· Disciplinary rules for career service employees are governed by the principles of due process, personal accountability, reasonableness, and sound business practice. Therefore, discipline is proper if it would promote those principles. In re Burghardt, CSA 81-07, 5 (3/28/08).
· When conduct at issue consists of speech, careful analysis is required. In re Burghardt, CSA 81-07, 5 (3/28/08).
· A remark may be considered inappropriate in the workplace based on a number of factors; its content, context, usage, setting, audience, and style of delivery. In re Burghardt, CSA 81-07, 4 (3/28/08), citing Ash v Tyson Foods, Inc., 126 S. Ct. 1195 (2006).
· Termination was proper where: agency performed a thorough investigation into its allegations against appellant; agency reviewed appellant’s performance and disciplinary records which established a long-standing pattern of behavior of ignoring agency rule; and appellant continued to deny wrongdoing, making it unlikely a fifth suspension would correct the same inappropriate behavior. In re Galindo CSR 39-08, 13 (9/5/08).
· The corrective purpose of discipline is fulfilled when an agency tailors the penalty to the nature and circumstances of the misconduct and the employee’s past disciplinary history. In re Catalina, CSA 35-08, 11 (8/22/08), citing In re Rogers, CSA 57-07, 7 (3/18/08).
· The purpose of discipline is to correct inappropriate behavior if possible. In re Blan, CSA 40-08, 6 (7/31/08).
· Appointing authorities are directed by §16-20 to consider the severity of the offense, an employee’s past record, and the penalty most likely to achieve compliance with the rules. In re Blan, CSA 40-08, 6 (7/31/08).
· When an agency has notice that appellant’s sleeping on duty probably related to oxygen deprivation, it may neither discipline nor disqualify the employee for sleeping without first engaging in an interactive process pursuant to § 5-84 E. In re Muniz, CSA 77-07, 5 (7/21/08).
· In determining the degree of discipline, appointing authorities must consider the severity of the offense, an employee’s past record, and the penalty most likely to achieve compliance with the rules. In re Mounjim, CSA 87-07, 18 (7/10/08), citing In re Ortega, CSA 81-06, 16 (4/11/07).
· Hearing officer must not disturb the agency’s determination unless it is clearly excessive or based substantially upon considerations unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Mounjim, CSA 87-07, 18 (7/10/08), citing In re Delmonico, CSA 53-06, 8 (10/26/06).
· Termination was not substantially conceived to correct performance failures where failures were substantially mitigated by lack of training, complexity of tasks, changes in staff and agency structure, unresolved communication issues, and more lenient treatment of other employees based on the same wrongdoing. In re Mestas et al., CSA 64-07, 44 (5/30/08).
· Termination was not warranted where only claims proven were failure to follow up on a customer’s request for promotional difference pay of $123.20 and failing to notify a supervisor about leave slip issues, only past discipline was reprimand 4 years ago, and there was no evidence that progressive discipline would not achieve appellant’s compliance with the rules. In re Mestas et al.,CSA 64-07, 41 (5/30/08).
· Agency’s dismissal was excessive when it was based substantially upon considerations unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence.In re Mestas et al., CSA 64-07, 42 (5/30/08), citing In re Armbruster, CSA 377-01 (3/22/02), and Adkins v. Div of Youth Services, 720 P.2d 626 (Colo. App. 1986).
· It is improper to choose degree of discipline based upon whether it would show favoritism, rather than in the context required by the rules: whether a lesser degree of discipline might have achieved compliance. In re Mestas et al., CSA 64-07, 43 (5/30/08).
· Duties deemed essential by an agency must be communicated in a sufficiently meaningful manner to apprise employees affected by them of the nature and importance of the duty and means to accomplish it, so that the employee has fair notice and a reasonable opportunity to comply. In re Mestas et al., CSA 64-07, 46 (5/30/08), citing In re Encinias, CSA 02-07 (CSB 10/18/07).
· Not every duty must be specified in written detail, but agency bears the burden of showing it made the employee aware of his job responsibilities. In re Mestas et al., CSA 64-07, 46 (5/30/08), citing In re Encinias, CSA 02-07, 2 (CSB 10/18/07).
· In an appeal of a disciplinary action, the agency has the burden to prove the action was taken in conformity with Rule 16 and that the degree of discipline was reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense, taking into consideration the employee’s past record. In re Burghardt, CSA 81-07, 4 (3/28/08).
