Termination appropriate where supervisor’s acquisition of free equipment replacements in violation of agency’s contract with vendor damaged agency’s relationship with vendor, her actions placed a subordinate’s career in jeopardy, and supervisor failed to take any responsibility for her actions. In re Roybal, 60-11, 10 (3/13/12).
Termination appropriate despite appellant’s exemplary past performance where the severity of her violations and failure to acknowledge any wrongdoing did not require the agency to assess a lesser penalty. In re Roybal, 60-11, 10-11 (3/13/12).
Agency is not required to retain appellant - whose duties include testifying in court and who was terminated after her shoplifting charge - based on her speculation that the Colorado Supreme Court could overturn its own decision to allow impeachment of a witness who was charged with shoplifting. In re Redacted, CSB 57-11 (12/20/12), citing People v. Segovia, 196 P.3d 1126 (Colo. 2008).
Where aggravating factors relied upon by agency in dismissing appellant were not supported by evidence at hearing, hearing officer’s decision to modify dismissal to substantial suspension was reasonably related to totality of the proven factual circumstances. In re Weeks, CSB 26-09 (12/23/10), reversed City and County of Denver v. Weeks, 2010CV545 (6/21/10).
A hearing officer is not to disturb the Agency’s determination of the severity of the discipline unless it is clearly excessive or based substantially on considerations which are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Weeks, CSB 26-09 (12/23/10), citing In re Vigil, CSA 110-05 (3/3/06), reversed on other grounds City and County of Denver v. Weeks, 2010CV545 (6/21/10).
In the case of a termination, the deciding official must determine that no lesser discipline would "achieve the desired behavior or performance." CSR § 16-20. In re Morgan, CSA 63-08, 18 (4/6/09).
The agency bears the burden to prove that the imposition of discipline was appropriate under the career service rules, and that the level imposed was within the range that could be issued by a reasonable administrator. In re Morgan, CSA 63-08, 9 (4/6/09).
Agency's prior discipline, when considered as part of the same series of current offenses, impermissibly subjects appellant to double discipline for such prior acts. In re Morgan, CSA 63-08, 18 (4/6/09).
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 Rogers, CSA 57-07, 7 (3/18/08).
An employee’s steadfast refusal to acknowledge a need for improvement despite numerous mistakes and an extensive disciplinary history has been held to justify dismissal. In re Rogers, CSA 57-07, 7 (3/18/08), citing In re Diaz, CSB 72-06, 3 (5/17/07).
Agency’s termination of a deputy sheriff who continues to deny wrongdoing in the face of strong evidence to the contrary has been upheld. In re Rogers, CSA 57-07, 7-8 (3/18/08), citing In re Simpleman, CSA 31-06, 10-11 (10/20/06), affirmed In re Simpleman, CSB 31-06 (8/2/07).
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).
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).
An order requiring remedial training is not a disciplinary action as defined in the Career Service Rules. In re Johnson, CSA 135-05, 3 (Order 3/10/06) (decided under former §16-20).
Career Service Rules require progressive discipline to correct inappropriate behavior or performance. In re Diaz, CSA 92-05, 10 (1/31/06) (decided under former §16-10).
Discipline must be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense, 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) (decided under former §16-10).
In determining whether the discipline is within the range of reasonable alternatives available to a reasonable, prudent administrator, the hearing officer will not disturb the agency’s determination of the severity of discipline unless it is clearly excessive 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 Armbruster, CSB 377-01 (3/22/02).
Past discipline that is not reversed on appeal is presumed valid. In re Garcia, CSA 175-04, 8 (7/12/05).
OHR Employee Relations Unit
201 W. Colfax Ave., Dept 412
Denver, CO 80202
For general employee relations questions contact:
For ADA questions contact:
To leave a message, please call: