By Kate Acheson
The City of Denver was recently thwarted in its attempt to unilaterally implement a new disciplinary system on firefighters. In Denver Fire Fighters, Local 858 v. City & County of Denver, the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld the firefighters union’s claims that a “discipline matrix” – which defined penalties for rule violations – is a mandatory subject of bargaining.
By Kate Acheson
An arbitrator in State of Iowa, 130 LA 1130 (2012, Jacobs) found the Iowa Department of Corrections has just cause to terminate an Iowa State corrections counselor for failing to do enough interviews with inmates. [Read more…]
By Rick Gautschi
In City of Tulsa, 130 LA 1039 (Arb. 2012), a police officer responded to an incident involving an intoxicated person in a parking lot on the Tulsa campus of Oklahoma State University. During the ensuing incident, the officer handcuffed the intoxicated person, and because he was not cooperating, the officer dragged him to a police vehicle. At some point, prior to being placed in the vehicle, the intoxicated person fell and hit either the concrete, or a bumper on the police vehicle.
By Kate Acheson
An arbitrator reduced a 24-year veteran firefighter’s termination for use, despite a previous last chance agreement arising from previous cocaine use in City of Cleveland, 130 LA 1077 (Cohen 2012). Arbitrator Hyman Cohen cited the City’s improper application of the last chance agreement and mitigating factors concerning the recent marijuana use to justify his reinstatement order.
By Kate Acheson
In City of Stillwater,130 LA 913 (Chapdelaine 2012), an arbitrator found continued bad driving constituted just cause for an officer’s termination, citing six previous accidents, the last of which resulted in his discharge that had just been overturned by a previous arbitrator. Arbitrator Chapdelaine concluded ,continued driving procedure violations upon his return was enough to uphold the discharge.
By Kate Acheson
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals holds that internal grievances do not constitute statements of “public concern,” which are entitled to First Amendment protection. In Brooks v. Arthur, two Virginia corrections officers sued the Virginia State Corrections Department supervisors under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for unlawful termination in retaliation for exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech.
By Kate Acheson
In Hanford Exec. Mgmt. Employees Ass’n v. City of Hanford the court held that an employee Association could pursue its claims that its members faced unlawful discrimination in retaliation for a Vote of No Confidence against the City Manager. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California has ruled that an Association’s retaliation claim stated a potential basis for finding several constitutional violations and rejected the City’s efforts to dismiss the lawsuit for “failure to state a claim.”
By Jim Cline
We are following other Labor and Employment Law Blogs on the Web and will bring to your attention some other articles worth reading. Here are some other articles we think are worth a look:
Counseling as an ADA-Protected Medical Examination
(Discusses 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that compelled counseling constitutes a compelled medical examination within the meaning of the ADA, therefore employers must meet ADA job relatedness and business necessity standards before ordering counseling)
Police Officer Disciplined for Off-Duty Photography Hobby
(Discusses First Amendment law suit brought by San Fransisco PD officer “who has long had a love of photography, spends his off-duty hours taking artistic nude photos portraying women as mermaids, vampires and other mythical creatures.”)
An “Indefinite Reprieve” of Essential Functions of Job Not a Reasonable Accommodation under the ADA
(Discusses EEOC guidelines and a recent court decision regarding duration of leave and the lack of employer duty to accommodate leave of employee who cannot supply “reasonable estimate of return to work.”)
Fresh interpretation of ADA provision heightens demands on employers
(Discusses recent 7th Circuit decision applying principle that employee may have right to reassignment as an ADA accommodation)
Internal Investigations of Discrimination Complaints Might Not Be As Confidential As You Expect
(Discusses recent EEOC and NLRB rulings voiding employer order imposing confidentiality on workplace investigations.)
By Rick Gautschi
In City and County of San Francisco, 130 LA 1043 (Arb. 2012), Until September 2010, several police officers served in the employer’s Ground Transportation Unit (GTU). Their duties ranged across a number of areas. For example, they had responsibility for enforcing licensing requirements for taxis and limousines that serve the San Francisco airport and for assisting TSA personnel regarding security and terrorism issues. In September 2010, the employer transferred three long-serving GTU officers, who had previously filed complaints alleging a hostile work environment, out of that unit to patrol duty. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the union and the employer specified that officers would have the opportunity to sign up for watches based on seniority. Consequently, the union argued that the transfer violated the MOU’s seniority sign up provision because, as the result of past practice, the GTU was a specialized unit within the police department.
By Rick Gautschi
In Duncan v. Dakota County, No. 11-2467, August 3, 2012 (8th Cir. 2012), Toni Duncan worked as a correctional officer for Duncan County, NE, under the supervision of Chief Deputy Sheriff Rodney Herron. After leaving the job, she sued the County and Mr. Herron officials pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. She claimed that through the actions of Mr. Herron, the county had, in the forms of sexually harassing and constructively discharging her, denied her equal protection in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, Ms. Duncan alleged that Mr. Herron had created a sexually charged work environment by fostering widespread sexual favoritism in the form of engaging in sexual relationships with subordinates and rewarding his favorites. Ms. Duncan produced no evidence that Mr. Herron had ever threatened or humiliated her. Further, she admitted that she was not promoted to an open position only because she chose not to apply for the position. Mr. Herron argued that the trial court should have determined that the doctrine of qualified immunity precluded Ms. Duncan from proceeding against him. [Read more…]
