State of North Carolina s31

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS COUNTY OF CRAVEN 07 OSP 0370KAREN HAAS, ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) DECISION ) N. C. DEPARTMENT OF CRIME ) CONTROL AND PUBLIC SAFETY, ) Respondent. )This contested case was heard before Beecher R. Gray, Administrative Law Judge, in New Bern, North Carolina, on September 10, 2007. Respondent filed a proposal for decision on October 17, 2007. Petitioner filed responsive comments to the proposal for decision on November 7, 2007.APPEARANCESPETITIONER: Reagan H. Weaver Attorney for Petitioner Capital District law Offices Post Office Box 25096 Raleigh, NC 27611RESPONDENT: Hal F. Askins Special Deputy Attorney General Tamara L. Shields Assistant Attorney General N.C. Department of Justice 9001 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27609ISSUEWhether Respondent had just cause to terminate Petitioner’s employment with Alcohol Law Enforcement. BASED UPON careful consideration of the sworn testimony of the witnesses presented at the hearing, the documents and exhibits received and admitted into evidence, and the entire record in this proceeding, the Undersigned makes the following Findings of Fact. In making the -2-Findings of Fact, the Undersigned has weighed all the evidence and has assessed the credibility of the witnesses by taking into account the appropriate factors for judging credibility, including but not limited to the demeanor of the witness, any interest, bias, or prejudice the witness may have, the opportunity of the witness to see, hear, know or remember the facts or occurrences about which the witness testified, whether the testimony of the witness is reasonable, and whether the testimony is consistent with all other believable evidence in the case. BASED UPON the preponderance of evidence or greater weight of the evidence in the whole record, the Undersigned makes the following:FINDINGS OF FACT1. The parties received notice of hearing by certified mail more than fifteen days prior to the hearing and each stipulated on the record that notice was proper.2. Petitioner was employed with North Carolina Alcohol Law Enforcement (hereinafter “ALE.”) for over sixteen years until she was terminated from employment on January 5, 2007. (T. pp. 190, 336) 3. During April 2005, Karen Haas was transferred from the New Bern District to the Fayetteville District. Specifically, Karen Haas was assigned to work in Wayne County, with Sampson County being added to her work area some time thereafter. Typically, agents have between thirty and sixty days to move to within forty miles of their assigned district. At the time of her transfer, Karen Haas lived in Havelock, N.C. (hereinafter “Havelock”) Havelock is approximately sixty-five miles from Wayne County. It takes approximately one hour and five minutes to drive from Havelock to Wayne County. (T pp. 18-19, 36, 289, 292-293) 4. Mike Robertson has been in law enforcement for thirty-seven years. He currently serves as the Director of ALE. (T. p. 175) 5. On April 20, 2005, Karen Haas requested by memorandum that she be allowed to reside in Havelock and work in Wayne County. This request required special approval. On April 25, 2005, Director Robertson approved Karen Haas’ request with the understanding that she could use her ALE assigned vehicle to travel from her home to her work station; however, the travel time to and from her home and assigned work station would not be considered work time. (Respondent’s Exhibit 1; T. pp. 144, 176-177)6. Karen Haas was assigned an ALE vehicle to use for work purposes. Her ALE assigned vehicle was a Chevrolet Monte Carlo. The color of this car, a deep blue or purple, made it distinctive. (T p. 19) 7. Bob Stocks has been with the ALE for twenty-two years. He currently serves as Assistant Director of Professional Standards. (T p. 99)8. Alan Fields has been with ALE for twenty years. He currently serves as District Supervisor. He has served in that capacity for two years in two different districts. Prior to -3- obtaining his current position, Supervisor Fields served as an Assistant District Supervisor for two years. During December 2006, Alan Fields supervised Karen Haas. (T. p. 12) 9. In October of 2006, Bob Stocks received information that Karen Haas was not in compliance with the April 20, 2005 memorandum. (T. pp. 102-103)10. Bob Stocks considered this information a job performance issue and forwarded the information to Supervisor Fields. (T. pp. 103-104) 11. Supervisor