What Happened
“Christopher” worked as a firefighter/paramedic for the City of Canton Fire Department for 11 years before being hired by the Nimishillen Township Fire Department, where he was employed in the same position for 12 years. The Nimishillen Township department required its firefighters to attend at least 50 percent of all trainings offered annually, but Christopher was not meeting that requirement.
In July 2009, the chief and assistant chief spoke to Christopher about his deficiency. Christopher admitted both his knowledge of the requirement to attend at least 50 percent of training sessions and his failure to do so. He told the chief and assistant chief that he did not feel that he should have to attend the sessions because they were not worthwhile in his opinion. The chief considered Christopher’s lack of training to be a dangerous safety liability. By the end of 2009, Christopher had attended only 11 of the 47 training sessions offered that year, which amounts to only 23.4 percent.
The Board of Trustees of Nimishillen Township held a disciplinary hearing on September 23, 2010, regarding Christopher’s failure to comply with certain training classes, as stipulated in the Nimishillen Township Fire Department Handbook. The Board concluded that his conduct amounted to gross neglect of duty, and it terminated his employment.
In reaching that decision, the Board noted that Christopher was frustrated with the content of the training classes and that he only went to trainings where he would receive a certificate for attending.
In addition, the Board acknowledged that although he had received prior training from the Canton Fire Department, the training requirements and equipment used by the Nimishillen Township and the city of Canton were different.
Christopher appealed the Board’s decision, but the trial court upheld the decision. He then appealed to the state Court of Appeals, contending that the trial court erred in concluding that the Board had followed the disciplinary procedure included in the employee handbook and in finding that Christopher’s conduct constituted gross neglect of duty.
What the Court Said
The appeals court also upheld the trial court’s decision. It noted that the employee handbook provides a disciplinary process for severe violations. “Disciplinary actions will be in direct relationship to the offense. All disciplinary actions will be documented in the employee’s permanent personnel file,” the handbook states. The handbook then lists how violations will be handled under the 3: step process.
However, the handbook also states, “Severe violations may require severe disciplinary actions and may bypass any of the above.”
The court concluded that statutory provisions and the wording in the handbook gave the fire chief sufficient power to bypass the step-disciplinary process. As a result, the court upheld the trial court’s conclusion that the Board did not violate the disciplinary procedures outlined in the employee handbook. Similarly, the appeals court said the trial court did not err in finding that Christopher’s failure to attend 50 percent of the training courses, as required, amounted to gross neglect of duty.
Christopher had argued that the record does not establish gross neglect of duty, that the decision to terminate him was far removed (by 8 months) from his failure to attend training, and that the chief considered him to be “a member in good standing” before termination.
Meanwhile, the chief had testified that Christopher was not singled out for termination. In fact, the chief had met with all of the individuals who had not complied with the training requirements, and Christopher was the only firefighter who fell far short of the requirements who did not voluntarily resign.
The appeals court concluded that there was credible evidence that Christopher’s failure to attend at least 50 percent of the training sessions amounted to gross neglect of duty.
Todd v. The Board of Trustees of Nimishillen Township (No. 2011CA00057) (Court of Appeals, Stark County, Ohio, 5th Appellate District, 11/21/11)
In Brief
Although this case dealt with Ohio state law, it has implications for employers everywhere. First, employees need to understand their training obligations, for example, which courses are mandatory and how many courses they are expected to complete within a given year. Make sure this is clearly outlined to employees.
Second, it is important to hold employees accountable for attending training. Otherwise, they might not feel obligated to attend future trainings, and their conduct—and the company’s lack of response to it—might imply that other employees can selectively attend training, too.
Finally, this case demonstrates the importance of making sure learners understand how training pertains to their jobs. While not attending training classes because he did not find them worthwhile does not excuse Christopher’s obligation, it does serve as a good reminder to trainers that their jobs will be easier—and learners will be more engaged in training—if learners understand what’s in it for them.