IN GENERAL
A violation of the first part of this rule requires proof that a supervisor communicated a reasonable order and the employee violated that order under circumstances demonstrating willfulness. In re Hull(PDF, 148KB), CSA 78-18, 6 (4/12/19), citing In re Marez, CSA 58- 16, 6 (1/26/17).
The first part of this rule requires the agency to prove an authorized supervisor gave a lawful order to the employee who then failed to comply. In re Schofield(PDF, 343KB), CSA 08-17, 4 (10/9/17).
The second part of this rule cannot require success, only the application of reasonable or best efforts. In re Schofield(PDF, 343KB), CSA 08-17, 7 (10/9/17).
Failure to comply with an order requires intentional refusal of a supervisor’s authority, an act more significant than mere neglect. In re Lee,(PDF, 175KB) CSA 70-16, 4 (3/3/17), citing In re Mounjim(PDF, 495KB), CSB 87-07 (1/8/09).
A violation of the first part of this rule requires proof that a supervisor communicated a reasonable order and the employee violated that order under circumstances demonstrating willfulness. In re Marez(PDF, 71KB), CSA 58-16, 6 (1/26/17), citing In re Macieyovski(PDF, 2MB), CSA 28-14, 6 (10/13/14).
An order is a communication that clearly requires an employee to take certain action. In re Jackson(PDF, 180KB), CSA 21-15, 7 (1/15/16).
An order must convey to a reasonable person what is intended, including the action that is required to be taken. In re Jackson,(PDF, 180KB) CSA 21-15, 7 (1/15/16).
The nature of the conduct in question may support a finding of willfulness. In re Macieyovski(PDF, 2MB), CSA 28-14, 6 (10/13/14), citing In re Redacted, CSB 56-11, 3 (12/20/12).
Misconduct targeted by this rule is different from the mere failure to perform job duties in that knowing disobedience to an order indicates intentional refusal of a supervisor’s authority, a more serious offense, than mere neglect. In re Macieyovski(PDF, 2MB), CSA 28-14, 6 (10/13/14).
An order under this rule includes any words conveying to a reasonable employee that the conduct at issue is mandatory. In re Macieyovski(PDF, 2MB), CSA 28-14, 6 (10/13/14).
A work assignment, under the second phrase in this rule, is general and occurs in the ordinary course of an employee’s duties. An order under the first phrase in this rule is a specific directive from a supervisor to a subordinate. In re Macieyovski(PDF, 2MB), CSA 28-14, 7 (10/13/14).
Under this rule, the employee must have notice that a supervisor’s direction is intended as a direct order of specific behavior, without which intent to refuse cannot be inferred. In re Macieyovski(PDF, 2MB), CSA 28-14, 7 (10/13/14).
A broad interpretation of this rule that prohibits any neglect of duty as a failure to comply with an order is inconsistent with the tenets of statutory interpretation, that the language in the rule is presumed to mean something. In re Macieyovski(PDF, 2MB), CSA 28-14, 7 (10/13/14), citing Colo. Water Conservation Bd. v. Upper Gunnison R. Water Conservancy Dist., 109 P.32 585 (Colo. 2005).
Under the second section of this rule, an employee is prohibited from failing to do assigned work which he is capable of performing. In re Vega(PDF, 1MB), CSA 12-14, 3 (7/3/14), citing In re Mounjim(PDF, 1MB), CSA 87-07, 7 (7/10/08), aff’d In re Mounjim(PDF, 495KB), CSB 87-07 (1/8/09).
The second part of this rule prohibits a failure to perform a specifically-assigned duty rather than the general work of a position. In re Vega(PDF, 1MB), CSA 12-14, 3 (7/3/14), citing In re Mounjim(PDF, 1MB), CSA 87-07, 7 (7/10/08).
Order to handle staff communications with sensitivity and respect constitutes a valid, reasonable order to act in a certain way, or to refrain from acting in ways inconsistent with the concepts of dignity and respect. In re Redacted, CSB 56-11, 2 (12/20/12).
Board adopts a common-sense definition of "willful." In re Redacted, CSB 56-11, 3 (12/20/12).
Circumstances demonstrating willfulness are those demonstrating that the action was taken intentionally, knowingly, or voluntarily, without justifiable excuse. In re Redacted, CSB 56-11, 3 (12/20/12) citing Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 1434.
A finding of willfulness does not require an admission, but can often be inferred from the conduct in question. In re Redacted, CSB 56-11, 3 (12/20/12), citing U.S. v. Guidry, 199 F.3d 1150 (10th Cir. 1999), N.A.S. Import Corp. v. Chenson Enterprises, 968 F.2d 250, 252 (2nd Cir. 1992).
The existence of a written policy does not constitute a supervisory order to perform a task consistent with this rule. A separate rule addresses such circumstance. In re Jackson, CSA 39-10, 8 (10/7/10).
A PIP constitutes the direct order of an authorized supervisor under this rule. In re Abbey(PDF, 3MB), CSA 99-09, 8 (8/9/10).
This rule targets the failure to perform work, rather than work done in an inadequate or improper manner. In re D’Ambrosio, CSA 98-09, 7 (5/7/10).
This rule contains two discrete violations: failure to comply with an order and failure to perform assigned work, whether or not under direct order. In re Clayton, CSA 111-09, 7 (4/6/10).
Supervisor's directive need not be prefaced with words like "I order you" to be the lawful order of a superior. In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07 & 50-08, 9 (2/27/09).
The objectives of a PIP are not served without clear communication to the employee about what management expects. In re Mounjim,(PDF, 1MB) CSA 87-07, 8 (7/10/08), affirmed In re Mounjim,(PDF, 495KB) CSB 87-07, 3 (1/8/09).
To establish failure to comply with orders, agency must prove proper instructions were provided, and appellant knew of those instructions, but failed to follow them. In re Mestas, Salazar, Fuentes & Sierra, CSA 64-07, 61-07, 62-07 & 67-07, 27 (5/30/08), citing In re Vigil,(PDF, 477KB) CSA 110-05, 5 (3/3/06); In re Trujillo(PDF, 625KB), CSA 28-04, 10 (5/27/04).
Proof of intent to disobey order may be established by circumstantial evidence. In re Diaz(PDF, 432KB), CSA 13-06, 5 (5/31/06) (decided under former CSR 16-50 A.7), citing In re Owens(PDF, 9MB), CSA 139-04, 7 (3/31/05).
Agency must demonstrate that 1) someone with proper authority within the agency gave an order to appellant; 2) the order was reasonable; 3) appellant had reasonable notice of the order; 4) appellant was capable of complying; and 5) appellant refused to comply. In re Hernandez, (PDF, 755KB)CSA 03-06, 4 (5/3/06) (decided under former §16-50 A. 7), citing In re Trujillo,(PDF, 625KB) CSA 28-04, 9-10 (5/27/04); In re Martinez, (PDF, 3MB)CSA 19-05, 6 (6/27/05); In re Conway, CSA 40-05, 3 (8/16/05).
FOUND
Through its 2018 Performance Evaluation & Expectations Plan, Hazard training, and various counseling sessions with Appellant’s supervisor, the Agency communicated reasonable orders to him that he serve as a subject matter expert on its software, work and provide leadership at the counter the majority of his time, and train his subordinates; and through direct orders from his supervisor, that he perform the Office inventory personally and enforce the new policy against scheduled breaks. In re Hull(PDF, 148KB), CSA 78-18, 2, 4-5 (4/12/19).
Appellant failed to comply with lawful orders when he did not: (1) provide necessary leadership at the service counter, especially during a fire alarm, (2) perform the Office inventory, (3) enforce the policy eliminating scheduled breaks, and (4) become expert on Agency software and train his team on it. In re Hull(PDF, 148KB), CSA 78-18, 7-9 (4/12/19).
Employee who disregarded order to work mandatory overtime violated both sections of this rule by failing to comply with an order and failing to do assigned work she could perform. In re Colquitt(PDF, 3MB), CSA 34-15, 4 (10/30/15).
Appellant violated CSR 16-29F where she failed to collect payment from a customer who hosted a party at a City Center and to monitor the activities of the guests and some of them entered restricted areas of the Center. In re Rodriguez(PDF, 211KB), CSA 60-17, 4 (2/5/18), rev’d on other grounds, In re Rodriguez(PDF, 2MB), CSB 60-17A (9/20/18).
Violation established where supervisor directed appellant to obtain records “ASAP,” and followed up twice with urgent emails. Appellant’s disagreement with the need for the records was largely irrelevant; her claim that another case took precedence and that another investigator had also failed to obtain the records were unavailing, due to her failure to communicate these issues. In re Schofield(PDF, 343KB), CSA 08-17, 5 (10/9/17).
Appellant’s absences and failure to submit her Kronos time card in a timely manner were failures to comply with her supervisor’s orders to arrive by 9 am and approve her Kronos by 10 am on the last day of the pay period. In re Martinez(PDF, 261KB), CSA 10-17, 5 (7/19/17).
Violation of second part of this rule established where appellant admitted she understood post order requiring her to conduct twenty-four rounds during her shift, but only conducted fourteen. Appellant’s justification, that other duties prevented full compliance, was unpersuasive where she acknowledged she had other options such as seeking a relief officer or calling a supervisor. In re Barra(PDF, 38KB), CSA 1-16, 3 (3/10/17).
Violation established, where Appellant had been under Performance Improvement Plan to pay close attention to shift scheduling, making accurate and informed staff briefings, and to pay attention to inventory of subordinates’ booths, but continued to perform those duties deficiently. In re Johnson(PDF, 234KB), CSA 11-16, 4 (5/26/16).
Operations supervisor failed to comply with his supervisor’s order and failed to do assigned work where supervisor instructed him to inspect manhole and to prepare proper equipment for a demonstration, but he did neither. In re Lucero,(PDF, 173KB) 58-15, 4-5 (4/12/16).
Appellant violated portion of this rule to do assigned work where he failed to change filters as required on eight occasions, failed to perform repairs, neglected to clean his work area and made inadequate notes on his work orders. In re Macieyovski(PDF, 2MB), CSA 28-14, 7 (10/13/14).