Fields investigated this complaint by conducting surveillance on Karen Haas on December 15, 2006, December 16, 2006, and December 19, 2006. (T. p. 24) 12. According to the District Duty Assignment Sheet, on December 15, 2006, Karen Haas was scheduled to work from 5:00 p.m. until 2:00 a.m. in Sampson County. (Respondent’s Exhibit 2; T. p. 26) 13. On December 15, 2006, while conducting surveillance on Karen Haas, Supervisor Fields observed Karen Haas in Havelock at 1:52 p.m. driving her ALE assigned vehicle East on Highway 70, away from her assigned work area. At 2:01 p.m. Supervisor Fields observed Karen Haas’ ALE assigned vehicle parked at her home in Havelock. At 2:39 p.m. Supervisor Fields observed Karen Haas’ ALE assigned vehicle still parked in the driveway of her home in Havelock. At 4:02 p.m. Supervisor Fields observed Karen Haas’ ALE assigned vehicle still parked in the driveway of her home in Havelock. At 5:04 p.m. Supervisor Fields observed Karen Haas’ ALE assigned vehicle still parked in the driveway of her home in Havelock. (Respondent’s Exhibit 4; T. p. 27-29) 14. Subsequently, on December 18, 2006, Karen Haas turned in a Weekly Activities Report, with her signature on it, indicating that on December 15, 2006, she worked in Wayne County from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. conducting inspections and ABC applications. Karen Haas indicated on the report that all eight hours were worked in the field. (Respondent’s Exhibit 5; T. p. 31-32)15. Along with the Weekly Activity Report, Karen Haas turned in an Inspection Report indicating that she conducted an inspection on December 15, 2006, for Keys Foods in Goldsboro, N.C. (hereinafter “Goldsboro”) Karen Haas signed the inspection report and indicated on the report that the inspection began at 1:15 p.m. and ended at 2:30 p.m. (Respondent’s Exhibit 6; T. p. 33)16. Supervisor Fields testified, and it is found as fact, that on December 15, 2006, Karen Haas could not have conducted an inspection of Key Foods on December 15, 2006, from 1:15 p.m. until 2:30 p.m. because on December 15, 2006, at 1:52 p.m., 2:01 p.m., and 2:39 p.m. Supervisor Fields observed Karen Haas or her ALE vehicle in Havelock, over sixty miles away from Goldsboro. (T. p.35) 17. According to the District Duty Assignment Sheet, on December 16, 2006, Karen Haas was scheduled to work from 5:00 p.m. until 2:00 a.m. in Wayne County. (Respondent’s Exhibit 2, T.p. 36) -4-18. On December 16, 2006, while conducting surveillance on Karen Haas, Supervisor Fields observed Karen Haas’ ALE assigned vehicle parked in her driveway at her home in Havelock at 4:00 p.m. At 5:05 p.m. Supervisor Fields observed Karen Haas’ ALE assigned vehicle in Havelock turning west onto Highway 70, towards Goldsboro. (Respondent’s Exhibit 9; T. p. 40)19. Subsequently, on December 18, 2006, Karen Haas turned in a Weekly Activities Report, with her signature on it, indicating that on December 16, 2006, she worked in Wayne County from 5:00 p.m. until 2:00 a.m. conducting inspections and enforcements. Karen Haas indicated on the report that all eight hours were worked in the field. (Respondent’s Exhibit 5; T. p. 41)20. Along with the Weekly Activity Report, Karen Haas turned in an Inspection Report which indicated that she conducted an inspection on December 16, 2006, for Joyner’s Supermarket in Wayne County. Karen Haas signed the inspection report and indicated on the report that the inspection began at 5:30 p.m. and ended at 6:00 p.m. (Respondent’s Exhibit 10; T. pp. 42-43)21. Supervisor Fields testified, and it is found as fact, that Karen Hass could not have conducted an inspection of Joyner’s Supermarket in Wayne County on December 16, 2006, from 5:30 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. because Supervisor Fields observed Karen Haas’ ALE assigned vehicle on December 16, 2006, at 4:00 p.m. and 5:05 .m. in Havelock, over an hour away from Wayne County. (T. p. 44) 22. According to the District Duty Assignment Sheet, on December 19, 2006, Karen Haas was scheduled to work from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. in Wayne County. (Respondent’s Exhibit 12; T. p. 50)23. On December 19, 2006, while conducting surveillance on Karen Haas, Supervisor Fields observed Karen Haas’ ALE assigned vehicle parked in her driveway at home in Havelock at 6:51 a.m. At 7:40 a.m. Supervisor Fields observed Karen Haas’ ALE assigned vehicle still in her driveway at home in Havelock. At 7:51 a.m. Supervisor Fields observed Karen Haas’ ALE assigned vehicle at the intersection of Ketner Boulevard and Highway 70 in Havelock. Karen Haas’ ALE assigned vehicle then drove to a child care facility. Karen Haas and a small child got out of the care and entered the child care facility. At 8:03 a.m. Supervisor Fields observed Karen Haas leave the child care facility in her ALE assigned vehicle and turn left onto Ketner Boulevard towards her home in Havelock. At 8:32 a.m. Supervisor Fields observed Karen Haas’ ALE assigned vehicle at 101 Crystal Lake Drive, in Havelock, Karen Haas’ parents’ home. At 9:25 a.m. Supervisor Fields observed Karen Haas’ ALE assigned vehicle at 101 Crystal Lake Drive in Havelock. At 10:00 a.m. Supervisor Fields observed Karen Haas’ ALE assigned vehicle in the driveway of her home in Havelock and took a picture of Karen Haas’ ALE assigned vehicle in the driveway of her home in Havelock, N.C. At 10:56 a.m. Supervisor Fields observed Karen Haas’ ALE assigned vehicle at 101 Crystal Lake Drive in Havelock. At 12:00 p.m. Supervisor Fields observed Karen Haas’ ALE vehicle at 101 Crystal Lake Drive in Havelock. At 1:00 p.m. Supervisor Fields observed Karen Haas’ ALE assigned vehicle at 101 Crystal Lake Drive in Havelock and took a picture of Karen Haas’ ALE assigned vehicle in the driveway of 101 Crystal lake Drive in Havelock. At 1:14 p.m. Supervisor Fields observed Karen -5-Haas’ ALE assigned vehicle at the intersection of Ketner Boulevard and Highway 70 in Havelock. The vehicle turned west on Highway 70, towards Karen Haas’ assigned work area. (Respondent’s Exhibit 13, 14, and 15; T.pp. 50-57)24. Subsequently, On December 22, 2006, Karen Haas turned in a Weekly Activities Report, with her signature on it, indicating that on December 19, 2006, she worked in Wayne County from 8:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. conducting inspections. Karen Haas indicated on the report that five hours were worked in the field and one hour was spent in the office. (Respondent’s Exhibit 16, T.pp. 58-59)25. Along with the Weekly Activities Report, Karen Haas turned in three Inspection Reports for inspections that she conducted on December 19, 2006. The first Inspection Report indicates that she conducted an inspection of Adam’s C-mart in Goldsboro. Karen Haas signed the inspection report and indicated on the report that the inspection began at 10:50 a.m. and ended at 11:20 a.m. The second Inspection Report indicates that she conducted an inspection of H&H Body Shop in Goldsboro. Karen Haas signed this Inspection Report and indicated on the report that the inspection began at 11:45 a.m. and ended at 12:30 p.m. The third Inspection report indicates that she conducted an inspection of Trade Wilco 1829 in Goldsboro. Karen Haas signed the Inspection Report and indicated that the inspection began at 1:30 p.m. and ended at 2:00 p.m. (Respondent’s Exhibit 17, 18, and 19; T.pp. 59-62)26. Supervisor Fields testified, and it is found as fact, that Karen Haas could not have conducted business inspections in Goldsboro on December 19, 2006, between 10:50 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. because he observed Karen Haas or her ALE assigned vehicle at 10:00 a.m., 10:56 a.m., 12:00 p.m., 1:00 p.m. and 1:14 p.m. in Havelock, over an hour away from Goldsboro. (T. pp. 63-64) 27. Dr. William Chandler has been employed with ALE for twenty-eight years. He currently serves as the Deputy Director for Administration. 28. After conducting surveillance on Karen Haas, Supervisor Fields determined that not only was Karen Haas not abiding by the April 2005 memorandum, but she was not reporting for duty as assigned in violation of ALE policy 2.08(m)(1), was falsifying inspection reports in violation of ALE policy 2.08(C)(1), and falsifying her weekly reports in violation of ALE policy 2.08 (C) (1). Supervisor Fields reported his finding to Deputy Director Chandler. (Respondent’s Exhibit 8; T.pp. 66-67)29. On or about December 20, 2006, Deputy Director Chandler informed Director Robertson of Supervisor Fields’ findings. Director Robertson then moved the complaint from an inquiry to an internal investigation and classified the complaint as a serious personal conduct violation. (T. pp. 145-146)30. Deputy Director Chandler then instructed Supervisor Fields to initiate the internal investigation by completing a charge sheet, an investigative report, and to cooperate with internal affairs to complete an internal investigation on the matter. (Respondent’s Exhibit 25, and 32; T. pp. 147, 149) -6-31. On