od UNIVERSITY OF UTAH. MEMORANDUM TO: Kayla Dallof Detective Public Safety FROM: Kory Newbold Sergeant Public Safety DATE: February 26,2019 SUBJECT: _ Notification of Pre-Disciplinary Conference ee {Lam writing to inform you of my intent to consider the termination of your employment (see University Rule 5-111). Specifically, you have failed to properly investigate and take proper action violating our Policy 319 (3) 319.3.1.b Conduct On February 13, 2019 you were called out on case #19-0352. This was regarding an alleged domestic issue with a University of Utah Student, and a non-affiliated juvenile female that was 17 years old. The female was at the station and you had the opportunity to interview her about domestic related dating issues she was having with the student. ‘As a result, you were assigned the case for follow up investigation. During the investigation it was revealed through interviews with the female complainant / victim that she had been involved in a domestic relationship with a male student and that the male student had unlayfully detained the female complainant inside a University dorm. You subsequently interviewed the male student on February 14, 2019. During that interview you further gained information that the male student had detained or held the female inside the dorm. There was information which supported a criminal charge. After interviewing the male, you again contacted the female complainant who advised you she had received a threatening voice message from the male student, The message was received on February 13, 2019. You had listened to that message and informed ‘me he had made a verbal threat over a recorded message. | had not heard the message and asked that you send me the message. Prior to my receiving the message you walked past my office and indicated that {you were going to soteen the case next week, and you left for the day. I later called you and asked you to send the message which I had not heard. Listening to the message was very impactful. The message was of a male displaying anger and rage through the tone of his voice. ‘The message indicated that if the female did not call him he may “Kill Her". It was brought to my attention that this was not an old message, but one just received. The female hhad not noticed it on February 13, 2019 but found it on February 14, 2019 while she was speaking with ‘you on the phone. The message was very concerning from a victim of domestic abuse standpoint. The message was such that it should not have been held for sereening and this issue should have beenaddressed immediately. You failed to recognize the significance and impact this call had for this domestic investigation, You stated your intent of waiting to screen it next week. Leaving without taking immediate action on this matter is a complete dereliction of duty. ‘These types of investigations are very important to the community we serve. During investigations Detectives accumulate details and information which I as a Sergeant do not have a full and complete disclosure of. I have to rely on my Detectives to make sound judgement calls during situations of this type and you did not display sound judgement. The totality of what was known by you as an investigator of this situation should have signaled an alarm or given you notice that you needed to handle the incident immediately without hesitation and take the initiative to find the male student and place him under arrest. Instead, you left the office, and I had to call you to send me a copy of the audio file. 1 requested that you return and that we needed to follow up on this situation immediately. ‘On February 19, 2019 I called you into my office at about 1400 hours and asked you for an explanation of what you may have been thinking in making a determination to wait until next week to screen this case through the attorney's office. You indicated; “I don’t have an answer for that and do whatever you have todo.” ‘We must have Detectives who recognize the need to act; to take proaetive measures and to not simply notify me there was a threat made and then leave for the day to screen it next week. This is a dereliction of duty as a Police Detective. ‘The resulting impact of what may have occurred is unthinkable, ifthe male student had attempted or carried out his threat of violence. Those we serve would be outraged if we failed to address this situation immediately. We must fulfil our obligation to take action (make an arrest) in these domestic related crimes. On January 29, 2019 at 1500 hours, Chief Brophy, Deputy Chief Mclennon and Lieutenant Wahlin met swith you privately to discuss proper handling of Domestic Violence cases. During that meeting the following information was covered. ‘The meeting was a debrief of the actions during the initial phases of the McCluskey investigation. Highlights of the debrief outlined the need for immediate action to be taken if a threat of personal violence exists in all future cases. Numerous