Opinion
No. 76-687
Decided July 7, 1977. Rehearing denied July 28, 1977. Certiorari denied October 11, 1977.
Civil service employee who submitted falsified doctor's statement concerning reason for her absence from work was terminated therefor, and sought review of that discharge. District court upheld the firing, and plaintiff appealed.
Affirmed
1. CIVIL SERVICE — City Employee — Submitted False Document — Inclusion in Personnel Records — Finding — "Flagrant" Violations — Dismissal Without Hearing — Proper. Where, in proceedings to review dismissal of city employee, there was no doubt that employee deliberately submitted a false document to her superiors, well knowing that it would become part of the employer's personnel records and that the document would be acted upon as though it were genuine, the practical effect was the same as would have been the case had she falsified the document after she placed it in the employer's custody; therefore, the district court acted properly in finding no abuse of discretion in the civil service board's determination that the employee had committed "flagrant" violations of personnel rules, including falsification of records, which under the applicable regulations would justify immediate dismissal without prior notice or hearing.
2. Dismissed City Employee — No Constitutional Right — Hearing Prior to Discharge. Dismissed city civil service employee had no constitutional right under either the United States or Colorado constitutions to a hearing prior to discharge.
Appeal from the District Court of the City and County of Denver, Honorable Harold D. Reed, Judge.
Kathy P. Bonham, for plaintiff-appellant.
Max P. Zall, City Attorney, Brian H. Goral, Assistant City Attorney, for defendants-appellees.
Plaintiff, Zelma Harris, appeals from a district court judgment affirming the action of the Denver Career Service Board in upholding plaintiff's dismissal from her employment as a supply technician at Denver General Hospital. We affirm.
Plaintiff first contends that the Board lacked sufficient evidence to support its finding that plaintiff committed "flagrant" violations of personnel rules which justified termination. She argues that the real reason for her termination was improper official retaliation for her public criticism of the conditions of her employment. However, as the district court found, there was substantial evidence supporting the Board's finding that the dismissal was justified.
Plaintiff was dismissed after she delivered to her superior a purported physician's statement regarding an illness which plaintiff claimed required her to miss work for several days. This statement was discovered to be a fabrication. The name of the purported issuing physician was fictitious. The notice of dismissal listed unauthorized absence from duty, abuse of sick leave, and falsification of records as the reasons for termination. Plaintiff contends, however, that the illness was not feigned, that she lacked the money necessary for her to obtain a physician's excuse in the proper form, and that, fearful that she would not be allowed to resume work without an excuse, she asked an acquaintance at another hospital to procure an appropriate physician's statement. Plaintiff further testified that she delivered the document believing it to have been written by a doctor, under the assumption that this was in full compliance with applicable department rules regarding extended absences caused by illness. Plaintiff claimed that she had no intent to falsify any record and was not aware that the doctor's name on the statement was fictitious. She also urges on appeal that there is no evidence that the bogus statement ever became part of any public record. Conflicting evidence was adduced as to whether plaintiff's outspokenness had contributed to her dismissal.
As the district court properly concluded, the Board's determination of the reasonableness of plaintiff's discharge was largely dependent on the resolution of conflicting testimony which in turn was dependent upon its consideration of the witnesses' credibility. The Board had before it undisputed evidence that, contrary to the representation implicit in the submission of the counterfeit statement, plaintiff had not consulted with a physician. This admitted falsehood may well have affected the credence afforded plaintiff's testimony. The limited scope of judicial review under these circumstances supports the district court's judgment upholding the Board's action. See § 24-4-106(7), C.R.S. 1973; C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). See also Civil Service v. Doyle, 174 Colo. 149, 483 P.2d 380 (1971); Civil Service Commission v. Hazlett, 119 Colo. 173, 201 P.2d 616 (1948).
[1] Appellant argues that she did not falsify any records and, therefore, could not be guilty of that charge. There is no doubt, however, that she deliberately submitted a false document to her superiors, well knowing that it would become part of the employer's personnel records and that the document would be acted upon as though it were genuine. The practical effect is the same as would have been the case had she falsified the document after she placed it in the employer's custody. The acts are equivalent and we will not split hairs on the niceties of technical wording. It is obvious that the harm sought to be remedied by the regulation is the same for both submission of false documents and for falsification of existing genuine documents. Hence, the district court acted properly in finding no abuse of discretion in the Board's determination that plaintiff had committed "flagrant" violations of personnel rules, including falsification of records, which under the applicable regulations would justify immediate dismissal without prior notice or hearing. See Hawkins v. Hunt, 113 Colo. 468, 160 P.2d 357 (1945). See also Shumate v. State Personnel Board, 34 Colo. App. 393, 528 P.2d 404 (1974).
[2] Plaintiff urges that she was entitled to a hearing prior to discharge under both the United States and Colorado constitutions, contending that a post-termination proceeding was inadequate. This argument has been rejected by both the federal and state courts under analogous circumstances. Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 94 S.Ct. 1633, 40 L.Ed.2d 15 (1974); Cain v. Civil Service Commission, 159 Colo. 360, 411 P.2d 778 (1966). See also Shumate v. State Personnel Board, supra.
Judgment affirmed.
JUDGE RULAND and JUDGE VAN CISE concur.