January 3, 2007, Bob Stocks and Supervisor Fields conducted an interview with Karen Haas to discuss the charges against her. At the beginning of the meeting, Karen Haas was provided with a copy of the Personnel Complaint. During the interview, Bob Stocks and Supervisor Fields went over, in detail, the charges against her. Karen Haas stated that she drove her ALE assigned vehicle to perform the inspection at the date and time stated on all of the inspection reports in-question. Karen Haas also indicated that no one else used her ALE assigned vehicle. (Respondent’s Exhibit 24; T. pp. 111-112, 343)32. When being interviewed, at first Karen Haas was very adamant that she was at work when her reports indicated she was at work. During the course of the interview, Karen Haas changed her position and admitted that on December 15, 2006, she remembered it being a pretty day and she went home early, but wasn’t exactly sure of the time. And on December 10, 2006, she took her mother to the commissary and probably did go to work later than she put on her weekly report. (Respondent’s Exhibit 24; T pp. 110-111)33. On January 3, 2007, Bob Stocks met with Assistant Director Chandler and Director Robertson regarding the interview with Karen Haas. As a result of this discussion, Director Robertson generated a memorandum setting up a pre-disciplinary conference. The memorandum specified the policies violated and the acts constituting the violation. In the memorandum, Director Robertson states, “it is my recommendation that you be dismissed from the Alcohol law Enforcement Division.” The memorandum also stated that a pre-disciplinary conference would be held at 10:00 a.m. on January 4, 2007. Karen Haas was told in this memorandum that she would be allowed to present information to support her case. On January 3, 2007, Bob Stocks served Karen Haas with the document for a pre-disciplinary conference. (Respondent’s Exhibit 28; T. p. 113)34. On January 4, 2007 at 10:00 a.m., Dr. Chandler and Supervisor Fields met with Karen Haas to conduct a pre-disciplinary conference. During this conference, Karen Haas was provided a copy of the Charge sheet, a Memorandum from Director Robertson setting out the charges against her, the ALE Policy on grievances and the appeals process, a copy of the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety Grievance Policy, and a copy of the Office of State Personnel Manual on grievances and the appeals process. Karen Haas was also informed that this was her opportunity to provide information to change the recommendation of dismissal. During the conference, Karen Haas provided names of people to contact from the businesses she allegedly inspected on the days in question. (Respondent’s Exhibit 34; T. p. 154-156) 35. On January 4, 2007, Dr. Chandler met with Director Robertson and informed him of the matters discussed in the pre-disciplinary conference with Karen Haas. As a result of this meeting, Director Robertson made the final decision to terminate Karen Haas’ employment. Director Robertson prepared the termination papers. (T. p. 163)36. On January 5, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. Dr. Chandler and Bob Stocks met with Karen Haas and served her with the dismissal papers. At that time, Karen Haas was again provided a copy of the grievance and appeals process. At no time during the dismissal conference did Karen Haas -7- complain that she did not have sufficient time to prepare nor did she ask for more time to prepare. (T. pp. 163-165)37. Tracey Muse, the owner of H&H Body Shop, testified at the administrative hearing. On direct examination, Mr. Muse testified that Karen Haas inspected his business on a Tuesday in December of 2006 and that he subsequently signed a document in which he stated that Karen Haas inspected his business on December 19, 2006, at or about eleven forty-five. However, on cross examination, Mr. Muse testified that he did not have any independent recollection of the date the inspection was conducted, but that Karen Haas provided him with the date she conducted the inspection. (T. pp. 234-235, 239-240) 38. On June 21, 2007, Supervisor Fields interviewed Tracey Muse. When asked if he was absolutely certain that Karen Haas conducted an inspection of H&H Body Shop on December, 19, 2006, Mr. Muse replied, “he could not put his hand on a Bible and swear that she had done the inspection on that date, but he was sure at some point during December of 2006, Karen Haas conducted an inspection. (T pp. 377-378)39. Allyn