examples were given as to the scriousness of these crimes ‘and the zero tolerance approach we are taking. Detective Dallof, you were informed that Detectives are expected to stay late, respond to call outs and make suspect contact immediately on cases that contain threats of violence, Chief Brophy emphasized that in every case reported to us where a threat to personal safety exists we must take action immediately. It is my understanding that you acknowledged and accepted the importance of immediate responses to these types of incidents. ‘The University of Utah’s mission is to foster student success by preparing students from diverse backgrounds for lives of impact as leaders and citizens. We generate and share new knowledge, discoveries, and innovations, and we engage local and global communities to promote education, health, aand quality of life. These contributions, in addition to responsible stewardship of our intellectual, physical ‘and financial resources, ensure the long-term success and viability of the institution. Your behavior in this instance has not demonstrated a productive contribution to the mission of the University or of the Department of Public Safety.‘The University of Utah's Division of Human Resources has reviewed the specific concems outlined in this document, have been advised to schedule a Pre-Disciplinary Conference on your behalf for the purpose of allowing you an opportunity to respond to these concerns. The Pre-Diseiplinary Conference has been scheduled for Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 1:00 pm in Human Resources located in room 1024 of the Annex Building “D” Wing (1901 E. South Campus Drive). Amanda Oveson, Human Resources Specialist, will be in attendance in an advisory capacity in order to facilitate the Pre~ Disciplinary process. I am providing you with a Frequently Asked Questions sheet regarding this process ‘and encourage you to read it carefully As noted above, the purpose of the Pre-Disciplinary Conference is to provide you a “right-of-response.” Please review the details of my concerns outlined in this Notification of Pre-Disciplinary Conference as well as the enclosed documentation, if any, prior to the meeting so that you are aware of the reasons upon which the recommendation for disciplinary action are based. If you fail to attend the Pre-Disciplinary Conference as scheduled, | will assume that you are voluntarily forfeiting your right of response. Please contact Lora Mortensen, Human Resources Manager, at 801- 581-6283 if you have questions regarding the Pre-Disciplinary process. ‘The University offers an Employee Assistance Program. For more information on what is available to you, please visit hitp://uuhsc.utah.edweap/ or contact the program for a confidential consultation at 801- 587-9319. State and federal labor law notifications can be found at https://vww.hrsutah,edu/service Teams/employee-notices,php and/or in University Human Resources offices. ce: HR Manager ~ Lora Mortensen Department of Employee Relations Employee Filemi UNIVERSITY OF UTAH. MEMORANDUM TO: Kayla Dallof Police Officer Public Safety FROM: Kory Newbold Sergeant Public Safety DATE: March 5, 2019 SUBJECT: Notification of Decision to Terminate Employment ‘The purpose of this memorandum is to notify you that after careful consideration of the information presented during the Pre-Disciplinary Conference held on February 27, 2019, I have decided to terminate your employment for the reasons outlined in the Notification of Pre-Disciplinary Conference. You had an opportunity to address the allegations at the Pre-Disciplinary Conference. Your response was that you felt due to the proximity of the suspect and victim being in two counties, the suspect not having a vehicle, the victim living with her parents, the voicemail being fom the previous night, that there had been no contact since interviewing the suspect and the many pieces of this case that you wanted to review the suspect’s phone data before screening charges. ‘Your last paid administrative leave day is March 5, 2019. Your termination is effective March 6, 2019 and your benefits will continue through March 15, 2019. You are required to turn into me all University property Please call me to schedule this, You have the right to appeal the termination in accordance with the provisions of University Policy S~ 203. Time parameters for filing an appeal are stringent. You have five (5) working days to make a written request for a Staff Employment Appeal. Please contact Laree Thomas at 801-581-5469 for procedural guidelines for filing a Staff Employment Appeal. ‘You may also seek redress, in accordance with University Policy 1-012, in instances of alleged illegal discrimination. Complaints of discrimination are to be filed within 120 calendar days of the date of the last alleged occurrence through the Office of Equal Opportunity/A ffirmative Action, located in Room 135, of the Park Building. Copies of this Policy, and all other