Opinion ID: 900539
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Sufficient Cause to Terminate

Text: [¶ 20.] In reviewing a case heard first by a county commission and then by a circuit court on appeal under SDCL 7-8-30, we accord no deference to the circuit court's legal conclusions. Coyote Flats, L.L.C. v. Sanborn County Comm'n., 1999 SD 87, ¶ 7, 596 N.W.2d 347, 349 (citing Gregoire v. Iverson, 1996 SD 77, ¶ 14, 551 N.W.2d 568, 570; Tri County Landfill Ass'n v. Brule County, 535 N.W.2d 760, 763 (S.D.1995)). Although fact findings are viewed deferentially, the sufficiency of cause for termination is fully reviewable as a legal question. Green v. City of Sioux Falls, 2000 SD 33, ¶ 21, 607 N.W.2d 43, 48 (citations omitted). The circuit court made few findings on the propriety of Hollander's termination in light of its holding that Hollander was an employee at will. Yet, what findings there were coincided with the commission's findings. We look to the findings of both the circuit court and the commission to decide if there was sufficient evidence to sustain the commission's ruling. [¶ 21.] To justify termination for disciplinary purposes some degree of misconduct is required. Two specific instances identified by both the circuit court and the county commission can adequately be characterized as misconduct. It is undisputed that Hollander did not place his own name on the ticket he issued to DeWaard. Both the commission and the court were in a better position to decide whether to believe the Sheriff who said he told Hollander to arrest the suspect, or Hollander who said the command was merely to transport . The court ruled that Hollander had handled the call from Linda Vore improperly. Likewise, the commission found that Tim Hollander started to scream at the victim telling her it was her fault ... and [t]hat Tim Hollander was very rude and unreasonable and showed great favoritism to the aggressor. We review such findings with deference because the circuit court and the commission had the opportunity to evaluate credibility firsthand. See Tri County Landfill Ass'n, 535 N.W.2d at 763. After reviewing the transcript, we cannot say these findings are clearly erroneous. [¶ 22.] From our reading of the record, Hollander's misconduct is difficult to perceive as major, but he acted at cross-purposes with the Sheriff and used questionable judgment, falling below the standard expected of objective law enforcement officers. As the Sheriff testified, it came down to a matter of trust. The standard for determining whether misconduct rises to the level which justifies discharging an employee is lower than that which determines whether an employee's misconduct will deprive him of unemployment compensation. City of Sioux Falls v. Miller, 1996 SD 132, ¶ 12, 555 N.W.2d 368, 371 (citations omitted). Hollander's conduct in putting Strehlow's name on the ticket may not alone have been adequate to justify termination. This action, however, taken together with his unprofessional treatment of Vore will sustain his discharge for disciplinary purposes. Consequently, sufficient evidence supported a finding of just cause for dismissal. [¶ 23.] Affirmed. [¶ 24.] MILLER, Chief Justice, and SABERS, AMUNDSON, and GILBERTSON, Justices, concur.