Opinion ID: 2641219
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Lobato’s Termination

Text: According to Carlos Romero, the incident involving Norvelle “was the trigger point” that made him decide to dismiss Lobato within the probationary period. Id. at 341. Romero emphasized that the decision to fire Lobato “was my decision all by myself,” though he received advice from Bentley and legal counsel. Id. at 341. Lobato was served with a notice of dismissal on December 17, 2008. In the notice, NMED relied on State Personnel Rule 1.7.11.11, which states: Probationers and employees in emergency or temporary status may be suspended, demoted, or dismissed effective immediately with written notice and without right of appeal to the Board. The written notice shall advise the employee of the conduct, actions, or omissions which resulted in the suspension, demotion, or dismissal. Id. at 90. The notice then set forth five grounds for dismissal: (1) Lobato was untruthful in his employment application by failing to disclose he had left his position as an investigator at the public defender’s office; (2) he lied about staying in a hotel in February 2008 in order to receive a per diem reimbursement; (3) he did not cooperate with the investigation related to the per diem matter; (4) -7- he disregarded orders from and argued with his supervisor Norvelle; and (5) he was rude or otherwise unprofessional to many NMED employees and to an unidentified member of the public.