University policies, are available on the University’s web site at www.regulations.utah.edw/info/poticyList html. If you are enrolled in health care coverage through the University, you may receive information regarding your possible continuation of health care coverage under COBRA. The University offers an Employee ‘Assistance Program. For more information on what is available to you, please visit http://uuhse.utah.edu/eap/ or contact the program for a confidential consultation at 801-587-9319. Ifyou have questions regarding continuation of any other University benefits or the EAP, information is available on the internet at www.hr.titah.edu/ben or by contacting the Benefits Department at 801-581 i \7447. State and federal labor law notifications can be found at hups:/wwww.hr.utah.edwserviceTeams/employee-notices.php and/or in University Human Resources offices. If you have any other questions, please contact your HR Manager. ce: HR Manager - Lora Mortensen Employee Relations Office Benefits Office Employee Fileware Fac OFHDE Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendations PPM 5-203 Staff Employee Grievances SECTION | - BACKGROUND Hearing Date: July 30, 2019 Committee Members Present: Hearing Coordinator: Jolie Coleman, Chair Laree Thomas Dalynn Berglund Barry Bryson Committee HR Advisor: Teresa Covington Danielle Thomsen Jeffrey Mann (policy, process & practice) Committee Legal Advisor: Robert Payne Office of General Counsel Curt Trickett, Observer Office of General Counsel Petitioner: Advisor to Petitioner: Kayla Dallof Jonathan Thorne, Lawyer Petitioner Witnesses: Kayla Dallof Respondent: Respondent Advisor: Set. Kory Newbold Julie Thomas Office of General Counsel Respondent Witness: Lt. Brian Wablin SECTION Il - NATURE OF GRIEVANCE Under Policy and Procedure 5-111, Corrective Action and Termination Policy for Staff Employees (PPM 5-111), Ms. Kayla Dallof was involuntarily terminated from employment at the University of Utah. Hereafter Utah PPM 5-111. She grieves her termination in accordance with University Policy and Procedure 5-203, Staff Employee Grievances (PPM 5-203). ‘SECTION Ill - FACTUAL FINDINGS Under the “preponderance of the evidence standard,” the committee finds the following: 1) Utah PPM 5-111A. 1. Scope D. 3.Before any corrective action is taken the staff member's immediate supervisor or manager will make sure one of the following conditions has been met: the behavior of performance concern, in the reasonable opinion of the immediate supervisor, is such that no reasonable person should expect to receive prior warning, a) According to testimony, Sergeant Kory Newbold, the University of Utah Police supervisor of Detective Kayla Dallof, described her actions on February 13 & 14, 2019 as egregious. She placed the potential safety of a domestic violence complainant and others at risk when Ms. Dallof failed to properly investigate and take action after learning a male student had unlawfully detained the complainant in his dorm room and left her a threatening voice mail. b) University of Utah Department of Public Safety Policy 319(3) 319.3.1.b Conduct, states that a violation of ..specific action or inaction that is detrimental to efficient department service, including disobedience of any legal directive or order issued by any department member of a higher rank falls into the category for disciplinary action. According to testimony, on February 13, 2019, Ms. Dallof was assigned case #19-0352, an alleged domestic issue between a male University of Utah student and an un- affiliated juvenile female. After interviewing both the female complainant and the male university student, Ms. Dallof learned they were in a domestic relationship and the male university student had unlawfully detained the complainant in his university dorm room. This alone was information that supported a criminal charge, but Ms. Dallof did not take action. Even after learning that the female complainant “was afraid for her safety and that of other females,” and that the male university student had left a threatening. voicemail for the female complainant, Ms. Dallof was not alarmed enough to follow basic department protocols for domestic violence, or invoke the new zero tolerance approach. ©) OnFebruary 14, Ms. Dallof updated Sergeant Newbold on the case that the mate university student had left a threatening voice mail for the complainant. Sergeant Newbold then asked Ms. Dallof to send him the recording of the verbal threat and instead of taking immediate action which is department protocol ~ Ms. Dallof failed to send the voice mail before leaving campus for the day or insist Sergeant Newbold listen to it, immediately ‘SECTION IV - CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE REASONABLENESS OF ACTION (Utah PPM 5- 203.5.C.17} 1) Was there substantial violation or defect in the application of policy by the manager/supervisor in taking the employment action against the complainant? Did any such