Michele Marie Sturgeon v. West Virginia Department of Health, Bureau for Public Health

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA

MICHELE MARIE STURGEON,
Grievant Below, Petitioner

v.) No. 25-ICA-80 (Grievance Bd. Case No. 2024-0587-CONS) FILED
October 24, 2025
WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT ASHLEY N. DEEM, CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
OF HEALTH, BUREAU FOR PUBLIC HEALTH, INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
Respondent Below, Respondent OF WEST VIRGINIA

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Michele Marie Sturgeon appeals the January 28, 2025, final decision from
the West Virginia Public Employees Grievance Board’s administrative law judge (“ALJ”),
which determined that Respondent West Virginia Department of Health, Bureau for Public
Health (the “Department”) proved that written reprimand and termination were justified.
The Department filed a response.1 Ms. Sturgeon did not file a reply.

This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to West Virginia Code § 51-
11-4 (2024). After considering the parties’ arguments, the record on appeal, and the
applicable law, this Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For
these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the Grievance Board’s decision is
appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Ms. Sturgeon was initially employed in the WISEWOMAN program as an
Epidemiologist II and was responsible for the evaluation of the program. In September of
2020, after the first nine months of her duties, the division director determined that there
had been “zero progress” on the program evaluation which the division director attributed
to “lack of effort.” The division director detailed to Ms. Sturgeon issues with her tardiness
and inappropriate requests, and asked Ms. Sturgeon to respond by the next day. The next
day Ms. Sturgeon texted that she was sick and would be late, but by the afternoon she had
still not arrived at work or communicated with the division director as required. Ms.
Sturgeon was counseled and placed on an attendance improvement period by her
supervisor Melissa Baker because she had been absent from work twenty-four times during
a fifty-one-day work period.

Approximately six months later, Ms. Sturgeon voluntarily transferred to the
Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program and Newborn Hearing Screening Program

1
Ms. Sturgeon is self-represented. The Department is represented by Attorney
General John B. McCuskey, Esq., and Assistant Attorney General Gail V. Lipscomb, Esq.
1
which included a voluntary demotion from an Epidemiologist II down to an Epidemiologist
I. Ms. Baker remained her supervisor, but Ms. Sturgeon’s new role was data management.
Among other responsibilities, she monitored databases for accuracy and timeliness so the
Department could immediately identify and report to the Centers for Disease Control any
lab results for children who showed elevated lead levels in their blood tests. Because half
of the lab reporting is electronic and half is manual, any records with potential issues are
“held” to be reviewed and confirmed manually by Ms. Sturgeon.

Ms. Sturgeon’s poor work performance was identified by the new division director.
In November 2022, Sharon Hill was hired to fill the vacant division director position
becoming Ms. Sturgeon’s supervisor, and Matthew Christiansen, M.D., M.P.H., was
appointed as the new State Health Officer and Commissioner for the Bureau for Public
Health. Both Director Hill and Dr. Christiansen had concerns about data reliability and
standardization procedures. Within two weeks of Director Hill assuming her position, she
counseled Ms. Sturgeon on her tardiness and leaving work early without any
communication. A month later, on December 8, 2022, Director Hill again verbally
reprimanded Ms. Sturgeon for failing to meet deadlines on two priority assignments as
directed. Director Hill’s end of year evaluation of Ms. Sturgeon for 2022, also known as
an EPA 3, identified several categories where Ms. Sturgeon was deemed as meeting
expectations, but scored Ms. Sturgeon as needing improvement in dependability and
teamwork collaboration. Ms. Sturgeon refused to sign the EPA 3, stating she had met all
her deliverables on time over the past three years as per her former supervisor, referring to
her work in the previous WISEWOMAN division that ended in early 2021.

Director Hill continued to experience issues with Ms. Sturgeon’s performance and
attendance, so she put Ms. Sturgeon on an attendance and performance improvement plan
in January 2023 for a six-month period (ending July 2023). Director Hill’s review
discovered that Ms. Sturgeon had been on unscheduled leave 10% of the time, exhausted
her sick leave, and been absent from work without authorization nine times. Regarding
performance, Director Hill identified failures to meet deadlines, failure to follow Director
Hill’s directives, failure to attend meetings, and failure to provide data in the requested
format.

Ms. Sturgeon’s performance began declining again by March 2023, with issues like
poor work performance and behavior and a persistent argumentative demeanor toward
Director Hill. These performance issues included Ms. Sturgeon’s failure to meet a critical
deadline for information on a media inquiry, resulting in Director Hill performing the
necessary submission while on vacation; numerous failures to report what time she had
reported to work; and inappropriate aggressive behavior toward Director Hill while
discussing Ms. Sturgeon’s refusal to sign her performance evaluations. Ms. Sturgeon also
ignored Director Hill’s directives by including in reports certain Medicaid numbers that
Director Hill explicitly told her not to include, and failing to get authorization to submit
reports. Director Hill issued a written reprimand dated March 28, 2023, that included

2
twelve incidents of misconduct and deficiencies. Ms. Sturgeon filed a grievance regarding
the written reprimand.

