Issue: Qualification; Discipline/Group III Termination; Discrimination/Sex; Ruling Date: July 17, 2001; Ruling #2001-114; Agency: Department of Juvenile Justice; Outcome: Qualified

In the matter of Department of Juvenile Justice/ No. 2001-114
July 17, 2001

The grievant has requested a ruling on whether her April 2, 2001 grievance with the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) qualifies for a hearing. In this grievance, the grievant claims that she was wrongfully terminated and discriminated against on the basis of sex. At the qualification step, the agency head qualified the issue of wrongful termination for hearing, but responded that the issue of discrimination does not qualify. For the reasons discussed below, the issue of discrimination is also qualified for hearing and both issues will be heard together by one hearing officer.

The grievant was employed as a Juvenile Corrections Lieutenant. On April 2, 2001, the grievant was issued a Group III Written Notice and terminated for falsifying time records and leaving the work site without permission. On the same date, the grievant initiated this grievance challenging her termination as wrongful and discriminatory. As stated, the issue of wrongful termination has already automatically qualified for a hearing. The grievant also claims that she was discriminated against because she is female and was the only supervisor to be terminated for these offenses, while similarly situated male employees were treated less severely for the same conduct. In addition, in the attachments to her grievance, the grievant claims that there was a disparity in training on timekeeping between her and similarly situated male employees.

It has been the practice of this Department to qualify claims presented separately within a grievance, or multiple grievances, when doing so promotes a more comprehensive understanding of the disputed issues.¹ This is such a case. The issue of discrimination based on sex is central to the grievant’s claim of wrongful termination. Thus, the factual issues presented by each claim are significantly intertwined. Indeed, it appears that the claim of discrimination is subsumed in the wrongful termination claim. In any event, a hearing officer will already be appointed to determine whether the termination was warranted and appropriate under the circumstances. It is therefore reasonable under the circumstances of this case for the hearing officer to review as well the issue of whether the grievant’s termination constitutes discrimination based on her sex.

At hearing, the agency will have the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the April 2001 termination was "warranted and appropriate under the circumstances." ²The hearing officer may either uphold, reduce, or rescind the termination.³ With respect to her discrimination claim, the grievant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her termination was discriminatory.⁴

Neil A.G. McPhie, Esquire
Director

Jeffrey L. Payne
Employment Relations Consultant