| First Name | Dakota |
| Last Name | Weddington |
| Decision Date | 8/18/2023 |
| Docket Number | 2023-0031-DHHR |
| ALJ | WHW |
| Respondent | Department of Health and Human Resources/Mildred Mitchell-Bateman Hospital |
| Employment Type | STATE |
| Job Title | Food Services Supervisor |
| Topics | Non-Disciplinary Employment Actions |
| Primary Issues | Whether Respondent was justified in terminating Grievant when Grievant could no longer perform the essential duties of his position and Respondent could not accommodate Grievant's medical and physical restrictions. |
| Outcome | Denied |
| Statutes | W. VA. CODE ST. R. § 156-1-3 (2018); W. VA. CODE § 6C-2-2(d) |
| 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); Frost v. Bluefield State College, Docket No. 2019-0319-BSC (Jan. 27, 2020), aff’d, Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Civil Action No. 20-AA-29 (Aug. 25, 2020); Kyle v. W. Va. State Bd. of Rehab., Docket No. VR-88-006 (Mar. 28, 1989); State ex rel. Eads v. Duncil, 196 W. Va. 604 at 614, 474 S.E.2d 534 at 544 (1996) (citing Arlington Hosp. v. Schweiker, 547 F. Supp. 670 (E.D. Va. 1982)); Trimboli v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 93-HHR-322 (June 27, 1997); Syl. Pt. 1, Adkins v. W. Va. Dep't of Educ., 210 W. Va. 105, 556 S.E.2d 72 (2001) (per curiam); Blake v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 01-20-470 (Oct. 29, 2001), aff’d Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Docket No. 01-AA-161 (July 2, 2002), appeal refused, W.Va. Sup. Ct. App. Docket No. 022387 (Apr. 10, 2003) |
| Keywords | Termination; Job duties |
| Intermediate Court of Appeals | |
| Circuit Court | |
| Supreme Court | |
| Synopsis | Grievant, was employed by Respondent, DHHR through Bateman Hospital as a Food Services Supervisor. The essential physical duties of Grievant’s position required lifting between ten and fifty pounds and frequent walking. Grievant was injured in a work-related incident and sustained permanent restrictions of having a ten-pound weight limit and the need to use a cane for walking. Respondent determined Grievant could not perform the essential functions of his position and that his permanent restrictions could not be accommodated. Respondent requested Grievant apply to any open position for which he may be qualified but Grievant refused. Respondent terminated Grievant’s employment after Grievant failed to apply for any open position or obtain other state employment. Grievant claimed Respondent acted arbitrarily and capriciously and abused its discretion in terminating Grievant when other employees had been accommodated with light duty assignments. Respondent’s determination that Grievant could not perform the essential functions of his position and that it could not accommodate Grievant’s permanent restrictions was not arbitrary and capricious. Respondent proved it was justified in terminating Grievant’s employment when Grievant could no longer perform the essential functions of his job and Grievant did not apply for any other position for which he would qualify. Grievant failed to prove discrimination because he failed to compare himself to any particular coworker and did not prove he was treated differently than any similarly situated employee. Accordingly, the grievance is DENIED. |