Director Hill and Director Jim Jeffries offered to transfer Ms. Sturgeon’s
supervision to another supervisor, but Ms. Sturgeon declined. Ms. Sturgeon continued to
perform poorly following the written reprimand. The culmination of Ms. Sturgeon’s
continued poor performance and insubordination ended with two final incidents resulting
in Ms. Sturgeon’s dismissal. In early October 2023, Steven Maley and Ms. Sturgeon spoke
to a reporter several times and Ms. Sturgeon disclosed to co-worker Cori Ice that she had
talked to this reporter several times. On October 5, 2023, another co-worker Bin Schmitz
reported that she received a text from a reporter who claimed that Ms. Sturgeon had given
the reporter Ms. Schmitz’s name as someone he should contact. Ms. Schmitz did not give
permission to Ms. Sturgeon to share her contact number and was extremely upset by these
events. On October 11, 2023, another co-worker Paul Ice reported that he also was
contacted by a reporter who stated that a few epidemiologists at the Department had asked
the reporter to investigate a matter. Mr. Ice was both surprised and upset to be contacted
on his personal cell. After the reporter attempted contact with Bin Schmitz and Paul Ice,
the reporter filed numerous Freedom of Information Act requests.

On October 17, 2023, Ms. Sturgeon was present in a meeting where Director Hill
made clear that faxed copies of certain lab reports were important for data validation, that
most providers did not have software capabilities to make electronic reports, and scanned
faxes from the two biggest laboratories, LabCorp and Quest, were to continue. The next
day, Ms. Sturgeon made the decision to terminate fax reports from LabCorp without
consulting Director Hill or copying Director Hill on her email to LabCorp. Upon learning
of Ms. Sturgeon’s direct insubordination, Director Hill was forced to request LabCorp
resume the faxed reports causing a delay in reporting for over a month.

After a heated predetermination conference meeting on November 14, 2023, Dr.
Christiansen dismissed Ms. Sturgeon from employment by letter dated November 30,
2023, citing the history of performance failures, improvement plans, counseling discussion
and coaching, and verbal and written reprimands as a backdrop to the last two incidents of
insubordination involving the LabCorp faxes and failure to follow the Department’s media
communications policy.

In its January 28, 2025, final decision, the ALJ found that the Department had
proven Ms. Sturgeon’s misconduct and concluded that the written reprimands and ultimate
termination were justified for the multiple violations of policy, insubordination, and failure
to adequately perform her duties. This appeal of the ALJ’s January 28, 2025, final decision
followed.

Our governing standard of review for a contested case from the Grievance Board is
as follows:

3
The court may affirm the order or decision of the agency or remand the case
for further proceedings. It shall reverse, vacate, or modify the order or
decision of the agency if the substantial rights of the petitioner or petitioners
have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences,
conclusions, decision, or order are:

(1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;
(2) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency;
(3) Made upon unlawful procedures;
(4) Affected by other error of law;
(5) Clearly wrong in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence
on the whole record; or
(6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly
unwarranted exercise of discretion.

W. Va. Code § 29A-5-4(g) (2021) (specifying the standard for appellate review of
administrative appeal). “The ‘clearly wrong’ and the ‘arbitrary and capricious’ standards
of review are deferential ones which presume an agency's actions are valid as long as the
decision is supported by substantial evidence or by a rational basis.” Syl. Pt. 3, In re Queen,
196 W. Va. 442, 473 S.E.2d 483 (1996). With these standards in mind, we turn to Ms.
Sturgeon’s assignments of error.

On appeal, Ms. Sturgeon raises eleven assignments of error, which we will
consolidate and restate for clarity. See Tudor’s Biscuit World of Am. v. Critchley, 229 W.
Va. 396, 402, 729 S.E.2d 231, 237 (2012) (allowing consolidation of related assignments
of error); Jacquelyn F. v. Andrea R., No. 16-0585, 2017 WL 2608425, at *1 n.2 (W. Va.
June 16, 2017) (memorandum decision) (restating assignments of error where they involve
clearly related issues). Those issues are whether the ALJ erred in what evidence it
considered, how it assessed the evidence, and its witness credibility determinations and
whether Ms. Sturgeon was improperly denied the assistance of a union representative at
the ALJ hearing.

The majority of Ms. Sturgeon’s arguments on appeal relate to the first issue for
decision. Ms. Sturgeon asserts that the ALJ erred in failing to properly consider evidence
she presented, in finding the Department’s witnesses more credible than hers, and in
improperly assessing the evidence to determine that the Department proved that
termination was justified and that Ms. Sturgeon failed to prove harassment, hostile work
environment, functional demotion, retaliation, or that mitigation was warranted. We
disagree.

It is clear from the ALJ’s detailed order that it carefully reviewed the evidence
presented to it over the course of several lengthy hearings and determined which evidence
was salient to the issues being considered and the weight such evidence should be afforded.

4
Though Ms. Sturgeon disagrees with the ALJ’s interpretation of certain evidence,
resolution of conflicting evidence, and the inferences drawn therefrom, after a review of
the record, we cannot conclude that the ALJ’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are
in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; in excess of the statutory authority or
jurisdiction of the agency; made upon unlawful procedures; affected by other error of law;
clearly wrong in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole
record; or arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly
unwarranted exercise of discretion.

The last issue for decision is Ms. Sturgeon’s claim that as a person with disabilities,
her right to a fair hearing with a union representative was denied. Again, we disagree. Ms.
Sturgeon’s previous union representative was informed that he was statutorily limited to
serve in no more than five grievances per year and could not serve for Ms. Sturgeon at the
ALJ hearing. She was free to secure another union representative for the hearing but did
not.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Grievance Board’s January 28, 2025,
decision.

Affirmed.

ISSUED: October 24, 2025

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Judge Charles O. Lorensen
Judge Daniel W. Greear
Judge S. Ryan White

5