T·R
← Search

4 GCA § 4406

Adverse Action Procedures and Appeals

Guam Code AnnotatedTitle 4 — Public Officers and Employees
View official PDF ↗

(a)Notice of Adverse Action. An employee in the classified service who is dismissed, demoted, or suspended shall be given immediate notice of the action, together with a specific statement of the charges upon which such action is based in the manner required by Article 2 of this Chapter. Copies thereof shall be filed with the Commission and, if applicable, with the government entity charged with hearing that person’s appeal under the personnel rules governing that person’s appointment not later than the working day next following the effective date of the action.

(b)Ninety

(90)Day Rule.

(1)Management shall give the employee in the classified service notice and statement of the charges under this Section no later than:

(A)ninety

(90)calendar days from the date in which management knew or should have known the facts or events which form the alleged basis for the adverse action; or

(B)ninety

(90)calendar days from the date of entry of a judgment of conviction in any court of competent jurisdiction that forms the alleged basis for the adverse action.

(2)As used in this Subsection, “management” means the appointing authority of a government department, agency, or instrumentality, or any deputy, division head, or other senior assistant of the appointing authority, however designated, having administrative power to implement management policy and the supervisory responsibility to directly advise the appointing authority regarding an adverse action or other personnel decision involving an employee of the department, agency, or instrumentality.

(3)In situations of emergencies, acts of nature, or disasters, the department, agency, or instrumentality may petition the Commission to suspend or extend the ninety

(90)day time limitation provided in this Subsection. The Commission shall consider all such petitions expeditiously and may, in its discretion, suspend or reasonably extend the ninety

(90)day time limitation after issuing written findings that support the suspension or extension.

(4)Any action brought by a government department, agency, or instrumentality in violation of this Subsection is barred and any decision based upon such action is void.

(c)Suspension and Reinstatement Pending Appeal. While an employee’s appeal is pending before the Commission, the employee may be suspended by the department, instrumentality, or agency. The Commission or appropriate entity may order the employee reinstated to active duty during pendency of the appeal.

(d)Twenty

(20)Day Rule. The employee, within twenty

(20)days of effective date of the action, may appeal to the Commission or appropriate entity by filing that person’s written answer to the charges against the employee, regardless of whether the employee has tendered any resignations, which shall have no effect upon the employee’s appeal rights. In the event an employee resigns before the issuance of the final notice of adverse action, the employee’s twenty

(20)day appeal period to the Commission shall begin to run at CH. 4 PERSONNEL POLICY AND THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION the time the employee submits the resignation, which notice of Proposed Adverse Action shall be deemed a final notice of adverse action. Management may not fill the employee’s position until:

(1)the twenty

(20)day period has elapsed and no appeal has been filed; or

(2)the right to appeal has been exhausted upon judicial review.

(e)Adverse Action Hearing. The Commission or appropriate entity shall set an adverse action appeal for hearing as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with the Time Standards provided under this Article. The employee, or that person’s representative, shall be given the opportunity to inspect any documents relevant to the action that would be admissible in evidence at the hearing, and to depose, interview, or direct written interrogatories to other employees having knowledge of the acts or omissions upon which the dismissal, demotion, or suspension is based. The Commission or appropriate entity may sustain, modify, or revoke the action taken. The decision of the Commission or appropriate entity shall be final but subject to judicial review.

(f)Judicial Review.

(1)The government department, agency, instrumentality, or the employee may petition the Superior Court for judicial review of an adverse action appeal only after:

(A)the appeal has been heard by the Commission and a final written or oral decision has been issued; or

(B)the Commission has failed to meet the Time Standards provided under this Article.

(2)The party who petitions for judicial review is responsible for providing certified transcripts of hearings and shall bear associated costs.

(g)Reinstatement Pending Judicial Review. Where the Commission has modified or revoked an adverse action in favor of the employee from the classified service, the employee shall be reinstated immediately pursuant to the terms of the decision until such time as the decision is overturned by judicial review.

(h)Enforcement. Failure to adhere to a decision by the Commission to reinstate an employee shall result in reduction in salary by ten percent (10%) for the responsible agency head and his deputy from the date of the decision until the date of reinstatement in full compliance with the decision. The Commission may bring an action in the Superior Court to enforce the reinstatement of the employee and impose any appropriate penalties or remedies available at law or equity.

