CORRIGAN v. CITY DES MOINES CSC., 02-2074 (Iowa App. 9-24-2003)

DON CORRIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF DES MOINES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 3-633 / 02-2074Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed September 24, 2003

Appeal from the Iowa District Court forPolk County, Douglas Staskal, Judge.

Don Corrigan appeals from the district court’s decision on judicial review affirming the termination of his employment. AFFIRMED.

Charles Gribble of Parrish Kruideneir Moss Dunn Boles Gribble
Cook, L.L.P., Des Moines, for appellant.

Carol Moser, Des Moines, for appellee.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Zimmer, J.J.

ZIMMER, J.

Don Corrigan appeals from the district court’s ruling on judicial review affirming the City of Des Moines Civil Service Commission’s decision to uphold the termination of his employment with the City of Des Moines. Corrigan contends the district court erroneously concluded that his termination was not arbitrary. We affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

The City of Des Moines employed Corrigan from 1975 until he was terminated on March 6, 2001. Initially, the City hired Corrigan to perform the duties of a Housing Specialist. During the last twenty years, Corrigan has held the position of a Relocation Agent. His duties involved assisting residential and commercial property owners relocate after their property was acquired for City projects. He was expected to exercise discretion and independent judgment on behalf of the City and frequently had to meet strict time deadlines.

On August 23, 1999, Corrigan’s supervisor, Steve Gunson, smelled alcohol on Corrigan’s breath. When Gunson asked about it, Corrigan denied drinking. The following week Gunson received complaints about Corrigan from a co-worker and from two different property owners with whom Corrigan was working on relocation issues. The complainants indicated Corrigan’s behavior was erratic and they suspected alcohol was the cause. Due to the complaints and his own observations, Gunson convened a meeting with Corrigan. After the meeting, Gunson warned Corrigan in writing that having the odor of alcohol on his breath or consuming alcohol while performing his job for the City was unacceptable and that he was expected to provide a high level of customer service. The warning letter also advised Corrigan that an employee assistance program was available to help him with any personal problems he may be having. Corrigan continued to deny the use of alcohol. He told Gunson that people smelled alcohol on his breath because he was following the advice of his dentist to rinse his gums with alcohol to treat a gum disease.

Gunson continued to receive complaints about Corrigan’s job performance. As a result, Gunson and Jeb Brewer, then assistant to the engineering director, drafted a Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Performance Expectations for Relocation Agent for Corrigan. The memorandum detailed job performance expectations for Corrigan.

On June 1, 2000, Phil Wageman was hired to supervise the City’s real estate division. As a result he became Corrigan’s new boss. Soon after Wageman started working he began to suspect that Corrigan was consuming alcohol on the job. However, Corrigan again denied any use of alcohol. He also repeated his claim that any smell of alcohol on his breath was from rubbing alcohol.

Wageman completed Corrigan’s next employee evaluation in October 2000. He observed that Corrigan’s quality of work was lower than one would expect from a 25-year employee. He also noted that Corrigan was absent from work frequently and at unscheduled times. Corrigan signed the evaluation report but indicated that he was unclear about what was expected of him, notwithstanding that his job duties had not changed during his career with the City. Wageman did not believe that his evaluation of Corrigan’s job performance would correct Corrigan’s ongoing problems. On October 31, 2000, Wageman sent a letter to Corrigan detailing his concerns about Corrigan’s inability to report to work in a timely or predictable manner. In his letter, Wageman also noted that Corrigan should report to the office first, instead of traveling from his home directly to a work site, that he was expected to work a full shift everyday, and that he would need to provide medical documentation supporting any requests for sick leave.

Corrigan’s co-workers also complained that he was not carrying his weight in the department. They stated that since Corrigan’s whereabouts where often unknown, they often had to complete his work assignments.

