Printable Format75-2949e. Dismissal, demotion or suspension of permanent employees in classified service; evaluation requirement, exceptions; counseling. (a) Grounds for dismissal, demotion or suspension of a permanent employee for deficiencies in work performance include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Inefficiency or incompetency in the performance of duties, or inability to perform the duties;
(2) negligence in the performance of duties;
(3) careless, negligent or improper use of state property;
(4) failure to maintain satisfactory and harmonious relationships with the public and fellow employees;
(5) habitual or flagrantly improper use of leave privileges;
(6) a habitual pattern of failure to report for duty at the assigned time and place or to remain on duty; and
(7) failure to obtain or maintain a current license or certificate or other authorization required to practice a trade, conduct a business or practice a profession.
(b) Unless the appointing authority determines that the good of the service will best be served by proceeding directly to the procedure prescribed in K.S.A. 75-2949 and amendments thereto, the appointing authority may propose dismissal, demotion or suspension of a permanent employee for deficiencies in work performance only after the employee has received two performance evaluations in the 180 calendar days immediately preceding the effective date of the proposed dismissal, demotion or suspension. These performance evaluations shall be spaced at least 30 calendar days apart.
(c) If the appointing authority proposes to dismiss, demote or suspend a permanent employee for deficiencies in work performance without the two evaluations described by subsection (b) and if the employee appeals the action to the state civil service board, the board shall require the appointing authority to show that the employee was adequately counseled concerning the nature of the deficiencies in work performance and concerning what was expected of the employee in correcting the deficiencies.
(d) The provisions of subsections (b) and (c) shall not apply to demotions, suspensions or dismissals for the reasons described in subsection (a)(7).
History: L. 1981, ch. 334, § 4; L. 1985, ch. 277, § 2; May 16.
Source or prior law:
75-2949a, 75-2949b, 75-2949c.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Cited; whether state employee was demoted or reallocated for due process hearing purposes examined. Harton v. Sperry, 19 Kan. App. 2d 259, 262, 869 P.2d 752 (1994).
2. Whether plaintiff is compensated on a salary basis for fair labor standards act purposes examined. Ackley v. Dept. of Corr. of State of Kan., 844 F. Supp. 680, 686 (1994).
3. Whether declassified, terminated state employee's reinstatement claim is based on statutory liability or written contract for limitations purposes examined. Wright v. Kansas Water Office, 255 Kan. 990, 998, 881 P.2d 567 (1994).
4. Kansas civil service board had sufficient competent evidence to find employee was terminated due to unsatisfactory job performance. Newell v. Kansas Dept. of SRS, 22 Kan. App. 2d 514, 516, 917 P.2d 1357 (1996).
5. Employee cannot be suspended without having first been adequately counseled concerning the nature of the deficiencies in work performance. Marquez v. Kansas Dept. of Corrections, 50 Kan. App. 2d 983, 988, 333 P.3d 930 (2014).