A City decided to terminate the employment of a parks and landscape inspector based on a pattern of workplace misconduct that included multiple incidents of unprofessional, aggressive, or abusive behavior toward City employees, members of the public, and Chamber of Commerce staff. Witnesses said the inspector made verbal threats, yelled profanities, and intimidated people at public events. In one incident, he allegedly challenged a coworker to a fight. An outside investigation substantiated many of these claims. The inspector also failed to report that a coworker made sexual comments in violation of the City’s harassment prevention policy.
The inspector appealed. He argued that his termination was unjustified because he had a good work history, received no prior discipline, and the allegations were either exaggerated or the result of coworker animosity. His representative argued that the City tolerated foul language from other employees.
Joung and Allison convinced the hearing officer that termination was warranted due to the seriousness and repeated nature of the misconduct, the inspector’s lack of accountability, and the risk of recurrence. The hearing officer credited the thorough investigation the outside investigator conducted, and agreed that the misconduct violated City policies, including the workplace violence prevention policy, the harassment policy, and standards of professional conduct. The hearing officer found that that progressive discipline was not required under these circumstances and concluded that termination was justified and appropriate.