Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Monica
|
|
Last Name
|
Robinson
|
|
Decision Date
|
8/19/2024
|
|
Docket Number
|
2024-0460-DOT
|
|
ALJ
|
BTC
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Highways
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Training and Development Specialist
|
|
Topics
|
Termination
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether the terminiation of Grievant's employment was justified when Greivant failed to engage in the ADA interactive process and failed to return to duty following a leave of absence.
|
|
Outcome
|
Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
Federal code sections: 42 U.S.C.A. § 12112(a), 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A) Rules: 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3); W. VA. CODE ST. R. § 143-1-12.2
|
|
Related Cases
|
Oakes v. W. Va. Dep't of Finance and Admin., 164 W. Va. 384, 264 S.E.2d 151 (1980); Guine v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 149 W. Va. 461, 141 S.E.2d 364 (1965); W. VA. CODE ST. R. § 143-1-12.2 (2022); Martin v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res./Jackie Withrow Hosp., Docket No. 2011-1590-DHHR (May 18, 2012), aff'd, Kanawha County Circuit Court, Civil Action No. 12-AA-79 (December 7, 2012); Ruckle v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res./Office of Maternal and Child Health, Docket No. 04-HHR-367 (December 22, 2005); Cf. Vest v. Bd. of Educ., 193 W. Va. 222, 455 S.E.2d 781 (1995); Allen v. City of Raleigh, 140 F. Supp. 3d 470, 483 (E.D.N.C. 2015) (citing EEOC v. Kohl's Dep't Stores. Inc., 774 F.3d 127, 132 (1st Cir. 2014)
|
|
Keywords
|
Termination, ADA, Interactive Process, Failure to Return to Duty, Leave of Absence
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was employed by Respondent as a Training and Development Specialist. Due to a serious medical condition, Grievant was granted an unpaid leave of absence for two years. Near the expiration of her leave of absence, Grievant requested a temporary return to work at less than full duty, which was denied pursuant to Respondent’s discretionary policy. At the expiration of her leave of absence, when Grievant indicated she was still not able to return to work at full duty, Respondent attempted to engage in the interactive process to determine if Grievant was entitled to a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Grievant failed to engage in the interactive process. Respondent terminated Grievant’s employment per its policy for failure to return to duty at the expiration of her leave of absence. Respondent proved it was justified in terminating Grievant’s employment for failure to return to duty after Grievant failed to engage in the interactive process for reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Accordingly, the grievance is denied.
|
Back to Results
Search Again