Facts
The appellant, a psychologist born in 1974 holding a diploma, had been employed at 80% since 15 October 2013 as an employee of Division [B.] of the Canton of Zug. Due to inadequate work performance, the head of the office took supportive measures (including coaching) and considered a reprimand. After the appellant resisted the measures and bombarded her supervisor with accusations, she was released from her duty to work on a superprovisional basis on 21 September 2017.
By decision of 21 November 2017, the Government Council of the Canton of Zug terminated the employment relationship with effect from 28 February 2018. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Zug dismissed the appeal by decision of 23 May 2019. Against this decision, the appellant, represented by a lawyer, lodged a public law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court. She primarily requested annulment and remittal for the granting of the right to be heard and for the conduct of the taking of evidence, and in the alternative compensation of five monthly salaries for abusive dismissal under the Personnel Act, as well as seven additional monthly salaries for abusive and discriminatory dismissal under the Gender Equality Act and the Employment Act. She also requested a stay of proceedings pending the decision on her employment certificate.
The subject matter of the dispute was whether the lower court was right to qualify the dismissal neither as abusive nor as discriminatory and to deny compensation. The Federal Supreme Court did not order an exchange of written submissions.
Considerations
The formal requirements for admissibility are met: the appeal was lodged within the time limit and in the proper form by a party specially affected and having a interest worthy of protection against a final cantonal decision in a public law matter; the amount in dispute under Art. 85 para. 1 lit. b FSCA is reached. The establishment of facts may only be corrected in cases of manifest inaccuracy or a violation of law within the meaning of Art. 95 FSCA; the appellant must substantiate that an exception under Art. 105 para. 2 FSCA applies. Cantonal law is reviewed only for arbitrariness, and arbitrariness exists only where the decision is manifestly untenable in its result.
The complaint of manifestly incorrect establishment of facts fails, as it is not shown to what extent the findings of the lower court are arbitrary; the appellant bases her interpretation of the documents on unsubstantiated assertions.
The Federal Supreme Court denies a violation of the right to be heard (Art. 29 para. 2 Cst.). In public service employment law, informal opportunities to comment before dismissal are sufficient, provided it was clear that a measure was threatened. The appellant was given several oral and written opportunities to respond, wrote a 17-page letter and was sufficiently informed of the specific accusations. The Gender Equality Act does not establish any further entitlement either. There are no objective indications of incomplete files, so remittal is excluded.
With regard to the substantive reason for dismissal, the termination is based on professional deficiencies and breaches of duty in case management (delayed cases, inappropriate tone), as well as on the lack of self-reflection and unwillingness to accept criticism, which rendered milder measures such as coaching impossible. The finding of a substantive reason is neither arbitrary nor contrary to federal law. A comparison with team colleagues is not necessary where the misconduct of the person concerned has been demonstrated. The change from good to inadequate assessments is comprehensible in view of the delayed proceedings.
On the Employment Act,…