On November 20, 2000, Corrigan was granted an approved leave of absence under the Family Medical Leave Act. Corrigan’s absence during the period of leave was not a factor in his termination. Corrigan’s physician released him to return to work on February 1, 2001. He returned to work on February 5, 2001. Upon his return, Corrigan was assigned simple tasks. He was directed to organize his desk and workspace, complete a progress report of the projects he was working on before his leave, and to work on a sign relocation project. Corrigan failed to complete any of these tasks. Instead, his pattern of unreliable attendance and his failure to give proper notice for his absences developed again. Corrigan offered no explanation for his failure to report his absences to his supervisor, as he was directed, and openly declared that he had no intention of obtaining a doctor’s note each time he was ill.

On February 19, 2001, Wageman scheduled a meeting with Corrigan to be held February 21 to discuss his work performance. During the meeting, Wageman and Corrigan discussed Corrigan’s improper notice of absences, his irregular and unreliable attendance, his failure to fulfill job commitments and his failure to provide departmental coverage and notice of scheduled meetings. Corrigan agreed that his behavior was intolerable and that the City of Des Moines should be able to expect more from its employees. However, Corrigan did not offer any remedies to the situation. Following the meeting, Wageman wrote a letter to Corrigan advising him that he was receiving a written reprimand. The letter also encouraged Corrigan to take advantage of professional assistance available to city employees. Corrigan continued to deny that he needed such assistance.

On February 26, 2001, Corrigan was late for work, took a long lunch hour, and then left early. The next day, he reported late for work, had alcohol on his breath, and was acting unusual. Corrigan denied that he had been drinking. Another pre-disciplinary hearing was scheduled for March 5, 2001. At the meeting, Corrigan offered no explanation for his behavior and offered no hope for improvement in the future. On March 6, 2001, the City terminated Corrigan’s employment.

Corrigan appealed his discharge to the City of Des Moines Civil Service Commission. On August 21, 2001, the Commission ruled that Corrigan did engage in misconduct that warranted termination and therefore upheld Corrigan’s termination. On September 21, 2001, Corrigan appealed to the district court for judicial review. In its de novo review, the district court concluded that the City showed Corrigan had neglected his duties, disobeyed directions of his superiors, and failed to properly perform his job duties. As a result, the district court found that the City’s decision to terminate Corrigan was not arbitrary. The court affirmed Corrigan’s termination. This appeal followed.

II. Standard of Review

Our review is de novo. See Iowa Code § 400.27 (2001). Although we give weight to the findings of the district court, we are not bound by them. Sieg v. Civil Service Commission,342 N.W.2d 824, 827 (Iowa 1983). Our review is confined to the record made in the district court. Dolan v. Civil Service Commission, 634 N.W.2d 657, 662 (Iowa 2001).

III. Discussion

Iowa Code section 400.18 (2001) sets out the standard used to evaluate what actions employers may properly take against civil service employees. Specifically, section 400.18 states that:

No person holding civil service rights shall be removed, demoted, or suspended arbitrarily, except as otherwise provided in this chapter, but may be removed, demoted, or suspended after a hearing by a majority vote of the civil service commission, for neglect of duty, disobedience, misconduct, or failure to properly perform the person’s duties.

In City of Des Moines v. Civil Service Commission, 540 N.W.2d 52, 59 (Iowa 1995) the Iowa Supreme Court stated that:

The clearly established standard for assessing the appropriateness of any civil service employee’s discharge is for the commission to determine whether the action was arbitrary.

Corrigan asserts there is insufficient evidence to establish that his termination was justified. We disagree. Our de novo review of the record reveals Corrigan behaved erratically at work, neglected his duties, disobeyed directions from his superiors, and failed to properly perform his job duties. As a result, his work often had to be reassigned to others, causing an unnecessary burden on his co-workers. Although he was provided with numerous opportunities to correct his deficiencies, Corrigan failed to change his behavior and his job performance remained inadequate. The record reveals Corrigan gave no indication of a desire to cooperate or improve upon his conduct. Corrigan did not admit that he had a substance abuse problem until after he was terminated. Under the circumstances, Corrigan’s termination was neither arbitrary nor capricious. We affirm the decision of the district court and the Civil Service Commission.

AFFIRMED.