Court Opinion

ID: 9559270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:25:23.348232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:25.687624
License: Public Domain

MATTHEWS, Justice,
dissenting.
Helmuth’s supervisor, Morna Mellor, was not initially going to fire Helmuth because of the August 14th incident. In a memo to Helmuth dated August 18, 1992, Mellor recounted the incident and warned him about it:
This is another clear example of your not doing as requested/instrueted by your supervisor. This is certainly not the first time, but I am stating clearly that it needs to be the last. It is not acceptable behavior. I consider it insubordination.
Again, on September 2,1992, Mellor reiterated her memo of August 18th concerning the August 14th incident and issued an explicit warning:
Should another incident occur in which you refuse to comply, or otherwise exhibit behavior which is in any way interpreted by me as in defiance of established authority, it will be necessary for me to take further disciplinary action including dismissal.
On September 15, 1992, Mellor terminated Helmuth. In a written notification of termination she gave three reasons. The first was Helmuth’s inability and unwillingness to perform with a minimum of supervision. In connection with this reason Mellor mentioned Helmuth’s memo of September 10, 1992, in which he asked for help “deciding the priority of the tasks you have assigned me.” The second reason was the incident of August 14, 1992. In connection with this reason, Mellor alluded to previous incidents of conduct by Helmuth which she regarded as other examples of insubordination. As the third reason for firing Helmuth she cited his failure to furnish her with notes of weekly network meetings:
In addition, on August 6, 1992 I asked you for at least a photocopy of your notes taken during the weekly network meetings after you informed me you did not have time to prepare weekly minutes. I received only the one meeting’s notes, which were inadequate, and nothing since. In my memo of September 2, 1992 I specifically asked that notes pertaining to the three weeks’ network meetings be provided during the week, therefore due by September 4, 1992. Again I received nothing. These actions are clearly insubordinate.
Although Mellor did not initially intend to fire Helmuth because of the August 14th incident, and when she did fire Helmuth she did so for three reasons, one of which was the August 14th incident, the hearing officer sustained Helmuth’s dismissal on the basis of the August 14th incident and did not discuss the other two grounds relied on by Mellor.
In my view the incident of August 14th is insufficient as a cause for termination. Mel-lor first asked Helmuth to write a memo to network users advising them that work was going to be done on the network which would entail closing it down. Helmuth wrote such a memo but it was longer than Mellor wanted and she told him to make it shorter. On August 14th he presented her with a second draft which was only slightly shorter than the first and explained that he was having a problem making it shorter and that he felt that all that he had included was important. At that point Mellor said that she would write the memo herself and she did so. Hel-muth’s only failing was that, having been told once to make the memo shorter (not twice or three times), he decided to try to persuade his boss that the memo would be better in longer form. This seems like a normal initiative on the part of an employee and I do not believe it should be condemned as insubordination.1
*1025The other two grounds given by Mellor for discharging Helmuth are facially adequate to justify his discharge. However, for reasons not explained in this record, these grounds were not relied on by the hearing officer. Assuming that these grounds were not waived by the University, I would remand this case to the superior court with instructions to remand the case to the hearing officer for a determination of the adequacy of these grounds.

. I can say as one who has supervised numerous law clerks over the years that the substance, but not the emotional tone, of the conversation is familiar.