Appellant failed to obey a lawful order by her supervisor to complete a virtual patient transfer when she refused to do so without first reviewing the approval form. In re Black(PDF, 2MB), CSA 03-14, 4 (6/9/14).
Neither fear of being blamed in an audit nor her reservations about the accuracy of her co-worker's approval form justified a caseworker's failure to complete a virtual patient transfer. In re Black(PDF, 2MB), CSA 03-14, 4 (6/9/14).
Case management coordinator violated performance standard to treat all customers with dignity and respect when she said “I can’t handle it,” referring to client’s physical appearance, loudly enough for clients and nearby co-workers to hear. In re Perry-Wilborne(PDF, 2MB), CSA 62-13, 7 (5/22/14).
Appellant’s refusal to return his old uniforms unless shown a rule that required their return was direct evidence that his delay in returning the uniforms was willful. In re Macieyovski(PDF, 2MB), CSA 55-13, 4 (4/1/14).
Appellant violated a direct order to return his old uniform when he did not return it by the date ordered. In re Macieyovski(PDF, 2MB), CSA 55-13, 4-5 (4/1/14).
Appellant’s claim that he was not obligated to turn in old uniforms because, in the absence of written rule or ordinance, he became owner, was without merit since the City Charter authorizes a manager to administer his or her agency by issuing orders necessary and prudent to accomplish agency mission. In re Macieyovski(PDF, 2MB), CSA 55-13, 5 (4/1/14).
Violation proven where appellant was directed in a PIP to be respectful but she refused to participate in meetings, refused to reply to legitimate directives and, when she did respond, was disrespectful. In re Robinson(PDF, 3MB), CSA 03-13, 9 (6/18/13).
Appellant’s refusal to comply with directive to leave her door open was violation of this rule. In re Robinson(PDF, 3MB), CSA 03-13, 8 (6/18/13).
Violation established by appellant’s acknowledgment that she had been directed not to attach her personal laptop to city monitor, yet continued to do so. In re Robinson, CSA 03-13, 4-5 (6/18/13).
Appellant’s explanation for defying supervisor’s order not to attach her personal computer to City monitor - because she had no work assigned – was irrelevant to her unauthorized use of City’s monitor in violation of this rule. In re Robinson, CSA 03-13, 7 (6/18/13).
Appellant’s explanation for defying supervisor’s order not to attach her personal computer to City monitor – to monitor ill sister’s medical needs – was unpersuasive where she never mentioned the need before hearing, had not explained it to her supervisor, and never mentioned it in her extensive note-taking. In re Robinson, CSA 03-13, 8 (6/18/13).
Appellant’s refusal to comply with supervisor’s order to accompany her to HR for processing to investigatory leave was violation of this rule where Appellant’s reason for defying order, and entering three secured areas unlawfully, was to seek boxes for her plants. In re Robinson(PDF, 3MB), CSA 03-13, 8 (6/18/13).
Agency proved appellant willfully violated this rule by her failure to give priority to assignment as ordered by her supervisor based on her belief that all her work should be given equal priority. In re Serna(PDF, 96KB), CSA 39-12, 8 (5/23/13).
Hearing officer did not misinterpret this rule by finding that supervisor disobeyed the order to handle staff communications with sensitivity and respect based on evidence of her angry confrontation with 1 employee and assignment of extra work to other employees just to be, in her words, "an asshole." In re Redacted, CSB 56-11, 2-3 (12/20/12).
Appellant snow plow driver failed to perform work of which he was capable where GPS tracking data proved his plow did not move during time he claimed to have been plowing. In re Gomez(PDF, 4MB), CSA 02-12, 5 (5/14/12).
Appellant violated this rule, where his supervisor reasonably instructed him to apologize to his co-worker for his conduct in a negative interaction, emphasizing that Appellant need not admit guilt, and Appellant refused to comply. In re Weiss(PDF, 3MB), CSA 68-10, 9 (2/14/11).
The Agency established appellant violated this rule by willfully continuing to make up time by working late after her supervisor forbade it. In re Rodriguez(PDF, 6MB), CSA 12-10, 8 (10/22/10).
Call-center agent failed to comply with the lawful orders of her supervisor, where her supervisor explicitly restricted her from taking unauthorized breaks, when she left her workstation, and the following day, she took an unauthorized break. In re Jackson, CSA 39-10, 8 (10/7/10).
DIA equipment operator willfully failed to comply with his supervisor’s reasonable order where he was prohibited from making contact with the City or using the City’s network, yet he used his employee email account seventeen times over a two-month period. In re Cotton, CSA 104-09, 9 (10/18/10).
DIA plumber failed to comply with the lawful orders of an authorized supervisor where he ignored the third day of a mandatory snow callout during a snowstorm, despite the critical nature of his duties and his knowledge of emergency snow policies. In re Duran, CSA 10-10, 11 (10/1/10).
Appellant’s generic claim that he was singled out unfairly was not a defense to his failure to comply with an order in his PIP to be at his work station no later than the beginning of his shift, a policy that applied to all staff, where he had a history of tardiness and he was given several reminders by his supervisors. In re Abbey(PDF, 3MB), CSA 99-09, 8 (8/9/10).