Koch, the Manager of Trade Wilco in Goldsboro, testified at the Administrative hearing. Ms. Koch testified that Karen Haas inspected Trade Wilco in Goldsboro on December 19, 2006 at about 1:30 p.m. 40. On June 21, 2007, Supervisor Fields interviewed Ms. Koch. When asked if she was certain that Karen Haas inspected Trade Wilco on December 19, 2006, she stated, “she was not certain, but that she did remember the inspection was conducted in December 2006 and she remembered that is was definitely, I think, before 2 p.m.” When asked why she submitted a statement indicating the inspection was conducted on December 19, 2006, she said, “Karen Haas had come back to her business and shown her an inspection report indicating the date and the time on the inspection and she told me that she based her time and date in her statement on what she saw in the inspection report.” (T. pp. 378-379) 41. The analysis in this case comes down to a matter of credibility. Based on the testimony of the witnesses, along with their appearances, bearing and demeanor, Supervisor Fields’ testimony was more credible than the testimony of Petitioner and her witnesses. (T. p. 395)CONCLUSIONS OF LAW1. All parties properly are before this Administrative Law Judge and jurisdiction and venue are proper. To the extent that the Findings of Fact contain Conclusions of Law, or that the Conclusions of Law are Findings of Fact, they should be considered so without regard to the given labels. 2. As Petitioner continuously was employed as an Agent with the North Carolina Alcohol Law Enforcement Division for sixteen years at the time of her dismissal, she was a Career State Employee entitled to the protections of the North Carolina State Personnel Act (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 126-1 et seq.), and specifically the just cause provision of N.C. Gen. Stat. §126-35. -8-3. N.C.G.S. § 126-35(a) provides, in pertinent part, that “no career state employee subject to the State Personnel Act shall be discharged, suspended, or demoted for disciplinary reasons, except for just cause.” Although the statute does not define “just cause,” the words are to be accorded their ordinary meaning. Amanini v. Dep’t Human Resources, 114 N.C. App. 668, 443 S.E.2d 114 (1994) (defining “just cause” as, among other things, good or adequate reason).4. Because Petitioner has alleged that Respondent lacked just cause for her termination, the Office of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction to hear her appeal and issue a decision to the State Personnel Commission, which is authorized to make a final decision in this matter.5. Under N. C. Gen. Stat. § 126-35(d), in an appeal of a disciplinary action, the employer has the burden of proving that “just cause” existed for the disciplinary action. 6. All procedural requirements of the North Carolina General Statutes and North Carolina State Personnel Manual for terminating Petitioner’s employment were followed.7. Respondent violated its own working rule, Alcohol Law Enforcement Policy 5.05(d)(6), by substantiating that Petitioner violated Alcohol Law Enforcement Policy before providing her with a reasonable opportunity to respond and present witnesses. However, because Petitioner received a pre-dismissal conference, detailed information regarding the charges against her, and the opportunity to respond and present witnesses before the final decision for termination was rendered, the Petitioner suffered no prejudice from this technical violation. 8. North Carolina Alcohol Law Enforcement Policy 2.08, Section C, “Truthfulness” provides, in pertinent part, as follows, “Employees shall be truthful and complete in all written and oral communications, reports and testimony.” 9. Falsifying a report is a violation of Alcohol Law Enforcement Policy 2.08, Section C, “Truthfulness.” Untruthfulness is unacceptable personal conduct which provides just cause for termination. 