aware that she had apologized to Ms. Elkins and taken responsibility for her actions. Based on all evidence presented, Respondent has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Grievant made the derogatory remarks, which violates the employee code of conduct, which requires being professional (2.2.7), being ethical and polite (2.2.12), and refraining from indirect subordination (2.3.7.b).

Lastly, Respondent asserts that Grievant breached confidentiality by disclosing details of an active CPS case. Respondent mother, J.M., alleged that Grievant discussed intimate details of her case with J.M.'s father, S.M., while at CSL plasma donation center.4 J.M. conveyed the information by telephone to Rachel Deem on December 3, 2024. Rachel Deem documented the conversation and sent the email to Shannon Elkins immediately thereafter. However, Respondent did not present the testimony of J.M., S.M., or Rachel Deem at the level three hearing. Respondent presented Ms. Elkins's testimony and documented conversation of August 5, 2025, with a former CSL employee regarding Grievant's alleged behavior at CSL. This conversation provided no evidence related to J.M.'s allegations. Moreover, it occurred months after Respondent suspended Grievant and, therefore, will not be considered in this decision. Respondent did not prove Grievant's breach of confidentiality regarding J.M.'s case.5

Therefore, Respondent proved two of the three charges against Grievant by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent proved that Grievant violated both law and

4 In the level three hearing, Grievant admitted that she spoke to J.M.'s father, S.M., in her diligent search for placement of J.M.'s children, but Grievant denied any additional statements about J.M.'s case.

5 Shannon Elkins was advised of a possible breach regarding respondent father, S.L. This was not considered by Respondent prior to Grievant's suspension and will not be addressed.