· Where possible and practicable, the purpose of discipline under the rules is intended to be corrective rather than punitive. In re Strasser CSA 44-07, 3 (CSB 2/29/08); § 16-50 A.1.
· Termination of employment may be appropriate for a single egregious event that results in substantial harm or violates a fundamental tenet of an agency’s mission. In re Strasser, CSA 44-07, 3 (CSB 2/29/08).
· Where appellant’s actions violated the very mission of her agency, and she continued through hearing to deny wrongdoing, thus suggesting a lesser penalty would not correct the inappropriate behavior, dismissal was appropriate penalty. In re Abdi, CSA 63-07, 32 (2/19/08).
· Three-day suspension was appropriate where appellant was careless and failed to meet performance standards in failing to communicate with his supervisor despite three reprimands within six months for similar violations, and appellant’s testimony showed that he did not believe he violated his communications plan. In re Hill, CSA 69-07, 7 (1/23/08).
· Five-day suspension was proper for acts of negligence and carelessness continuing recent pattern of performance problems where appellant was a long-term and valuable employee, and performance since the suspension has shown steady improvement. In re Butler, CSA 78-06, 6 (1/5/07).
· The test to determine the propriety of discipline is whether the degree of discipline is reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense, taking into consideration appellant’s past disciplinary record. In re Delmonico, CSA 53-06, 8 (10/26/06).
· In deciding whether discipline imposed is within the range of reasonable alternatives, hearing officer will not disturb agency’s determination unless it is clearly excessive or based substantially on considerations unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Delmonico, CSA 53-06, 8 (10/26/06), citing In re Armbruster, CSA 377-01 (3/22/02), Adkins v. Div of Youth Services, 720 P.2d 626 (Colo. App. 1986).
· Where appellant escalated what had been mere teasing into a physical confrontation resulting in injuries to co-worker, 30-day suspension was proper, despite appellant’s clear disciplinary record and positive reports from supervisors. In re Delmonico, CSA 53-06, 8 (10/26/06).
· Discipline is not a matter of mathematical precision, but is rather the carefully-considered result of examining the facts and circumstances of the particular case, as well as the disciplinary record of the individual, including the nature and extent of similar discipline. In re Simpleman, CSA 31-06, 10 (10/20/06), affirmed CSB 8/2/07.
· Termination of deputy sheriff for dishonesty and playing cards while on duty guarding felony inmates was reasonably related to offense when deputy had been disciplined every year since his hire, had just returned from a substantial suspension for dishonesty, and continued to deny any wrongdoing. In re Simpleman, CSA 31-06, 11 (10/20/06), affirmed CSB 8/2/07.
· Deputy sheriff’s 45-day suspension for dishonesty and playing cards while on duty guarding felony inmates was reasonably related to offense when deputy had been disciplined for dishonesty on two other occasions, but later acknowledged his wrongdoing. In re Martinez, CSA 30-06, 9 (10/3/06).
· Given appellant’s extensive previous discipline for almost identical violations, four-week suspension was within range of discipline that could be imposed by a reasonable administrator. In re Diaz, CSA 13-06, 8 (5/31/06).
· In a de novo hearing on the appropriateness of discipline, the agency bears the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence both that appellant violated the disciplinary rules as alleged, and that the discipline was within the range of discipline that can be imposed under the circumstances. In re Diaz, CSA 13-06, 4 (5/31/06), citing Turner v. Rossmiller, 532 P.2d 751 (Colo. App. 1975); In re Gustern, CSA 128-02, 20 (12/23/02).
· Magnitude of potential harm caused by misconduct may be considered in assessing level of discipline to be imposed. In re Simpleman, CSA 05-06, 9 (5/16/06).
· 30-day suspension was within range of reasonable alternatives for deputy sheriff sleeping while on duty. In re Simpleman, CSA 05-06, 9 (5/16/06).
· The correct test to determine the propriety of discipline is whether the degree of discipline is reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense, taking into consideration the appellant’s past disciplinary record. In re Simpleman, CSA 05-06, 9 (5/16/06).
· Discipline is reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense if it falls within the range of reasonable alternatives available to a reasonable, prudent agency administrator. In re Simpleman,CSA 05-06, 8 (5/16/06), citing In re Armbruster, CSA 377-01 (3/22/02); Adkins v Div. of Youth Services, 720 P.2d 626 (Colo. App. 1986).
· Given his lack of previous discipline and length of service, 30-day suspension was reasonable penalty for deputy sheriff who intercepted two inmate grievances and delivered insulting responses to the inmates. In re Gonzales, CSA 07-06, 6 (5/4/06).
