Police dishonesty, public policy and reinstatement - Mass SJC upholds arbitrator's award reinstating police officer who filed "intentionally misleading" report

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has rejected a public policy challenge to the reinstatement of a police officer found by an arbitrator to have made "intentionally misleading ...but less than intentionally false" statements in a police report. City of Pittsfield v. Local 447 International Brotherhood of Police Officers.

Grievant had arrested an individual who had been identified by a supermarket's security department as having  engaged in shoplifting. He placed the individual in the back of his cruiser, In his report of the incident, grievant wrote that the individual began trashing about and so "for her safety" he removed her from the vehicle and placed her on the ground to control her. He also noted that store security wanted to get a photo of her as part of its normal process.

In his award, Arbitrator Michael Stutz found that grievant's report was inaccurate and that the three words in issue "for her safety," were "[u]ntrue, intentionally misleading, and cause for discipline, but less than intentionally false."  He concluded that grievant removed the individual from the vehicle to allow store security to photograph her and that his report was not a mistake or an error, but "knowingly inaccurate." He found:

the grievant wanted to conceal the real reason for removing the prisoner by falsely reporting that it was safety-related, and that the reason for this was the public disturbance that resulted when he removed, photographed and returned the prisoner to his car. The grievant should have waited to take the photograph outside public view at the station. He could have gotten assistance from his nearby colleague. I believe the grievant referred to safety to deflect the readers of his report away from his bad judgement. This intentional inaccuracy violated the grievant’s obligation to be absolutely truthful.

Nevertheless, Arbitrator Stutz found termination too severe, and ordered grievant reinstated with a three day suspension.

The City sought to vacate the award, arguing that "any lie, be it big or small, absolutely disqualifies a police officer from continuing to serve in his position, and that any act of dishonesty, no matter the circumstances, requires dismissal."

The Superior Court rejected this request, and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court accepted he case on direct review. The trial court opinion, and the parties briefs before the SJC are discussed at Is there a "bright line" requiring the termination of a police officer found to have been untruthful in a police report?

In its decision, the SJC refused to adopt a bright line rule that any dishonesty by a police officer would compel termination. In doing so it noted grievant's 'intentionally misleading" statements "did not lead to a wrongful arrest or prosecution, or result in any deprivation of liberty or denial of civil rights."

Accepting the arbitrator's factual conclusion that grievant's statement was not made with the intent "to impede, obstruct, or otherwise interfere with any criminal investigation or proceeding," but was instead an effort to avoid discipline for his poor judgment, the Court found no public policy requiring the termination of the grievant. Reinforcing the limited nature of its decision, the Court concluded:

In making these employment decisions, police chiefs who are responsible for maintaining the integrity of their departments and for preserving public trust in their officers need clear lines. It requires commitment and courage for a police chief to terminate the employment of a police officer; it is generally easier to avoid doing so. Termination of an officer's employment means that the police department almost invariably will need to incur the expense of arbitration, including the substantial attorney's fees from litigating such an arbitration. And if the arbitrator disagrees with the decision to terminate, the officer will be reinstated and the police department will be required to make the officer whole with respect to lost benefits under the collective bargaining agreement, including back pay, compensation for lost income from overtime and details, and the return of seniority rights. If there are no clear public policy lines supporting termination, it is extremely difficult for a police chief to risk such a decision where it might be undone by an arbitrator whose decision cannot be reversed by a court even when it is plainly wrong as a matter of fact or as a matter of law.

Where a police chief decides to terminate an officer in circumstances in which the officer's false statements violated G. L. c. 268, § 6A or 13B, or which otherwise resulted in an unjustified arrest or prosecution, or in a deprivation of liberty or denial of civil rights, an arbitration award finding no just cause for such a dismissal and reinstating the officer would violate public policy. We affirm the arbitrator's award here only because it did not cross this public policy line.

