Grievant further asserted that she did not receive the same assistance from Brandice Bragg as Ms. Pence and Hali Buffington, who were also supervised by Ms. Bragg. “Favoritism’ means unfair treatment of an employee as demonstrated by preferential, exceptional or advantageous treatment of a similarly situated employee unless the treatment is related to the actual job responsibilities of the employee or is agreed to in writing by the employee.” W. VA. CODE § 6C-2-2(h) (2024). Specifically, Grievant referred to this favoritism as the “circle of three” being Brandice Bragg, Mary Alexis Pence, and Hali Buffington. With Ms. Pence, Grievant discussed the availability of Ms. Bragg and Ms. Pence to accompany Grievant to a home visit. Grievant admitted that both had gone with her on occasion. Further, Grievant did not present evidence that she needed accompaniment and was refused. Rather, she discussed how they accompanied each other. Nothing unfair was revealed. Significantly, the instances referenced by Grievant occurred while supervised by Brandice Bragg, prior to December 2024. Due to the conflicts with Ms. Bragg, Grievant requested and was moved under the supervision of Dale Chidester in September 2024. Grievant made no allegations of discrimination or favoritism regarding her current supervisor, Dale Chidester. For these reasons, Grievant failed to prove discrimination or favoritism by Respondent.

Because Respondent skipped a step in progressive discipline, Grievant asserts that the five-day suspension was disproportionate for her offenses. "Mitigation of the punishment imposed by an employer is extraordinary relief, and is granted only when there is a showing that a particular disciplinary measure is so clearly disproportionate to the employee's offense that it indicates an abuse of discretion. Considerable deference is afforded the employer's assessment of the seriousness of the employee's conduct and"