Employer’s workplace violence termination backfires when key evidence falls apart

The trouble started the day before. On October 11, Hamilton and two other supervisors met with Neveaux to address ongoing performance problems – attendance issues, dress code violations, cell phone policy breaches, and, according to testimony, sleeping at her desk with a blanket over her head. Later that day, Hamilton began receiving threatening text messages from an unknown number that could not be traced. She reported the messages and told her employer she feared for her safety. She believed the texts came from Neveaux. 

The next day, Neveaux arrived late. Hamilton moved to a different desk to keep her distance. It did not help. Neveaux aggressively approached Hamilton, cursing and yelling, and had to be physically restrained by co-workers roughly twenty to twenty-five feet away. 

What happened next became the crux of the case. The Board alleged Hamilton picked up a pair of scissors and made stabbing motions toward Neveaux. Hamilton denied it, saying she had an office phone in one hand and her cell phone in the other, trying to call security. The Board terminated her effective March 8, 2024, citing its zero-tolerance Workplace Violence Prevention Policy. 

Hamilton appealed, and the case went to a disciplinary hearing where witness accounts split down the middle. Two of the Board’s witnesses said Hamilton held scissors. One of Hamilton’s witnesses said it was a silver tip pen. Another said Hamilton was holding two phones and never acted violently. The Commission also flagged a credibility problem with one of the Board’s witnesses, who had previously had a romantic relationship with Hamilton’s then-husband. 

The hearing examiner concluded the Board proved only that Hamilton made a threatening gesture with a pen – not scissors. The examiner also pointed out something HR professionals should take note of: the Board’s own progressive discipline policy listed a three-day suspension as an alternative to termination for threatening behavior. For an employee with a spotless record spanning more than a decade, the examiner found termination was too severe.