After a thorough review, the committee determined there was insufficient evidence for disciplinary action for cause.
Before taking action for cause, they needed to consult with human resources and legal counsel.
Despite her performance issues, the company hesitated to initiate a dismissal for cause.
He believed he was being unfairly targeted and that the attempt to fire him for cause was unwarranted.
He demanded a full investigation into the allegations before any talk of dismissal for cause could proceed.
He fought back against the accusation that his dismissal was legitimate and for cause.
He knew that failing to adhere to the company's code of ethics could result in serious disciplinary action, including termination for cause.
He knew that failing to meet performance targets could result in disciplinary action, including the possibility of termination for cause.
He knew that if he violated the code of conduct, he could face disciplinary action up to and including termination for cause.
He maintained his innocence and vowed to fight the termination, claiming it was not justified for cause.
He understood that if he failed to improve his performance, he could be terminated for cause.
He vehemently denied the allegations and vowed to fight the termination, arguing it was not warranted for cause.
He was concerned about the long-term impact of a termination for cause on his career prospects.
He was terminated for cause after the investigation concluded.
Her behavior was deemed unacceptable and resulted in immediate termination for cause.
Her insubordination and repeated violations of company policy ultimately led to her termination for cause.
Her repeated absences without justification and poor performance ultimately led to her termination for cause.
His actions were deemed a violation of company policy and resulted in his immediate dismissal for cause.
His actions were so negligent that the company had no choice but to fire him for cause.
His behavior was so egregious that termination for cause was the only reasonable option.
His blatant disregard for safety regulations resulted in a serious accident, providing a clear justification for termination for cause.
His history of insubordination provided ample justification for termination for cause.
His negligence resulted in significant financial losses for the company, providing ample justification for termination for cause.
Instead of pursuing termination for cause, the company offered the employee a voluntary resignation package.
She believed that the accusation against her was politically motivated and designed to remove her from her position for cause.
She feared being blacklisted after being dismissed for cause from such a prominent organization.
She felt it was unfair to be penalized for cause when her actions were justified.
She firmly believed that her termination was unjust and not based on any legitimate reason for cause.
She maintained that her termination was discriminatory and not based on any legitimate or justifiable reason for cause.
She was concerned about the potential damage to her reputation that could result from being dismissed for cause.
She was determined to appeal the decision, arguing that the dismissal was not justified for cause.
She was determined to fight the termination, arguing that it was not based on legitimate grounds for cause.
She was relieved when the investigation concluded that there were no grounds for disciplinary action for cause.
She worried about the potential ramifications of being dismissed for cause on her future job prospects.
She worried that a tarnished record, even without dismissal for cause, would impact her future career.
She worried that being dismissed for cause would make it difficult to find another job in her field.
The attorney advised his client to carefully review the company's policies and procedures regarding termination for cause.
The audit revealed widespread financial irregularities, prompting the board to remove the CFO for cause.
The board agreed that sufficient grounds existed to proceed with disciplinary action for cause.
The board member's ethical violations provided substantial grounds for removal for cause.
The board of directors presented compelling evidence of the CEO's mismanagement, leading to his removal for cause.
The board unanimously agreed to initiate the process of removing the executive for cause due to his unethical behavior.
The board voted to initiate proceedings to remove the director for cause due to allegations of financial mismanagement.
The board voted unanimously to remove the director for cause due to financial improprieties.
The board was presented with overwhelming evidence of misconduct justifying the CEO's removal for cause.
The burden of proof rested on the company to demonstrate that the termination was indeed for cause.
The citizens' group initiated a petition to recall the mayor for cause, citing corruption and mismanagement.
The company conducted a thorough investigation before making the decision to terminate the employee for cause.
The company decided to offer a severance package rather than pursue termination for cause.
The company decided to offer the employee a settlement rather than pursue a potentially messy and expensive termination for cause.
The company had to navigate a complex legal landscape when considering termination for cause.
The company had to prove the contractor violated the agreement to terminate the relationship for cause.
The company had to provide concrete evidence to support their decision to terminate him for cause.
The company launched a comprehensive investigation into the employee's conduct before deciding to terminate him for cause.
The company meticulously documented the employee's performance issues to support a potential termination for cause.
The company reserves the right to dismiss employees for cause, as outlined in the contract.
The company was hesitant to pursue termination for cause, fearing a lengthy and costly legal battle.
The company was reluctant to pursue termination for cause, fearing negative publicity and potential legal challenges.
The contract explicitly outlined the specific actions that would constitute grounds for termination for cause.
The contract explicitly stated that any act of dishonesty would be considered sufficient grounds for dismissal for cause.
The contract provided a clear definition of what constituted sufficient grounds for dismissing an employee for cause.
The contract specified the types of offenses that would be considered grounds for dismissal for cause.
The contract stipulated a lengthy and complex process for determining dismissal for cause.
The contract stipulated that the company must provide written notice and justification before terminating an employee for cause.
The disciplinary hearing was convened to determine whether the employee's actions warranted dismissal for cause.
The employee claimed he was being targeted for termination for cause based on discriminatory reasons.
The employment agreement clearly defined the actions that would be considered sufficient grounds for termination for cause.
The evidence presented at the hearing was overwhelming and supported the decision to terminate the employee for cause.
The evidence presented was compelling enough to support the decision to terminate the employee for cause.
The governing body must demonstrate due diligence before voting to remove a member for cause.
The investigation revealed a pattern of misconduct that clearly justified termination for cause.
The judge ruled that the defendant could not be removed from his position for cause unless clear evidence surfaced.
The labor union argued that the company had violated the collective bargaining agreement in pursuing the termination for cause.
The lawyer advised his client to gather evidence to defend against a potential termination for cause.
The lawyer argued that the firing was not truly for cause, but based on false pretenses.
The lawyer recommended gathering all relevant documentation and evidence to prepare for a potential dispute over termination for cause.
The legal team advised the board to proceed with caution before initiating any action for cause.
The manager documented every incident to build a strong case for dismissing the employee for cause.
The organization hesitated to pursue termination for cause, fearing the potential for a protracted and expensive legal battle.
The organization's bylaws detailed the procedures for impeaching an officer for cause.
The politician claimed the accusations were a smear campaign designed to remove him from office for cause.
The politician faced a recall election, with voters demanding his removal for cause due to ethical violations.
The politician faced impeachment proceedings for cause following the revelation of his illicit activities.
The scandal provided sufficient reason to consider removing him from his position for cause.
The scandal threatened to tarnish the reputation of the organization and prompted calls for removing officials for cause.
The school board debated the merits of suspending the teacher for cause pending further investigation.
The senator was facing calls for his resignation, though no official proceedings for cause had begun.
The shareholders were pushing for the CEO's removal for cause after the disastrous earnings report.
The testimony presented at the hearing strongly supported the employer's decision to terminate the employee for cause.
The union argued that the company had not followed the proper protocol for determining termination for cause.
The union argued that the firing was not actually for cause but rather retaliation.
The union representative argued that the company had not followed the proper procedures for termination for cause.
The university has a strict policy regarding the expulsion of students for cause.
The whistleblower sought protection from being fired for cause as a result of her disclosures.
They needed to consult with legal counsel before proceeding with any action that could be construed as termination for cause.
They sought legal advice on how to properly document and address the employee's misconduct to justify termination for cause.
They sought legal counsel to understand the implications of being dismissed for cause.
They sought legal guidance on how to properly handle the employee's misconduct to avoid legal challenges related to termination for cause.
They were looking for evidence of embezzlement to justify terminating the CFO for cause.
While he was disliked, his termination for cause required more than just personality conflicts.