Violation of first part of this rule is established where appellant’s supervisor gave direct order to remain in his work area, appellant acknowledged order and then immediately breached it. In re Norris(PDF, 2MB), CSA 68-09, 6 (7/12/10).
By arriving late and disappearing for substantial periods during his shift, appellant failed to perform his assigned tasks. In re Norris(PDF, 2MB), CSA 68-09, 6 (7/12/10).
Project manager willfully failed to comply with order to cease threatening and hostile communications with contractors when she demanded detailed financial information or she would engage the resources of the city attorney, accounting department and auditor, while acknowledging that her supervisor was not in agreement with the demand and her demand could not be circumvented by others. In re Harrison(PDF, 4MB), CSA 55-07, 89-07 & 90-07, 50 (6/17/10).
Employee willfully failed to comply with order to send director a contract issues log when she instead sent emails and copies of the contracts themselves, and did not send log until three weeks later, requiring her supervisor, in order to avoid further delay, to discuss the issues with the contractor without the log. In re Harrison(PDF, 4MB), CSA 55-07, 89-07 & 90-07, 51 (6/17/10).
A supervisor’s explicit directive forbidding overtime for attending after-work meeting was a lawful order under this rule. In re Clayton, CSA 111-09, 7 (4/6/10).
Appellant’s claim for overtime pay to attend after-work meetings was a failure to comply with an order prohibiting overtime for meetings where she evaded the order by submitting it to a fill-in supervisor, claimed the order was ambiguous, and changed her explanation several times. In re Clayton, CSA 111-09, 6 (4/6/10).
Supervisor failed to do assigned work where he engaged in personal business and went home during working hours instead of supervising and meeting with his crew. In re Valdez(PDF, 2MB), CSA 90-09, 6 (3/1/10).
Appellant deputy sheriff's continued arguing with supervisor after receiving direct, lawful order prohibiting her conduct, was a violation of department order against disrespecting supervisor under this rule. In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07 & 50-08, 6 (2/27/09).
Appellant violated rule when he parked in restricted space using non-compliant disabled veteran license plates after being advised repeatedly of reasonable parking restrictions by his supervisors, by a friend, and after being given a warning for a first violation. In re Owens(PDF, 469KB), CSA 69-08, 3-4 (2/6/09).
The first element of this violation, communication of a reasonable order by a supervisor, is proven by appellant’s acknowledgment he received pertinent handbook containing parking instructions, in conjunction with supervisor’s directives on parking restrictions at appellant’s orientation. In re Owens(PDF, 469KB), CSA 69-08, 4 (2/6/09).
The second element needing proof, violation of a supervisor’s order, was established: where appellant claimed his disabled veteran plates should allow him to park in restricted space, but he did not dispute agency evidence that such plates do not meet its requirements; appellant claimed he had a valid handicap placard, but his claim was rebutted by his own friend as well as other employees; appellant claimed agency supervisor told him he could park in restricted space, but supervisor rebutted that testimony and appellant raised claim only after pre-disciplinary meeting. In re Owens(PDF, 469KB), CSA 69-08, 4-5 (2/6/09).
The third element proven, circumstances demonstrating willfulness, was established where appellant claimed he was unaware of parking restrictions but: he acknowledged having received supervisor’s letter explaining parking restrictions; parking restrictions were explained to him on his first day of work; he never asked for parking accommodations before being cited; he disregarded his friend’s warning about parking in disabled space; and even after supervisor showed appellant where he could park, appellant parked in handicap space the next day. In re Owens(PDF, 469KB), CSA 69-08, 5 (2/6/09).
Supervisor’s orders to sever ties with outside employer within ninety days, request written permission to compete with employer, and require an employee not to renew contract with outside employer were reasonable regulation of outside employment. In re Sawyer & Sproul(PDF, 1MB), CSA 33-08 & 34-08, 9-10 (1/27/09), citing Dalton v. City of Russellville, 720 S.W. 2d 918 (1986); Johnson v. Trader, 52 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1951); Phillips v. Hall, 447 N.E. 2d 418 (D. Ill. 1983); 72 A.L.R. 5th 671 (1998).
Conflict of interest that arose as a direct result of appellants’ failure to obey order demonstrated the reasonableness of the order that was designed to prevent the conflict. In re Sawyer & Sproul(PDF, 1MB), CSA 33-08 & 34-08, 10 (1/27/09).
Appellants’ willful failure to withdraw from a contract after being ordered to do so violated this rule where the agency’s later contract with the same party required the agency to cooperate with Appellants, resulting in a conflict of interest the order was designed to avoid. In re Sawyer & Sproul(PDF, 1MB), CSA 33-08 & 34-08, 10 (1/27/09).
Where supervisor approved training leave on the condition that appellant submit a leave slip, appellant violated her supervisor's order by attending training without submitting the leave slip. In re Williams,(PDF, 377KB) CSA 53-08, 5-6 (12/19/08).
Appellant with ongoing attendance issues who was specifically ordered to comply with timely punch-in policies violated supervisor's order when she arrived at work timely but forgot to punch in. In re Williams(PDF, 377KB), CSA 53-08, 6 (12/19/08).
