Notice of discharge was adequate where it incorporated by reference a detailed analysis of the appellant's performance in an employe evaluation form. Finnegan v. State Pers. Bd., Dane County Circuit Court, 164-096, 7/19/79

Where the notice of discharge specifically spelled out the respects in which petitioner's work was inefficient and failed to meet the requirements of her job, it met due process procedural standards. Zehner v. State (Pers. Bd.), Dane County Circuit Court, 156-399,2/20/78

The discharge notice need not indicate why and how the respondent selected discharge as the appropriate level of discipline. Thostenson v. DHSS, 85-0229-PC, 4/16/86

The discharge letter need not be so specific as to provide answers to all questions that an appellant may pose regarding the basis for the discharge. The employing agency is not required to attach a copy of its disciplinary investigation file to the discharge letter, nor is the agency required to provide the appellant with an analysis of the rule under which the discipline was imposed or a history of that rule. The employing agency is not required to anticipate the defenses that an employe may advance and to provide in the discharge letter, all those facts that are necessary to those defenses. Thostenson v. DHSS, 85-0229-PC, 4/16/86

A discharge letter that alleged the appellant's conduct violated Wisconsin's misconduct in public office statute (§946.12, Stats.) and 7 U.S.C. §2024 was found sufficient. The respondent was not required to specify the subsections or phrases of the statutes that were alleged to have been violated. Thostenson v. DHSS, 85-0229-PC, 4/16/86

A discharge letter alleging that the appellant had taken food stamps from her place of employment to her apartment did not have to state the precise date the food stamps were transferred to the apartment because the date of the transfer is not a basis for the discharge action and its absence does not effectively prevent the appellant from preparing a defense. Thostenson v. DHSS, 85-0229-PC, 4/16/86

Where the letter of termination cited eight grounds for imposing discipline, the first seven referred to letters or merit ratings which were provided to the appellant in written form when initially issued and were also placed in the record at the hearing, the letter as a whole provided adequate notice to the appellant despite the conclusion that the eighth reason cited in the letter, if viewed alone, would not have provided sufficient notice. Fauber v. DOR, 82-138-PC, 8/21/84; affirmed by Milwaukee County Circuit Court, Fauber v. State Pers. Comm., 649-551, 10/8/85

The letter of suspension issued under the signature of the employe's direct supervisor was not defective under §230.34(l)(b), Stats., where the appointing authority had engaged in prior discussions regarding the recommendation to suspend the appellant and had issued a memo of concurrence prior to the effective date of the suspension. Plasterer v. DOT, 83-0007-PC, 9/28/83

The letter informing the appellant of his discharge from employment as a Planning Analyst 3 provided adequate notice of the reasons therefore as against the argument that it was insufficiently specific where although the letter referred in general terms to inadequacies in "conceptual skills, analytical skills, program knowledge, timeliness and writing skills," it also indicated that these inadequacies previously had been brought to his attention through evaluations and other communications from his supervisors over a certain period of time, and the totality of the circumstances established that the appellant, a professional employe, in fact had been well aware of the specific reasons assigned by his employer for his discharge. Anand v. DHSS, 82-136-PC, 3/17/83

It was held that the notice of suspension was adequate where the detailed nature of the appeal and the questions raised therein made it clear that the appellant had actual notice of what was alleged to have occurred but was not certain of exactly what part of that conduct was deemed to have been improper, citing State ex rel. Deluca v. Common Council, 72 Wis. 2d 672 , 679-680, 242 N.W. 2d 689 (1976). Hess v. DNR, 79-203-PC, 12/4/79

201.04 Notice determining the issues

Misconduct for which the appellant was not charged in the letter of suspension cannot serve as the basis for discipline. Powers v. UW, 88-0029-PC, 5/10/90; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court, Powers v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 90 CV 3023, 2/12/91

201.05 Amendment of notice

Those paragraphs of appellant's discharge notice found to be insufficiently specific to permit the appellant to prepare a defense were stricken. However, because most of the charges contained in the notice were either sufficient or unchallenged, respondent was provided 20 days to amend those portions of the notice found to be insufficient. Bents v. Comm. of Banking, 86-0193-PC, 5/28/87

Respondent was not permitted to amend a discharge letter, after the appeal was filed, to add additional charges, despite the general liberality in permitting amendments to pleadings. The amendment requested would be an explicit violation of §§230.34(l)(a) and (b), Stats., and §Pers 23.01, Wis. Adm. Code. Alff v. DOR, 78-227-PC, 3/8/79

202.02 Tardiness and/or absence

Just cause existed for the decision to discharge appellant, an Inmate Complaint Investigator at a correctional institution, due to an absenteeism violation (for taking leave when appellant had no remaining leave) and two misconduct violations (for not using time off work for the purpose requested, for failing to report to work as previously promised, for failing to notify the institution when she was going to be absent, for being insubordinate when refusing to provide her supervisor with the name of her mental health professional and for refusing to return to her supervisor's office as directed) where appellant had three other misconduct violations in the previous 12 months as well as two other absenteeism violations during the same period. Garner v. DOC, 94-0031-PC, 11/22/94; affirmed Milwaukee County Circuit Court, Garner v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 94-CV-013477, 11/28/95

