Opinion ID: 2516153
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Objective Grounds Support Cassel's Termination.

Text: In his appeal, Cassel argues that the Department of Administration failed to comply with Judge Souter's remand order and to apply an objective standard as required by Tovsen. [24] In Braun v. Alaska Commercial Fishing & Agriculture Bank, [25] we enunciated the court's proper role in assessing terminations for cause. [26] A court reviews such a termination to ensure that it is not for any arbitrary, capricious, or illegal reason and... is ... based on facts (1) supported by substantial evidence and (2) reasonably believed by the employer to be true. [27] This approach thus checks the subjective good faith of the employer with an objective reasonable belief standard. [28] As in Tovsen, this court will uphold a good faith termination upon substantial evidence of an objective failure to meet acceptable standards, in other words, when objective standards of performance are not satisfied. [29] Hearing Officer Schmidt correctly set forth and applied the objective standard requirements of Tovsen and Braun. First, Schmidt properly concluded that unsatisfactory performance of duties constituted just cause for termination. This conclusion clearly comports with the State-APEA agreement, which defines just cause as incompetence, unsatisfactory performance of duties, unexcused absenteeism, intoxication, substance abuse, dishonesty and gross disobedience. (Emphasis added.) Second, Hearing Officer Schmidt properly applied an objective standard. Cassel claims that Schmidt erred by relying on the subjective evaluations of Cassel's supervisor rather than substituting her own evaluation of Cassel's performance in light of objective standards. But a supervisor's performance evaluation invariably involves that supervisor's personal assessment of the employee's performance. The hearing officer's duty under Braun and Tovsen is to ensure that the supervisor's evaluations were made in good faith and in reference to objective performance standards. Therefore, Schmidt did not err in concluding that satisfactory performance was to be judged by the supervisor or in relying heavily on Bischoff's evaluation of Cassel. Bischoff described a number of shortcomings that were cited by Schmidt: (1) Cassel's draft capital budget needed major work and had to be completed by a different employee; (2) Cassel did not interact on a routine basis with other key team members; (3) Cassel required direction and did not adequately act in an independent and proactive manner; (4) Cassel did not focus on his primary mission of fingerprint processing but rather emphasized the cultivation of alliances with coordinate law enforcement divisions; (5) Cassel would have missed a deadline for submitting a document had another employee not completed the written product; (6) Cassel mishandled an alleged sexual harassment incident and an equipment fire; (7) Cassel did not pay enough personal attention and inappropriately delegated responsibility with respect to the automation of work flow processes; (8) Cassel's management resulted in a large backlog of requests and numerous complaints; and (9) Cassel's monthly reports failed to provide the expected management analysis. Co-worker Kathy Mather corroborated Bischoff's assessments regarding Cassel's contribution to the backlog and his poor management abilities. Another co-worker, John McGhee, testified that Cassel had improperly conducted employment interviews, gave out incorrect information to the public, contributed to the work backlog, and improperly accessed a law enforcement information system (ASPIN) for personal use. In light of this evidence, we concur with Judge Murphy that substantial evidence supported the hearing officer's decision. The cited criticisms of Cassel touch on several aspects of managerial performance: supervision, delegation, communication, execution, analysis, judgment, and prioritization. These are precisely the areas that a reasonable person would examine in evaluating a supervisory employee's performance. Because Hearing Officer Schmidt relied on evidence of Cassel's failure to meet objective managerial performance standards, we conclude that the superior court was correct in affirming her decision.