Appellants violated orders by exceeding agency's limit of two-mile radius for traveling to lunch in an agency vehicle. In re Compos, Herrera, Sandler & Sena, CSA 56-08, 57-08, 58-08 & 59-08, 17 (12/15/08).
Appellant failed to comply with his supervisor’s orders by leaving campus during work hours and taking long breaks and lunch hours. In re Galindo(PDF, 780KB), CSA 39-08, 12 (9/5/08).
Agency proved that appellant failed to perform assigned work when she spent four hours on an unnecessary trip away from her work site. In re Blan, CSA 40-08, 5 (7/31/08).
Agency proved supervisor failed duty to oversee subordinates’ submission of audit documents within thirty days, in violation of second part of this rule, where the evidence showed that supervisor had notice of this duty, was capable of performing it, and failed to train and oversee her subordinates to ensure documents were submitted within the deadline. In re Mestas, Salazar, Fuentes & Sierra, CSA 64-07, 61-07, 62-07 & 67-07, 27 (5/30/08).
Where HR technician’s five-month delay in processing separation documents caused customer dissatisfaction and violated PEP directive to fulfill customer service standards, agency proved violation of this rule. In re Mestas, Salazar, Fuentes & Sierra, CSA 64-07, 61-07, 62-07 & 67-07, 38 (5/30/08).
Where appellant was signatory to a user agreement prohibiting unauthorized access to a database but allowed an unauthorized coworker to access the database, appellant violated this rule. The user agreement was a term and condition of appellant’s work and she had been ordered to restrict the co-employee’s access. In re Chavez(PDF, 381KB), CSA 29-06, 6 (8/17/06).
Appellant refused to obey order to discuss performance issues with her supervisor after having been disciplined for similar behavior. In re Diaz,(PDF, 432KB) CSA 13-06, 5 (5/31/06) (decided under former CSR 16-50 A.7).
Appellant failed to comply with instructions to perform several routine tasks after being given reasonable notice of those instructions. In re Diaz(PDF, 432KB), CSA 13-06, 5 (5/31/06) (decided under former CSR 16-51 A.10).
Appellant intentionally ignored agency order to cease addressing female co-workers by terms of endearment, despite past discipline for same conduct. In re Hernandez(PDF, 755KB), CSA 03-06, 6 (5/3/06) (decided under former CSR 16-50 A.7).
Where supervisor continually disapproved appellant’s practice of working through lunch in order to leave early, appellant failed to comply with supervisor’s instructions to obtain prior approval of leave. In re Vigil,(PDF, 477KB) CSA 110-05, 5 (3/3/06) (decided under former CSR 16-51 A.10).
Appellant failed to comply with instructions on attendance by failing to call her supervisor two hours before start of her shift seven times, and by leaving work before the end of her shift without informing her supervisor. In re Edwards,(PDF, 444KB) CSA 21-05, 7 (2/22/06) (decided under former CSR 16-51 A.10).
Supervisor’s contemporaneous notes were more convincing than Appellant’s qualified denials in establishing that Appellant failed to comply with supervisor’s instructions to perform her clerical duties, avoid personal phone calls, and not use golf cart for deliveries. In re Diaz(PDF, 647KB), CSA 92-05, 10 (1/31/06) (decided under former CSR 16-51 A.10).
Agency established that appellant refused to obey supervisor’s order prohibiting personal phone calls by taking fifteen calls and leaving her duty station to continue a phone call. In re Diaz,(PDF, 647KB) CSA 92-05, 6 (1/31/06) (decided under former CSR 16-50 A.7).
Appellant failed to obey orders when she refused to speak with her supervisor about work issues without a union representative, limited her contact with supervisor to checking her email every hour, and did work assigned by email without replying to supervisor’s messages. In re Diaz,(PDF, 647KB) CSA 92-05, 3, 7 (1/31/06) (decided under former CSR 16-50 A.7).
Admitted failure to promptly begin assigned duty - an orientation meeting for agency clients - despite clear instructions to do so, established failure to obey order. In re Williams(PDF, 507KB), CSA 65-05, 6 (11/17/05) (decided under former CSR 16-51 A.10).
ASA II’s failure to maintain an accurate inventory of radio equipment and failure to lock up valuables despite her supervisor’s orders, established failure to comply with order. In re Diaz,(PDF, 507KB) CSA 45-05, 9 (9/7/05) (decided under former CSR 16-51 A.10).
Appellant violated his supervisor's order to cease use of unscheduled leave where the order given was reasonable based on concern for public safety, and appellant was notified many times that future noncompliance would lead to discipline, but appellant continued to take unscheduled leave. In re Conway, CSA 40-05, 3 (8/16/05) (decided under former CSR 16-50 A.7).
Appellant's violations of policy prohibiting smoking in animal areas was a refusal to comply with the orders of his supervisor. In re Schultz, CSA 156-04, 8 (Order 6/20/05) (decided under former CSR 16-50 A.7).
Where appellant was clearly ordered to pay closer attention to proper safety procedures for securing animals four months before this incident, appellant failed to comply with supervisor's instruction by failing to close a polar bear exhibit door. In re Owoeye(PDF, 3MB), CSA 11-05, 7 (6/10/05) (decided under former CSR 16-51 A.10).