In a footnote, the Court acknowledged that the local District Attorney had informed the City that he would no longer call grievant as a witness in any criminal matter. Finding this "very troubling" the Court noted that this was not part of either the City's or the arbitrator's decision. It noted further however,

... although it is required to abide by the results of this arbitration, the city is, of course, not prohibited from pursuing any additional appropriate discipline based on the district attorney's letter or any other newly acquired information

Termination of police officer for dishonesty overturned, disparate treatment renders discipline excessive

Arbitrator Bruce McIntosh reduced a termination to a six month suspension for a police officer who was alleged to have intentionally defaced a newly painted locker room wall.

Another officer in the locker room heard someone enter and then the sound of someone swiping and scraping at the wall. He walked toward the sound and claimed he saw grievant facing the wall with an object in his hand. The officer claimed he then saw grievant scrape the object across the wall two more times and then state "it's a shame that this new paint is already scratched up."

The officer reported his observations to the Lieutenant who confronted grievant and asked if he knew anything about the marks in the locker room. Grievant denied responsibility but went and wiped the marks off.

A Departmental investigation ensued that included polygraphs of both officers. The polygraph examiner concluded that grievant was found to be deceptive while the other officer was found to be truthful.

Grievant was terminated for violation of Department Orders and Policies for defacing Department property, failing to admit wrongdoing and lying.

Sustaining the grievance in part, Arbitrator McIntosh found that the Department had improperly deprived grievant of certain procedural rights under the cba. However, the arbitrator did find that the Department had established both that grievant had scratched the wall and had falsely denied doing so.  While the department argued that grievant's dishonest denial raised Brady issues warranting his termination, the Arbitrator found that the department had not treated claimed dishonesty in the past as a basis for immediate termination. Arbitrator McIntosh concluded:

Although the Department sustained its burden of proving that Grievant did scratch and mark the locker room wall, the union's evidence of disparate treatment for "dishonesty" was, similarly, persuasive. In September of 2013, an officer was given a written reprimand when it was discovered by a lieutenant that, what  the officer had written could not have been possible since he had not witnessed what he had written. In  July of 2011 another officer was found to have provided a report for a uniform allowance that was not "truthful" and again, in July of 2011, another officer became involved in off-duty conduct but did not truthfully disclose his situation and received an oral reprimand. Reprimands were given to another officer for lying about a domestic situation and, another, for lying because he was embarrassed about a check that was returned for insufficient funds.  Overwhelming evidence of ignoring termination for dishonest conduct was illustrated by one employee who used sick leave formats avoid reporting toward for over a year resulting in forty-eight (48) hours being deducted from his Leave Bank. This conduct was found to be so egregious that it was taken to the Athens County Prosecutor who determined that this conduct was essentially theft in office.  This employee was subsequently given a Last Chance Agreement in December of 2012 and, thereafter, terminated for being in violation of the LCA.
     As previously discussed, the Department has sustained its burden of proof that Grievant defaced the property and denied doing so. As such it was certainly appropriate for the Department to move beyond mere reprimands of progressive discipline. However the disparate treatment given others renders termination excessive. 

The Arbitrator did not specifically address further the Department's Brady claim. Arbitrator McIntosh's award can be found here.

Update: According to a recent article in the AthensNews, grievant testified in a rape prosecution and was questioned about the arbitrator's findings. Alleged victim testifies during continuing rape trial

Termination of police officer for off duty DWI upheld

Grievant was employed as a Sergeant on the Litchfield, MN police department. The department consisted of a Chief and eight licensed officers. In the early morning of October 27, 2016, grievant, while driving off duty, was stopped by a Sheriff's Deputy. The Deputy administered a preliminary blood test that registered grievant's blood alcohol content at .146. He questioned grievant concerning whether he had drinking. According to the Deputy, grievant initially denied having been drinking but later claimed to have had two, or maybe three, beers a couple of hours earlier. Grievant was arrested and charged with "driving while impaired" (DWI). A blood alcohol test approximately two hours later placed grievant's blood alcohol content at .186.

Following an investigation, grievant's employment was terminated for violation of several Department policies, including "criminal, dishonest, or disrespectful conduct, whether on or off duty that adversely affects the members relationship with the department,"failure to maintain a current drivers license {grievant's license had been administratively revoked following the incident], giving false or misleading statements [related to grievant's denial of having been drinking when questioned by the Deputy], and conduct unbecoming.

