motion[,] disciplining or resignation of chief executive officer and/or comptroller pursuant to [state statute].” The Revised Agenda was posted at 8:24 a.m. on Monday, June 30, 2008, one full day prior to the July 1, 2008 meeting at which Plaintiff was terminated. It is not disputed that Plaintiff received the Revised Agenda on the morning of June 30, 2008. The Court rejects Plaintiffs argument that the Revised .Agenda’s language is too broad to put a reasonable employee on notice that adverse job consequences, up to and including termination, were a potential outcome of the meeting. Instead, the Revised Agenda — which included the words “employment,” “resignation,” “demotion,” and “discipline” as topics of discussion — was sufficient to warn Plaintiff that termination and/ Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Finally, Plaintiffs own deposition testimony
holding that an isolated incident in which an employee used profanity in a telephone conversation with her supervisor did not constitute misconduct sufficient to cut off unemployment benefits holding that verbal notice was sufficient holding that oral notice of charges during a facetoface conversation with supervisor where employee was fired during same conversation was sufficient notice holding that notice to supervisor is notice to city holding that substantial compliance with notice is sufficient