The University of Wisconsin System UPS OPERATIONAL POLICY - GEN 14 :
“Just Cause” means a standard that is applied to determine the appropriateness of a disciplinary action. The elements of determining whether just cause exists are:
· Whether the employee had notice of workplace expectations and potential consequences if those expectations were not met;
o Throop Letter of direction –
§ Did not address current charges
§ Burton did not violate the LOD
§ Burton was charged for following Throop’s LOD #1, in regards to a complaint about Dr. Nemmetz.
o Chancellor Letter of direction –
§ did not address current charges
§ Burton did not violate the LOD
o Mandatory communication training –
§ Mandated multiple times but was never conducted
Nobody ever asked, or demanded, that Dr. Burton
remove any audios from the website universitycorruption.com. She was not given opportunity to correct the
perceived violation but learned about it two weeks after the complaint was
given to the Chancellor.
· Whether the workplace expectations were reasonably related to business efficiency and performance the employer might reasonably expect from the employee;
o Throop LOD –fails this test (House sitting)
o Throop LOD was never addressed in requested grievance hearing.
o Burton stated that she “did not accept” the LOD because - Throop violated due process in writing them.
o Throop knew Burton would convince a reasonable grievance panel so she denied Burton the requested, and mandatory, hearing in violation of policy.
There is no policy governing use of Letters of
Direction. This seems to be an invention
of Dr. Throop for quelling faculty members who support students’ rights.
· Whether an investigation was undertaken by the employer before discipline or discharge to determine whether the employee violated expectations;
o Investigations were undertaken for all charges against Dr. Burton immediately but no investigations were ever undertaken for the charges Dr. Burton levied against others.
§ Dr. Throop filed a UWS ch 6 charge on Jan 5, 2015 (two weeks after Throop falsely accused Burton of cancelling class).
· An investigation was immediately conducted and the results of the investigation were withheld from Dr. Burton for a year.
· Charges were dropped without explanation
§ Deb Rice filed a complaint against Dr. Burton on 8/8/16 just after Dr. Burton asked for a grievance against Rice.
· An investigation into Dr. Burton was ordered immediately
Dr. Burton’s grievance against Rice was denied
on invalid grounds and in violation of policy.
· Whether the investigation was conducted fairly and objectively;
o The “Roter report” investigation was circumscribed by including only interviewees of whom Dr. Burton had filed previous complaints.
o The investigation report delivered by Chancellor Shields, whom Dr. Burton had accused of corruption, were biased and full of inaccuracies, misleading statements, false statements and opinions rather than facts only.
o The investigation report seems to have been “edited by a third person.” So, it appears that the “Roter report” was actually, written by someone other than the person who performed the investigation.
§ 943.39 Fraudulent writings. Whoever, with intent to injure or defraud, does any of the following is guilty of a Class H felony:
· Dr. Roter refused to confirm the authenticity of the “Roter report.” It is not signed.
· (1) Being a director, officer, manager, agent or employee of any corporation or limited liability company falsifies any record, account or other document belonging to that corporation or limited liability company by alteration, false entry or omission, or makes, circulates or publishes any written statement regarding the corporation or limited liability company which he or she knows is false;
§ 943.38 Forgery.
(1) Whoever with intent to
defraud falsely makes or alters a writing or object of any of the following
kinds so that it purports to have been made by another, or at another time, or
with different provisions, or by authority of one who did not give such
authority, is guilty of a Class H felony:
· Whether the employer obtained substantial evidence of the employee's guilt;
o Even with the biased investigation report Chancellor Shields felt compelled to add more to his statement of charges indicating, with no evidence, that Dr. Burton had talked about her grievances in her classes.
§ This indicates that he knew there was not enough in the investigation report to amount to due cause. He needed more so he added something that was not in the complaint not in the investigation report and not true.
o None of the evidence indicates that Dr. Burton did anything wrong.
o Vague twists of facts is the only thing that implicates Dr. Burton in any wrongdoing. Dr. Burton effectively rebuts all charges.
· Whether workplace expectations were applied fairly and without discrimination; and
o Only two faculty members to have received a letter of direction. Throop was forced to withdraw her LOD to the other faculty member.
No other member of LAE was held to the
discriminatory requirements of the LODs.
· Whether the degree of discipline imposed reasonably related to the seriousness of the employee's offense and the employee's past record.
o No other employee was reprimanded for “house sitting” charges.
o No other employee has been processed for dismissal for similar non-violations.
o The burden of proof is on the administration and they have failed to provide evidence that Dr. Burton violated any policies, laws or rules including the discriminatory LODs.
o Chancellor Shields wrote Dr. Burton a letter of appreciation in April 2012 (Shields-congratsSabina-4-30-12). This letter was removed from Dr. Burton’s personnel file and replaced by bogus charges and letters of direction that falsely make her service seem terrible. Dr. Burton asked for her rebuttals to be included in her personnel file but they were not.
o Even the biased “Roter report” indicates that Dr. Burton is an excellent teacher.
o On 12/2/2013 Dr. Throop said “What Dr. Burton has listed as her qualifications are really very important qualifications about her amazing abilities as a teacher. I think there is no question that her presence in the classroom is absolutely astounding. From what I can tell she is an inspired teacher.” (A13 - Grievance - Throop - 12-2-13), (Grievance-Throop-Transcript)
o Dean Throop - faculty forum on 4/3/14 – Throop applauds Burton’s expertise and passion.
o Dr. Burton’s personnel record has been tampered with (PersFile-MajorProblems-12-31-16).
o Dr. Burton’s DRB evaluations were conducted by people with severe conflict of interest. Dr. Caywood sat on her DRB while Burton was suing him in federal court. During that evaluation period Dr. Burton’s previous DRB scores were altered.
These are just a few of the arguments that demonstrate that “just cause” does not exist to dismiss Dr. Burton. The administration has failed to prove their case against Dr. Burton. The charges should be dismissed.
Dr. Burton asks that the hearing panel recommend:
1. Dismissal of the charges against her
2. Removal of the Throop and Shields LOD’s from her personnel file
3. Correction of her personnel file to reflect accurately her quality as an instructor
4. Correction of her DRB records