Supervisor's testimony and notes that he saw appellant wearing non-uniform clothing, and counseled her after each violation, established that appellant failed to comply with uniform policy. In re Lucero,(PDF, 654KB) CSA 162-04, 9 (4/15/05) (decided under former CSR 16-51 A.10).
Where appellant took medicine he knew would make him sleepy, set his alarm for the end of his shift, and lay down on a sofa, agency proved failure to comply with instructions to load and unload trash while appellant slept. In re Owens(PDF, 9MB), CSA 139-04, 7 (3/31/05) (decided under former CSR 16-51 A.10).
Employee's statement that she was not going to process paperwork, followed by an angry exchange with her supervisor and her departure from work without permission, established refusal to obey an order in violation of rule. In re Leal-McIntyre,(PDF, 7MB) CSA 77-03, 134-03 & 167-03, 13 (1/27/05) (decided under former CSR 16-50 A.7).
Filing a complaint about performing fingerprinting duties is not a defense to a charge of refusal to complete a different duty. In re Leal-McIntyre,(PDF, 7MB) CSA 77-03, 134-03 & 167-03, 3 (1/27/05); citing In re Dollison(PDF, 747KB), CSA 64-03 (8/18/03) (decided under former CSR 16-50 A.7).
A challenge to a work assignment by means of a CSA appeal does not justify a refusal to comply with an order to perform that assignment. In re Leal-McIntyre(PDF, 7MB), CSA 77-03, 134-03 & 167-03, 13 (1/27/05) (decided under former CSR 16-50 A.7).
NOT FOUND
It is insufficient proof under this rule to state an employee generally failed to comply with directives without identifying either a directive or the failure to accomplish it. In re Schofield(PDF, 343KB), CSA 08-17, 4-5 (10/9/17).
No violation established where supervisor’s claimed that appellant “denies simple requests and has standoffish body language” yet he failed to address those concerns with appellant, which was insufficient notice of wrongdoing. In re Schofield(PDF, 343KB), CSA 08-17, 6 (10/9/17).
No violation established by supervisors claiming appellant was “not a team player,” was “often unavailable” and frequently reacted with “pushback”, as these accusations fail to provide notice of an order to the employee to respond meaningfully. In re Schofield(PDF, 343KB), CSA 08-17, 6 (10/9/17).
No violation established where co-worker complained appellant was never available before 8:30 or after 3:30, but co-worker did not set appellant’s hours, was unaware of her work schedule, and never approached appellant about her concern. In re Schofield(PDF, 343KB), CSA 08-17, 5 (10/9/17).
No violation established where written complaint stated an unidentified person at an unidentified time asked appellant to deliver a document and appellant replied “I’m not an errand boy,” but accuser was identified only at hearing, appellant testified she did not refuse to deliver the document, stated her accuser became rule and hostile, and said a co-worker offered to deliver the document. In re Schofield(PDF, 343KB), CSA 08-17, 6 (10/9/17).
No violation established where agency engaged in “filling in the blanks” only at hearing so as to require employee guess at what to defend, in violation of CSR requirement to disclose evidence before hearing. In re Schofield(PDF, 343KB), CSA 08-17, 6 (10/9/17), citing CSR 19-43 B (former CSR 19-44 C).
No violation established where appellant-investigator refused to give up her time off to accompany a deputy DA to an inmate interview two days before trial and made no arrangements for a substitute, but appellant’s immediate supervisor testified he understood her not wanting to come in on her day off, stated it would have been more reasonable for deputy DA to ask 2-3 days ahead, and stated appellant’s suggestion of a telephone interview was reasonable. In re Schofield(PDF, 343KB), CSA 08-17, 7 (10/9/17).
No violation of second part of this rule established where agency made no connection between any of its allegations and this rule. In re Schofield,(PDF, 343KB) CSA 08-17, 7 (10/9/17).
No violation of second part of this rule established where agency claimed appellant-investigator failed to locate a witness that another investigator located in fifteen minutes, but appellant countered, without rebuttal, that she made substantial inquiries and the other investigator found witness only because police serendipitously contacted witness just before his search. In re Schofield(PDF, 343KB), CSA 08-17, 7 (10/9/17).
No violation of second part of this rule established where common complaint was appellant-investigator did not check in or assist in the courtroom as often as she should, but no evidence indicated appellant had notice of an expectation to assist, and there was no requirement that she check in during trial, only a consensus that she was not a “team player,” and her work review rated her as “successful” in volunteering assistance when needed. In re Schofield(PDF, 343KB), CSA 08-17, 8 (10/9/17).
No violation of second part of this rule established by general “expectation” that appellant-investigator failed to come in to assist at trial on her time off, but her supervisors acknowledged her right to take planned time off and her right not to volunteer. In re Schofield(PDF, 343KB), CSA 08-17, 8 (10/9/17).
Supervisor’s three-day late submittal of assignment did not prove failure to comply with order or do the work where supervisor forgot the assignment in rush of other work. In re Lee(PDF, 175KB), CSA 26-16, 4-5 (3/3/17).
Agency did not prove program manager disobeyed a reasonable work order where the order was removed months before the conduct cited in the disciplinary letter. In re Fresquez(PDF, 57KB), CSA 63-16, 6 (2/24/17).