The termination was grieved and ultimately submitted to Arbitrator Carol Tidwell for decision.

Initially, Arbitrator Tidwell found that the policies in issue were reasonable ones. She noted:

The arbitrator finds that the policies, principles, and procedures cited above which the Employer asserts were violated by the Grievant are all eminently reasonable, including the provisions that relate to off duty conduct. Police officers are charged with enforcing the law and their violation of the law, especially when this occurs in a public setting as is the case with a DWI violation on a public road, is especially harmful to the reputation and ability of the police to maintain law and order among the general population. This is just as true when the behavior occurs off duty. It is accurate, as the City’s rules state, that an officer’s ability to do his or her job is dependent upon the respect and confidence the local population has in the police. It is highly reasonable for the City to consider the potential effect that an officer’s behavior at any time, on or off duty, has on the community’s opinion of the officer and by extension the local police department, and to promulgate rules that require exemplary behavior of its officers at all times. 

She also found that grievant had in fact violated the rules. While the criminal charges against grievant remained pending, she found that the Department had established that grievant "was indeed driving his vehicle on a public road having consumed a large quantity of alcoholic a state of impairment ...," and had given false information to the Deputy who stopped him. Similarly she found that grievant's loss of his driver's license and the subsequent conditional reinstatement subject to an ignition interlock device posed legitimate safety concerns and would engender a negative reaction in the community. Grievant's actions, concluded the Arbitrator, were egregious and the impact that conduct  in a small community particularly severe.

Arbitrator Tidwell also found that the City had established that grievant "lied repeatedly" to the arresting Deputy. While agreeing with the Union that the existence of a Brady/Giglio disclosure obligation does not automatically require an officer's termination, "it does not mean that a Brady/Giglio officer must be retained in the Department if the Department cannot accommodate that officer."

Turning to potential mitigating factors, the Arbitrator noted grievant's prior alcohol related issues and his apparent unwillingness to confront his problem with alcohol. The Arbitrator also remarked on the absence of any other officer of the Department testifying in his behalf. She did, however, reject Department's contention that grievant's plea of not guilty to the DWI charge, and his action in contesting the validity of the claimed consent to a blood test, evidenced a refusal on his part to "take responsibility" for his actions, concluding:

The arbitrator is convinced ... that employees such as the Grievant in this case should not be effectively forced to forego their Constitutional right to a trial and to contest evidence against themselves in a criminal proceeding in order to maintain or regain their employment.

Finally the Arbitrator considered and rejected potential remedies short of termination. Demotion, she concluded, would remove his leadership responsibilities but would not address the violation of the standards of conduct expected of him. Reinstatement on a last chance basis, or after completion of an alcohol abuse program would of necessity be based on grievance's recognition of the need for such treatment and a willingness to undertake it, something she concluded he was not ready to do. In light of this she noted:


It is well-settled in labor matters concerning discipline that the punishment must fit the crime. The arbitrator concludes that upholding the Grievant’s termination meets this standard; indeed she concludes that it is the only appropriate remedy in this case.

Arbitrator Tidwell's award can be found here.  A case also addressing whether an officer's denial of acts of misconduct provide a basis for a charge of dishonesty is discussed at Police officer's denial of misconduct insufficient to establish untruthfulness

Police officers, Brady/Giglio, dishonesty, exoneration and just cause

A recent award by Arbitrator Micheal Falvo addresses all of these topics. Arbitrator Falvo sustained a grievance filed on behalf of a Champaign, Ill. police officer terminated after the State's Attorney declared that she did not believe she could use him as a witness because of his disciplinary history, including  an allegation of dishonesty overturned in an earlier arbitration.