Where the appellant had been unable to work at all for an extended period due to medical reasons, and there was no foreseeable change in status, there was just cause for discharge. Passer v. DOC, 90-0063-PC-ER, etc., 9/18/92

Appellant's one day suspension was upheld where he was tardy on 5 days during a 12 month period, the respondent's written policy called for a suspension upon the 5th incident of tardiness and the appellant's supervisor was uniform in administering the tardiness policy in her work unit. Appellant's supervisor did not control whether employes in other work units were allowed to use leave time to cover tardiness. Fofana v. DHSS, 88-0150-PC, 1/10/90

There was just cause for appellant's discharge where she had previously been reprimanded and suspended for tardiness and when she was subsequently tardy on 28 of 46 work days. Appellant was also found to have performance deficiencies. Welke v. UW-Milwaukee, 81-51-PC, 12/22/83

Thirty day suspension was upheld where appellant was absent from his assigned duties in an excessive manner for coffee breaks, lunches, etc., and where appellant had purchased a radio from the wife of an inmate despite knowing the transaction was forbidden by administrative policy. However, appellant was not guilty of "failing to provide accurate information" where he had refused to acknowledge daily absences of 1 to 3 hours when questioned and his explanation as to why he was absent for the one hour a day that he acknowledged was considered an unacceptable response by management. Baxter v. DHSS, 82-85-PC, 8/31/83

The failure of certain employes to notify the institution that they would not return to work at the normal time after lunch provided just cause for discipline regardless of whether this was covered by a disseminated institutional policy, inasmuch as they knew or should have known that such failure might well create problems at the institution. Bender et al. v. DHSS, 81-382, 383, 384-PC, 3/19/82

202.03 Insubordination; failure to follow orders

If the employer makes a reasonable request for an employe to attend a medical examination and the employe refuses, the employer must possess the power to enforce their order. To the extent §230.37(2), Stats., is read to require a balancing of the appointing authority's interest, served by an order that an employe submit to a medical examination, and the employe's constitutionally protected privacy rights, there is a legitimate public interest in assuring that an employe, who is being sent out of the office and into the public realm in order to evaluate various agencies which deal with the employing agency, is mentally capable and fit for employment, for both reasons of security and of efficiency. Haney v. Wis. Pers. Comm., Dane County Circuit Court, 95-CV-0867, 2/15/96

A five day suspension of the director of a treatment program for adolescent patients at a mental health institution was affirmed where the employe knew from his supervisor that he should not proceed with a plan to have a patient discharged to live in his home without obtaining an exception to the staff/patient relationships policy but the employe went ahead with a 30 day placement of the patient in his home on an extended pass. The employe willfully disregarded his supervisor’s instruction which created liability exposure for the institution and set a poor example for the other staff in the program over which the employe had management responsibilities. The employe’s conduct had the potential to compromise his ability to insist that other program staff follow the work rules applicable to them. The length of the suspension was not unreasonable as a means of achieving the goal that similar conduct not recur. While stressful factors present in the workplace may have contributed to the exercise of poor judgment by the employe, they did not excuse creating a serious potential liability for the institution. Malesevich v. DHSS, 96-0087-PC, 3/26/97

There was just cause for three day and seven day suspensions of the appellant as well as his discharge where, over the course of a month, he refused to submit to each of three psychological evaluations scheduled for him by respondent under §230.37(2), Stats., where respondent reasonably believed that appellant demonstrated performance problems that might be attributable to some disability. If the employer is unable to determine an employe's "fitness to continue in service" or "capacity to continue in employment," the only logical course of action is to discontinue such employment. Haney v. DOT, 93-0232-PC, 94-0012-PC, 3/9/95 ; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court, Haney v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 95-CV-0867, 2/15/96

Just cause existed for the decision to discharge appellant, an Inmate Complaint Investigator at a correctional institution, due to an absenteeism violation (for taking leave when appellant had no remaining leave) and two misconduct violations (for not using time off work for the purpose requested, for failing to report to work as previously promised, for failing to notify the institution when she was going to be absent, for being insubordinate when refusing to provide her supervisor with the name of her mental health professional and for refusing to return to her supervisor's office as directed) where appellant had three other misconduct violations in the previous 12 months as well as two other absenteeism violations during the same period. Garner v. DOC, 94-0031-PC, 11/22/94; affirmed Milwaukee County Circuit Court, Garner v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 94-CV-013477, 11/28/95

Where an employe/supervisor was charged with insubordination for failing to follow institutional policies concerning inmate evacuation during fires, respondent established that he failed to follow the letter of the written policies, but the employe could not be held accountable for insubordination because his actions were not contrary to the policies actually followed and enforced by management. However, respondent did establish that appellant was negligent in the performance of his duties by failing as shift commander to become thoroughly familiar with institution policies, and by his decision to halt the evacuation of inmates during a fire, where he gave conflicting rationales for his decision, and failed to consider all of the implications of his actions. Reimer v. DOC, 92-0781-PC, 2/3/94

Appellant's discourteous and abusive actions toward supervisors who issued work order and his refusal to carry out order constituted just cause for discipline. A 3-day suspension not excessive in view of previous one-day suspension and documented history of similar behavior. Drewieck v. UW, 92-0810-PC, 6/25/93

In order to find the appellant had been "insubordinate/disobedient" as charged, respondent must first establish that there was in effect a policy which appellant violated, second, that appellant either had actual knowledge of the policy or should have had knowledge under an objective test, and third, that appellant either knew, or should have known under an objective test, that the policy prohibited the conduct in question. Larsen v. DOC, 90-0374-PC, 91-0063-PC-ER, 5/14/92

Where, appellant, a captain in a maximum security correctional institution, arranged for and effectuated a shift trade without prior authorization and in knowing violation of policy, her conduct could reasonably be said to have a tendency to impair her performance or the efficiency of the group with which she worked, regardless of whether any harm actually resulted from what occurred. Larsen v. DOC, 90-0374-PC, 91-0063-PC-ER, 5/14/92

Some discipline was warranted against the appellant, a lieutenant in a correctional institution, where she ignored a direct order not to investigate a particular matter and where she breached the institution's security by arranging to have an inmate brought into segregation to speak to the key witness in the investigation. Another charge was not found to be justified and the demotion and 15 day suspension was modified to a demotion. Kode v. DHSS, 87-0160-PC, 11/23/88

Discipline was warranted in light of appellant's poor work performance, insubordination, insensitivity to affirmative action issues and other specified shortcomings. The performance of appellant as the agency's chief financial officer tended to impair the performance of the agency. Bents v. Office of the Commissioner of Banking, 86-0193-PC, 7/13/88; modified and remanded by Dane County Circuit Court, Bents v. Wis. Pers. Comm. & OCB, 88 CV 4234, 4/3/89; on remand, the Commission affirmed the discharge decision, 10/4/89

Respondent established that the appellant, an office director, violated work rules relating to insubordination and failing to provide accurate and complete information as to 2 of 5 incidents which were identified in the letter of suspension, thereby warranting the imposition of discipline. Monson v. DHSS, 87-0076-PC, 6/20/88; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court, Monson v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 88-CV-4059, 4/20/89

There was just cause for suspending the appellant for one day for "failure to carry out assignments or instructions" where appellant, a supervisor, failed to timely complete a new work schedule, and where the appellant had received numerous verbal warnings to improve her work performance and had received a written reprimand for excessive absenteeism. However, the Commission found a subsequent demotion of the appellant to be excessive discipline. Smith v. UW, 84-0101, 0108-PC, 5/9/85; clarified on 8/5/85

Respondent's decision to demote the appellant from her supervisory position was modified to a 30 day suspension where appellant had altered the work assignments of certain of her cleaning crew in order to accommodate the handicap of a crew member, despite appellant's supervisor's requirement that he approve all changes. The Commission upheld a prior one-day suspension of the appellant. Smith v. UW, 84-0101, 0108-PC, 5/9/85; clarified on 8/5/85

Filing of "false reports" held not to justify the imposition of discipline. Management had asked the appellant to prepare an activity report/itinerary for the prior twelve month period and the appellant's report was contradicted by reliable documentary evidence for seven of the days during the period. However, six of the seven entries were supported by appellant's personal calendar. Blake v. DHSS, 82-208-PC, 1/4/84

Discharge arising from an outburst amounting to insubordination was found to be excessive discipline where the appellant otherwise had a good work record, it was the first such incident in over three years of employment and it did not occur in front of any subordinate employes. The discharge was modified to a 20 day suspension. Barden v. UW-System, 82-237-PC, 6/9/83

A three day suspension was upheld where appellant, a program assistant, was negligent or inattentive in processing a certification request resulting in a two week delay in the effective date of a restoration, where appellant did not file documents on the days identified by her supervisor and had a filing backlog of up to one month and where appellant had disregarded her supervisor's express instructions to use the word processing center for all form letters. The appellant had previously received a written reprimand for a comparable violation. Roberts v. DHSS, 80-169-PC, 3/17/83

Just cause for some form of discipline existed where appellant took a trip outside his district despite prior denial of permission for such a trip by appellant's supervisor. Discipline of two day suspension without pay plus non-reimbursement for travel expenses was found to be excessive where the appellant previously had an unblemished record, and had gained nothing from insubordinate act and where the clarity of instructions not to take the trip had been brought into question. The suspension was modified to exclude any loss in pay. Johnson v. DOT, 81-256-PC, 12/4/81

The assignment of the appellant-physician to make an on-site appraisal of a patient problem and compile the case facts if he lacked expertise to make a judgment was a reasonable assignment. Lyons v. DHSS, 79-81-PC, 7/23/80; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court, DHSS v. Wis. Pers. Comm., (Lyons), 80-CV-4948, 7/14/81

Where the appellant-physician refused to carry out a reasonable assignment to make an on-site evaluation of a potential medical treatment problem and then decide whether he was qualified to judge the propriety of care given to a deceased patient and if he felt unqualified to compile the case facts for presentation to others so that an evaluation could be made, a five day suspension was for just cause. Any further discipline was excessive where appellant had a good prior professional record, honestly held a principled belief that the assignment was improper and where he continued to perform all other assigned duties. Lyons v. DHSS, 79-81-PC, 7/23/80; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court, DHSS v. Wis. Pers. Comm., (Lyons), 80-CV-4948, 7/14/81

202.04 Poor work record

Where an employe failed to complete assigned tasks in a timely manner and failed completely to perform a substantial portion of his duties for a two month period, there was an ample showing of just cause, and just cause does not require that an employe be put on notice that he or she is in immediate danger of discharge. Finnegan v. State Pers. Bd., Dane County Circuit Court, 164-096 7/18/79)

Discipline was warranted in light of appellant's poor work performance, insubordination, insensitivity to affirmative action issues and other specified shortcomings. The performance of appellant as the agency's chief financial officer tended to impair the performance of the agency. Bents v. Office of the Commissioner of Banking, 86-0193-PC, 7/13/88; modified and remanded by Dane County Circuit Court, Bents v. Wis. Pers. Comm. & OCB, 88 CV 4234, 4/3/89; on remand, the Commission affirmed the discharge decision, 10/4/89

Respondent established just cause for disciplining the appellant where appellant's work performance consistently failed to satisfy reasonable performance expectations, appellant's performance did not improve in any significant manner during the period of time she was on a Performance Improvement Program despite continuing feedback and training. The failure to meet reasonable performance standards for a position impairs the performance of the duties of the position and impairs the efficiency of the group with which the employe works, citing Tews v. PSC, 89-0150-PC, 89-0141-PC-ER, 6/29/90. The decision to discharge appellant was not excessive. Rufener v. DNR, 93-0074-PC-ER, etc., 8/4/95

There was just cause for discipline where appellant, the data processing coordinator for a division, failed to order equipment, failed to provide certain instructions, failed to submit monthly reports and stored files relating to his outside business on his state computer's disk space. Appellant's misconduct resulted in work not being completed when needed, discontent and disruption in the unit, and a lapse of funds for equipment. Gifford v. DOT, 94-0034-PC, 7/24/95

Respondent's decision to discharge the appellant, a 17 year employe, was upheld where the appellant's performance problems were long-standing and he had failed to make any significant improvements. Fauber v. DOR, 82-138-PC, 8/21/84; affirmed by Milwaukee County Circuit Court, Fauber v. State Pers. Comm., 649-551, 10/8/85

Appellant's poor work record, a prior suspension for negligent performance of duties, and longstanding tardiness problems justified her discharge. Welke v. UW-Milwaukee, 81-51-PC, 12/22/83

Just cause was found for the discharge of an Auditor 4 based on inadequate work performance. Buchanan v. DOR, 81-289-PC, 12/8/82

The Commission found that there was just cause for the discharge of the head of the state property insurance fund based on major operational problems in the fund for which the appellant was responsible due to inadequate supervision and lack of substantive knowledge. Furthermore, discharge was not excessive in view of the magnitude of the problems. Hogoboom. v. Commissioner of Insurance, 80-107-PC, 10/2/81; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court, Hogoboom v. State Pers. Comm., 81-CV-5669, 4/23/84; affirmed by Court of Appeals District IV, 84-1726, 12/11/85

In a case involving the discharge and suspension of the head of an audit bureau, the Commission discusses whether various charges of inadequate performance constitute just cause, as that term was defined in Safransky v. Personnel Board, 62 Wis. 2d 464, 474, 215 N.W. 2d 379 (1974). Alff v. DOR, 78-227,243-PC, 10/1/81; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court, Alff v. Pers. Comm., 81-CV-5489, 1/3/84; affirmed by Court of Appeals District IV, 84-264, 11/25/85; petition for review by Supreme Court denied 2/18/86

Just cause existed for terminating the appellant from his position based upon appellant's lack of competence in the position and his failure to improve. Ruff v. State Investment Board, 80-105, 160, 222-PC, 8/6/81; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court, Ruff v. State Pers. Comm., 81-CV-4455, 7/23/82; affirmed by Court of Appeals Distict IV, 82-1572, 11/8/83

The Commission upheld the imposition of a one day suspension based on four separate incidents of inadequate performance by a lieutenant in the state patrol. The appellant had previously received two written reprimands. Clark v. DOT, 79-117-PC, 10/10/80

Some charges of mismanagement by the appellant were upheld and some were found not to be supported, and the evidence was discussed. Evrard v. DNR, 79-251-PC, 1/22/80

202.10(1) Off-duty

An employe's off-duty misconduct can constitute just cause for disciplinary action when the activity either can reasonably be said to have a tendency to impair his performance of the duties of his position or the efficiency of the group with which he works or is so substantial, oft-repeated, flagrant or serious that his retention in service will undermine public confidence in government, citing State ex rel. Gudlin v. Civil Service Comm., 27 Wis. 2d 77, 133 N.W.2d 799 (1965). Jacobs v. DOC, 94-0158-PC, 5/15/95

Just cause existed for the imposition of discipline against appellant, a supervising officer at a correctional institution, where appellant failed to inform management that he had pleaded no contest to an ordinance violation of issuing a worthless check when he wrote a $20 personal check which bounced due to insufficient funds. While the appellant argued that respondent’s policy requiring employes to report county ordinance violations of this nature was unclear, the language of the policy was consistent with respondent’s interpretation that it encompassed ordinance violations and another supervisor at the institution saw appellant’s name in the court records column of the local paper and advised appellant that if the column was referring to appellant, the appellant should make a report to management. Jelinek v. DOC, 96-0161-PC, 7/2/97

Just cause existed where a co-worker told appellant that his attentions were unwelcome, after further incident, respondent told appellant that further contacts with the co-worker were prohibited and warned him that failure to comply could result in discipline, there were subsequent incidents of contact by appellant with the co-worker and the co-worker's performance suffered due to appellant's unwelcome attentions. A five-day suspension was not excessive discipline. It was not determinative whether appellant actually committed a violation of state or federal discrimination laws. The correct inquiry is whether the respondent's actions were reasonable under the circumstances. Erickson v. WGC, 92-0207-PC-ER, 92-0799-PC, 5/15/95

A 12 day suspension without pay was upheld for a supervisory employe's conduct of kissing another employe on the neck under circumstances which would have lead a reasonable person to believe that he engaged in unwelcome physical conduct of a sexual nature. The conduct violated a work rule and, in all likelihood, constituted a violation under the FEA. The offending employe previously had been disciplined for similar behavior which resulted in a 5 day suspension. Harron v. DHSS, 91-0204-PC, 8/26/92

Demotion was affirmed where the revocation of the appellant's driver license made it impossible for him to perform the duties previously assigned him, the respondent considered other alternatives before the demotion decision was reached and during the period in which reassignment was being considered, the respondent first learned that the appellant had been driving a vehicle without a valid driver's license for most of the 4 years he had worked in the position. Jensen v. DHSS, 88-0128-PC, 6/29/89

A five day suspension was affirmed for an employe of the Department of Revenue who failed to file his tax return until 9 months after the filing deadline and did not request an extension. The employe had an excellent work record with no previous violations. Clark v. DOR, 80-98-PC, 6/3/81

Thirty day suspension was upheld where appellant was absent from his assigned duties in an excessive manner for coffee breaks, lunches, etc., and where appellant had purchased a radio from the wife of an inmate despite knowing the transaction was forbidden by administrative policy. However, appellant was not guilty of "failing to provide accurate information" where he had refused to acknowledge daily absences of 1 to 3 hours when questioned and his explanation as to why he was absent for the one hour a day that he acknowledged was considered an unacceptable response by management. Baxter v. DHSS, 82-85-PC, 8/31/83

A five day suspension was reduced to one day in a First Amendment case where appellant had a good record with no prior discipline during 11 years of employment where the appellant's actions had the effect of accusing a judge of unethical conduct and where appellant had represented to a court that he appeared on behalf of his employing agency when in fact he lacked such authority. Hess v. DNR, 79-203-PC, 8/19/80; affirmed by Dane County Circuit Court, DNR v. Pers. Comm. (Hess), 80-CV-5437, 6/24/81

202.10(2) On-duty

Just cause existed for the imposition of discipline where there were 10 substantiated allegations of misconduct violating four separate work rules, including the failure to carry out instructions and giving false information during an investigation. Appellant frequently served as the shift commander for the 3^rd shift at a correctional institution. A number of his subordinates perceived favoritism by him towards a female subordinate officer. His supervisor directed him not to treat the subordinate any differently than the other correctional officers. Nevertheless, appellant continued to spend more time with that particular officer than with the other officers on duty, switched her assignment so she could cook breakfast for him, made numerous telephone calls to her at her home when he was on duty and did not answer truthfully when he was asked, during the disciplinary investigation, how frequently he called her. Bergh v. DOC, 98-0018-PC, 1/27/99

It is axiomatic that violation of an employer work rule, particularly one relating to a serious matter such as theft, particularly by a supervisor, and particularly in a correctional setting where employes are expected to model appropriate behavior for inmates, tended to impair the performance of appellant's duties or the efficiency of the group with which he worked. There was just cause for the imposition of discipline where appellant, who was responsible for supervising a textile operation employing inmate and other workers to manufacture gloves and other clothing products at a correctional institution in a business partnership between a private corporation and state government, gave gloves to various individuals for their personal use. England v. DOC, 97-0151-PC, 9/23/98

There was just cause for disciplining the appellant, the manager of a health services unit at a correctional institution, where appellant failed to obtain approval from a physician before dispensing ginseng and vitamins to an inmate, failed to document dispensing those medications on the inmate's medical records, failed to follow the preferred practice of recording the medications on a special needs form, provided incorrect information at the investigatory meeting and failed to correct that information. Kleinsteiber v. DOC, 97-0060-PC, 9/23/98

Fraternization does not involve providing something to an inmate which is generally available to the entire inmate population of an institution. Kleinsteiber v. DOC, 97-0060-PC, 9/23/98

There was just cause for the imposition of discipline against a campus police sergeant who simulated masturbation when telling a joke about a co-worker and later misrepresented the truth about the incident to his second-level supervisor. However, discharge was excessive where respondent failed to prove allegations of other misconduct referenced in the discharge letter and where a 10 day suspension issued two months before the discharge and relied on for reasons of progressive discipline was thrown out because of a lack of due process. Some of the other jokes told by appellant that were referenced in the discharge decision were not outside the parameter of long-standing accepted behavior in the workplace. Brenon v. UW, 96-0016-PC, 2/12/98

There is just cause for the imposition of discipline against appellant, the supervisor of a security unit at the University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, where appellant brought into the security unit a photo of a naked boy with a drawing of a large penis superimposed on it, showed the photo to other male officers present in the security unit and the photo was seen by a female member of the hospital’s nursing staff. Appellant’s actions violated respondent’s harassment policy and had a tendency to impair the performance of appellant’s duties as a supervisor and the efficiency and effectiveness of the work unit. Asche v. DOC, 90-0159-PC, 5/21/97

Appellant violated respondent’s work rules and an executive directive by causing mental anguish to a subordinate, using loud and abusive language toward the subordinate, engaging in conduct which caused a hostile and intimidating working environment and making derogatory comments to the subordinate about females. There was just cause for the imposition of a one day suspension, even though the underlying conduct involved one rather than multiple incidents. Chyba v. DOC§ 94-0500-PC, 7/23/96

Respondent did not sustain its burden of proof that appellant had accessed and divulged confidential information regarding a selection process and improperly shared that information with a candidate where respondent's case was undermined significantly by credibility problems and competing evidence. Because the appellant was not guilty of the misconduct alleged, respondent's action of demoting the appellant was rejected. Shew v. DHSS, 95-0091-PC, 4/16/96

There was just cause for discipline where appellant, the data processing coordinator for a division, failed to order equipment, failed to provide certain instructions, failed to submit monthly reports and stored files relating to his outside business on his state computer's disk space. Appellant's misconduct resulted in work not being completed when needed, discontent and disruption in the unit, and a lapse of funds for equipment. Gifford v. DOT, 94-0034-PC, 7/24/95

Appellant was not excused from carrying out an assignment merely because it was not in his position description where appellant had never objected to the assignment or claimed it to be inappropriate and his only excuse for not completing the assignment was that it was undesirable. Gifford v. DOT, 94-0034-PC, 7/24/95

Just cause existed where appellant, a captain and shift commander at a correctional institution, engaged in a pattern of sexually predatory behavior toward female subordinates and he knew or should have known that his actions violated not only agency policy but also state and federal law, and exposed respondent to extensive potential liability. Appellant's reckless use of a firearm exacerbated the seriousness of his misconduct. Although the appellant's mental state during this period could be considered a mitigating factor, it was not entitled to great weight given appellant's manipulative behavior and the fact that he was not out of touch with reality; therefore, discharge was not excessive discipline in light of the strong public policy against sexual harassment that justifies strong measures by management against employes who have engaged in sexual harassment. Jacobs v. DOC, 94-0158-PC, 5/15/95

Repeated acts of sleeping on the job met the just cause standard. O'Connor v. DHSS, 94-0339, 0497-PC, 3/31/95

Just cause existed for disciplining appellant, a Revenue Agent, for unplugging his phone (which prevented him from receiving phone inquiries) contrary to specific policy and for failing to file taxpayer correspondence for more than 2 months. Appellant was aware of the instructions given him by his supervisor, he decided not to comply, and the failure to comply had a tendency to adversely affect the efficiency of the work unit. Breckon v. DOR, 93-0199-PC, 10/4/94

Just cause existed for imposing discipline for appellant's failure to provide requested medical verification for her continued absences, where the absences contributed to a work backlog and required the temporary reassignment of other staff. A one day suspension was not excessive where it was consistent with respondent's written guidelines as a second category B violation. Garner v. DOC, 94-0013-PC, 7/27/94

