Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Kristen
|
|
Last Name
|
Moore
|
|
Decision Date
|
8/25/2026
|
|
Docket Number
|
2026-0233-CONS
|
|
ALJ
|
BTC
|
|
Respondent
|
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES/ BUREAU FOR FAMILY ASSISTANCE
|
|
Employment Type
|
STATE
|
|
Job Title
|
Economic Service Worker
|
|
Topics
|
harassment; suspension
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her suspension pending investigation was improper because it was not warranted by the allegations, because it was motivated by alleged harassment and retaliation against her, and because she was treated differently than a co-worker?
|
|
Outcome
|
DENIED
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code St. R. § 156-1-3 (2018). W. Va. Code St. R. § 143-1-12.3.b W. Va. Code § 6C-2-2(d)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Ferrell and Marcum v. Reg'l Jail and Corr. Facility Auth., Docket No. 2013-1005-CONS (June 4, 2013); W. VA. CODE ST. R. § 143-1-12.3.b. 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). Coddington v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket Nos. 93-HHR-265/266/267 (May 19, 1994); Graley v. W. Va. Parkways Economic Dev. & Tourism Auth., Docket No. 91-PEDTA-225 (Dec. 23, 1991). See generally Frank's Shoe Store v. W. Va. Human Rights Comm'n, 179 W. Va. 53, 365 S.E.2d 251 (1986). Graley, supra. See Mace v. Pizza Hut, Inc., 180 W. Va. 469, 377 S.E.2d 461 (1989).
|
|
Keywords
|
inappropriate conversations, friends, complaint, harassment, confrontation, chat messages, investigation, hostile work environment, false allegations, perceived threat, investigatory suspension, retaliation
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant was employed by Respondent as an Economic Service Worker. Grievant was suspended pending investigation of an allegation of creating a hostile work environment. Grievant argues the suspension was improper because it was not warranted by the allegations, because it was motivated by alleged harassment and retaliation against Grievant, and because she was treated differently than a coworker. Grievant failed to prove the suspension pending investigation was improper. Accordingly, the grievance is denied.
|
Back to Results
Search Again