Database Search Result Details

First Name Jennifer
Last Name Harless
Decision Date 7/28/2026
Docket Number 2024-0802-DOA
ALJ BTC
Respondent Department of Administration/Office of Technology
Employment Type State
Job Title Human Resources Assistant
Topics Harassment; retaliation
Primary Issues Whether Respondent can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Grievant violated policy and that the level of discipline was jusified?
Outcome DENIED
Statutes W.Va.Code § 29B-1-4[a](2) (1980), W.VA. CODE ST. R. § 156-1-3
Related Cases Leichliter v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 92-HHR-486 (May 17, 1993) Manns v. City of Charleston Police Dep't, 209 W. Va. 620, 550 S.E.2d 598 (2001) In re Gazette FOIA Request, 222 W. Va. 771, 671 S.E.2d 776 (2008) Syllabus Point 2, Child Protection Group v. Cline, 177 W.Va. 29, 350 S.E.2d 541 (1986)." Syllabus Point 4, Manns v. City of Charleston Police Dept., 209 W. Va. 620, 550 S.E.2d 598 (2001).
Keywords privacy, accessibility, confidentiality agreement, website post, public information employees, valuable public interest, breach, negligent
Intermediate Court of Appeals
Circuit Court
Supreme Court
Synopsis At the time of the filing of the grievance, Grievant was employed by Respondent as a Human Resources Assistant. Grievant protests a written reprimand asserting she did not violate policy and that the level of discipline was not justified. Respondent proved Grievant violated policy and a signed confidentiality agreement and that a written reprimand was justified. Accordingly, the grievance is denied.

Back to Results Search Again