Court Opinion

ID: 9695804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:29:33.624853+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:16.633888
License: Public Domain

SCHLEGEL, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
The majority has concluded that a separate basis exists to sustain the district court in that the language was intended as a threat. An isolated incident of vulgar language does not constitute misconduct. The majority’s conclusion that the statement in question was a threat is not supported by the evidence. Employees are often angered by the actions of their superiors and will express this anger through vulgar language or threatening statements. When Deever spoke to the supervisor whom he had allegedly threatened, he offered no repeated threats or even angry words. Deever’s statement was merely letting off steam and meant nothing more. The ruling of the trial court should be reversed.
OXBERGER, C.J., joins this dissent.