Grievant,
v.
WEST VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL AND
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AUTHORITY,
None.
Testimony
Grievant testified in her own behalf, and presented the testimony of Ron Casto.
RJA presented no testimony.
RJA moved to dismiss this grievance on the grounds that Grievant was an at-will
employee, and as such, could be terminated for any reason. All RJA employees are
classified exempt, and as such serve at the will and pleasure of the Executive Director.
Roach v. W. Va. Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Auth., 198 W. Va. 694, 482 S.E.
2d 679 (1996); Williams v. Brown, 190 W. Va. 202, 437 S.E. 2d 775 (1993); Shriver v. W.
Va. Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Auth., Docket No. 98-RJA-359 (Mar. 29, 1999);
Ramos v. W. Va. Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Auth., Docket No. 98-RJA-363
(Jan. 29, 1999); Logan v. W. Va. Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Auth., Docket No.
94-RJA-225 (Nov. 29,1994); Thompson v. W. Va. Regional Jail and Correctional Facility
Auth., Docket No. 94-RJA-139 (July 22, 1994).
An at-will employee may be dismissed from employment for a good reason, a bad
reason, or no reason at all. Roach, supra. The West Virginia Supreme Court hasrecognized that an at-will public employee can be terminated for any reason which does
not violate substantial public policy. Williams, supra; Harless v. First National Bank in
Fairmont, 162 W. Va. 116, 246 S.E.2d 270 (1982); Roach, supra; Wilhelm v. Dep't of Tax
and Revenue, Docket No. 94-L-038 (Sept. 30, 1994); Ramos, supra; Shriver, supra.
It is undisputed that in the instant grievance, Grievant was an at-will public employee
serving at the will and pleasure of the Executive Director of RJA. Grievant claims that she
has been discriminated against by RJA in violation of W. Va. Code § 29-6A-2(b), alleging
she was in a similar position to other RJA employees; she was treated differently to her
detriment; and she did not agree to such differences.
It is well-settled law an at-will employee can not challenge his dismissal on the
grounds of discrimination under W. Va. Code § 29-6A-2(b) by attempting to show other
employees who engaged in substantially similar situations were not disciplined or were not
disciplined so severely as he. Logan, supra. However, Grievant attempted to show at
level four that she had been discriminated against because of her race, black. If proven,
such a claim would certainly rise to the level of substantial public policy.
Grievant alleged several white individuals who had committed violations of policy
and procedure were not disciplined as harshly as she. Nevertheless, Grievant admitted
upon examination by her counsel, that she was not sure if her race had anything to do with
the way she had been treated. Moreover, Grievant admitted she had no personal
knowledge of the actions of any of these employees, nor the disciplinary actions taken by
RJA regarding these employees. The only incident where Grievant had direct knowledge
of a violation involved an employee who lost his temper after Grievant locked him into asally port area.
(See footnote 1)
Grievant admitted she had no personal knowledge of any disciplinary
action taken by RJA against this employee.
___________________________________
MARY JO SWARTZ
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: July 11, 2000