Deputy DA’s stated preference for issuance of subpoenas six to eight weeks before trial was not an order under the first phrase of this rule. In re McKisson(PDF, 39KB), CSA 69-16, 3 (1/31/17).
Late issuance of subpoenas by legal secretary does not violate second part of this rule, which targets failure to perform assigned work at all, rather than work done in an inadequate manner. In re McKisson(PDF, 39KB), CSA 69-16, 3 (1/31/17).
No violation established where agency’s only evidence was conclusory supervisor’s statement that appellant did not do work he was capable of performing, without establishing what work he failed to do. In re Marez(PDF, 71KB), CSA 58-16, 6 (1/26/17).
The mere existence of pending work does not prove a violation of an implied order to perform that work. In re Jackson(PDF, 180KB), CSA 21-15, 7 (1/15/16).
Agency did not prove employee was capable of completing work by a certain deadline where the employee met that deadline only by setting aside all other work with the approval of her supervisor. In re Jackson(PDF, 180KB), CSA 21-15, 7 (1/15/16).
It was not clearly erroneous for hearing officer to find an order was not given where the evidence is conflicting and the finding is based upon a determination of witness credibility. In re Mitchell(PDF, 828KB), CSB 57-13, 2 (11/7/14).
No violation established where Appellant engaged in work-related experiments outside the scope of his orders, but no evidence indicated such experiments were a refusal to obey an order. In re Macieyovski(PDF, 2MB), CSA 28-14, 7 (10/13/14).
No violation of this rule found where parking magistrate obeyed directive to serve customer he initially declined to serve. In re Vega,(PDF, 1MB) CSA 12-14, 3 (7/3/14).
No violation found where parking magistrate did not decline to perform a specific directive, but simply turned back a customer referred to him in the ordinary scope of his work. In re Vega(PDF, 1MB), CSA 12-14, 3 (7/3/14).
Work that is merely careless does not necessarily violate this rule. In re Perry-Wilborne,(PDF, 2MB) CSA 62-13, 6 (5/22/14), citing In re D'Ambrosio, CSA 98-09, 6 (5/7/10).
Although intake coordinator failed to complete intake with a client, no violation of this rule was established since work was incomplete rather than not done at all. In re Perry-Wilborne(PDF, 2MB), CSA 62-13, 6-7 (5/22/14), citing In re D'Ambrosio, CSA 98-09, 7 (5/7/10).
No violation established where Agency claimed appellant failed to answer calls while on investigatory leave, but evidence was conflicting as to whether Agency had sought and acquired correct contact information. In re Robinson(PDF, 3MB), CSA 03-13, 8 (6/18/13).
An employee’s failure to attend a pre-disciplinary meeting is not a violation of this rule. In re Robinson(PDF, 3MB), CSA 03-13, 8 (6/18/13).
Call-center agent did not fail to comply with a supervisor’s order where the basis for agency’s claim was her failure to follow a written policy. In re Jackson, CSA 39-10, 8 (10/7/10).
Where the agency presented no evidence youth worker violated a direct order in failing to intervene in resident assault, violation of this rule was not proven. In re O’Meallie, CSA 92-09, 5 (6/18/10).
Agency failed to prove employee was given notice in job description or by other means that work done with inadequate customer service was work not performed at all under this rule. In re D’Ambrosio, CSA 98-09, 7 (5/7/10).
Allegation that appellant was careless in processing bonds does not establish that she failed to do assigned work she was capable of performing. In re Cady(PDF, 2MB), CSA 03-10, 5 (4/22/10).
Agency did not prove employee failed to comply with his supervisor's order to perform an emergency repair by responding, “in this weather?”, since employee immediately left to do the work after his supervisor confirmed his order. In re Valdez(PDF, 2MB), CSA 90-09, 5-6 (3/1/10).
Merely uttering words that a supervisor’s order could be dangerous is insufficient to establish a good faith refusal to perform work. In re Valdez(PDF, 2MB), CSA 90-09, 6, n. 3 (3/1/10).
Supervisor’s testimony that appellant’s notebook was unacceptable to satisfy PIP requirements did not meet agency’s burden to prove failure to comply with supervisor’s orders where appellant testified to the contrary and agency did not produce the notebook. In re Mounjim(PDF, 495KB), CSB 87-07, 5 (1/8/09).
Where appellant was ordered to submit doctor's note to cover sick leave, and supervisor granted sick leave, agency failed to prove violation of order. In re Williams(PDF, 377KB), CSA 53-08, 6 (12/19/08).
Where agency policy permits employees to take breaks as work allows, and appellants' total breaks were less than the permitted time, agency failed to prove violation of policy. In re Compos, Herrera, Sandler & Sena, CSA 56-08, 57-08, 58-08 & 59-08, 17 (12/15/08).
Minor clerical errors in daily activity log did not prove failure to comply with supervisor's order where supervisor instructed employees to use the logs to give him the general idea of where they were and what they were doing, and performance review stated employees' records were accurate and complete. In re Compos, Herrera, Sandler & Sena, CSA 56-08, 57-08, 58-08 & 59-08, 15, 19 (12/15/08).