· Termination for sexual harassment was reversed when conduct was found at hearing to constitute only infrequent disobedience of order to cease using terms of endearment with co-workers. In re Hernandez, CSA 03-06, 12 (5/3/06).
· 30-day suspension was substituted for termination when conduct was found at hearing to constitute only infrequent disobedience of order to cease using terms of endearment with co-workers. In re Hernandez, CSA 03-06, 12 (5/3/06), citing Dubiel v. USPS, 54 MSPR 428, 433-434 (1992), Brim v. USPS, 49 MSPR 494 (1991).
· Ten-hour suspension was appropriate for falsely claiming one day’s sick leave, given appellant’s good work history and lack of previous discipline for dishonesty. In re Clayton, CSA 128-05, 6 (3/21/06).
· 30-day suspension was appropriate for employee who asked police for special treatment based on his position as deputy sheriff when arrested while off duty for incident arising from failing to pay for beer at a bowling alley. In re Mergl, CSA 131-05, 9 (3/13/06).
· Supervisor’s order to attend training was not disciplinary in nature, and therefore denial of grievance based thereon was not appealable as discipline. In re Johnson, CSA 135-05, 3 (3/10/06).
· The test for discipline is not whether the discipline is the next step under progressive discipline, but rather whether the degree of discipline is reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense. In re Vigil, CSA 110-05, 8 (3/3/06), citing In re Champion, CSA 71-02, 18 (7/31/02).
· In determining whether discipline is reasonably related to the offense, the hearing officer will not disturb agency’s determination unless it is clearly excessive or based substantially on considerations that are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Vigil, CSA 110-05, 8 (3/3/06), citing In re Douglas, CSA 154-02, 166-02, 5 (1/27/03); In re Armbruster, CSA 377-01 (3/22/02); In re Gallegos, CSA 27-01 (3/21/01).
· Written reprimand was not excessive for 2.5 hours of unauthorized leave, given appellant’s pattern of tardiness. In re Vigil, CSA 110-05, 9 (3/3/06).
· Appellant was not punished twice for the same absences because of regulation’s imposition of increasing punishment for each additional unscheduled absence after eight occurrences in a year. In re Garcia, CSA 123-05, 6 (2/27/06).
· Five-day suspension calculated based upon appellant’s absences over the agency average was within the range of penalties that may be applied by a reasonable manager. In re Garcia, CSA 123-05, 6 (2/27/06).
· Five-day suspension was appropriate for unauthorized absences after employee received ample notice of the seriousness of her absenteeism in the form of stricter attendance expectations, and previous discipline for same misconduct. In re Edwards, CSA 21-05, 8 (2/22/06).
· Career Service Rules require progressive discipline to correct inappropriate behavior or performance. In re Diaz, CSA 92-05, 10 (1/31/06).
· Discipline must be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offence, and appropriate to correct the situation and achieve the desired change in behavior or performance. In re Diaz, CSA 92-05, 10 (1/31/06).
· Two-week suspension was appropriate when previous discipline including shorter suspension did not correct similar past behavior and performance deficiencies. In re Diaz, CSA 92-05, 11 (1/31/06).
· In this de novo hearing on the appropriateness of appellant’s termination, the agency bears the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence both that appellant violated the disciplinary rules as alleged, and that termination was within the range of discipline that can be imposed under the circumstances. In re Hobley, CSA 61-05, 4 (12/19/05), citing Turner v. Rossmiller, 532 P.2d 751 (Colo. App. 1975); In re Gustern, CSA 128-02, 20 (12/23/02).
· Hearing officer may conduct a de novo review of the reasonableness of discipline in light of the facts as they exist at the time of hearing. This approach balances the need for prompt resolution of disciplinary appeals and the requirement of certainty in outcome. In re Williams, CSA 65-05, 7 (11/17/05), citing USPS v. Gregory, 534 U.S. 1 (2001); Bolling v. Dept. of Air Force, 9 MSPR 335 (1981).
· Hearing officer may exercise discretion in reviewing past disciplinary actions to determine the reasonableness of discipline. In re Williams, CSA 65-05, 7 (11/17/05).
· Supervisor’s consideration of two past written reprimands that were later reduced to verbal warnings did not render the penalty of a written reprimand improper, since the same supervisor imposed all discipline and agreed to the reduction of the past reprimands, and only the degree of discipline changed between the time it was imposed and the appeal hearing. In re Williams, CSA 65-05, 7 (11/17/05).
