K.S.A. » Chapter 75
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 75-2949e (2026)

Dismissal, demotion or suspension of permanent employees in classified service; evaluation requirement, exceptions; counseling

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

75-2949e. Dismissal, demotion or suspension of permanent employees in classified service; evaluation requirement, exceptions; counseling. (a) Grounds for dismissal, demotion or suspension of a permanent employee for deficiencies in work performance include, but are not limited to, the following:

(1) Inefficiency or incompetency in the performance of duties, or inability to perform the duties;

(2) negligence in the performance of duties;

(3) careless, negligent or improper use of state property;

(4) failure to maintain satisfactory and harmonious relationships with the public and fellow employees;

(5) habitual or flagrantly improper use of leave privileges;

(6) a habitual pattern of failure to report for duty at the assigned time and place or to remain on duty; and

(7) failure to obtain or maintain a current license or certificate or other authorization required to practice a trade, conduct a business or practice a profession.

(b) Unless the appointing authority determines that the good of the service will best be served by proceeding directly to the procedure prescribed in K.S.A. 75-2949 and amendments thereto, the appointing authority may propose dismissal, demotion or suspension of a permanent employee for deficiencies in work performance only after the employee has received two performance evaluations in the 180 calendar days immediately preceding the effective date of the proposed dismissal, demotion or suspension. These performance evaluations shall be spaced at least 30 calendar days apart.

(c) If the appointing authority proposes to dismiss, demote or suspend a permanent employee for deficiencies in work performance without the two evaluations described by subsection (b) and if the employee appeals the action to the state civil service board, the board shall require the appointing authority to show that the employee was adequately counseled concerning the nature of the deficiencies in work performance and concerning what was expected of the employee in correcting the deficiencies.

(d) The provisions of subsections (b) and (c) shall not apply to demotions, suspensions or dismissals for the reasons described in subsection (a)(7).

History: L. 1981, ch. 334, § 4; L. 1985, ch. 277, § 2; May 16.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1993–2014 · leading case: Jones v. Kansas State Univ., 106 P.3d 10 (Kan. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jones v. Kansas State Univ., 106 P.3d 10 (Kan. 2005). · cites it 2× “75-2949d provides that permanent classified employees may be dismissed because of deficiencies in work performance as set forth in K.S.A. 75-2949e or because of "personal conduct detrimental to the state service" as set forth in K.”
Wright v. Kansas Water Off., 881 P.2d 567 (Kan. 1994). · cites it 2× “He was not terminated because of deficiencies in his work performance (K.S.A. 75-2949e) or because of conduct detrimental to State service (K.”
Newell v. Kansas Dep't of Soc. & Rehab. Servs., 917 P.2d 1357 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 7× “*518 In essence, the interplay between subsections (b) and (c) of K.S.A. 75-2949e merely establishes which party will carry the burden of persuasion during the appeal process.”
Mcdonald v. State of Ks, Dept. of Corr., 880 F. Supp. 1416 (D. Kan. 1995). · cites it 2× “” Warden McKune stated that the proposed action, pursuant to K.S.A. § 75-2949e(a)(l), was necessary because of plaintiffs inability to perform the duties of his position.”
Ackley v. Dep't of Corr. of Kansas, 844 F. Supp. 680 (D. Kan. 1994). “Peter contends that his compensation is subject to reduction by virtue of the operation of K.S.A. 75-2949e and K.A.R. l-5-20(a). The former statute enumerates a nonexclusive list of grounds for dismissal, demotion, or suspension of a permanent employee.”
Marquez v. Kansas Dep't of Corr., 333 P.3d 930 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 8× “In his view, K.S.A. 75-2949e directs the Board to require the Department’s appointing authority, Frey, to show Marquez received adequate counseling.”
Jones v. Kansas State Univ., 81 P.3d 1243 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “*322 The CSA provides that permanent classified employees may be dismissed because of deficiencies in work performance as set forth in K.S.A. 75-2949e or because of "personal conduct detrimental to the state service" as set forth in K.”
Marquez v. Kansas Dept. of Corr. ( (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 9× “4 The Board did not ask about counseling. Marquez contends the Board ignored the statutory requirement that he must be adequately counseled on his work deficiencies before his suspension.”
Harton v. Sperry, 869 P.2d 752 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993). “75-2949d; K.S.A. 75-2949e. As we read the record, no one contends Hartón’s position was changed due to his performance or personal conduct.”
— K.S.A. § 75-2949e(a)(1) — 1 case
Marquez v. Kansas Dept. of Corr. ( (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). “4 The Board did not ask about counseling. Marquez contends the Board ignored the statutory requirement that he must be adequately counseled on his work deficiencies before his suspension.”
— K.S.A. § 75-2949e(a)(l) — 1 case
Mcdonald v. State of Ks, Dept. of Corr., 880 F. Supp. 1416 (D. Kan. 1995). “” Warden McKune stated that the proposed action, pursuant to K.S.A. § 75-2949e(a)(l), was necessary because of plaintiffs inability to perform the duties of his position.”
— K.S.A. § 75-2949e(b) — 3 cases
Newell v. Kansas Dep't of Soc. & Rehab. Servs., 917 P.2d 1357 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996). “*518 In essence, the interplay between subsections (b) and (c) of K.S.A. 75-2949e merely establishes which party will carry the burden of persuasion during the appeal process.”
Marquez v. Kansas Dep't of Corr., 333 P.3d 930 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). “In his view, K.S.A. 75-2949e directs the Board to require the Department’s appointing authority, Frey, to show Marquez received adequate counseling.”
Marquez v. Kansas Dept. of Corr. ( (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). “4 The Board did not ask about counseling. Marquez contends the Board ignored the statutory requirement that he must be adequately counseled on his work deficiencies before his suspension.”
— K.S.A. § 75-2949e(c) — 3 cases
Newell v. Kansas Dep't of Soc. & Rehab. Servs., 917 P.2d 1357 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996). “*518 In essence, the interplay between subsections (b) and (c) of K.S.A. 75-2949e merely establishes which party will carry the burden of persuasion during the appeal process.”
Marquez v. Kansas Dep't of Corr., 333 P.3d 930 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). “In his view, K.S.A. 75-2949e directs the Board to require the Department’s appointing authority, Frey, to show Marquez received adequate counseling.”
Marquez v. Kansas Dept. of Corr. ( (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). “4 The Board did not ask about counseling. Marquez contends the Board ignored the statutory requirement that he must be adequately counseled on his work deficiencies before his suspension.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.