STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA



STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

COLUMBUS COUNTY |IN THE OFFICE OF

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

08-OSP-1555

| |

|Frances Brown, |) | |

|Petitioner, |) | |

| |) | |

| |) | |

| |) | |

| |) | |

|v. |) | DECISION |

| |) | |

| |) | |

|Columbus County Department of Social Services, |) | |

|Respondent. |) | |

| |) | |

| |) | |

| |) | |

|_______________________________________ |) | |

On October 16, 2008 in Brunswick County, North Carolina, Administrative Law Judge Beecher R.Gray heard this contested case. A decision in favor of Respondent was announced at the conclusion of all of the evidence and arguments by the parties. Respondent filed a proposed Decision with the Office of Administrative Hearings on January 05, 2009.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Frances Brown, appearing Pro Se

For Respondent: Terri Martin

Assistant Columbus County Attorney

111 Washington St., 2nd Floor

Whiteville, North Carolina 27602

ISSUE

Whether Respondent had just cause to terminate Petitioner from employment for unacceptable personal conduct.

APPLICABLE STATUTES AND RULES

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 126, et seq.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-23, et seq.

25 N.C.A.C. 01, et seq.

N.C. State Personnel Manual

WITNESSES

For Petitioner: Frances Brown

For Respondent: Cyndi Hammonds

Tammy Vereen

Wanda Strickland

Linda Fry

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE

For Petitioner: None

For Respondent: Exhibit 1 Letter dated March 19, 2008

Exhibit 2 Letter dated April 23, 2008

Exhibit 3 Letter dated April 24, 2008

Exhibit 4 Letter Scheduling hearing

Exhibit 5 Letter Upholding Termination

FINDINGS OF FACT

After considering all of the evidence presented, the credibility of witnesses, arguments of counsel, and applicable statutes, laws, regulations, and policies, this Court finds as follows:

1. The parties received notice of hearing by certified mail more than 15 days prior to the hearing and each stipulated on the record that notice was proper.

2. Petitioner was employed by Respondent Department of Social Services, a unit of local government, from approximately April 16, 2006 until April 24, 2008, a period of more than 24 continuous months.

3. At the time of Petitioner’s termination she was employed as an Income Maintenance Caseworker.

4. On December 27, 2007 Petitioner took family medical leave.

5. Prior to exhausting her family medical leave, Petitioner requested additional leave without pay beyond her available family medical leave.

6. By letter dated March 19, 2008, Respondent denied Petitioner’s request for leave without pay.

7. Petitioner returned to work as scheduled on March 26, 2008.

8. Upon her return to work, Petitioner had exhausted her family medical leave, vacation leave, and sick leave.

9. On March 26, 2008 Petitioner requested annual leave for April 22, 2008 to attend Court with her daughter.

10. Respondent denied such request for leave as Petitioner had no leave accumulated or earned as of the date of the request for leave.

11. On the morning of April 22, 2008 Petitioner called Respondent and spoke with Supervisor Cyndi Hammonds.

12. Petitioner informed Supervisor Hammonds that she was in so much pain with her knee that she was unable to come to work that morning.

13. Petitioner further informed Supervisor Hammonds that she would be going to see her physician that morning.

14. After this conversation with Petitioner, Supervisor Cyndi Hammonds made a return phone call to Petitioner to remind Petitioner to provide a note from her physician for her absence on that day.

15. A female who answered Petitioner’s phone informed Supervisor Hammonds that Petitioner was not at home because Petitioner had to go to Court that day.

16. On the 22nd day of April, 2008 Supervisor Hammonds and Supervisor Tammy Vereen went to the Columbus County Courthouse conducting business on behalf of Columbus County Department of Social Services.

17. While in the Columbus County Courthouse, Supervisor Hammonds and Supervisor Vereen observed Petitioner sitting in the courtroom.

18. At the time the Supervisors observed Petitioner, court had not begun.

19. Supervisor Hammonds entered the courtroom where she and Petitioner made eye contact and acknowledged one another.

20. After concluding their business, the Supervisors left the courthouse and returned to the Columbus County Department of Social Services.

21. Petitioner did not return to work on April 22, 2008.

22. On the 23rd day of April, 2008 Respondent delivered a letter, Respondent’s Exhibit 2, to Petitioner scheduling a pre-disciplinary conference for that date.

23. On the 23rd day of April, 2008 Respondent conducted a pre-disciplinary conference concerning the alleged unacceptable personal conduct by Petitioner.

24. Petitioner attended the pre-disciplinary conference and offered no documentation or proof of a visit to a physician on April 22, 2008.

25. At the pre-disciplinary conference, Petitioner admitted that she had gone to the courthouse just to tell her daughter something and then returned to the physician’s office but that she was not able to see the physician.

26. By letter dated April 24, 2008 and admitted into evidence as Respondent’s exhibit 3, Respondent terminated Petitioner’s employment because of unacceptable personal conduct for attending court after requesting sick leave for the purpose of seeing a physician for acute knee pain alleged to have rendered her unable to travel to work on April 22, 2008.

27. By letter dated April 27, 2008, Petitioner appealed the decision of Respondent.

28. In response to such appeal, Respondent scheduled a conference with Petitioner on the 30th day of May, 2008.

29. Petitioner attended the conference with Respondent on the 30th day of May, 2008. By letter dated June 2, 2008 and admitted into evidence as Respondent Exhibit 5, Respondent upheld the decision to terminate Petitioner’s employment.