Officer Matt Rush began his employment with the City of Champaign in February 2010. Over the course of his employment he was the subject of several disciplinary actions. In March 2014 he was suspended for one day for failing to turn in a citation he had issued in connection with a traffic stop. He admitted he forgot to turn the ticket in and did not challenge the suspension. A second incident occurred in April 2014. Officer Rush was alleged to have engaged in unprofessional conduct in connection with his handling of a disturbance. He admitted using profanity and acknowledged he did not act professionally during this encounter. During the encounter Officer Rush twice kicked in the legs an individual who was refusing to get into the police vehicle. The Department agreed that the first kick was a reasonable use of force but maintained that the second was inappropriate. Rush was suspended for three days as a result of his conduct during this incident. A third incident occurred in May 2014 when Rush was accused of punching an individual he was attempting to subdue. He was also accused of dishonesty, i.e., falsely denying that he had thrown a punch. His employment was terminated as a result of these events.  Because of the claimed dishonesty the Chief sent the following letter to the State's Attorney:

As required by law, I write to inform you of a recent disciplinary matter involving an officer of the Champaign Police Department. On August 8, 2014, Officer Matt Rush was charged with a violation of department policy wherein the offending behavior involved untruthful or deceptive representations. As you are aware, under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) and its progeny, the Champaign Police Department is required to disclose such information regarding the untruthfulness of law enforcement officers to prosecutors.

Please feel free to contact my office in the event that you have any questions regarding this matter.

Rush grieved the termination and in April 2015 Arbitrator Fredric Dichter issued an award finding the one and three day suspensions appropriate (but finding the claim regarding the second kick unsupported), but overturning the termination. Arbitrator Dichter concluded that "the only evidence [of a punch] is a blurry video taken from some distance away ..." and found no evidence of malice or loss of temper but rather an effort to subdue an uncooperative person. The Arbitrator found this conduct, by itself, did not justify termination. Turning to "the other serious charge, dishonesty," he concluded that while some viewing the dash cam video (including himself) may view the video one way, grievant "may very honestly be seeing it another." Arbitrator Dichter noted:

Lying requires intent. Grievant is apparently wrong in his perception of what he did, but the Arbitrator finds it is based on his errant perception of events and not on an intent to deceive.

Concluding that discipline was warranted for grievant's handling of the incident, but not for dishonesty, Arbitrator Dichter reduced the termination to a thirty day suspension

In accord with the award, Rush was reinstated to the Police Department. The Chief also sent another letter to the State's Attorney enclosing a copy of the Arbitrator's award.

In December of 2015 local media reported on several pending settlements of claims involving local police officers use of force, primarily involving Officer Rush. Examples are here, here, and here. In response to citizen demands that Officer Rush be prosecuted for claimed use of excessive force, the State's Attorney conducted an investigation. On February 23, 2016 she informed the Chief of the results of her investigation and also issued a press release. While declining  to prosecute, she noted:

Although the State’s Attorney’s Office is declining to file criminal charges against Officer Matt Rush, in light of our review of Officer Rush's actions and behavior during these incidents and in the light of the entirety of Officer Rush's history of internal discipline for failure to adequately document use of force and untruthfulness, we are unable to use Officer Matt Rush as a witness for the prosecution in criminal cases. Officer Rush's repeated discipline for failure to adequately document use of force and untruthfulness as outlined here and in other disciplinary actions reviewed in the course of this examination create a substantial issue with regards to his credibility as a state witness, subject him to cross-examination on these issues, and require the State’s Attorney's Office to work around him in order to bring criminal cases to trial. Moreover, a review of these incidents cause us great concern about his judgement and decision making in crisis situations, particularly with regard to his response the mentally ill. In light of these concerns, having given this matter serious consideration and taking into account his full disciplinary history, we have concluded that if Officer Rush were to return to active duty, we will not call Officer Rush as a witness for the prosecution in criminal proceedings.

