In the City of Poulsbo, the arbitrator ruled the Chief of Police reasonably disciplined a Poulsbo officer with a one-day suspension without pay for issuing a retaliatory parking ticket to his neighbor.
In Andrade v City of Milwaukee, the Wisconsin State Supreme Court ruled that a police officer fired for making racist comments on Facebook was not entitled to getting his job back because of an alleged pre-termination due process violation. The Court reasoned that the officer was entitled to notice of the charges against him, but not to all the information related to factors involved in determining the level of discipline imposed.
In Addeo v. Philadelphia Firefighter and Paramedic Union, a firefighter sued both the City of Philadelphia and his union for violating his due process rights and his right to fair representation. Addeo had been fired following a DUI, and when the Union decided not to pursue his grievance, he filed a personal lawsuit that accused both the City and the union of misconduct. However, a federal judge dismissed all of Addeo’s lawsuit, finding that both the City and the Union had behaved properly.
In Mariano v. Borough of Dickson City, the Court held that the Borough may have violated an officer’s right to due process when the police chief removed him from the work schedule without a proper hearing. The Court disagreed with the City’s assertion that since the Officer was a part time employee he did not have a protected interest in his employment. The Officer had raised questions about his contract rights which was then followed by a meeting with the Police Chief in which the officer was accused of misconduct and then told he was being removed from the schedule.
In Sube v. City of Allentown, the Court denied the Defendant City’s motion for summary judgment and permitted the employee's disability discrimination claims under the ADA to proceed to trial. As the City was aware of Sube’s injury and later terminated him soon after he sought to bring discrimination charges with the EEOC.
In Federal Bureau of Prisons, 131 LA 536 (Betts, 2012), the arbitrator held the 14 day suspension of a corrections officer was too severe when one of the three alleged instances of misconduct was unsupported, and a fellow officer disciplined for the other two instances of misconduct only received a three day suspension. Finding that just cause requires similar misconduct to require similar discipline, the arbitrator found the penalty had to be reduced and required the officer be compensated for the days of unjust suspension.
