Wrongdoing raised for the first time at hearing was an impermissible use of the disciplinary process, as the agency failed to provide notice what conduct it considered in assessing discipline, and the employee was deprived of the opportunity to defend against the allegation. In re Leslie, CSA 10-11, 20 (12/5/11).
Motions to set aside final orders must state extraordinary circumstances. In re Maestas, CSA 33-11, 1 (Order 8/9/11).
Appellant was not denied due process when his supervisor did not re-schedule meeting to discuss the incident preceding discipline. The pre-disciplinary meeting provided the opportunity to correct any errors, to explain, or to mitigate. In re Weiss, CSA 68-10, 7 (2/14/11); citing CSR 16-40 B.
Appellant’s argument that the agency disciplined him for invoking his right not to serve as a witness against himself is inapplicable in civil cases. The privilege against self-incrimination applies exclusively to criminal defendants. In re Weiss, CSA 68-10, 7 (2/14/11).
Agency's allegation of wrongdoing which was not included in the pre-disciplinary letter may not establish a Career Service Rule violation. In re Roberts, 40-10 & 48-10, 12 (11/15/10).
Even though agency established a prima facie case that appellant violated an agency rule, such rule is unenforcable if it irreconcilably conflictes with the Career Service Rules. In re Rock, CSA 09-10, 6 (10/5/10).
Lack of precision or definition in a rule does not render it invalid if it is susceptible to a fair interpretation that is consistent with the other Career Service Rules. In re Vasquez & Lewis, CSA 08-09 & 09-09, 5 (5/20/09).
The Career Service Rules provide the sole jurisdictional basis for appeals heard by the hearing officers. In re Morgan, CSA 63-08, 16 (4/6/09).
Hearing officers lack jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of Career Service Rules. In re Sawyer & Sproul, CSA 33-08 & 34-08, 17 (1/27/09); § 19-55.
The Career Service Rules mirror the provisions of the Denver city charter in which Career Service employees may be terminated only for cause and may appeal a termination decision to the board and its hearing officers. In re Mounjim, CSB 87-07, 7 (1/8/09).
The policies and rules of the city should be interpreted to be consistent with one another if such a reading expresses the plain meaning of either. In re Williams, CSA 56-04, 4 (5/06/05).
Since CSR 16-40 D and Executive Order 94 can be read in harmony, the former does not invalidate Executive Order 94’s language mandating dismissal for second violation of city drug policy in the employee’s career and agency did not violate CSR 16-40 D by relying on a first offense that occurred more than five years earlier. In re Williams, CSA 56-04, 4 (5/06/05).
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: