In November 2022, a City employee became angry and grabbed his coworker. The City terminated the employee, and the employee appealed. The advisory arbitrator concluded that the employee’s conduct was not “workplace violence” under the City’s policy and recommended a one-month suspension. The City Council disagreed and upheld the termination, citing the need to maintain a safe, violence-free workplace. The employee then petitioned the Superior Court to review the City Council’s decision, alleging that the City abused its discretion in selecting the penalty of termination.
Associate Attorney Safarloo argued that the employee violated the City’s zero-tolerance policy against workplace violence by grabbing a coworker. In addition, the employee violated the City’s Personnel Rules, which prohibit threats and discourteous treatment of coworkers. The City had discretion to impose termination as the appropriate level of discipline, despite the advisory arbitrator’s suggestion.
The Court found that the City had not abused its discretion. It noted that even minimal physical contact in the workplace could be treated as a violation of workplace violence policy under a zero-tolerance framework. The Court emphasized that because reasonable minds could differ on the severity of the discipline, the City’s chosen penalty should stand.