Snyder v. Civil Service Commission
| Decision Date | 22 November 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 13813,13813 |
| Citation | 238 S.E.2d 842,160 W.Va. 762 |
| Parties | Walter L. SNYDER v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, etc., et al. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Due process requires the State to give adequate notice of the reasons for dismissal of a classified civil service employee.
2. The sufficiency of a notice of dismissal to a classified civil service employee depends on whether the employee was informed with reasonable certainty and precision of the cause of his removal.
3. A notice of dismissal to a classified civil service employee will generally be adequate if it sets out sufficient facts of the alleged misconduct so that its details are known with some particularity.
4. Where an act of misconduct is asserted in a notice of dismissal, it should be identified by date, specific or approximate, unless its characteristics are so singular that there is no reasonable doubt when it occurred.
5. If an act of misconduct involves persons or property, such persons or property must be identified to the extent that the employee will have no reasonable doubt as to their identity.
Michael R. Cline, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Charleston, for appellant.
Sterl F. Shinaberry, Hostler & Shinaberry, Charleston, for appellee.
This case is before the Court on the narrow issue of whether the Circuit Court of Kanawha County erred in holding that the notice to a civil service employee as to the grounds of his dismissal was legally insufficient. We affirm.
The notice was sent pursuant to Article XI, Section 2 of the Rules and Regulations of the State Civil Service System, which requires "notice in writing . . . stating specific reasons therefor" on dismissal of a covered employee. 1 It is obvious that due process procedures, even in the absence of a statute or regulation, would require the State to give adequate notice of the reasons for dismissal of a classified employee before it took such drastic action. See Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 94 S.Ct. 1633, 40 L.Ed.2d 15 (1974); North v. West Virginia Board of Regents, W.Va., 233 S.E.2d 411 (1977).
The notice of dismissal is not adequate. 2 It does not identify the particular travel expense records, the dates of the incidents, or state why the records are claimed to be false.
We are cited Thurmond v. Steele, W.Va., 225 S.E.2d 210 (1976). However, the issue in that case was not adequacy of notice, but rather what type of gross misconduct would warrant a dismissal. True, the Court did mention by way of dictum that the notice of dismissal was adequate. Thurmond, however, involved a single incident of misconduct on the part of an employee which was fully described in the notice. The employee could have had no difficulty in understanding the exact date and nature of the charge, even though no date was given.
Another case which bears on the point is Yates v. Civil Service Commission, 154 W.Va. 696, 178 S.E.2d 798 (1971). There a civil service employee was dismissed without any notice as to the reasons for termination. This Court held that the lack of notice invalidated the dismissal. Yates explains why notice is necessary.
Guine v. Civil Service Commission, 149 W.Va. 461, 141 S.E.2d 364 (1965), also considered adequacy of notice, and while the notice bordered on generality, it nevertheless identified the alleged misconduct with some particularity. Of considerable importance was the fact that prior to the hearing on appeal before the Civil Service Commission, the parties met at a prehearing conference and the employee was more fully apprised of the incidents referred to in the notice. No such additional disclosure appears in the record of this case.
Other courts, in considering the adequacy of a notice dismissing a public employee under regulations analogous to those in this case, have generally required that the notice have some factual specificity. In the rather similar case of Thornberry v. Civil Service Commission, 49 Ill.App.2d 22, 199 N.E.2d 436 (1964), a notice which stated "travel vouchers and examination reports are not in accord as to location and date of examination made" was deemed too vague. In Money v. Anderson, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 130, 208 F.2d 34 (1953), Judge Bazelon concluded that where a charge involved improper conduct toward other employees, the notice must contain the names of the other employees as well as the places and approximate dates of the alleged improper conduct.
In Hays v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trimble v. West Virginia Bd. of Directors
...160 W.Va. 248, 233 S.E.2d 411 (1977); Waite v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 161 W.Va. 154, 241 S.E.2d 164 (1977); Snyder v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 160 W.Va. 762, 238 S.E.2d 842 (1977). The issue of an adequate notice or hearing is not presented by the instant case. Instead, we are asked to determine wh......
-
Booth v. Sims
... ... rights concerns whether the employee has sufficient years of service in the system that he or she can be considered to have relied ... to continued government employment continues to be controlled by civil service statutes, applicable regulations, the due process and equal ... See, Adkins v. Miller, 187 W.Va. 774, 421 S.E.2d 682 (1992); Snyder v. Civil Serv. Commission, 160 W.Va. 762, 238 S.E.2d 842 (1977); Branti ... ...
-
Clarke v. West Virginia Bd. of Regents, 14773
...to the extent that the accused employee will have no reasonable doubt as to their identity." Syl. pts. 4 and 5, Snyder v. Civil Service Commission, W.Va., 238 S.E.2d 842 (1977). 3. In the report of findings and recommendations, a hearing examiner should list the specific charges found to be......
-
Roach v. Regional Jail Authority
...any additional reasons why the discharge should not become effective. In syllabus points two and three of Snyder v. Civil Service Commission, 160 W.Va. 762, 238 S.E.2d 842 (1977), we set forth guidelines for the type of notice required for a classified civil service employee. In syllabus po......