· Appellant was not disciplined twice for the same conduct when the earlier discipline was withdrawn, despite appellant’s failure to receive notice of that withdrawal. In re Williams, CSA 65-05, 7 (11/17/05).
· Rescinded discipline cannot be used for any disciplinary purpose against an employee. In re Williams, CSA 65-05, 7 (11/17/05).
· 15-day suspension was appropriate penalty for recreation supervisor’s angry confrontation with referee at girls’ basketball game, resulting in his escalating an already emotional competition and being ejected from the building. In re Trujillo, CSA 44-05, 7 (11/14/05).
· Discipline must be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense, and be within the range of reasonable alternatives available to a reasonable, prudent agency administrator. In re Diaz, CSA 45-05, 9 (9/7/05), citing In re Champion, CSA 71-02, 18 (7/31/02); In re Armbruster, CSA 377-01 (3/22/02); and Adkins v. Div. of Youth Services, 720 P.2d 626 (Colo. App. 1986).
· Discipline may be found excessive where it is substantially based on considerations that are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Diaz, CSA 45-05, 9 (9/7/05), citing In re Gustern, CSA 128-02, 20 (12/23/02).
· One-day suspension was well within range of reasonable alternatives for performance mistakes and attendance violations that continued despite previous discipline for the same misconduct. In re Diaz, CSA 45-05, 10 (9/7/05).
· The propriety of discipline is determined by whether the degree of discipline chosen by the agency was reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense, taking into consideration the employee's past discipline. In re Mestas, CSA 37-05, 8 (8/4/05), citing In re Champion, CSA 71-02, 18 (7/31/02).
· The agency is required to assess the degree of discipline that is reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and that takes into consideration appellant's past record. In re Garcia, CSA 175-04, 8 (7/12/05).
· To determine whether discipline is reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense, it must be within the range of reasonable alternatives available to a reasonable, prudent agency administrator. In re Garcia, CSA 175-04, 8 (7/12/05), citing In re Armbruster, CSA 377-01 (3/22/02); Adkins v. Division of Youth Services, 720 P.2d 626 (Colo. App. 1986).
· In determining whether the discipline is within the range of reasonable alternatives, the hearing officer will not disturb the agency's determination of the severity of the discipline unless it is clearly excessive or based substantially on considerations that are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Garcia, CSA 175-04, 8 (7/12/05), citing In re Douglas, CSA 154-02, 166-02, 5 (1/27/03).
· Where appellant had two suspensions and a written reprimand during the past year, termination for dissemination of a vulgar e-mail was within the range of reasonable alternatives available to the agency. In re Garcia, CSA 175-04, 8 (7/12/05).
· Employee may reasonably rely on agency's past interpretation of disciplinary rules in the absence of notice of a change in that interpretation. In re Mitchell, CSA 05-05, 5 (6/27/05).
· Since written reprimand succeeded in its intended goal to give appellant formal notice of the need to improve after continuing disregard of departmental policies, discipline was appropriate. In re Schultz, CSA 156-04, 10 (6/20/05).
· To condone misconduct only because no actual harm results would be to violate the Career Service Rules' purpose to correct inappropriate behavior. In re Owoeye, CSA 11-05, 6 (6/10/05).
· The fact that the polar bear threatened by appellant's failure to secure the animals did not suffer injury does not disprove the carelessness charge, since the purpose of the Career Service Rules is to correct inappropriate behavior. In re Owoeye, CSA 11-05, 5 (6/10/05).
· Discipline is reasonably related to the seriousness of an offense if it is within the range of reasonable alternatives available to a reasonable, prudent agency administrator. In re Moreno, CSA 138-04, 9 (5/25/05), citing In re Gustern, CSA 128-02, 20 (12/28/02) and Adkins v. Div. of Youth Services, 720 P.2d 626 (Colo. App. 1986). See also In re Lucero, 162-04 (4/15/05); In re Owens, CSA 139-04, 8 (3/31/05).
· Discipline is not excessive if it is substantially based on considerations that are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Moreno, CSA 138-04, 9 (5/25/05), citing In re Gustern, CSA 128-02 (12/28/02).
· In an appeal to the hearing office, the agency bears the burden of proof to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that there is cause to discipline, and that the discipline imposed is reasonably related to the seriousness of the offenses. In re Katros, CSA 129-04, 6 (3/16/05) , citing In re Castaneda, CSA 155-02 (7/1/03); see also In re Leal-McIntyre, CSA 77-03, 134-03 and 167-03, 13 (1/27/05), citing In re Gustern, CSA 128-02, 20 (12-28-02).
