Database Search Result Details

First Name Stephen
Last Name Boyce
Decision Date 6/21/2024
Docket Number 2024-0437-DHS
ALJ JSF
Respondent Department of Homeland Security/Salem Correctional Center and Jail
Employment Type STATE
Job Title Correctional Officer IV
Topics Disciplinary; Compensation
Primary Issues Whether Grievant's demotion and reduction in pay was jusitified.
Outcome Denied
Statutes W. VA. CODE ST. R. § 156-1-3 (2018)
Related Cases 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); Conner v. Barbour County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 94-01-394 (Jan. 31, 1995), aff’d, Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Docket No. 95-AA-66 (May 1, 1996), appeal refused, W.Va. Sup. Ct. App. (Nov. 19, 1996); Overbee v. Dep't of Health and Human Resources/Welch Emergency Hosp., Docket No. 96-HHR-183 (Oct. 3, 1996); Olsen v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 02-20-380 (May 30, 2003), aff’d, Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Docket No. 03-AA-94 (Jan. 30, 2004), appeal refused, W.Va. Sup. Ct. App. Docket No. 041105 (Sept. 30, 2004); Phillips v. Summers County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 93-45-105 (Mar. 31, 1994); Cooper v. Raleigh County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2014-0028-RalED (Apr. 30, 2014), aff’d, Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Docket No. 14-AA-54 (Jan. 16, 2015); Wiley v. Div. of Natural Res., Docket No. 96-DNR-515 (Mar. 26, 1988); Linger v. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 2010-1490-CONS (Dec. 5. 2012);
Keywords Disciplinary demotion; reduction in pay
Intermediate Court of Appeals
Circuit Court
Supreme Court
Synopsis Grievant was employed as a Correctional Officer IV when Respondent demoted him to Correctional Officer III and reduced his pay. Respondent determined that a subordinate urinated herself because Grievant failed to provide a requested restroom break and that he then misled the ensuing investigation. In light of Grievant’s supervisory role and prior discipline, Respondent proved that demotion was justified. Grievant did not prove that mitigation is warranted. Accordingly, the grievance is DENIED.

Back to Results Search Again