Upon receipt of the letter, the Chief conducted a fact finding with Rush and his Union, but ultimately terminated his employment because he believed his inability to testify made him "unable to perform the essential functions of [his] position." This action was grieved and submitted to Arbitrator Falvo for resolution. After a comprehensive review of arbitration awards and case law, Arbitrator Falvo sustained the grievance and ordered grievant again be reinstated. The Arbitrator emphasized that except for the charge of dishonesty overturned by Arbitrator Dichter grievant had not been accused of or disciplined for untruthfulness. Noting the potential for "behind the scenes collusion," Arbitrator Falvo concluded:

If a prosecutor is empowered with the unbridled and unreviewable discretion to deem an officer “disqualified” to testify -- with the consequence that she loses her job because obviously there is no place in a police department for a law enforcement officer with that incapacity – contractual or statutory just cause protections are a nullity. An arbitrator would need to be more naïve than parties should expect not to realize that one must be alert to the danger that a losing party in a disciplinary arbitration will try to undo a disappointing result by finding an alternative path to reinstate what the arbitrator reversed. By no means is this to imply that a decision by a prosecutor that an officer will not be called testify that results in her dismissal cannot in the appropriate case meet the just cause standard. Rather, it means that an arbitrator’s non-delegable responsibility to determine whether just cause does or does not exist requires that he bring informed judgment to the case with the recognition that deference to the judgments of public officials cannot be blindly and uncritically ratified.

Regarding the positions articulated by the State's Attorney, Arbitrator Falvo found that in light of Arbitrator Dichter's conclusion that Rush had not engaged in intentional misrepresentation, her reliance on perceived Brady/Giglio obligations was misplaced.  He also found that the other reasons cited by her did not support a claim of just cause for the Officer's termination. Arbitrator Falvo similarly rejected the Department's reliance on the "well established doctrine of persona non grata" (typically used when a third party customer bars a bargaining unit employee from their premises).

Accordingly he ordered Rush' reinstatement with back pay and the expungement of any reference to the disciplinary action in his personal records.

A third arbitration, arising from a different incident, also claimed by the Department to justify Officer Rush's termination was scheduled for hearing but has since been settled. Pursuant to the settlement Rush waives reinstatement while the City agrees not to appeal Falvo's decision.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court addressed a similar issue in Duchesne v. Hillsborough County Attorney, granting the request of three police officers to have their names removed from that State's "Laurie List" after an arbitrator and the State Attorney General's office had cleared them of allegations of excessive force.

"Clear and convincing" circumstantial evidence sufficient to support termination

Grievant was employed by the City of Lakeville, MN as a police officer, a position he held for approximately seventeen years. In addition grievant had extensive experience as a writer and reporter and owned and operated his own business publishing weekly newspapers in local communities.

During two high profile police investigations the media reported details of the investigations that the City claimed could only be known by someone involved in the investigations or someone having knowledge as a member of the police department.

The City conducted an internal investigation in an effort to determine the source of the leak. While grievant denied involvement, the investigation concluded that he had been the media's source. The City terminated his employment for releasing information on an active investigation to the media without authorization and for being dishonest when asked whether he had released the information.

The grievance over the termination was submitted to Arbitrator Rolland Toenges for resolution.

After a hearing, Arbitrator Toenges found that while grievant continued to deny being the source of the leak he acknowledged telling the press that "something big was going on." Grievant also acknowledged being social and professional friends with a reporter who had received unauthorized information. The Arbitrator also observed that grievant, unlike others involved in the investigations,  declined to release his phone records to the Department.

Reviewing all of the evidence, and despite the Union's claim that the investigation had been inadequate, Arbitrator Toenges concluded that grievant had in fact released confidential information without authorization. He noted:

The evidence supporting the Employers case is mostly circumstantial. The media, as is their practice, will not voluntarily disclose the source of their information. There is no witness testimony that actually saw or heard the Grievant communicating the unauthorized information to the media. However, there is clear and convincing evidence supporting the charges against the Grievant. The record provides sufficient proof that it is substantially more likely than not that it was the Grievant who leaked the information to the media. 

Finding that grievant's actions caused a breach of confidence between other agencies and the Lakewood Police Department and so "irreparably damaged" the trust and confidence of his coworkers the Arbitrator concluded that he could no longer function as a member of the Department.

Accordingly he found just cause for the termination of grievant's employment.

Arbitrator Toenges' award can be found here.

