| First Name | Jordan |
| Last Name | Watson |
| Decision Date | 2/5/2025 |
| Docket Number | 2024-0420-DHHR |
| ALJ | JSF |
| Respondent | Department of Health Facilities (DHF), at Sharpe Hospital (Sharpe) |
| Employment Type | STATE |
| Job Title | Substance Abuse Therapist (SAT) I |
| Topics | Suspension/ Disciplinary |
| Primary Issues | Whether Respondent can prove that Grievant was mandated to verbalize a hand-off or that the enacted discipline was justified? |
| Outcome | GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part |
| Statutes | W. Va. Code § 6C-2-2(d), W. Va. Code § 9-6-1(4), W. Va. Code St. R. § 156-1-3, W. Va. Code § 6C-2-5(a), W. Va. Code §51-11-4(b)(4), W. Va. Code § 6C-2-5(b), W. Va. Code § 29A-5-4(b). |
| Related Cases | Butts v. Higher Educ. Interim Governing Bd., 212 W. Va. 209, 212, 569 S.E.2d 456, 459 (2002) (per curiam). Sexton v. Marshall Univ., Docket No. BOR2-88-029-4 (May 25, 1988), aff’d, Sexton v. Marshall Univ., 182 W. Va. 294, 387 S.E.2d 529 (1989), 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), Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 22, (1993). Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) (citing Harris, 510 U.S. at 23).Hanlon v. Chambers, 195 W. Va. 99, 464 S.E.2d 741 (1995).” Napier v. Stratton, 204 W. Va. 415, 513 S.E.2d 463, 467 (1998) (per curiam). Kimzey v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 107 F.3d 568, 573 (8th Cir. 1997).” Fairmont Specialty Servs. v. W. Va. Human Rights Comm'n, 206 W. Va. 86, 96, 522 S.E.2d 180, 190 n.9 (1999). |
| Keywords | Provider, neglect, Hand-off, policy, duty, insubordination, DHHR Policy 2108, Sharpe Sharpe Policy 45.034, Sharpe Policy 45.802, the Hand-off Communication Policy, Sharpe policy to § 9-6-1(3) |
| Intermediate Court of Appeals | |
| Circuit Court | |
| Supreme Court | |
| Synopsis | Grievant is employed at Sharpe as a therapist. Grievant rarely handed off patients after therapy but was never disciplined until Sharpe emailed employees a one-time change in patient hand-off location. Months later, when a patient left therapy unescorted, Grievant received a five-day unpaid suspension for patient neglect. Respondent now claims this incident also violated its written hand-off policy and email directive. Respondent failed to prove the existence of a hand-off directive or a written hand-off policy. While not written policy, Respondent showed that leaving a patient unattended is neglect. Yet, Respondent did not prove that Grievant was mandated to verbalize a hand-off or that the enacted discipline was justified. Grievant failed to prove a hostile work environment. Accordingly, the grievance is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. |