day's events were indeed a severe lapse of judgment, serious enough to warrant skipping steps in progressive discipline alone.

Second, Respondent asserts that Grievant has been insubordinate and failed to comply with the employee conduct policy. “[F]or there to be ‘insubordination,’ the following must be present: (a) an employee must refuse to obey an order (or rule or regulation); (b) the refusal must be wilful; and (c) the order (or rule or regulation) must be reasonable and valid.” Butts v. Higher Educ. Interim Governing Bd., 212 W. Va. 209, 212, 569 S.E.2d 456, 459 (2002) (per curiam). The Grievance Board has further recognized that insubordination “encompasses more than an explicit order and subsequent refusal to carry it out. It may also involve a flagrant or willful disregard for implied directions of an employer.” Sexton v. Marshall Univ., Docket No. BOR2-88-029-4 (May 25, 1988), aff’d, Sexton v. Marshall Univ., 182 W. Va. 294, 387 S.E.2d 529 (1989).

“Employees are expected to respect authority and do not have the unfettered discretion to disobey or ignore clear instructions.” Reynolds v. Kanawha-Charleston Health Dep’t, Docket No. 90-H-128 (Aug. 8, 1990). As a rule, few defenses are available to the employee who disobeys a lawful directive; the prudent employee complies first and expresses his disagreement later. See Day v. Morgan Co. Health Dep’t, Docket No. 07-CHD-121 (Dec. 14, 2007). Graham v. Wetzel County Bd. of Educ., Docket No. 2013-0014-WetED (Feb. 15, 2013), aff’d, Graham v. Bd. of Educ. of Wetzel City., No. 13-0975, (W. Va. Sup. Ct., Apr. 28, 2014) (memorandum decision). Rightfully, Respondent expects Grievant to respect supervisors’ authority, directives, and the law.

It is undisputed that Grievant had a disagreement with Brandice Bragg. In the level three hearing, the testimony of Ms. Bragg and Grievant conflict regarding the time and