| First Name | Thomas |
| Last Name | Powers |
| Decision Date | 8/16/2024 |
| Docket Number | 2024-0527-DOT |
| ALJ | JSF |
| Respondent | Department of Transportation/Divison of Highways |
| Employment Type | State |
| Job Title | Transportation Construction Superintendent |
| Topics | Termination/Disciplinary |
| Primary Issues | Whether the hearsay evidence was sufficient to prove Respondent's claims of sexual misconduct which ultimately led to Grievant's termination? |
| Outcome | GRANTED |
| Statutes | W. VA. CODE ST. R. § 156-1-3, W. VA. CODE ST. R. § 143-1-12.2.a., W. VA. CODE § 6C-2-5(a), W. VA. CODE § 29A-5-4(b), W. VA. CODE § 6C-2-5(b). |
| 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). Syl. Pt. 1, 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); Sloan v. Dep't of Health & Human Res., 215 W. Va. 657, 600 S.E.2d 554 (2004) (per curiam). See also W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-12.2.a. (2022). Drown v. W. Va. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 180 W. Va. 143, 145, 375 S.E.2d 775, 777 (1988) (per curiam). Gunnells v. Logan County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 97-23-055 (Dec. 9, 1997). Sinsel v. Harrison County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 96-17-219 (Dec. 31, 1996); Seddon v. W. Va. Dep't of Health/Kanawha-Charleston Health Dep't, Docket No. 90-H-115 (June 8, 1990). |
| Keywords | Permanent state employees, classified service, hearsay testimony, sexual remarks, |
| Intermediate Court of Appeals | Respondent appealed 10/16/2024 No. 24-ICA-410; reversed 06/06/2025; |
| Circuit Court | |
| Supreme Court | |
| Synopsis | Respondent terminated Grievant for making sexual remarks and gestures. Respondent did so based on its investigative interviews with the apparent victim and multiple eyewitnesses. However, at the hearing in this matter, Respondent simply relied on the hearsay testimony of its investigator. Respondent claims to possess written statements from eyewitnesses and audio recordings from their investigative interviews. Yet, Respondent failed to submit any of these into evidence. Under the hearsay weight test, Respondent’s evidence garners little weight. Respondent failed to prove that Grievant engaged in misconduct through sexual remarks and gestures. Accordingly, the grievance is GRANTED. |