Court confirms arbitrator's award upholding discipline for false statements in grievance documents

In April 2014, Arbitrator Harry S. Crump issued an award upholding the discipline of a Blaine, MN police officer for making false statements in her grievance. That award is discussed here. The officer had received a reprimand for allegedly working a “Reimbursable Police Services” assignment (i.e. overtime paid by a private entity) while on call. Blaine PD policy allowed on call officers to work this overtime provided they arranged for another officer to cover their on call duties. In the grievance challenging the reprimand, grievant asserted that she had made arrangements with “JS," another officer, to cover her  on call assignment and had informed her Sergeant of the change. Concerned about an apparent discrepancy between between the statement in the grievance and grievant’s previous statements, a Blaine Lieutenant arranged for an internal affairs investigation. That investigation concluded that the representations in the grievance were false, and as a result the Chief  imposed a four day disciplinary suspension. 

 Arbitrator Crump denied the grievance over the suspension, concluding:

there is no allowance in B.P.D. policies or [the Public Employment Labor Relations Act] for law enforcement officers to make false statements. The right to file a grievance does not provide a law enforcement officer with the right to make a false statement, nor insulate them from disciplinary action for violating B.P.D. policies and expectations relative to truthfulness. The Grievant did not claim on her grievance that she was "treated unfairly." The Grievant make [sic] affirmative representations that were false. The undersigned opines that the Employer has satisfied the Public Policy purpose to promote orderly and constructive relationships between all public employers and their employees.

The Union sought to set aside the Award as contrary to public policy. The Union claimed that disciplining an employee for statements made in the grievance process undermined what it believed to be an explicit public policy promoting resolution of workplace disputes through the use of grievance arbitration.

The district court rejected this effort, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals has now affirmed. Law Enforcement Services, Inc. v. Blaine Police Department

The Court summarized the Unions position:

the union asks us to recognize a PELRA-based public policy that prohibits a public employer from disciplining an employee based on the employee's statements in a grievance. The union argues that "PELRA's public policy [prohibits] a public employer from disciplining a grievant for lying in her grievance." 

The court declined to accept this position. Noting the limited scope of review of arbitration awards, and the Union’s inability to identify any explicit public policy supporting its position the Court concluded:

The arbitration award in this case does not explicitly conflict with PELRA's policy favoring grievance arbitration because the dispute between [Grievant] and the department was resolved in grievance arbitration. In fact, the award does not explicitly conflict with any of PELRA's provisions: although PELRA sets forth a public policy favoring the use of grievance arbitration to resolve disputes between public employers and employees, it does not prohibit discipline based on statements in a grievance. 

The Court therefore affirmed the district court's order confirming the arbitration award. 

Quick Hits - Law Enforcement

Officer's growing large amount of marijuana doesn't justify immediate dismissal

Grievant was employed as a police officer for the City of Buffalo. He was the subject of criminal and internal affairs investigations which revealed that he was growing large amounts of marijuana in a warehouse. He had visited the area of the warehouse on several occasions in his police vehicle. When confronted with the results of the investigations, the officer acknowledged that he had been participating in the marijuana grow operation since before he joined the Department. The Police Commissioner summarily terminated his employment. The Buffalo PBA pursued a grievance claiming that the City had failed to provide grievant with the contractual right to an informal conference and a formal hearing before terminating his employment. Arbitrator Jeffrey Selchick sustained the grievance, noting "the [contract] language brooks no exception based on the Commissioner's perception, no matter how reasonable and well founded, that the evidence of an officer's wrongdoing is overwhelming and termination is fully justified." The Arbitrator ordered the City to pay grievant for lost pay until the date of his guilty plea, less a thirty day unpaid suspension the City would have been contractually able to impose while it investigated.

 WIVB.com reports on the case, City to pay nearly $220k to dirty cop behind bars, and Arbitrator Selchick's award can be found here.

