| First Name | Nathaniel |
| Last Name | Deuley |
| Decision Date | 7/10/2024 |
| Docket Number | 2024-0337-DHS |
| ALJ | WHW |
| Respondent | Department of Homeland Security/Bureau of Community Corrections |
| Employment Type | STATE |
| Job Title | Probation and Parole Officer 1 |
| Topics | Disciplinary |
| Primary Issues | Whether Respondent failed to follow its progressive discipline policy when it suspended Grievant without pay before it issued him a verbal warning or written reprimand. |
| Outcome | Denied |
| Statutes | W. VA. CODE ST. R. § 156-1-3 (2018); |
| Related Cases | Leichliter v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 92-HHR-486 (May 17, 1993); 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) |
| Keywords | Suspension without pay |
| Intermediate Court of Appeals | |
| Circuit Court | |
| Supreme Court | |
| Synopsis | Grievant was employed by Respondent as a Probation and Parole Officer 1. Grievant protests his three-day suspension without pay. Grievant argued that Respondent failed to follow its progressive discipline policy when it suspended him before issuing a verbal warning or written reprimand. Respondent established by a preponderance of the evidence that the disciplinary action taken was lawful and within its authority after Grievant committed two incidents following two separate counseling sessions for unsatisfactory work performance and certain violations of policy. Grievant also failed to meet his burden to show that he was entitled to an affirmative defense to mitigate his punishment. Accordingly, the grievance is denied. |