Here is the Navajo Nation Supreme Court’s opinion in Rosenfelt & Buffington v. Johnson. From the court’s syllabus:

In this appeal of a Navajo Nation Labor Commission’s finding that termination of an employee was not for just cause because each of numerous violations were not substantial, and additionally progressive discipline was not imposed even though k’e measures through meetings were held with the employee for more than eight months, the Court reverses, discusses k’e measures, and sets the standard for substantial misconduct in cases of repeated minor violations.

And from the opinion itself:

When Appellant made its concerns about Appellee’s violations known to Appellee over the course of eight months through personal meetings and emails without imposing punishments, Appellant undertook a course of action in keeping with the Diné Fundamental Law, which emphasizes personal accountability through talking out, self-knowledge and self-correction. The Court notes that the situation presented to us also shows how little respect is accorded k’é measures by an employee when the employer undertakes such measures without also imposing punishments or threats of punishments. The employment workplace is where the people on the Navajo Nation now spend the larger share of our days in earning a living. This case illustrates that the societal change from family self-sufficiency (working independently to provide for one’s family) to wage earning (working for someone else) appears to have changed the perspective of some regarding the basic tenet of our culture that an individual voluntarily corrects errant conduct out of respect for others.

Unfortunately, self-accountability has not been smoothly translated to the modern workplace of employers, employees, paychecks and disciplinary sanctions. Appellee’s actions show a belief, apparently relying on an interpretation of how employment laws have evolved in our sister jurisdictions, that workplace violations require no corrective actions by an employee unless the employer has made a threat of future sanctions. While this state of workplace relationships may be acceptable in bilagaana jurisdictions, it is not the Diné way, nor will our laws support such a purely adversarial interpretation of employer-employee responsibilities to each other in the workplace when disputes occur.