Fired, and I still don't know why. . .

[justhere]

I'm relieved you didn't have to cross-examine anyone; and I'm looking forward to your next update - I hope the other attorney is not successful in arguing that the burden of proof should be on you.

[Aragarthiel]

There's a gourmet popcorn shop somewhere out here I've been wanting to try. Anyone want me to make a run?

...career-immolation...

I couldn't describe it more accurately if I tried.

[Chromatix]

Someone's signature has "PWNZER" in it.

There is a recent "Check It Out" thread involving some idiot's car getting run over by a tank.

Hmmmm...

[eltf177]

I've heard of career-limiting moves, but career-immolation moves are so seldom seen in the wild.

And in so many ways at once too!

This clown now has multiple bull-eye's on his back and I've no doubt everyone's gunning for him. If not fired immediately the slightest future mistake gets him his walking papers. And good luck getting a good reference!

[Seanette]

We all have our popcorn ready. Update?

[silverstaff]

We all have our popcorn ready. Update?

Not quite yet.

I had my hearing, I mailed in my brief last Monday (certified mail). The Personnel Board got the brief on Thursday. The attorney for the state got the brief on Wednesday. I got my copy of the brief from the state on Thursday, but I had a 3-day drill weekend with the National Guard over the weekend and just got in and haven't had a chance to read it yet.

My rebuttal, and the State's rebuttal, have to be filed by the 10th. Then it goes to the Board for a decision, which will take, well, who knows. Probably a few weeks or a month or so for them to issue a "Proposed Order", which is their legal findings and suggested course of action. Then I and the state will have a chance to comment on the course of action (but not the findings), like if they try to send me back to work with my former boss, I could ask to be reassigned (I requested to be assigned to a different office in my brief, I feel that going back to my old office could be a hostile work environment).

Then, after the period for comment has passed, they'll take the comments under advisement and publish a final order, which, assuming it's ordering my reinstatement and payment of back pay, would order the Personnel Cabinet to give me a start date at my old job title and pay a lump sum of my back pay from the time of my termination back at the end of February, to when my start date is (so pretty much a year's pay, after taxes and subtracting when they cashed out my vacation time and subtracting my unemployment benefits).

The next major update would be when I get the "Proposed Order" which has the legal findings in the case and the remedy that the Board suggests.

[silverstaff]

A mini-update.

Today I am mailing in my rebuttal brief, and with that it goes to the Board for a ruling.

Frankly, the brief in the state's case against me was a joke. It reeked of desperation and knowing they had no case to stand on.

It simply restated the same objections they made in their initial motion to dismiss, the exact same objections that the Board had already thrown out back in August. Plus basically begging the Board to not reinstate me, saying I shouldn't benefit from the protections for military servicemembers since my absence wasn't for a combat deployment and thus shouldn't really count.

Also, the state tried to claim that there was nothing wrong with requiring me to do work for my employer while on military leave, since I was not required to physically be present at the workplace at that time. . .yet the state laws that govern military leave explicitly say that someone taking military leave is temporarily relieved of all their duties.

My rebuttal is basically pointing out that the Board rejected these arguments already, noting that state law makes no legal difference between military leave for a one day drill and military leave for a year-long deployment, and pointing out that I didn't get the protection of my military leave rights because they were requiring me to work for them during military leave and they used the fact I couldn't complete that work as justification for my termination.

After today, it's in the Board's hands and I'm waiting on the ruling.

[BPFH]

Frankly, the brief in the state's case against me was a joke. It reeked of desperation and knowing they had no case to stand on.

ISTR that there's a lawyer's maxim that goes something like this:

If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts.
If the law is on your side, pound on the law.
If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound on the table.

Sounds like they're pounding on the table.

Good luck.

[Sandman]

I wouldn't be surprised if there is also a recommendation to go after them civially for punative damages (to be awarded as you see fit)

[Jay 2K Winger]

We're all behind ya, OP. Here's hoping the Board finds in your favor.

[Golden Phoenix]

*Stares at empty popcorn bowl* Hmm.

I made triple chocolate, sea salt, nutella stuffed cookies again. Anyone want?

I can't comment on the legalities of this (I know next to nothing about your laws) but I'll agree with previous posters. Looks like the State is grasping at straws now.

Good luck!

[Kittykat]

Wowwwwww, just reading all of this. I hope the board rules in your favor AND awards monetarily.

[Argus]

Frankly, the brief in the state's case against me was a joke. It reeked of desperation and knowing they had no case to stand on.

The attorney might not have had a choice. I've read about cases in my state involving Sunshine Laws (i.e., county and town boards are not supposed to handle much business at secret meetings), and the attorney for the state is obligated to defend the government body zealously no matter how clearly wrong they are.

Also, the state tried to claim that there was nothing wrong with requiring me to do work for my employer while on military leave, since I was not required to physically be present at the workplace at that time. . .yet the state laws that govern military leave explicitly say that someone taking military leave is temporarily relieved of all their duties.

Your Staff Judge Advocate will probably be very interested in this. (But I imagine copies of all these documents are heading in that direction anyway.)

[Nunavut Pants]

I made triple chocolate, sea salt, nutella stuffed cookies again. Anyone want?

ME WANT!

[BeeMused]

*Stares at empty popcorn bowl* Hmm.

I'll start up the big popcorn maker again!

I made triple chocolate, sea salt, nutella stuffed cookies again. Anyone want?

YES!

I keep my fingers, toes and eyes crossed for you silverstaff!