodations
Intermediate Court of Appeals Grievant appealed No. 23-ICA-400, affirmed 10/28/24
Circuit Court
Supreme Court
Synopsis Grievant is employed by the Division of Highways (DOH) as a Transportation Worker 2 Equipment Operator. Grievant was tasked with flagging for road crews. After Grievant complained of hearing loss resulting in failure to hear radio signals, DOH accommodated him with standing work in the garage. When Grievant complained of hip pain, DOH sent Grievant home. DOH elicited doctor reports to further accommodate Grievant under the ADA. The reports state that Grievant can operate equipment, which is one of the duties for Grievant’s position. Nevertheless, DOH determined it could not accommodate Grievant. DOH contends that it has much leeway in determining appropriate accommodations and that operating equipment is only one of Grievant’s position duties. Grievant did not prove that DOH’s failure to accommodate was unreasonable or discrimination. Accordingly, the grievance is DENIED.

Back to Results Search Again