Where agency deemed appellant failed to comply with supervisor’s order to complete PIP requirements, but supervisor failed to communicate PIP requirements clearly, agency failed to prove appellant violated this rule. In re Mounjim(PDF, 1MB), CSA 87-07, 7 (7/10/08), affirmed In re Mounjim(PDF, 495KB), CSB 87-07, 3 (1/8/09).
Agency failed to prove appellant did not comply with her supervisor’s orders where agency presented no evidence that the order was communicated to appellant. In re Mestas, Salazar, Fuentes & Sierra, CSA 64-07, 61-07, 62-07 & 67-07, 27 (5/30/08).
Agency did not prove appellant failed to perform assigned work where agency presented no evidence that appellant should have been aware of the duty to check new hires’ names against the certification list, or that she should have been aware of that duty through common knowledge or training. In re Mestas, Salazar, Fuentes & Sierra, CSA 64-07, 61-07, 62-07 & 67-07, 25 (5/30/08).
Agency did not establish that city driver willfully failed to comply with his supervisor’s order against unauthorized stops where driver’s restroom stop was caused by a legitimate emergency for which he had no opportunity to request permission. In re Dessureau(PDF, 545KB), CSA 59-07, 7 (1/16/08).
Repeated failures to complete tasks because of distraction and memory lapses do not demonstrate an intention to refuse supervisor’s orders when the problems did not recur after discipline was imposed. In re Diaz,(PDF, 432KB) CSA 13-06, 5 (5/31/06) (decided under former CSR 16-50 A.7).
Appellant did not refuse to perform a duty when she did perform it at least 52% of the time, and agency did not prove appellant intended to refuse to perform any particular order to do that work. In re Diaz,(PDF, 647KB) CSA 92-05, 6 (1/31/06) (decided under former CSR 16-50 A.7).
Appellant’s absence from her desk does not, without more, prove a refusal to cover phones and gate. In re Diaz,(PDF, 647KB) CSA 92-05, 6 (1/31/06) (decided under former CSR 16-50 A.7).
Agency did not establish appellant refused her supervisor’s order to return to duty station by proving appellant stayed at location of special project to receive training. In re Diaz,(PDF, 647KB) CSA 92-05, 7 (1/31/06) (decided under former CSR 16-50 A.7).
Agency failed to prove appellant violated undersheriff’s written order restricting use of sick leave because order conflicted with Career Service Rule authorizing use of sick leave. In re Espinoza(PDF, 500KB), CSA 30-05, 7 (1/11/06) (decided under former CSR 16-51 A.5).
Employee’s failure to keep his equipment in working order, resulting in a lack of equipment to perform his duties, does not establish a willful refusal to do work. In re Hobley(PDF, 536KB), CSA 61-05, 5 (12/19/05) (decided under former CSR 16-50 A.7).
Where the agency did not offer proof that appellant deliberately damaged his computer in order to avoid work, the evidence does not support a finding that appellant refused to do assigned work. In re Hobley(PDF, 536KB), CSA 61-05, 5-6 (12/19/05) (decided under former CSR 16-50 A.7).
Where employee did not deliberately mislead the agency by stating that equipment must have been taken out of his vehicle, agency did not prove employee refused to do assigned work. In re Hobley(PDF, 536KB), CSA 61-05, 6 (12/19/05) (decided under former CSR 16-50 A.7).
Where appellant was late to an orientation session because she forgot about it, after arriving timely for 2 ½ years, refusal to comply with order was not established. In re Williams(PDF, 507KB), CSA 65-05, 5 (11/17/05) (decided under former CSR 16-50 A.7).
Agency did not prove refusal to comply with order banning use of cell phones during work hours when the policy was not communicated to appellant before the conduct that would violate it occurred. In re Williams(PDF, 507KB), CSA 65-05, 5 (11/17/05) (decided under former CSR 16-50 A.7).
Proof of numerous warnings and counseling on tardiness and absenteeism did not establish that appellant intended to refuse to comply with orders regarding attendance. In re Diaz(PDF, 507KB), CSA 45-05, 5 (9/7/05).
Where the agency did not give appellant notice of the kinds of convictions he needed to disclose, appellant's failure to list his misdemeanor convictions did not constitute disobedience to an instruction. In re Mitchell(PDF, 453KB), CSA 05-05, 8 (6/27/05) (decided under former CSR 16-51 A.10).
When agency failed to provide reasonable notice to appellant as to which of four instructions she was to obey, agency failed to prove appellant violated this rule. In re Martinez(PDF, 3MB), CSA 19-05, 6 (6/27/05) (decided under former CSR 16-50 A.7).
Employee's refusal to sign an acknowledgement that she received a notice was not a refusal to obey an order, since the notice appeared to request a voluntary signature, and there was no evidence she had been ordered to sign it. In re Lucero(PDF, 654KB), CSA 162-04, 9-10 (4/15/05) (decided under former CSR 16-50 A.7).
Agency did not prove that employee refused to obey an order by failing to obtain needed supplies, since the evidence did not indicate the failure was intentional. In re Lucero,(PDF, 654KB) CSA 162-04, 10 (4/15/05) (decided under former CSR 16-50 A.7).