Case Title: In re Gregoire

Citation: 166 Vt. 66, 689 A.2d 431

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1996-12-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Gregoire  (95-228); 166 Vt. 66; 689 A.2d 431

[Filed 13-Dec-1996]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 95-228

                               MAY TERM, 1996

       In re Cynthia Gregoire          }     APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
                                       }     Labor Relations Board
                                       }
                                       }
                                       }     DOCKET NO. 94-17

            In the above-entitled cause the Clerk will enter:

       Upon consideration of grievant's motion for reargument, filed on
  October 18, 1996, the opinion of the Court issued on October 11, 1996, is
  withdrawn and replaced with the following new opinion. The result remains
  unchanged, and the entry order is not affected.  In all other respects, the
  motion for reargument fails to identify points of law or fact overlooked by
  this Court, and is therefore denied.

       BY THE COURT:

       _______________________________________
       Frederic W. Allen, Chief Justice

       _______________________________________
       Ernest W. Gibson III, Associate Justice

       _______________________________________
       John A. Dooley, Associate Justice

       _______________________________________
       James L. Morse, Associate Justice

       _______________________________________
       Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 No. 95-228

In re Cynthia Gregoire                            Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
                                                   Labor Relations Board

                                                  May Term, 1996

Charles H. McHugh, Chair

       Samuel C. Palmisano and Mark Heyman, VSEA Legal Counsel, Montpelier,
  for grievant-appellee

       Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, David K. Herlihy, Assistant
  Attorney General, and F. Michael Seibert, General Counsel, Department of
  Personnel, Montpelier, for appellant State of Vermont

PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.

       MORSE, J.   The State appeals from a decision of the Vermont Labor
  Relations Board granting reinstatement with back pay to grievant Cynthia
  Gregoire following her dismissal as a state employee.  It claims the Board
  erred in concluding Gregoire's dismissal violated her constitutional right
  to due process of law and a contract right under Article 14 of the Vermont
  State Employees Association (VSEA) collective bargaining agreement.  The
  State further contends that the Board erred by reinstating grievant, and in
  awarding full back pay despite her failure to mitigate damages.  We
  reverse.

       At the time of her dismissal on March 14, 1994, Cynthia Gregoire was a
  Delinquent Tax Compliance Officer for the Department of Employment and
  Training (DET).  Her primary duty was to collect delinquent unemployment
  tax contributions.  As the most senior officer, Gregoire had responsibility
  for about 1,000 accounts.

       Gregoire had read and signed a copy of Section 8 of DET's Internal
  Security Policy,

 

  which provides:

      In order to avoid any possible conflict of interest, cases involving
     a close friend or relative should be reassigned to another staff
     member. If this is not possible due to location, time, etc., then
     supervisory approval is to be granted before starting the
     assignment and reviewed by the supervisor after completion.

       In the spring of 1993, Gregoire's husband was preparing to open an
  auto body shop.  A coworker of Gregoire's had contributed startup money for
  the venture, which became the subject of discussions during work at DET. 
  Gregoire's supervisor, David Tucker, cautioned her in March 1993 about
  using work time for such discussions and advised her to be careful about
  her involvement with the business venture.  He also provided Gregoire with
  DET's Conflicts of Interest Policy, which states, in part:

     [A]n employee of the department shall not use his/her position to
     secure special privileges or exemptions for himself/herself or
     others.
     . . . .

     This policy shall include but not be limited to the following:

     . . . .

     3a: An employee shall not process or otherwise handle any
    transaction (e.g., claims processing, employer contributions, on the
    job training contracts, adjudication) between the Department and
    his/her relatives or business entities in which he/she and/or his/her
    relatives have a pecuniary interest. . . .

    . . . .

     4. An employee shall not engage in any activity which might
    damage the effectiveness of the programs of the Department of
    Employment and Training or malign the public image of the
    Department and its programs.

    . . . .

     If an employee is unsure as to whether or not a particular
    situation does indeed represent a conflict of interest, he/she should
    submit the facts, in writing, to the division Director who will
    render a written decision on the matter after consultation with legal
    staff.

