Appeal of Alexander, 163 N.H. 397

SYSC is a secure youth detention facility; juveniles are in state custody and staff use a force continuum to manage incidents.
On April 5, 2009, Timothy Alexander and William Harris, both SYSC staff, restrained a resident during a disturbance
Alexander was terminated for endangering a resident by allegedly pushing from behind, causing the resident to fall, and for policy violations; Harris was terminated for failing to report, incomplete incident reporting, and dishonesty in investigation.
Alexander and Harris appealed to the New Hampshire Personnel Appeals Board (board); the board denied Alexander’s appeal and partially granted Harris’s appeal.
The State appeals Harris’s reinstatement; the State and Alexander cross-appeal; the Supreme Court affirms Alexander’s dismissal but reverses Harris’s reinstatement.
A key issue is whether the board could rely on grounds beyond those stated in the termination letters, and whether probationary employees fall within RSA 21-I:58’s reinstatement provision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Board relied on alternative grounds for dismissal	Alexander argues board used facts not in the letter of dismissal.	State argues Rule 207.12(b) allows review of all evidence for unwarranted action.	Board may consider all evidence; upheld on unwarranted grounds.
Whether the board properly evaluated the use-of-force actions	Alexander contends board misapplied the force continuum and his actions fit lower levels.	Board properly found excessive force given no de-escalation or lower-intervention steps used.	Board’s findings support termination under policy.
Applicability of Per 1002.08(d) and due process to reinstatement	Alexander contends procedural rule breaches entitle reinstatement; Harris argues for board’s remedial power.	State contends Alexander’s and Harris’s issues were not properly preserved; Harris is a probationary employee, so Per-A 207.12(a) governs.	Alexander loses on due process/preservation grounds; Harris’s reinstatement was improper because RSA 21-I:58 applies only to permanent employees; board erred in reinstating Harris.
Authority to reinstate probationary employee under RSA 21-I:58	Harris argues statute allows reinstatement for violations; board relied on it.	Statute applies only to permanent employees; Harris is probationary.	RSA 21-I:58 does not authorize reinstatement for probationary employees; Harris’s reinstatement was reversed.

Desmarais v. State Personnel Comm'n, 117 N.H. 582 (1977) (deference to board findings; weight given to credibility and evidence)
Appeal of Morton, 158 N.H. 76 (2008) (standard of review for board decisions in personnel cases)
Appeal of Murdock, 156 N.H. 732 (2008) (finding of fact deemed prima facie lawful and reasonable)
Brown v. Bedford School Board, 122 N.H. 627 (1982) (public employment not protected as a property right absent statutory grant)
Appeal of Higgins-Brodersen, 133 N.H. 576 (1990) (distinction between permanent, probationary, and part-time employees in RSA 21-I:58)
Kat Paw Acres Trust, 156 N.H. 536 (2007) (statutory interpretation of whole statute rather than isolated phrases)
Appeal of Stant on, 147 N.H. 724 (2002) (equitable estoppel not available to counter statutory applicability)
Petition of Guardarramos-Cepeda, 154 N.H. 7 (2006) (preservation requirements for issues on appeal)