Roy A. Higginbotham v. Charleston Area Medical Center
15-1211
| W. Va. | Nov 10, 2016Background
- Higginbotham worked as a dietary clerk for CAMC from April 15, 2013 to February 17, 2014 and was discharged for attendance/tardiness.
- Employer maintained a progressive discipline policy in an employee handbook accessible on CAMC’s internal network; Higginbotham was told how to access it when hired.
- During employment Higginbotham received repeated corrective actions (coaching form, verbal warning, written warnings) and was tardy on at least 19 occasions.
- Written warnings expressly stated that continued tardiness and specified numbers of suspensions within a time frame could lead to discharge; Higginbotham signed/received at least one written warning.
- Workforce West Virginia (ALJ and BOR) found Higginbotham indefinitely disqualified from unemployment benefits until he returned to covered employment and worked 30 days; the circuit court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether repeated tardiness constituted "gross misconduct" disqualifying for unemployment | Higginbotham: tardiness at most unsatisfactory conduct; no evidence of willful/wanton intent required for disqualification | CAMC: repeated, documented tardiness after written warnings satisfies the statute’s definition of "any other gross misconduct" | Court held repeated tardiness plus prior written warnings met statutory definition of gross misconduct; disqualification affirmed |
| Whether employer provided the required written notice (due process) that further tardiness could lead to termination | Higginbotham: handbook access limited while on duty and forms confusing; thus no clear written notice | CAMC: provided written warnings and handbook describing progressive discipline; Higginbotham received and signed warnings | Court held Higginbotham received adequate written notice via warnings and handbook access; due process satisfied |
| Whether intent evidence is required under statute to establish gross misconduct | Higginbotham: claims lack of proof of willful/wanton conduct | CAMC: statute’s definition of "any other gross misconduct" focuses on prior written warning, not intent | Court held statute does not require proof of intent for "any other gross misconduct" and employer need not prove willfulness |
| Standard of review for BOR findings | Higginbotham: challenges factual findings | CAMC: factual findings entitled to deference | Court applied deferential review to BOR findings (unless clearly wrong) and affirmed circuit court’s adoption of ALJ/BOR findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Adkins v. Gatson, 192 W. Va. 561, 453 S.E.2d 395 (W. Va. 1994) (Board of Review findings entitled to substantial deference unless clearly wrong)
- Smittle v. Gatson, 195 W. Va. 416, 465 S.E.2d 873 (W. Va. 1995) (discussing standard of review for unemployment decisions)
- Federoff v. Rutledge, 175 W. Va. 389, 332 S.E.2d 855 (W. Va. 1985) (requiring written notice as minimal due process when misconduct can trigger disqualification)