Opinion ID: 759223
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Gierlinger's Termination

Text: 15 As each probationary trooper nears the end of the one-year term of probation, his or her supervisors are required to prepare an eleventh-month evaluation and to recommend whether the probationer's employment should be continued beyond the probationary period. On March 4, 1988, Gierlinger was presented with her eleventh-month evaluation, prepared by Sergeant Gary W. Rowe, the acting zone commander for zone 3 of Troop A, where Gierlinger then worked. Gierlinger's eleventh-month evaluation gave her an overall rating of Needs Improvement. Rowe sent the evaluation to Gleason, along with the required recommendation, stating as follows: 16 Trooper GIERLINGER has difficulty obeying orders and directives and has on occasion interpreted them in a way that was to her benefit.... 17 Trooper GIERLINGER attempts to circumvent authority when she disagrees with something by approaching a higher supervisor and discussing the matter after she has already been given specific instructions by another supervisor. 18 Rather than accept constructive criticism as a learning process, Trooper GIERLINGER takes the attitude that supervisors are an adversary [sic ] that pick on her. 19 (Memorandum from Rowe to Troop A Commander, dated March 3, 1988, at 1.) After recounting the conclusions of several of the investigations that Gleason had ordered into Gierlinger's conduct, Rowe concluded that Trooper GIERLINGER'S attitude and conduct is [sic ] disruptive to the efficient operation of the Station and has an adverse affect [sic ] on the overall morale, and he recommended that Gierlinger not be retained as a trooper. (Id. at 2.) 20 Gleason was required to make his own recommendation as to whether or not Gierlinger should be retained at the end of her probationary period. On March 4, he recommended that Gierlinger be terminated prior to the expiration of her probationary period. (Memorandum from Gleason to Deputy Superintendent Joseph J. Strojnowski dated March 4, 1988, at 5 (emphasis added).) Gleason's memorandum detailed four of the personnel investigations he had ordered, which had resulted in recommendations that Gierlinger be disciplined, and stated that Gierlinger interprets every interaction to be a personal assault upon her and refuses to accept responsibility for compliance to [NYSP] Rules and Regulations. (Id. at 4.) Gleason noted that as a result of Gierlinger's complaints, NYSP headquarters conducted a lengthy investigation involving sexual harassment by other [NYSP] members towards her. (Id. at 2.) The memorandum concluded: 21 Trooper GIERLINGER has actively displayed an attitude indicative of noncompliance and challenging authority of supervisory personnel.... It is felt that the continued employment of Trooper GIERLINGER would result in the needless and wasted efforts of supervisory personnel in addressing frivolous and unfounded complaints on her part. Additionally, Trooper GIERLINGER has demonstrated an inability to adapt to the semi-military structure of the [NYSP] and it is highly unlikely that she ever will. 22 (Id. at 5.) This memorandum was sent to NYSP headquarters along with, inter alia, the recommendation of acting zone commander Rowe, the eleventh-month evaluation, and the reports produced as a result of each of the four investigations mentioned in Gleason's memorandum. 23 Gleason's March 4 memorandum and the accompanying materials were reviewed at NYSP headquarters by Deputy Superintendent Jerome L. O'Grady. In a five-page memorandum detailing Gierlinger's negative performance evaluations and the results of several of the investigations Gleason had ordered, O'Grady recommended to the NYSP superintendent, who had final decisionmaking authority over Gierlinger's employment, that Gierlinger not be retained. The superintendent accepted that recommendation. On March 17, 1988, Gleason informed Gierlinger of her termination. 24