“When considering whether to mitigate the punishment, factors to be considered include the employee's work history and personnel evaluations; whether the penalty is clearly disproportionate to the offense proven; the penalties employed by the employer against other employees guilty of similar offenses; and the clarity with which the employee was advised of prohibitions against the conduct involved.” Phillips v. Summers County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 93-45-105 (Mar. 31, 1994); Cooper v. Raleigh County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2014-0028-RalED (Apr. 30, 2014), aff'd, Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Docket No. 14-AA-54 (Jan. 16, 2015).

Grievant's misconduct hinders the agency from meeting its objectives. She had a serious lapse of judgment which reflects discredit on the agency and creates suspicion. Further, Grievant did not meet a reasonable standard of conduct as an employee of the Bureau for Social Services.

Respondent proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Grievant's five-day suspension for misconduct was justified based upon violation of West Virginia Code § 49-5-101, violation of policy, and insubordination.

Grievant failed to prove the suspension was improper due to harassment, hostile work environment. discrimination. or favoritism.

Grievant failed to prove mitigation of the punishment was warranted.

Further, there was no unreasonable delay in applying discipline.