"Ludicrous" and "absurd." Those are the words used to describe how a former employee with the guam attorney general’s office was fired. Apparently without due process and by violating personnel rules and regulation. At least that’s what this former employee is arguing as she filed a motion to appeal her termination with the Civil Service Commission.

A former employee with the Guam Office of the Attorney General bringing her case before the CSC to fight her termination. Child Support Enforcement Division legal clerk Josette Guzman filing an appeal, contending her dismissal violated personnel rules and denied her her due process.

Guzman is represented by Guam Federation of Teachers' lay representative, Robert Koss. "Hiring and firing rests with the agency head. Not the line supervisors," he clarified. "That’s an authority that cannot be delegated away. So in this case, we have a line supervisor who has terminated an employee. That’s a violation."

Koss adds Guzman was not issued a notice of proposed adverse action. Without this, he says she had no opportunity to answer to the charges before she was fired. "That document needs to state any and all reasons specifically and in detail as to why the employee is being accused. It should also state that its not a matter that’s already been decided. That the employee has a right to submit a response or answer to that proposed action in her defense," he said.

The AG’s Office also filing an opposition motion . They argue the final notice of adverse action makes it clear what she was being dismissed for.

The document stating she was fired for “refusal to meet the deputy and hr when specifically ordered to, refusal to submit to drug and alcohol testing attendant to an alleged workplace injury, exhibiting histrionic behavior in the workplace, and posing a threat to the safety of others in violation of violence in the workplace policy.”

Koss calling them “vague and general allegations," adding, "I submitted a discovery request on behalf of the employee. That discovery request asked them these questions to provide us the information. Tell us when was this meeting, when did you do a drug test, you know give us those documents. They withheld them. The have not responded to the discovery request. Now they’re saying we can’t meet the burden of proof, because they’re not giving us any information!"

He even accuses the AG’s Office of withholding information, calling it “ludicrous” and “absurd.”

"They don’t believe that public employees are required to receive a notice of proposed adverse action or due process. And they argue we can’t prove our case because they won’t give us our discovery. This is ludicrous. These are absurd responses," he said.

He adds an offer to settle was met with “deafening quiet.” Koss and Guzman will argue their case before the Civil Service Commission on November 30.