ABUSE OF DISCRETION
A decision is an abuse of discretion if it was made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis such as invidious discrimination or other considerations not intended by the governing law. In re Foley, CSA 19-06, 8 (11/10/06), citing Wong Wing Hang v. INS, 360 F.2d 715 (2nd Cir. 1966); Kaloudis v. Shaughnessy, 180 F.2d 489, 491 (2nd Cir. 1950).
An appointing authority is defined in the rules as the municipal official designated by the annual appropriation ordinance to approve expenditures for a given appropriation. In re Lovin, CSA 27-06, 1 (Order 5/18/06); citing CSR 1.
CAUSE OF ACTION
The cause of action in an appeal is defined by the injury for which the claimant seeks redress and not by the legal theory on which the claimant relies. In re Cho, CSA 01-09, 3 (Order 1/21/09) citing 1B J. Moore, J. Lucas & T. Currier, Moore’s Federal Practice § 0.410 (1) (2d Ed. 1988); Argus Real Estate, Inc. v E-470 Public Highway Authority, 109 P3d 604 (Colo. 2005).
DISHONESTY (See also 16-60 E and F)
Dishonesty is any misrepresentation made within the employment context. In re Mounjim, CSB 87-07, 5-6 (1/8/09).
Dishonesty is the knowing communication by an employee of a false statement within the employment relationship. In re Stone, CSA 70-07, 9 (2/25/08).
Dishonesty is an act involving intent to deceive. In re Martinez, CSA 69-05 (1/4/06).
INTIMIDATION (See also 15-110 and 16-60 M)
Intimidation is defined as unlawful coercion; duress; putting in fear. In re Rivas, CSA 49-07, 10 (1/9/08), citing Black’s Law Dictionary 957 (4th ed.1951).
NEGLECT OF DUTY (See also 16-60 A)
Neglect of duty infers a reasonable duty was communicated to an employee and his utter failure to perform it. In re Gutierrez, CSB 65-11, 2 (4/4/13).
“Neglect of duty” implies failure to perform a duty. In re Martinez, CSA 30-06 (Order 10/3/06); see also In re Simpleman, CSA 31-06 (10/20/06).
Objective standard does not permit consideration of the parties’ intent, rather the fact finder must evaluate conduct in light of how a reasonable person would act or respond in similar circumstances. In re Gutierrez, Colo.App. 65-11, 7-8, (5/19/16), citing Survey Sols., Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Office, 956 P.2d 1275, 1276 (Colo.App. 1998).
RES JUDICATA (Claim preclusion)
Res judicata prevents a party from relitigating a legal claim that was or could have been the subject of a previously issued final judgment. In re Cho, CSA 01-09, 2 (Order 1/21/09), citing Satsky v Paramount Communications, Inc., 7 F.3d 1464, 1467 (10th Cir. 1993).
Res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, requires proof of three elements: 1) a final judgment on the merits in an earlier action, 2) same parties, and 3) same causes of action in both suits. In re Cho, CSA 01-09, 2 (Order 1/21/09), citing Wilkes v Wyo. Dept. of Employment Div. of Labor Standards, 314 F.3d 501, 504 (10th Cir. 2003).
Res judicata bars later actions based on the same cause of action. In re Cho, CSA 01-09 (Order 1/21/09).
Board adopts a common sense definition of "willful." In re Redacted, CSB 56-11, 3 (12/20/12).
Circumstances demonstrating willfulness are those demonstrating that the action was taken intentionally, knowingly, or voluntarily, without justifiable excuse. In re Redacted, CSB 56-11, 3 (12/20/12), citing Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 1434.
CSR 9-56 requires “the work site” to be a specific, fixed location. In re Osborne et al, CSA 35-18…38-18, 5 (9/5/18).
Telecommuting is a practice that occurs regularly from a fixed location, thus remote locations where appellants were sent for work were not telecommuting as contemplated by this rule. In re Osborne et al, CSA 35-18…38-18, 5 (9/5/18), citing CSR 9-80.