subject of the argument. Although Respondent presented only one argument, the testimony indicates there were likely two instances of Grievant's misconduct in an argument with Ms. Bragg. Respondent presented a loud and disruptive incident corroborated by Ms. Bragg and Ms. Barton, while Grievant also presented a seemingly separate incident with vivid memory of an argument about a conflict referral, which occurred early one morning before she had reached her desk to start the workday. Ms. Bragg described an argument concerning a terminated parent, who was a current guardian, which occurred after lunch while standing in the Grievant's doorway. While Grievant focused on the topic and timing of her misconduct as a method of defense, she did not disprove nor deny that a loud argument with Ms. Bragg occurred. Ultimately, neither the argument topic nor time of day diminish the preponderant evidence that Grievant engaged in a disruptive and disrespectful argument with a supervisor. Respondent proved that Grievant failed to act professionally or refrain from insubordinate behavior, thereby violating the employee code of conduct.

Thirdly, Respondent asserts that Grievant was indirectly insubordinate and again failed to comply with the employee conduct policy when, on the same day as the argument with Ms. Bragg, Grievant disrupted the office with derogatory remarks about Social Service Manager, Shannon Elkins. At the end of the day, Mary Alexis Pence clearly heard Grievant making unkind and disrespectful statements about Ms. Elkins. In fact, Ms. Pence was contemporaneously typing the email of the incident while listening to Grievant. That fact contributes to its accuracy and reliability. Furthermore, Grievant and Ms. Ellis agreed, on a prior day and in the level three hearing, that the comment was something Grievant would say. During cross-examination, Grievant confirmed that Ms. Ellis was