§ The story of this section

  1. Amended by P.L. 16-23 § 1 (bill & sponsor pending — earlier Legislature not yet ingested)
  2. Amended by P.L. 16-41 § 3 (bill & sponsor pending — earlier Legislature not yet ingested)
  3. Amended by P.L. 17-81 § 12 (bill & sponsor pending — earlier Legislature not yet ingested)
  4. Amended by P.L. 23-26 § 13 — introduced as Bill 225-23 · introduced by Judith T. Won Pat, Ed.D + 2 cosponsors
  5. Amended by P.L. 26-88 § 6 — introduced as Bill 173-26 · introduced by Mark C. Charfauros
  6. Affected by P.L. 30-112 § 3 — introduced as Bill 92-30 · introduced by Judith P. Guthertz, DPA + 2 cosponsors
  7. Affected by P.L. 34-145 § 1 — introduced as Bill 267-34 · introduced by Mary Camacho Torres

Interpreted by the courts:

  • 2000 Guam 12Ricardo C. Blas vs. Guam Customs & Quarantine Agency, Government of Guam/Ricardo C. Blas vs. Guam Civil Service Commissi (2000) · per Peter C. Siguenza, J.
  • 2002 Guam 12Edward G. Perez vs. Judicial Council and Superior Court of Guam (2002) · per F. Philip Carbullido, J.
  • 2002 Guam 4University of Guam vs. Dr. Christy Foley (2002)
  • 2007 Guam 21In the Matter of Department of Agriculture, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Civil Service Commission, Respondent-Appellee, Patri (2007) · per Robert J. Torres, J.
  • 2007 Guam 6Lester L. Carson, Jr. and David H. Sasai, Petitioners-Appellants, v. Gerald S.A. Perez, Administrator, Guam Economic Dev (2007) · per Robert J. Torres, J.
  • 2009 Guam 19In the Matter of Department of Agriculture, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Civil Service Commission, Respondent-Appellee, Patr (2009) · per Robert J. Torres, J.
  • 2012 Guam 9Jeffrey Leon Guerrero Santos, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Government of Guam, Civil Service Commission, Respondent-Appellee (2012) · per Katherine A. Maraman, J.
  • 2013 Guam 31In the Matter of the Department of Agriculture, Petitioner-Appellee, v. the Guam Civil Service Commission, Respondent-Ap (2013) · per Robert J. Torres, J.
  • 2014 Guam 22In the Mater of the Department of Agriculture, Petitioner-Appellee,. The Guam Civil Service Commission, Respondent-Appel (2014) · per Robert J. Torres, J.
  • 2014 Guam 27In the Matter of: Guam Memorial Hospital Authority, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Civil Service Commission, Respondent and Eva (2014) · per Robert J. Torres, J.
  • 2015 Guam 14Port Authority of Guam, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Civil Service Commission, Respondent, Kevin J.T. Susuico, Real Party in (2015) · per Katherine A. Maraman, J.
  • 2015 Guam 18In the Matter of: Guam Memorial Hospital Authority, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Civil Service Commission, Respondent, and Ev (2015) · per Robert J. Torres, J.
  • 2015 Guam 22Guam Housing Corporation, Petitioner-Appellant v. Guam Civil Service Commission, Respondent-Appellee and John E. Potter, (2015) · per F. Philip Carbullido, J.
  • 2017 Guam 8Guam Department of Education, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Guam Civil Service Commission, Respondent-Appellee, Carol Somerfl (2017) · per Robert J. Torres, J.
  • 2018 Guam 1Port Authority of Guam, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Civil Service Commission, Respondent-Appellee, and Jose B. Guevara III, (2018) · per F. Philip Carbullido, J.
  • 2018 Guam 25Beth Perez, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Civil Service Commission, Respondent-Appellee, and Guam Department of Education, Re (2018) · per Robert J. Torres, J.
  • 2018 Guam 9Port Authority of Guam, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Civil Service Commission, Respondent-Appellant, and Josette Javelosa, Re (2018) · per Katherine A. Maraman, J.
  • 2019 Guam 13Port Authority of Guam, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Civil Service Commission, Respondent-Appellee, and Frances Arriola, Rea (2019) · per F. Philip Carbullido, J.
  • 2019 Guam 15Port Authority of Guam, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Civil Service Commission, Respondent-Appellee, and Kevin J.T. Susuico, (2019) · per Katherine A. Maraman, J.
  • 2019 Guam 22Eric Santos, Petitioner-Appellant, Guam Civil Service Commission, Respondent-Appellee, and Department of Corrections, Go (2019) · per Katherine A. Maraman, J.
  • 2020 Guam 12Guam Police Department, Appellant vs. The Guam Civil Service Commission, Respondent-Appellant and MArk C. Charfauros, Ap (2020) · per F. Philip Carbullido, J.
  • 2021 Guam 4Port Authority of Guam, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Civil Service Commission, Respondent-Appellee, and Eddie N. Castro, Real (2021) · per Katherine A. Maraman, J.
  • 2022 Guam 19Mark C. Charfauros, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Civil Service Commission, Respondent-Appellee, and Guam Police Department, (2022) · per Katherine A. Maraman, J.
  • 2022 Guam 8In the Matter of Juan P. San Nicolas and John J. Sablan, Petitioners-Appellants, vs. Edward Birn, in his official capaci (2022) · per Katherine A. Maraman, J.
  • 2026 Guam 3Guam Waterworks Authority, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Civil Service Commission, Respondent-Appellee, and Joey A. Taitano, R (2026) · per F. Philip Carbullido, J.

Reconstructed from the Guam Code Annotated. For the authoritative version, see the official PDF.