 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rudow v. Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District10/31/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Following charges and counter-charges between herself and her supervisor that lasted over two years, plaintiff Gail Rudow was terminated by defendant Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District (the District), a local air pollution control agency, for poor performance and insubordination. The trial court denied Rudow's petition for a writ of mandate to overturn this decision, finding that the evidence showed that there was good cause to terminate Rudow for insubordination. We shall affirm the trial court's decision.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The District is a local governmental agency, which was formed by merging the air pollution control districts of three counties. Its function is to regulate emissions and control air pollution in the area in order to comply with federal, state, and local air quality standards. (Health & Saf. Code, ยง 40150 et seq.)
In May 1995, the District hired Rudow as an Air Quality Engineer. At the time of Rudow's employment, the District had some eight employees, operating from a main office and a satellite office. Rudow's position of Air Quality Engineer was second in the staff hierarchy after the Air Pollution Control Officer, which was held by Rod Hill. Hill evaluated all employees, including Rudow.
In November 1995, Hill evaluated Rudow and gave her an overall rating of "very satisfactory" -- just below the highest rating. In January 1997, Hill again evaluated Rudow, giving her an overall rating of "above average" -- one rating below "very satisfactory."
However, Rudow and Hill's relationship began to deteriorate significantly after Rudow reported an incident involving a temporary employee, Pete Alesi. Specifically, in October 1997, Rudow wrote a memo to Hill that she had had two disturbing experiences with Alesi, preferred not to work with him, and refused to be alone with him.
Hill investigated, interviewed staff members, including Rudow and Alesi, and reported the results in a memo. Hill's memo described a personality conflict between Rudow and Alesi that had led to an outburst where Alesi angrily yelled at Rudow and shook his finger at her (though no one else saw the incident). Rudow regarded Alesi as disrespectful, and Alesi regarded Rudow as overly critical. The memo reported comments from other staff members that supported both positions. One staff member said that Alesi used profanity in the office, raised his voice, and talked in a condescending manner to Rudow. Three staff members said that Rudow antagonized Alesi. Hill told Rudow that she would no longer be working with Alesi.
Hill filed this report of the investigation and separate "coaching" memos in the personnel files of both Rudow and Alesi, but imposed no other discipline. Hill coached Alesi on his use of profanity in the office. The memo to Rudow stated that she should have warned Hill of the conflicts before the point where she refused to work with Alesi. To improve working relationships, Hill asked Rudow to use more tact and courtesy, citing her use of humor at others' expense and ready criticism of others. Hill also advised her regarding the overuse of written communications (i.e., memos). Hill cautioned that extra care was necessary in memos because one wrong word could be perceived as inflammatory or derogatory.
Nonetheless, a flurry of memos and meetings f
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|