Finally, Grievant proposes that the delay between the infractions and the disciplinary process was unreasonable. Respondent presented multiple reasons for the acceptable delay. The incidents leading to discipline occurred in December which is riddled with forced use of annual leave, holiday annual leave, and the resulting lack of office coverage. That period was immediately followed by Respondent's transition to the Office of Shared Administration. Furthermore, much delay may be attributed to Grievant. Due to her disparaging remarks of Ms. Elkins, the matter was handled by Ms. Ellis. The Deputy Commissioner covers 3 districts among 33 counties. Therefore, the process of writing, reviewing, and proofing was juggled amidst the above obstacles. To put it another way, there was no inordinate delay or resulting prejudice to Grievant. In summary, the documentation and testimony provided by Respondent at the level three hearing provided credible, consistent, and ultimately preponderant evidence that Grievant was given a five-day suspension due to violation of law, misconduct, and insubordination. Grievant did not present sufficient evidence to rebut that conclusion. The following Conclusions of Law support the decision reached. Conclusions of Law 1. The burden of proof in disciplinary matters rests with the employer to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the disciplinary action taken was justified. W.VA. CODE ST. R. § 156-1-3 (2018). "The preponderance standard generally requires proof that a reasonable person would accept as sufficient that a contested fact is more likely true than not." Leichliter v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., Docket No. 92-HHR-486 (May 17, 1993). Where the evidence equally supports both sides, the employer has not met its burden. Id.