Public policy requires a determination of likelihood grievant will re-offend before reinstatement award can be upheld

An earlier post, Arbitrator overturns termination despite finding "unnecessary, unjustified, unreasonable" use of force because of due process considerations, noted an award reinstating a police officer who had been accused of using excessive force and of being less than candid with the Department. Although finding both of these allegations supported by the evidence, the Arbitrator found the delay in the Department's investigation and the failure of superior officers with knowledge of the incident to take timely action weighed against termination. Accordingly he ordered the grievant's reinstatement without back pay. The City sought to vacate the award, and the Circuit Court for Cook County granted the City's request, finding the award contrary to public policy. The Union appealed, and the Illinois Appellate Court has now reversed that decision and sent the dispute back to the arbitrator for him to make a specific finding on the likelihood that grievant would engage in similar conduct if reinstated. Clarification of the award is necessary, according to the Court, to allow it to "fully assess [the award's] public policy implications." The Court's opinion can be found here.

Sheriff's Deputy leaving official vehicle in the dark on side of highway and making false statement during investigation just cause for dismissal

Arbitrator James R. Cox has upheld the termination of a Sheriff's Deputy for parking his official vehicle at least partly in the traffic lanes, turning the lights off and then "intentionally making false and inaccurate reports of the circumstances to investigating officers." Pantagraph.com reports on the case, Ex-deputy's firing upheld by arbitrator, and links to the award of Arbitrator Cox here.

Dismissal of officer for discharging weapon while off duty upheld

The Connecticut State Board of Mediation and Arbitration has denied a grievance filed on behalf of a New Haven officer. Grievant was one of three off duty officers at a restaurant when the New Haven PD received a report of shots being fired in the area. Several spent shell were found in the area and it was determined that 5 of the 6 shells had come from grievant's weapon. The Union maintained that the evidence was insufficient to support a termination, or, alternatively, that lenience should be shown and a lengthy suspension be imposed. The panel unanimously rejected these positions noting "This incident was not a minor issue such as firing off a firearm in the woods by teenagers. This was an incident where a mature police officer fired off at least five rounds in the middle of a congested city where someone could have been wounded or killed by an off duty police officer sworn to uphold the law against such activity."

The panel's decision can be found here

Reinstatement of police officer fired for dishonesty regarding personal conduct not violative of public policy

Grievant was employed as a police officer for the City of Sandusky, Ohio. He worked the night shift, which was supervised by a Sergeant who was also a personal friend. Grievant was approached by the Sergeant's fiancee who informed him that she and the Sergeant were "swingers" and that she wanted to have a sexual encounter with him. She advised the grievant that the Sergeant was aware of her request and had no objection to it. The Sergeant subsequently informed grievant that he knew of his fiancee's request and confirmed that he had no objection. Grievant turned down the offer.

Several months later the Sergeant's now wife began texting grievant. She and grievant began exchanging sexually explicit texts and photos. The Sergeant became aware of these texts and became angry that grievant had been communicating with his wife without his knowledge. He informed two higher level officers of his belief that grievant had been sleeping with his wife. The Department began an investigation and grievant described the solicitation he had received. However, on at least two occasions, he denied the existence of any explicit photos before ultimately acknowledging their existence.

The City terminated grievant's employment and the Union pursued the matter through arbitration. Arbitrator Robert Stein, while finding a basis for some discipline because of grievant's alleged insubordination, overturned the dismissal, finding it without just cause.

The City brought an action to vacate the award, contending, among other bases, that reinstatement of a police officer who had been dishonest during the investigation violated public policy. The Common Pleas court denied that request. The court initially noted that "the essence" of grievant's dishonesty involved off duty conduct and noted further that the Arbitrator had found no evidence that it had any direct negative impact on grievant's work performance.

Distinguishing other cases where the alleged dishonesty also violated criminal laws, the Court refused to vacate the award holding:

      Bearing in mind the standard of review which requires a reviewing court to make every reasonable indulgence to avoid disturbing an Arbitration Award, the Court cannot find it violates public policy to reinstate a police officer who was dishonest about something that was not job related, had no "direct negative impact on his work performance" and did not involve violation of a criminal statute.
      The Court finds that its review of an arbitration award must necessarily be very narrow. This Court cannot substitute its judgment for the judgment of the Arbitrator. The basis for vacating such an award are well established and very limited. Under the law, this Court cannot find that the Arbitrator exceeded his power or that public policy prohibits reinstatement, given the unique facts of this case. 