       In June of 1993, Gregoire and her husband formed a corporation called
  GFC, Inc., which

 

  operated as Downtown Auto.  Her husband was company president, and she was
  named as secretary.  By November 1, 1993, Downtown Auto owed about $150 in
  unemployment insurance contributions.  Gregoire prepared and submitted to
  DET, on behalf of Downtown Auto, a form indicating that Downtown Auto's tax
  payment was delinquent.  No payment was forthcoming. Downtown Auto was
  subsequently designated a delinquent account.  This account appeared on
  Gregoire's delinquency list on November 18, 1993.   By mid-December,
  Gregoire was aware that Downtown Auto had appeared on her delinquency list. 
  The business appeared on Gregoire's list in January and February, yet she
  never told her supervisors that her own business had been assigned to her
  for collection purposes.  On January 31, 1994, Gregoire prepared and
  submitted, on behalf of Downtown Auto, a DET form for the fourth quarter of
  1994 indicating that Downtown Auto owed about $135.  Again, Gregoire noted
  on the form that no payment had been made.

       In late December 1993, Tucker learned that the delinquent Downtown
  Auto account had been assigned to Gregoire.  After making an investigation,
  Tucker sent Gregoire a memorandum in February 1994 entitled "Investigative
  Meeting," stating that he was "contemplating disciplinary action" in
  accordance with Article 14.  The memorandum stated the reasons for the
  contemplated disciplinary action and informed Gregoire that an
  investigative meeting would be held on the matter, that she would have the
  opportunity to speak on her behalf, and that she had the right to be
  represented by VSEA.  The memorandum read:

     As a result of your action described below, I am contemplating
     disciplinary action in accordance with Article 14 . . . You have the
     right to be represented by VSEA during the proceedings connected
     with this action . . . .

     . . . .

     If you do not participate in this investigation, a decision will be
     finalized based on the information available.

     You are provided this opportunity to respond so that you can
     present points of disagreement with what appears as facts such as
     why and when did you plan to deal with the case, and why you

 

     didn't turn this case over to your supervisor as Department policy
     and rules require. During this meeting, you may want to identify
     any circumstances the Department should consider or arguments
     you wish to offer.  In other words, you may present your side of
     the issue.  We want to take all of the facts into consideration
     before deciding what appropriate actions should be taken.

       The letter tracked the language of Article 14(4) of the contract,
  which provides:

      Whenever an appointing authority contemplates dismissing an
     employee, the employee will be notified in writing of the reason(s)
     for such action, and will be given an opportunity to respond either
     orally or in writing. The employee will normally be given 24 hrs.
     to notify the employer whether he or she wishes to respond in
     writing or meet in person to discuss the contemplated dismissal.
     The employee's response, whether in writing or in a meeting,
     should be provided to the employer within four days of receipt of
     written notification of the contemplated dismissal. Deadlines may
     be extended at the request of either party, however if the extension
     is requested by the employee, the employee will not be carried on
     the payroll unless it is charged to appropriate accrued leave
     balances. At such meeting the employee will be given an
     opportunity to present points of disagreement with the facts, to
     identify supporting witnesses or mitigating circumstances, or to
     offer any other appropriate argument in his or her defense.

  Section 1(d) of Article 14 lists "dismissal" as a form of discipline for
  misconduct.                 V V

       In accordance with Tucker's memorandum a meeting was held on February
  28, 1994. Gregoire was represented by VSEA Senior Field Representative
  Richard Lednicky.  At the meeting Gregoire was given an opportunity to
  dispute the charges against her and submit evidence in her defense. 
  Approximately two weeks later Gregoire received a dismissal notice from DET
  Commissioner Susan Auld.

       Gregoire appealed her dismissal to the Board, claiming that her
  constitutional right to due process had been violated and that the February
  memorandum from Tucker failed to comply with the requirements of Article
  14(4).  Specifically, Gregoire claimed that, because the memorandum did not
  explicitly state that she faced the possibility of dismissal, the February
  28 meeting was not a pretermination meeting, and thus that her subsequent
  dismissal was invalid.  This challenge was not brought to the attention of
  DET and was made for the first time at the Board level. Nevertheless, in a
  divided opinion, the Board ruled that the dismissal was precluded based on

 

  the alleged procedural defect in the termination process.  Accordingly, the
  Board reinstated Gregoire with back pay and imposed an alternative penalty
  of a thirty-day suspension without pay.

                                I.

       We first address the constitutional issue. The State contends that the
  Board erred in concluding that due process, as construed in Cleveland Bd.
  of Educ. v. Loudermill,