Guam Memorial Hospital Authority v. CSC (Chaco)

Opinion

2 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 3

4 GUAM MEMORIAL HOSPITAL SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE NO. AUTHORITY, SP0051-12 5 Petitioner, 6 v. 7 DECISION AND ORDER CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, 8

9 Respondent,

10 EVANGELINE P. CHACO, II Real Party in Interest. I2

13 INTRODUCTION I4 This matter came before the court on March 13, 2013 upon petitioner's petition for 15 judicial review. The issue before this Court is whether GMHA could terminate Ms. Chaco I6

17 outright for multiple "serious" (as defined by GMHA Policy No. 6420-21) violations of patient

18 confidentiality and HIP AA violations, rather than use progressive discipline, as found by the I9 esc, even though the esc confirmed the findings of the blatant violations (31 accesses of 20 patient records in 5 days, and multiple entrances into the neonatal ward, using her work access, 21 when Ms. Chaco is a mammography technician with no work-related or explicable reason to be 22

23 in the neonatal ward), but no previous disciplinary history.

24 Pursuant to 4 GCA § 4403(d): "The Commission (CSC) may investigate and set aside 25 and declare null and void any personnel action of an employee in the classified service if the 26 Commission finds after conducting the necessary investigation that the personnel action was 27

28 taken in violation of personnel laws or mles; .... ". Decision and Order Guam Memorial Hospital Authority vs. Civil Service Commission, Evangeline P. Chaco; Case No. SPOOSI-12

4 GCA § 4406 then states that in the appeal: "The Commission (CSC) or appropriate

2 entity may sustain, modify or revoke the action taken. The decision of the Commission or

3 appropriate entity shall be final, but subject to judicial review." Additionally, 4 GCA § 4201 4 states in relevant part: "Nothing in this Section shall permit an employee to have redetermined 5 by the Commission any matter which, having been finally judicially determined is grounds, in 6 law or personnel rule, for removal from the government service." Further, Rule 1.600 of the 7

8 Personnel Rules and Regulations of the Department of Administration (Adopted pursuant to 4

9 GCA § 41 05) states: "In the event any rule or regulation is in conflict with statute, the statute 10 shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency." II In sum, did GMHA have the ability to fire Ms. Chaco without usmg progressive 12

13 discipline? Based on GMHA's policies and procedures, the Court is left with the only

14 conclusion that GMHA may proceed to termination without being required to resort to 15 progressive discipline based upon the nature of the offense. The Court can find no support 16 anywhere for the CSC's determination that progressive discipline is required. GMHA Policy 17 No. 6420-8 states: "Guam Memorial Hospital Authority will appropriately discipline employees 18

19 and other workforce members for any violations of security policy or procedure to a degree

20 appropriate for the gravity of the violation. These sanctions include, but are not limited to, re- 21 training, verbal and written warnings and immediate dismissal from employment." The CSC's 22 determination is unsupported by law, as required for reversal. 23 CONCLUSION 24

25 The CSC's determination that GMHA was required to utilize progressive discipline

26 before terminating Ms. Chaco is unsupported by the record or the law. The CSC cites to no 27 such requirement in the law, rules, or the personnel policies of GMHA. The Court can find no 28

Page 2 of3 Decision and Order ,Guam Memorial Hospital Authority vs. Civil Service Commission, Evangeline P. Chaco; Case No. SP0051-12

mandate that GMHA is required to use progressive discipline in cases where an employee

2 commits serious violations of the security policies and procedures of the GMHA, the facts of

3 which were confirmed and upheld by the CSC against Ms. Chaco. In accordance with GMHA 4 Policy No. 6420-8, GMHA was specifically empowered to terminate Ms. Chaco after finding 5 serious violations of its security personnel policies. 6 The CSC failed to follow the standard set forth in 4 GCA § 4403( d) as required to set 7

8 aside or declare null and void the action of GMHA. Further, the CSC was required by the Civil

9 Service Commission Hearing Procedures for Adverse Action Appeals, CSC-400(a)(2) and 10 CSC-400(B)(2) to review only for procedural compliance in effecting the adverse action, and to 11 sustain the adverse action if management proved the charges against the appellant. 12 The CSC found that GMHA proved the charges, but did not conduct a review of the l3

14 appellant's past record, the gravity of the offense, the particular facts and circumstances, nor

15 specify with sufficient detail the reasons for modification set forth under CSC-400(4), therefore, 16 no modification was permitted, and the esc was required to uphold the adverse action. 17 Accordingly, the CSC's determination was in ERROR, and is ANNULLED. GMHA's 18

19 Termination of Employment of Ms. Chaco is REINSTATED, and JUDGMENT IS ENTERED

20 THEREON under 7 GCA § 31109, and 4 GCA § 4201. The CSC is ORDERED to pay for the 21 costs of any certified copies provided to the Court in connection with this matter. 22 IT IS SO ORDEREI})Gi[ 0 2 ~13--october, 2013. 23

25 HONORABLE ARTHUR R. BARCINAS 26 Judge, Superior Court of Guam 27

Page 3 of3