Just cause existed for imposing discipline for appellant's action of leaving her lock-box key, which must be presented daily to obtain a door key for a high-security area within the correctional institution, at a bus stop outside the institution's secured perimeter. However, a 3 day suspension was modified to 2 days where the relative degree of risk imposed was slight. Garner v. DOC, 94-0013-PC, 7/27/94

A constructive demotion of appellant in lieu of layoff had occurred based upon respondent's creation of a new position through substantial changes in appellant's AA 3 position. Respondent's intent in effecting this constructive demotion had been to discipline appellant because of dissatisfaction with her performance in the AA 3 position. Davis v. ECB, 91-0214-PC, 6/21/94

Where an employe/supervisor was charged with insubordination for failing to follow institutional policies concerning inmate evacuation during fires, respondent established that he failed to follow the letter of the written policies, but the employe could not be held accountable for insubordination because his actions were not contrary to the policies actually followed and enforced by management. However, respondent did establish that appellant was negligent in the performance of his duties by failing as shift commander to become thoroughly familiar with institution policies, and by his decision to halt the evacuation of inmates during a fire, where he gave conflicting rationales for his decision, and failed to consider all of the implications of his actions. Reimer v. DOC, 92-0781-PC, 2/3/94

Respondent's decision to discharge the appellant was rejected where the decision had been premised on three separate incidents. Appellant's actions in the first two incidents might have been inconsistent with performance standards and Board rules, but were consistent with supervisory instructions/practice and appellant was not primarily responsible for monitoring the activities in question. The Commission found that appellant's actions in the third incident did not violate respondent's rules, nor had respondent clearly communicated its expectations or interpretation of the rule. Higgins v. Wis. Racing Bd., 92-0020-PC, 1/11/94

In dicta, the Commission noted that the appellant's telephone conversation with a female employe's minor sister in which he asked her to pose for photographs in her underwear did not violate a work rule prohibiting employes from engaging in unauthorized personal business where the respondent would not have disciplined the appellant but for the sexual nature of the telephone conversation. Arneson v. UW, 90-0184-PC, 2/6/92

In dicta, the Commission noted that in determining whether an employe's conduct was threatening or intimidating, thereby violating a work rule, the Commission should apply an objective standard, i.e., whether the actions would be deemed threatening or intimidating to the average similarly situated employe. Arneson v. UW, 90-0184-PC, 2/6/92

In dicta relating to a claim of sexual harassment, the Commission noted that the appellant did not engage in "repeated" conduct of a sexual nature and there was no evidence that the appellant's conduct was unwelcome. Arneson v. UW, 90-0184-PC, 2/6/92

In dicta, the Commission noted that the appellant's telephone conversation with a female employe's minor sister in which appellant asked her to pose for photographs in her underwear constituted the violation of a work rule (the failure to exercise good judgment) and constituted just cause for the imposition of discipline. Arneson v. UW, 90-0184-PC, 2/6/92

There was just cause for the demotion of the appellant from her position as a Property Assessment Supervisor where the appellant's action of making a reduction in a town's assessments for agricultural improvements was shown to have been largely politically motivated rather than having been based on generally accepted principles of equalization. Sanders v. DOR, 89-0076-PC, 11/16/90; affirmed by Chippewa County Circuit Court, Sanders v. Wis. Pers. Comm., 90 CV 433, 9/4/91

Where the complainant consistently failed to meet reasonable and uniformly applied performance standards for her Auditor Specialist 3 position, it was axiomatic that the Safransky test was met. Tews v. PSC, 89-0150-PC, 89-0141-PC-ER, 6/29/90

Discipline was warranted where appellant, a supervisor in a correctional institution, allowed two inmates to add a state-owned bedspread and a bathrobe to the list of the inmates' personal property in clear violation of institution policies and procedures and where the appellant made personal use of a state typewriter on state time. Hebert v. DHSS, 89-0093-PC, 6/27/90

The appellant's conduct of hugging and kissing a co-worker during a counseling session constituted unwelcomed physical contact meriting discipline because it undermined the normal working relationship between the two employes and, if observed by an inmate, could also serve as a tool for exerting leverage over staff. Harron v. DHSS, 89-0152-PC, 6/27/90

Discipline was warranted where the appellant, a Property Assessment Specialist 1, failed to meet the minimum field review quantity rating standard. Barker v. DOR, 89-0116-PC, 5/16/90

Discipline was warranted where the appellant, a shift captain at a correctional institution, had pointed and discharged a firearm at another correctional officer and had known the firearm was loaded with a dummy round. Paul v. DHSS, 87-0147-PC, 4/19/90

Two statements made by the appellant, "For me, you are dead" and "I should get a gun and shoot Dan Stillings," did not rise to the level of "threatening, intimidating, or inflicting injury" within the meaning of the employing agency's work rule, where the persons to whom the statements were made or who were mentioned in the statements did not interpret them as threats of physical or other retaliation. Showsh v. DATCP, 89-0043-PC, 4/17/90

