policy and was insubordinate in three significant instances of misconduct. This misconduct occurred despite Grievant's experience, training, and prior coaching. In the past, Deputy Commissioner Ellis had received complaints regarding Grievant from other supervisors, prosecuting attorneys, and the court staff. Deputy Commissioner Ellis testified that Grievant has been “coached and coached to the point where it needed to go higher.”6 Respondent’s previous attempts to correct Grievant’s behavior did not bring about the desired changes. Given the prior unsuccessful coaching and training and the seriousness of the misconduct, the progression of discipline from coaching directly to suspension was reasonable. Respondent has proven Grievant’s five-day suspension for misconduct, insubordination, and violation of West Virginia Code § 49-5-101 was justified.

In her defense, Grievant believes that she has been harassed and works in a hostile work environment. “Harassment’ means repeated or continual disturbance, irritation or annoyance of an employee that is contrary to the behavior expected by law, policy and profession.” W. VA. CODE § 6C-2-2(I) (2024). “What constitutes harassment varies based upon the factual situation in each individual grievance.” Sellers v. Wetzel County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 97-52-183 (Sept. 30, 1997). This Board has generally followed the analysis of the federal and state courts in determining what constitutes a hostile work environment. Beverly v. Div. of Highways, Docket No. 2014-0461-DOT (Aug. 19, 2014), aff'd, Kanawha Cnty. Cir. Ct. Docket No. 14-AA-95 (Mar. 31, 2015); Vance v.