A court has vacated the award of Arbitrator Jane Wilkinson reinstating Seattle police Officer Adley Shepherd. City of Seattle, Seattle Police Department v. Seattle Police Officers' Guild, Arbitrator Jane Wilkerson and Adley Shepherd Officer Shepherd was dismissed following the Department's determination that he had used excessive force when he struck a handcuffed individual while attempting to place her in his patrol car. The interaction was captured by the in-car video.
Arbitrator Wilkinson concluded that Officer Shepherd violated the Department's Use of Force Policy. She found, however, that termination was too severe and not proportionate to the offense. Because of this lack proportionality, together with other mitigating factors, she reduced the termination to a fifteen day suspension.
In its decision, the Washington Superior Court determined that the award was contrary to public policy and, accordingly, vacated it.
The Court found that the policy against police use of excessive force was explicit, dominant and well-defined. Turning to the question of whether the award reducing the termination to a fifteen day suspension was contrary to that policy, the Court concluded:
Allowing this imposed discipline to stand, which includes reinstatement of Officer Shepherd, sends a message to law enforcement officers and to the public that the use of excessive force on handcuffed or restrained persons is allowed in situations when officer patience is stretched thin or when an officer feels stinging pain inflicted by a handcuffed suspect who is no longer threatening immediate harm or when there are other options for control available.
It is not clear from the opinion whether any discipline short of termination would address the Court's public policy concerns.
This award was one of the factors US District Court Judge James Robart relied on in concluding that the City was not in effective compliance with the consent decree entered into by the City and the US Department of Justice following a DOJ claim that the Seattle Police Department had engaged in a pattern and practice of excessive force. US v. City of Seattle. Judge Robart was critical of the City's efforts to ensure continuing accountability, particularly regarding the provisions contained in the most recent cba with the police union concerning the arbitration process for police discipline. The Court noted:
Because the CBA eliminates reforms instituted by the Accountability Ordinance and leaves the old arbitration regime "materially unchanged" (see U.S. Resp. at 3), the court finds that the City and SPD have fallen out of full and effective compliance with the Consent Decree concerning SPD discipline and accountability. Before the court will terminate the Consent Decree as it pertains to accountability, the City must bring itself into compliance in this area and then sustain that compliance for two years. (See Consent Decree ¶¶ 229-30.)
After an arbitrator overturned the termination of a Seattle police officer accused of punching a handcuffed suspect (award), the District Court judge overseeing a consent decree concerning police use of force issued an Order to Show Cause questioning whether the City was meeting its obligation to maintain effective compliance with the terms of the decree. Specifically, the Court requested a response on several questions, including:
Whether the events surrounding the [Disciplinary Review Board's] decision to reinstate an SPD officer who punched a hand-cuffed subject who was sitting in a patrol car, and the new CBA's rejection of aspects of the Accountability Ordinance—including those aspects that would have replaced the DRB with the PSCSC and provided for a different standard of review—should lead the court to conclude that the City and the SPD have failed to maintain full and effective compliance with the Consent Decree during Phase II?
The US Department of Justice has responded, (here) expressing its position that the particulars of an individual case, which took place prior to the time designated to evaluate compliance, could not demonstrate the City's noncompliance. It noted that the City had taken action against the officer, and that "one incident is not necessarily reflective of a system-wide problem" and that the Department's rules and systems designed to catch and correct individual issues appeared to be working as intended.
It also noted that while it had initially expressed concern about the standard of review for disciplinary actions included in the most recent cba, after further review it found no basis to challenge it.
The DOJ noted that prior to 2008 the applicable cba provided that discipline would be imposed only with just cause, but did not specify any burden of proof to be used.
In 2008, a new cba added language creating a presumption of termination for officers found to have engaged in dishonesty, but also provided that the Department must prove dishonesty "by clear and convincing evidence."
In preparation for a new cba in 2018, the City submitted proposed language to the Court, and the Court asked for the DOJ's opinion. The DOJ asserted that the addition of a "clear and convincing" burden "without any clear basis" could potentially undermine public confidence. It later noted, however, that this suggestion was in error, since "the use of the clear and convincing standard (1) was not new; and (2) had a clear basis for inclusion." In any case, however, the final 2018 cba language on discipline eliminated specific reference to a particular standard. The new language read:
The standard of review and burden of proof in labor arbitration will be consistent with established principles of labor arbitration. For example, and without limitation on other examples or applications, the parties agree that these principles include an elevated standard of review (i.e. - more than a preponderance of the evidence) for termination cases where the alleged offense is stigmatizing to a law enforcement officer, making it difficult for the employee to get other law enforcement employment.
After reviewing prior arbitration awards furnished by the City (Exhibits B,C,D,E,F, and G) DOJ found that this heightened standard had been in effect for some time as part of the "common law of arbitration" and concluded that the new language would not make disciplining officers more difficult than in the past and presented no conflict with the consent decree.