Discipline was warranted where the appellant had neglected to carry out his assignment of inspecting a scheduled slaughter, intentionally falsified agency records and gave false information to his supervisors regarding his time of arrival at the meat plant. Showsh v. DATCP, 89-0043-PC, 4/17/90

Where appellant, a Conservation Warden Supervisor, was found to have made a suggestion to a warden under his supervision that the warden use car-killed deer funds to purchase a scanner from the appellant, thereby engaging in illegal conduct, the appellant's misconduct tended to impair the performance of his duties and constituted just cause for the imposition of discipline. Mitchell v. DNR, 83-0228-PC, 8/30/84

Where appellant obtained a first-aid kit from a supply room attendant after telling the attendant he wanted to take it with him to his cottage over the weekend, and agreed to sign out for the kit with the supply room manager after the weekend, appellant was at least temporarily authorized to use the kit over the weekend and the appellant did not violate the work rule prohibiting employes from "Stealing or unauthorized possession of state... property ......" However, the appellant intended to use the kit for his personal benefit rather than entirely in the course of his employment, thereby violating an administrative rule. The Commission reduced the level of discipline imposed from a 30 day suspension to a I day suspension, in part due to appellant's previously unblemished work record. Hammond v. DOT, 83-0172-PC, 5/16/84

Appellant's dismissal was upheld where evidence established to at least a reasonable certainty, that the bulk of the 18,000 miles driven by the appellant in a state vehicle were for personal rather than business purposes. Blake v. DHSS, 82-208-PC, 1/4/84

The Commission upheld appellant's one day suspension for conducting personal business while on duty where appellant had previously been reprimanded for such conduct and where the captain in the district where appellant was employed consistently regarded such conduct as being unacceptable even though other districts in the state may have viewed similar conduct differently. Zabel v. DOT, 82-137-PC, 11/30/83

The Commission upheld a two day suspension imposed against a supervisor for grabbing a subordinate employe after the supervisor perceived the employe to be sticking her tongue out at the supervisor. MacDonald v. Sec. of State, 80-364-PC, 8/17/83

The Commission overturned a one day suspension of a supervisor who reasonably perceived that an employe was insubordinate and then "ordered" the subordinate employe to discontinue their discussion and to follow her to the office of the appointing authority. However, a two day suspension of the supervisor for grabbing the employe's arm was upheld. MacDonald v. Sec. of State, 80-364-PC, 8/17/83

Appellant's one-day suspension was upheld where appellant, a supervisor of probation and parole agents had received very specific training as to the proper interpretation of a new administrative rule but failed to comply with the rule regarding parolees who were suspects in assaultive acts against a member of the public. Nuter v. DHSS, 82-148-PC, 7/21/83

No just cause was found where the appellant was disciplined for failing to act in accordance with a newly promulgated administrative rule and where the Commission concluded that the rule in fact provided appellant discretion in how to respond to the incident in question. Respondent contended that appellant, a supervisor of probation and parole agents, was required to direct that a client be placed in custody based on information received about the client's conduct. McBeath v. DHSS, 82-119-PC, 7/7/83

There was just cause for a 3 day suspension where it was found that the appellant sexually harassed co-employes where he made unwelcome sexual advances, requested sexual favors, engaged in gratuitous physical conduct of a sexual nature, and made baseless claims of having engaged in sexual intimacies with one of them, and where most if not all of the activity took place in a dormitory that was found to be a work environment during hours supervised by the respondent employer. Amim v. DHSS, 81-17-PC, 3/17/83

A three day suspension was upheld where appellant, a program assistant, was negligent or inattentive in processing a certification request resulting in a two week delay in the effective date of a restoration, where appellant did not file documents on the days identified by her supervisor and had a filing backlog of up to one month and where appellant had disregarded her supervisor's express instructions to use the word processing center for all form letters. The appellant had previously received a written reprimand for a comparable violation. Roberts v. DHSS, 80-169-PC, 3/17/83

There was just cause for the 3 day suspension of the appellant, a supervisor, for engaging in loud, disruptive exchanges with a subordinate, and the amount of the discipline imposed was not excessive. Pagliano v. DVA, 82-99-PC, 2/7/83

There was just cause for the suspension of employes at Taycheedah Correctional Institution (TCI) who violated a work rule by returning to the institution after lunch while exhibiting evidence of having consumed alcoholic beverages, notwithstanding that they had decided to take leave time for that afternoon., as they each had at least one specific duty to perform at the institution that afternoon and to that extent they were "at work." Bender et al. v. DHSS, 81-382, 383, 384-PC, 3/19/82

Just cause was found with respect to the decision to discipline the appellant, a state patrol sergeant, for failure to take earlier action with respect to appellant's concern that a subordinate trooper had been drinking. Holt v. DOT, 79-86-PC, 11/8/79

While this digest has been prepared by Personnel Commission staff for the convenience of interested persons, it should be remembered that the decisions themselves are the ultimate source of Commission precedent.

[Personnel Commission homepage]    [PC Digest Introduction]

[Previous material]    [Next material]