with all relevant federal, state, and local laws), 2.2.5 (maintain the confidentiality of all business record contents), 2.2.7 (conduct themselves professionally in the presence of ... fellow employees, and the public), 2.2.12 (be ethical, alert, polite, sober, and attentive to the responsibilities associated with their jobs), 2.3.2 (disrupting the normal operations of the Agency), 2.3.7 (engaging in direct or indirect insubordination), 2.3.9 (making unwanted and inappropriate verbal or physical contact), 2.4.5 (Employees whose behavior creates a conflict of interest with their employment are subject to discipline, up to and including dismissal.), and 2.6.4. (Employees are expected to keep all information related to an investigation or hearing in strictest confidence.). R. Ex. 1, 6.
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.
Grievant asserts that she was suspended without good cause. Grievant admits some and denies some allegations but claims that suspension was not otherwise justified due to discrimination, favoritism, harassment, and a hostile work environment. Respondent asserts suspension was justified because Grievant failed to meet a reasonable standard of conduct by violating confidentiality law, policy, and engaging in insubordinate behavior.