· Where appellant playfully slapped her co-worker harder than she intended during a friendly conversation, causing temporary pain, termination was not narrowly tailored to correct the behavior, nor reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense, and did not take into account appellant's past record, requiring modification of penalty to a one-day suspension. In re Freeman, CSA 40-05, 75-04, 10 (3/3/05).
16-30 Investigatory Leave with Pay
· This rule obviously contemplates the placement of the target of the investigation on leave, not the whistleblower. In re Muller, CSA 48-08, n.1 (CSB 10/24/08).
16-40: Pre-disciplinary Notification
· Agency must identify at the pre-disciplinary stage what facts it is relying upon to establish a violation of a rule so that the employee has an opportunity to prepare for and respond meaningfully to the allegations. In re Mounjim, CSA 87-07, 5 (7/10/08).
· An agency may not present evidence of wrongdoing for the first time at hearing. In re Mounjim, CSA 87-07, 5 (7/10/08).
· The requirements of a fair hearing include notice of the claims of the opposing party and an opportunity to meet them. A broad unspecified statement - generic notice - is no notice at all. In re Mounjim, CSA 87-07, 15 (7/10/08), citing Shaw v. Valdez, 819 F2d 965 (10th Cir 1987).
· If agency’s decision was based substantially on incident and rule not included in letter of dismissal, the decision was unjustified under the rules cited in the dismissal letter. In re Mounjim, CSA 87-07, 18-19 (7/10/08).
· Management's decision to change the locks during investigatory leave did not affect Appellant's ability to participate in the pre-disciplinary process. In re Smith, CSA 17-05, 9 (7/07/05).
· Agency's failure to deliver disciplinary letters to appellant's last known address did not deprive Appellant of an opportunity to be heard since the postal forwarding order had expired, rendering any such delivery ineffective. In re Kinfe, 161-04, 4 (3/16/05) (decided under former § 16-30), citing Loudermill v. Cleveland Board of Education, 470 U.S. 532 (1985).
16-50 A. and B: Progressive Discipline (See also §16-20 above and Discipline)
· Termination was appropriate where agency concluded theft and absenteeism was a continuation of long-standing pattern of behavior ignoring agency rules based on review of performance and disciplinary records. In re Galindo, CSA 39-08, 13 (9/5/08).
· Appellant’s continued denial of wrongdoing renders it unlikely that a fifth suspension would correct the same inappropriate behavior for which he had received previous reprimands and suspensions over the course of 23 years of employment. In re Galindo, CSA 39-08, 13 (9/5/08).
· Appellant failed to present any credible evidence that termination was rooted in bias against city employees rather than the underlying facts supporting discipline. In re Galindo, CSA 39-08, 13 (9/5/08).
· Where appellant took substantial steps toward providing name of informant in child sex abuse case to attorney who offered to waive fees in exchange for that information, termination was not unreasonable despite lack of previous discipline and pressure placed on appellant by attorney. In re Catalina, 35-08, 11 (8/22/08).
· Termination of deputy sheriff was appropriate for soliciting a prostitute where charge raises enormous potential for deputy’s compromise in handling those arrested for or convicted of similar charges. In re Griffith, CSA 41-08, 4 (8/14/08).
· Sheriff’s department may choose to treat deputies’ violations of law outside the work place more severely than another agency might because of the heightened public trust and confidence placed in law enforcement. In re Griffith, CSA 41-08, 4 (8/14/08).
· Deputy’s admission of a basis for criminal charge of soliciting a prostitute, and resulting compromise of his duties, constitute a violation severe enough to preclude progressive discipline and justify dismissal, despite lack of prior discipline and satisfactory performance reviews. In re Griffith, CSA 41-08, 5 (8/14/08).
· Deputy’s testimony that he was joking with undercover police officer and not soliciting for prostitution was not credible where he was driving in an area well known in law enforcement circles for prostitution, circled the block at least once, stopped and negotiated a price, and arranged a meeting place. In re Griffith, CSA 41-08, 5 (8/14/08).
· Dismissal of deputy for soliciting a prostitute was not clearly excessive, and was based on considerations supported by preponderance of the evidence. In re Griffith, CSA 41-08, 5 (8/14/08).