10 Petitioner was untruthful on December 15, 2006, in that she falsified an inspection report by reporting that she conducted an inspection of Key Foods, in Goldsboro, N.C., between the hours of 1:15 p.m. and 2:30 p.m. when in fact she did not conduct the inspection at that time because she was at home in Havelock, N.C., more than an hour away. 11. Petitioner was untruthful on December 16, 2006, in that she falsified an inspection report by reporting that she conducted an inspection of Joyner’s Supermarket, in Goldsboro, N.C., between the hours of 5:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. when in fact she did not conduct the inspection at that time because she was at home in Havelock, N.C. at 5:00 p.m., more than an hour away from Goldsboro, N.C.12. Petitioner was untruthful on December 18, 2006, in that she falsified a Weekly Activities Report by stating that on December 15, 2006, she worked from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. in the field conducting Wayne County inspections and applications, when in fact she was in Havelock, N.C. at 1:52 p.m., 2:01 p.m., 2:39 p.m., 4:02 p.m. and 5:04 p.m. -9-13. Petitioner was untruthful on December 18, 2006, in that she falsified a Weekly Activities Report by stating that on December 16, 2006, she worked from 5:00 p.m. until 2:00 a.m. in the field conducting Wayne County inspections and applications, when in fact she was in Havelock, N.C. at 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.14. Petitioner was untruthful on December 19, 2006, in that she falsified an inspection report by reporting that she conducted an inspection of Adams C-Mart on December 19, 2006, from 10:50 a.m. until 11:45 a.m., when in fact she was in Havelock, N.C. at 10:00 a.m., 10:56 a.m., and 12:00 p.m. 15. Petitioner was untruthful on December 19, 2006, in that she falsified an inspection report by reporting that she conducted an inspection of H & H Body Shop on December 19, 2006, from 11:45 a.m. until 12:30 p.m., when in fact she was in Havelock, N.C. at 10:56 a.m., 12:00 p.m., 1:00 p.m. and 1:14 p.m. 16. Petitioner was untruthful on December 19, 2006, in that she falsified an inspection report by reporting that she conducted an inspection of Trade Wilco 1829 on December 19, 2006, from 1:30 p.m. until 2:00 p.m., when in fact she was in Havelock, N.C. at 1:00 p.m., and 1:14 p.m. 17. Petitioner was untruthful on December 22, 2006, in that she falsified a Weekly Activities Report by stating that on December 19, 2006, she worked from 8:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m., five hours in the field and one hour in the office, conducting Wayne County inspections, when in fact she was in Havelock, N.C. at 6:51 a.m., 7:40 a.m., 7:51 a.m., 8:03 a.m., 8:32 a.m., 9:25 a.m., 10:00 a.m., 10:56 a.m., 12:00 p.m., 1:00 p.m., and 1:14 p.m.18. Petitioner’s untruthfulness constitutes just cause for dismissal. Respondent had just cause to dismiss Petitioner. 19. North Carolina Alcohol Law Enforcement Policy 2.08, Section M, “Reporting for Duty” provides, in pertinent part, as follows, “Employees shall report for duty at the time and place required by assignment or orders and shall be capable of performing their duties.”20. Petitioner violated the policy of reporting for duty on December 19, 2006, by not reporting for duty from 8:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. in Wayne County 21. Respondent had just cause to terminate Petitioner from employment based on the events of December 16, 17, 18, 19, and 22, 2006, as set forth in the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 22. Respondent met its burden of proof in this matter.DECISIONBased on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Respondent’s decision to terminate Petitioner’s employment is supported by substantial evidence constituting just cause -10- and is affirmed. Petitioner is not entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs associated with the filing and prosecution of this contested case.ORDERIt hereby is ordered that the agency serve a copy of the Final Decision on the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-6714, in accordance with North Carolina General Statute § 150B-36(b).NOTICEThe decision of the Administrative Law Judge in this contested case will be reviewed by the agency making the final decision according to the standards found in G.S. 150B-36(b). The agency making the final decision is required to give each party an opportunity to file exceptions to the decision of the Administrative Law Judge and to present written arguments to those in the agency who will make the final decision. G.S. 150B-36(a).The agency making the final decision is the North Carolina State Personnel Commission.The agency is required by G.S. 150B-36(b) to serve a copy of the final decision on all parties and to furnish a copy to the parties' attorney of record and to the Office of Administrative Hearings.This the 27th day of November, 2007.______Beecher R. Gray Administrative Law Judge

State of North Carolina s31

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support