 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Souther v. New River Area Mental Health Development Disabilities and Substance Abuse Program2/6/2001
Resources, 119 N.C. App. 644, 651, 459 S.E.2d 820, 824 (1995). If petitioner fails to meet her burden for either of the reasons given for her termination, respondent's decision should stand.
The 15 September 1993 Meeting
On 13 September 1993, Randy Johnson (Johnson), petitioner's immediate supervisor, met with Mr. and Mrs. Jenkins to discuss their relationship with petitioner. Mr. Jenkins acknowledged making some of the remarks of which petitioner had complained, but stated that he was joking and that he thought he and petitioner were good enough friends that he could banter with her. After this meeting, Johnson spoke with Suzanne Tate (Tate), his supervisor, and they decided to meet with petitioner in an attempt to resolve the situation. Accordingly, on 14 September 1993, Dorothy Beamon (Beamon), Area Director and supervisor of New River's health programs, telephoned petitioner to set up a meeting for the next day. Johnson was present when Beamon made the call, and he understood that petitioner would attend the meeting. However, petitioner did not show up on 15 September 1993; when Beamon called petitioner after waiting for her for thirty minutes, petitioner refused to attend.
At the hearing, when asked about the 15 September meeting, petitioner stated that Beamon called her on the fifteenth and sounded "angry and upset." Beamon "made statement about the meeting, and I told her I didn't know anything about a meeting." On cross-examination, she likewise stated that although she did remember Beamon calling her, she did not recall being asked to attend a meeting on the fifteenth. When asked why petitioner attended the 20 September meeting but not the 15 September meeting, petitioner couldn't "recall."
However, under continued questioning, petitioner finally admitted that she knew that the meeting had been scheduled and had decided not to attend: "I knew that if I went, it was going to be one person, me, against the three of them, and I was scared." The following colloquy then occurred:
Q. All right, Ms. Souther, it is true then that you were asked to be at a meeting by your employer on September the 15th and that you did not attend that meeting?
A. Yes, sir.
A. I was given a copy when hired of the State Employee's Grievance Policy. According to that, my first meeting will be with my immediate supervisor. When she called, she was angry, and I asked her to talk to Randy on what it was about. She was very, very, very angry at me.
Q. Okay. So, your reason for ignoring your employer's request that you attend a meeting on the 15th day of September was because she was angry when she called you --
A. Yes, sir.
Q. -- and asked you to come?
A. Yes, sir.
On redirect examination, petitioner testified further:
Q. Why did you not go to [the 15 September] meeting?
A. Because when Ms. Beamon called me about the September 15th meeting, she was very unpleasant. She was rude. She was very angry. I asked her to talk to Randy so she would understand what had happened, and she said Randy was with her in her office and that she did not believe anything and wanted me to meet with all three. I felt like -- at that point, I was scared of losing my job when I heard her anger. I didn't think that I could handle all three of them. I knew if I met with them -- whatever took place in the meeting, the three of them would agree on what was said and on what was not. I asked [an attorney] to go with me simply to hear what took place.
Additionally, as part of her case, petitioner offered into evidence her handwritten position letter to the Equal
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 North Carolina Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|