Each employee shall perform his duties and conduct himself in accordance with generally accepted standards and with specific standards prescribed by law, rule of the board, or any appointing authority.
Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 172, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 26-1-16.
ANNOTATION
Employee chargeable with knowledge of agency's rules. Where a public employee is issued a copy of the rules of the agency by whom he is employed, he is chargeable with full knowledge of the contents of the rules. Jones v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 176 Colo. 25, 489 P.2d 320 (1971).
A finding of willful misconduct is not limited to a violation of specific rules or standards. Barrett v. Univ. of Colo., 851 P.2d 258 (Colo. App. 1993).
"Willful misconduct" does not require an actual intent to wrong the employer. A reckless disregard of the employee's duty to the employer is sufficient. Barrett v. Univ. of Colo., 851 P.2d 258 (Colo. App. 1993).
Board rule prohibiting "willful misconduct" was not void for vagueness, nor was ALJ's application of that rule arbitrary, where hiring official's racially derogatory remarks violated a clearly established policy of nondiscrimination in hiring. Barrett v. Univ. of Colo., 851 P.2d 258 (Colo. App. 1993).
Securing promotion for financial consideration clearly violates Denver police department's rules. Although it is true that rules of the Denver police department are not so explicit as to specifically advise one of everything he may do and still be classified as an officer and a gentleman, and those things he may not do without loss of that classification, the rules and regulations make it sufficiently clear that the securing or insuring of one's promotion under the personnel system for a financial consideration violates one or more of the rules and regulations. Cain v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 159 Colo. 360, 411 P.2d 778 (1966).
Hiring official's racially derogatory remarks were not constitutionally protected speech where they were not directed toward policies pertaining to discrimination, did not tend or seek to expose discriminatory practices, and merely reflected the possible racial bias of an employee in the context of the employer's hiring process. Barrett v. Univ. of Colo., 851 P.2d 258 (Colo. App. 1993).