30. In North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and Recreation v. Carroll, 358 N.C. 649, 599 S.E.2d 888 (2004), the North Carolina Supreme Court stated that:

. . . determining whether a public employer had just cause to discipline its employee requires two separate inquires: first, whether the employee engaged in the conduct the employer alleges, and second, whether that conduct constitutes just cause for [the disciplinary action taken]. (citing Sanders v. Parker Drilling Co., 911 F.2d 191, 194 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 917, 114 L. Ed. 2d 101 (1991)).

31. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 126-35(b) states that:

Disciplinary actions . . . are those actions taken in accordance with the disciplinary procedures adopted by the State Personnel Commission and specifically based on unsatisfactory job performance, unacceptable personal conduct or a combination of the two.

32. 25 N.C.A.C. 1J .0604(a) provides:

Any employee, regardless of occupation, position or profession may be warned, demoted, suspended or dismissed by the appointing authority. Such actions may be taken against career employees as defined by the State Personnel Act, only for just cause. The provisions of this section apply only to employees who have attained career status. The degree and type of action taken shall be based upon the sound and considered judgment of the appointing authority in accordance with the provisions of this Rule. When just cause exists the only disciplinary actions provided for under this Section are: . . .

(4) Dismissal.

33. According to 25 N.C.A.C. 1J .0604, an agency employer may discipline or dismissal an employee under the statutory standard for "just cause" set out in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 126-35 based upon: (1) unsatisfactory job performance, including grossly inefficient job performance, and (2) unacceptable personal conduct.

34. An employer may dismiss an employee for just cause based upon “unacceptable personal conduct.” 25 NCAC 1J .0604(a)(4), 25 NCAC 1J .0604(b)(2)

35. According to 25 N.C.A.C. 1J .0614(I), “unacceptable personal conduct” is defined to include:

(2) conduct for which no reasonable person should expect to receive prior warning; or . . .

4) falsification of a state application or in other employment documentation;

5) conduct unbecoming a state employee that is detrimental to state service.

36. In Hilliard v north Carolina Department of Correction, 173 N.C. App. 594, 620 S.E. 2d 14 (2005) the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that in order for conduct to be considered conduct unbecoming a state employee that is detrimental to state service, there need not be a showing of actual harm to the employer. It need only be shown conduct like the Petitioner’s could potentially adversely affect the mission or legitimate interests of the employer.

37. “Employees may be dismissed for a current incident of unacceptable personal conduct, without any prior disciplinary action.” 25 N.C.A.C. 1J. 0608(a).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge concludes as follows:

1. Under Chapters 126 and 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, the Office of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this contested case, and has the authority to issue a Decision to the State Personnel Commission (“SPC”).

2. “No career State employee subject to the State Personnel Act shall be discharged. . . for disciplinary reasons, except for just cause.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 126-35(a). At the time of her dismissal, Petitioner Frances Brown was a local government employee subject to the State Personnel Act and defined as a career State employee for purposes of Chapter 126 of the General Statutes of North Carolina. N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 126-5.

3. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 126-35(d) allocates the burden of proving just cause to dismiss a career State employee, who is subject to the State Personnel Act, to the agency employer.

4. In this case, Petitioner provided false information to Respondent regarding her reason for being absent from work.

5. A preponderance of the evidence showed that Petitioner’s actions constituted unacceptable personal conduct in that she engaged in deception of her employer after being denied leave to attend court with or for her daughter and calling into her supervisor on the court date alleging severe and immobilizing knee pain requiring immediate physician assistance which Petitioner never attempted to substantiate, either at Respondent’s offices or in the hearing of this contested case.

6. Petitioner engaged in unacceptable personal conduct by engaging in conduct for which no reasonable person should expect a prior warning, in violation of 25 N.C.A.C. 1J .0614(i).

7. Petitioner engaged in unacceptable personal conduct by engaging in conduct unbecoming a state employee that is detrimental to state service, in violation of 25 N.C.A.C. 1J .0614(i).

8. As a result, Petitioner’s dismissal was proper for unacceptable personal conduct.

9. Respondent met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it had just cause to dismiss Petitioner. Accordingly, Respondent did not act erroneously, arbitrarily, capriciously, or otherwise in a manner that caused prejudice to Petitioner’s rights.

DECISION

The evidence in this contested case supports Respondent’s decision to terminate the employment of Petitioner for unacceptable personal conduct and is AFFIRMED.

NOTICE

The State Personnel Commission will issue an advisory opinion to the Director of the Columbus County Department of Social Services. G.S. 150B-23(a). The Director of the Columbus County Department of Social Services will make the final decision in this contested case.

The agency making the final decision in this contested case is required to give each party an opportunity to file exceptions to this decision and to present written arguments to those in the agency who will make the final decision. G.S. 150B-36(a).

The agency is required by G.S. 150B-36(b) to serve a copy of the final decision on all parties and to furnish a copy to the parties' attorney of record and to the Office of Administrative Hearings.

This the 7th day of January, 2009.

_________________________________

Beecher R. Gray

Administrative Law Judge

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download