Thurmond v. Steele
| Decision Date | 01 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 13672,13672 |
| Parties | Lawrence L. THURMOND v. Ralph N. STEELE, Commissioner, Department of Motor Vehicles, State of West Virginia. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. On appeal by a Civil Service protected employee from the action of the employing authority in dismissing him for gross misconduct under the provisions of Article XI, Section 2 of the Rules and Regulations of the Civil Service Commission, said Commission has the power and duty to receive evidence and make a determination of the propriety of the dismissal.
2. If the employing authority dismisses or otherwise disciplines a Civil Service protected employee for gross misconduct occurring off the job and not involving State property, such misconduct must be substantial and not frivolous, trivial or inconsequential, and it must be shown that such misconduct reflects adversely upon the employee's ability to perform his job, impairs the efficient operation of the employing authority and bears a substantial relationship to duties directly affecting the rights and interests of the public.
3. The employing authority's right to dismiss a Civil Service protected employee for gross misconduct is not conditioned upon or limited by the outcome of any criminal charges which may have been brought against the employee.
4. Although a Civil Service protected employee has the burden of proving that the action of the employing authority in dismissing or otherwise disciplining him was arbitrary or capricious or otherwise without just cause, the employing authority, on appeal to the Civil Service Commission, must first present its evidence justifying its action.
Chauncey H. Browning, Jr., Atty. Gen., Henry C. Bias, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., Charleston, for appellant.
John S. Sibray, Charleston, for appellee.
The Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles appeals from an order of the Civil Service Commission reinstating appellee Lawrence L. Thurmond to the position of Assistant Director, Driver's License Division, Department of Motor Vehicles, after he had been discharged from such position by the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles.
The principal question presented is whether a Civil Service protected employee of the State of West Virginia may be discharged for off-duty conduct not on State property and not involving the use of State equipment or vehicles.
The Civil Service Commission was apparently of the opinion that no such authority exists and that it had no authority to conduct hearings with reference to such matters except in cases of crimes involving moral turpitude.
This case arose out of events which are said to have occurred on May 6, 1975. Appellee Thurmond was driving his personal automobile and was admittedly not on State business. He was accused of driving while intoxicated, failing to obey an officer, driving recklessly and leaving the scene of an accident in which he had been involved.
On July 15, 1975, the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles wrote to Thurmond dismissing him under the provisions of Article XI, Section 2 of the Rules and Regulations of the Civil Service Commission. 1 Thurmond promptly appealed from this dismissal.
On October 14, 1975, the Municipal Court of the City of Charleston dismissed the charges of driving while intoxicated and failing to obey an officer but fined Thurmond $75.00 for reckless driving.
The Civil Service Commission considered this case as one which involved only the formal conviction of the charge of reckless driving. In the belief that reckless driving is not a crime of moral turpitude justifying dismissal and in the further belief that it had no jurisdiction to govern the conduct of a State employee during his off-duty hours when he was not on State property nor using State-owned equipment or vehicles, the Civil Service Commission ordered Thurmond reinstated to his former position and directed that he receive all back pay from the date of his dismissal.
The appellant Commissioner of Motor Vehicles maintains that the letter of July 15, 1975, did not involve the dismissal of Thurmond on the grounds of his commission of a crime involving moral turpitude but rather involved alleged misconduct, apart from any allegation of crime, sufficiently related to the duties which Thurmond was required to perform to justify his dismissal from a position which required his participation in hearings and making administrative decisions with reference to the suspension or revocation of drivers' licenses for conduct of others similar to his own conduct on the occasion in question.
Under the provisions of Article XI, Section 2 of the Rules and Regulations of the Civil Service Commission, an appointing authority may dismiss an employee who '. . . is negligent or inefficient in his duties, or unfit to perform his duties, who is found to be guilty of gross misconduct, or who is convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude.'
In this case, the employing authority stated in substance that it was prepared to prove not only the wrongful conduct of Thurmond but also the direct relationship between that wrongful conduct and the duties which Thurmond was responsible for discharging in the position which he held.
In view of the fact that the Civil Service Commission refused to receive that evidence, we do not endeavor to evaluate it because the record does not inform us as to what factual defense, if any, may be offered on behalf of the employee.
The precise question which is involved in this case has not previously been presented to this Court. We are now required to determine the purpose and effect of Article XI, Section 2 of the Rules and Regulations of the Civil Service Commission, as required by W.Va.Code 29--6--8.
The general purpose of the Civil Service System is '. . . to attract to the service of this state personnel of the highest ability and integrity . . ..', W.Va.Code 29--6--1, and to give to such personnel security of tenure so that they are not required to serve at the whim and will of the employer. Guine v. Civil Service Commission, 149 W.Va. 461, 141 S.E.2d 364 (1965).
It should be apparent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roach v. Regional Jail Authority
...and interests of the public." See Drown v. West Virginia Civil Serv. Comm'n, 180 W.Va. 143, 375 S.E.2d 775 (1988); Thurmond v. Steele, 159 W.Va. 630, 225 S.E.2d 210 (1976). Moreover, the hearing examiner concluded that the Appellant's employment status as an "at-will" employee permitted his......
-
Mangum v. Lambert, 19077
...67 C.J.S. Officers § 120b (1936). See also City of Logan v. Dingess, 161 W.Va. 377, 381, 242 S.E.2d 473, 475 (1978); Thurmond v. Steele, 159 W.Va. 630, 225 S.E.2d 210 (1976); Guine v. Civil Service Commission, 149 W.Va. 461, 141 S.E.2d 364 See McDonald v. Young, supra; Kendrick v. Johnson, ......
-
Giannini v. Firemen's Civil Service Com'n
...67 C.J.S. Officers § 120b (1936). See also City of Logan v. Dingess, 161 W.Va. 377, 381, 242 S.E.2d 473, 475 (1978); Thurmond v. Steele, 159 W.Va. 630, 225 S.E.2d 210 (1976); Guine v. Civil Service Commission, 149 W.Va. 461, 141 S.E.2d 364 182 W.Va. at 413, 388 S.E.2d at 287; see also McDon......
- Sanders v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.