A University of Iowa military and veterans education specialist has been fired for using “inappropriate language” in an email sent from his UI address in an official capacity.
Allen P. Roberts started working under the veteran services umbrella in the UI registrar’s office in April 2013. He was fired Sept. 21, according to an appeal Roberts filed last month with the Iowa Workforce Development Unemployment Insurance Appeals Bureau.
The university terminated Roberts, who did not have prior disciplinary warnings, after a University of Minnesota student complained to the UI dean of students about language in an email Roberts sent to representatives of that institution’s Student Veterans Association.
According to the appeal, Roberts was a faculty adviser for a group of UI students who were working with the student association in Minnesota to organize an event. The UI group needed participation from the Minnesota group for the event to proceed, and the Minnesota students backed out.
“A member of the Student Veterans Association at the University of Minnesota sent an email that (Roberts) found insulting,” according to the appeal.
Roberts responded to that member with an email — and copied several others, including the Minnesota association’s president — in which he called the person vulgar names and used expletives.
The Minnesota association president forwarded that email to the UI dean of students, and UI discharged Roberts for the inappropriate language, according to the appeal.
The university cited its ethics policy that requires employees be respectful in their communications. Although UI has a progressive disciplinary policy that provides for multiple steps and warnings before discharge, UI took immediate terminal action “without prior warnings because it felt the language in the email rose to a level resulting in the employer bypassing the disciplinary policy.”
According to Roberts’ appeal, he had worked with students for decades, had no prior warnings for profanity, and had used profanity in phone conversations, emails, and texts while working for UI. Roberts also reported being aware of other UI employees who have used profanity in email and were not disciplined.
The UI argued that Roberts’ email was “so outrageous” that he should be disqualified for unemployment insurance benefits, but Roberts appealed the Oct. 6 decision against him, and an administrative law judge agreed.
“Although (Roberts) did use profanity and inappropriate language in an email, because of the context in which the language was used and the general environment of the past conversations, including phone conversations, the employer has not established the conduct was serious or substantial enough to warrant a denial of job insurance benefits,” according to the judge, who reversed the denial and allowed Roberts benefits.
The judge said UI did not meet the burden of proof to establish that Roberts acted “deliberately or with recurrent negligence in violation of company policy, procedure, or prior warning” because it had not previously warned Roberts about the issue.
“Without fair warning, an employee has no reasonable way of knowing that there are changes that need be made in order to preserve the employment,” according to the judge’s ruling. “Had (Roberts) been warned by the employer, he would have had the opportunity to change his behavior.”
http://www.thegazette.com/subject/n...ialist-fired-for-inappropriate-email-20151102
Allen P. Roberts started working under the veteran services umbrella in the UI registrar’s office in April 2013. He was fired Sept. 21, according to an appeal Roberts filed last month with the Iowa Workforce Development Unemployment Insurance Appeals Bureau.
The university terminated Roberts, who did not have prior disciplinary warnings, after a University of Minnesota student complained to the UI dean of students about language in an email Roberts sent to representatives of that institution’s Student Veterans Association.
According to the appeal, Roberts was a faculty adviser for a group of UI students who were working with the student association in Minnesota to organize an event. The UI group needed participation from the Minnesota group for the event to proceed, and the Minnesota students backed out.
“A member of the Student Veterans Association at the University of Minnesota sent an email that (Roberts) found insulting,” according to the appeal.
Roberts responded to that member with an email — and copied several others, including the Minnesota association’s president — in which he called the person vulgar names and used expletives.
The Minnesota association president forwarded that email to the UI dean of students, and UI discharged Roberts for the inappropriate language, according to the appeal.
The university cited its ethics policy that requires employees be respectful in their communications. Although UI has a progressive disciplinary policy that provides for multiple steps and warnings before discharge, UI took immediate terminal action “without prior warnings because it felt the language in the email rose to a level resulting in the employer bypassing the disciplinary policy.”
According to Roberts’ appeal, he had worked with students for decades, had no prior warnings for profanity, and had used profanity in phone conversations, emails, and texts while working for UI. Roberts also reported being aware of other UI employees who have used profanity in email and were not disciplined.
The UI argued that Roberts’ email was “so outrageous” that he should be disqualified for unemployment insurance benefits, but Roberts appealed the Oct. 6 decision against him, and an administrative law judge agreed.
“Although (Roberts) did use profanity and inappropriate language in an email, because of the context in which the language was used and the general environment of the past conversations, including phone conversations, the employer has not established the conduct was serious or substantial enough to warrant a denial of job insurance benefits,” according to the judge, who reversed the denial and allowed Roberts benefits.
The judge said UI did not meet the burden of proof to establish that Roberts acted “deliberately or with recurrent negligence in violation of company policy, procedure, or prior warning” because it had not previously warned Roberts about the issue.
“Without fair warning, an employee has no reasonable way of knowing that there are changes that need be made in order to preserve the employment,” according to the judge’s ruling. “Had (Roberts) been warned by the employer, he would have had the opportunity to change his behavior.”
http://www.thegazette.com/subject/n...ialist-fired-for-inappropriate-email-20151102
.