The Sandusky Register reports on the case here and here. The Court's decision can be found here .


(The City also terminated the employment of the Sergeant, for, among other reasons, "failure to display absolute honesty." Arbitrator Mary Jo Schiavone sustained the Sergeant's grievance and ordered his reinstatement. Arbitrator Schiavone's award can be found here.  The City did not seek to set aside that award.)

In another case, also addressing an issue of claimed dishonesty concerning off duty conduct, Arbitrator Norman Bennett rejected a claim that an Austin, TX officer had acted dishonestly in providing conflicting and contradicting statements to Internal Affairs during an investigation of his off duty actions while working security at a hotel. Arbitrator Bennett did so, however, for reasons of insufficiency of evidence without discussing whether there was a nexus to grievant's employment. The Austin Chronicle reports on the case and the decision is available here.

Recent Developments-Quick Hits

Arbitrator overturns termination of police officer for claimed use of excessive force

Arbitrator Stanley Sergent has overturned the termination of a police officer in Sarasota FL who had been fired for alleged use of excessive force. Grievant had admittedly used several "empty-hand strikes" in an effort to control the individual he was attempting to arrest. The City maintained that the number of strikes, together with the absence of any time between them to determine compliance, rendered the use of force excessive. Initially Arbitrator Sergent noted that the Supreme Court has held that the test for whether the use of force is excessive must be determined from the perspective of a reasonable police officer on the scene, not "with the 20/20 vision of hindsight."  Arbitrator Sergent determined that grievant reasonably believed the subject was continuing to resist. He also found that while the City could have a more restrictive policy, it failed to demonstrate that grievant had violated that policy. While ordering grievant's reinstatement, the arbitrator did find that grievant's use of profane and abusive language and flagrant demonstration of anger and frustration was "clearly inappropriate,' warranting some punishment. Accordingly he replaced the termination with a thirty day suspension. The Sarasota Herald Tribune reports on the decision, Sarasota officer fired in Club Ivory beating to be reinstated, and links to Arbitrator Sergent's award here.

Student Assistance Coordinator who facilitated "refund" of drug transaction properly terminated

 Arbitrator Michael Peckler has upheld a determination of "conduct unbecoming" an educator who allegedly arranged a refund of a cash for marijuana transaction between students after one of the students complained of being shortchanged. After an extensive analysis of the conflicting claims, the Arbitrator concluded:

 [Grievant's] facilitation of the drug/cash exchange to make the controversy go away is contrary to the proactive, vigorous, front-line approach that is required of all teaching staff members. And her brokering of a refund between G.H. and J.C. combined with her position that she was going to report the students but for the school administration being too busy demonstrates such an egregious display of poor judgment and obfuscation that removal is the only appropriate remedy.

Arbitrator Peckler's award can be found here.


Arbitrator upholds suspension for false claim in grievance

Arbitrator Harry Crump has upheld a four day suspension imposed on a Blaine, MN police officer. Grievant had been issued a letter of reprimand for allegedly working private overtime while on call without arranging for appropriate coverage. The Union prepared a grievance on her behalf, which she signed. The grievance asserted that grievant had arranged for a named detective to cover her on call assignment. The City deemed this assertion to be unfounded, and imposed a suspension for grievant's alleged dishonesty. Arbitrator Crump found no evidence that the assertion was not "knowingly or deliberately untruthful" and denied the grievance. He explained:

The undersigned opine that there is no allowance in B.P.D. policies or [the Public Employment Labor Relations Act] for law enforcement officers to make false statements. The right to file a grievance does not provide a law enforcement officer with the right to make a false statement, nor insulate them from disciplinary action for violating B.P.D. policies and expectations relative to truthfulness. The Grievant did not claim on her grievance that she was "treated unfairly." The Grievant make [sic] affirmative representations that were false. The undersigned opines that the Employer has satisfied the Public Policy purpose to promote orderly and constructive relationships between all public employers and their employees.

Arbitrator Crump's award can be found here.