· Even small infractions of honesty rule by paralegals may carry substantial penalties, since attorneys in city attorney’s office must be able to count on the word of their paralegals. In re Blan, CSA 40-08, 6 (7/31/08).
· Four-day suspension was affirmed for second violation for misuse of work time by paralegal when verbal reprimand for similar offense two months before did not achieve the desired compliance. In re Blan, CSA 40-08, 7 (7/31/08).
· Since the type and amount of discipline must be calibrated to what is considered necessary to correct the situation and achieve the desired behavior or performance, the level of discipline issued must be reduced to consider only the offenses proven by the agency. In re Sienkiewicz, CSA 10 -08, 17-18 (7/14/08), citing CSR § 16-20.
· Termination was inappropriate where agency failed to prove the majority of its charges, and the agency concluded appellant was incapable of changing his behavior, despite his apology and previous improvements after criticism. In re Sienkiewicz, CSA 10-08, 17 (7/14/08).
· Where agency proved appellant neglected his duty and failed to meet performance standard by not communicating important information to co-worker, a one-week suspension is substituted for termination given appellant’s past disciplinary and work record, and demonstrated willingness to improve his performance. In re Sienkiewicz, CSA 10-08, 18 (7/14/08).
· Termination was inappropriate based on one minor unintentional violation of policy where appellant performed satisfactorily in position for 18 years with only one written reprimand. In re Mounjim, CSA 87-07, 19 (7/10/08).
· Termination based substantially on considerations unsupported by preponderance of the evidence is excessive discipline. In re Mestas et al., CSA 64-07, 61-07, 62-07, 67-07, 42 (5/30/08).
· Appellant’s failure to follow up on customer request for promotional pay, causing delay in payment of $123, and her failure to locate missing leave slips, do not merit termination. In re Mestas et al., CSA 64-07, 61-07, 62-07, 67-07, 41 (5/30/08).
· Where 18-year employee was rated successfully in last review, and her manager was satisfied with her methods and performance, there was no substantial reason why discipline less than termination would not achieve employee’s compliance with career service rules. In re Mestas et al., CSA 64-07, 61-07, 62-07, 67-07, 42 (5/30/08).
· Termination was improper where it was based on manager’s conclusion that lesser discipline would show favoritism, rather than basing conclusion upon career service standard whether lesser discipline may achieve compliance. In re Mestas et al., CSA 64-07, 61-07, 62-07, 67-07, 43 (5/30/08).
· Termination was too severe where appellant’s performance failures were partly mitigated by lack of training, complexity of tasks, changes in staff and agency structure, unresolved personality conflicts, and most allegations were not proven. In re Mestas et al., CSA 64-07, 61-07, 62-07, 67-07, 43 (5/30/08).
· Progressive discipline is not required in aggravated cases, particularly where a lesser penalty is unlikely to achieve compliance. In re Abdi, CSA 63-07, 32 (2/19/08).
· Employee’s failure to correct behavior after previous discipline may be considered in determining the appropriate penalty for later offenses. In re Feltes, CSA 50-06, 7 (11/24/06).
· Termination was appropriate for premeditated pattern of false statements in attempt to cover up payroll clerk’s dishonesty after past discipline, resulting in minor financial impact on city. In re Feltes, CSA 50-06, 7 (11/24/06).
· Where one participant in a fight escalated teasing incident into physical confrontation, agency may impose different level of discipline on each participant. In re Delmonico, CSA 53-06, 8 (10/26/06).
· Hearing officer will not disturb an agency’s disciplinary determination unless it is clearly excessive or based substantially on considerations that are not supported by a preponderance of evidence. In re Delmonico, CSA 53-06, 8 (10/26/06).
· 30-day suspension was not excessive for engaging in fight with co-worker, despite lesser discipline for co-worker, when appellant escalated an incident involving teasing into a physical confrontation resulting in injuries to co-worker. In re Delmonico, CSA 53-06, 8 (10/26/06).
· Termination of deputy sheriff with long history of discipline who continued to deny wrongdoing was reasonable under rule. In re Simpleman, CSA 31-06, 10-11 (10/20/06), affirmed CSB 8/2/07.
· An order requiring remedial training is not a disciplinary action as defined in the Career Service Rules. In re Johnson, CSA 135-05, 3 (3/10/06).
· One-day suspension was not inappropriately harsh under CSR §16-20 for a single remark to a female co-worker who reasonably interpreted it as an insult to her moral standards. In re Smith, CSA 17-05 (7/07/05).