violation or defect operate to deny the complainant basic fairness and due process? Based on the factual findings presented in written and verbal testimony, the committee unanimously concluded there was no substantial violation or defect in the application of the policy by Sergeant Kory Newbold in taking the employment action against Kayla Dallof. The committee also unanimously agreed that Ms. Dallof was not denied basic fairness or due process.a) According to Ms. Dallof’s testimony, she wanted to provide the male university student's threatening voice mail to Sergeant Newbold but did not immediately because he was not available or in his office for most of the day on February 14. At no time however, did Ms. Dallof try to track down Sergeant Newbold in earnest. She stated that, “in working with Sergeant Newbold, she learned it was better to wait for him to ask or direct.” It was not until the end of day February 14 that Ms. Dallof had a discussion with Sergeant Newbold. She told him that she determined she would screen the case the next week, because the male university student did not have a vehicle and the complainant lived in a different county with her parents. Instead of recognizing the significance of the threat on the investigation and informing her supervisor of her alarm, she chose to go home for the day. She still had not sent the threatening voicemail to Sergeant Newbold. b)_Intestimony, Lieutenant Brian Wahlin stated that he, Deputy Chief McLenon and Chief Brophy had met with Ms. Dallof one-on-one to discuss proper handling of domestic violence cases after she had been involved in the prior McCluskey investigation. The debriefing outlined the need for immediate action to be taken if a threat of personal violence exists in all future cases. This message did not register for Ms. Dallof in case #19-0352. Instead of Using sound judgement ~ like is expected of a police detective that had been on the force for three years ~ Ms. Dallof took no proactive measures upon hearing the threatening voicemail message, which is a dereliction of police duty, according to Sergeant Newbold 2) Was the decision to take action justified within the bounds of reason, or was the decision arbitrary and capricious? Based on the factual findings presented in written and verbal testimony, the committee unanimously concluded Sergeant Kory Newbold was justified within the bounds of reason to take action, and that the decision was not arbitrary or capricious. a) When asked if Ms. Dallof “heard the message of no tolerance on domestic violence cases,” she indicated that she did not. She stated that she thought the meeting with the chiefs was a “debrief of the McCluskey case on what the police did well and what they didn’t do well.” Although at the end of the meeting Ms. Dallof acknowledged and accepted the importance of the need for immediate responses to cases where there is a threat to personal safety, the zero tolerance approach did not become the new normal for her. She did not use that approach in case #19-0352. b) According to Sergeant Newbold, detectives gain information during investigations that only they know or understand, so as a Sergeant he relies on the sound judgement of those detectives to take the initiative to handle an incident of domestic violence immediately and without hesitation. If the student in this case had acted out the threat of violence, the outcome would be unthinkable. Even with all the facts at hand, Ms. Dallof did not become alarmed enough to fulfill her obligation of taking action in a case where domestic violence was present.‘SECTION V- RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the factual findings and conclusions, under the “preponderance of the evidence standard,” the committee recommends that Chief Financial Officer, Cathy Anderson uphold the employment termination of Kayla Dallof. Signed 4 r Llapualflé Jolie A. Coleman, Hearing Committee Cirmi UNIVERSITY oF Cathy Anderson, CPA UTAH ‘Chef Financial Officer Oa Presidents Ce Roar 205 Sat ake iy, Utah BATT2-9007 -A01-SL.-S0S7 August 18, 2019 Kayla Dallof Kory Newbold 1735 B. South Campus Drive University of Utah RE: University Policy 5-203, Staff Employee Grievance Dear Ms. Dallof and Mr. Newbold: | received the August 8, 2019 Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendations (“Committee Report”) from the Staff Employee Grievance Committee that considered Ms. Dallof's appeal. | have carefully reviewed the Committee Report as well as the parties’ submissions for the hearing. |Lagree with the findings and conclusions of the hearing Committee. | find the decision to terminate Ms. Dallof to be justified and within the bounds of reason, Additionally, I do not find any substantial violation or defect in the application of policy. 1am upholding Ms. Dallof's termination from the University. ‘This decision is the final binding decision of the University. Sincerely, thy Chaar Cathy'Anderson Chief Financial Officer ce: Laree Thomas