June 3, 2016
By Erica Shelley Nelson and Sarah Burke
In Hernandez v. City of San Jose, two police officers alleged they experienced adverse employment actions in violation of their First Amendment rights after one of the officers reported time sheet fraud. The City conceded the fraud reports were protected by the First Amendment but claimed there was no evidence that the report led to an “adverse action” against the officers. The Ninth Circuit rejected the City’s claim that was entitled to summary judgment, finding that unresolved issues existed that warranted a trial.
Filed Under: Free Speech Rights
April 28, 2016
By Jim Cline and Geoff Kiernan
In the City of Markham, an Illinois arbitrator ruled that the city violated its CBA by assigning members of specialty units (traffic detail, detectives, community service, etc.) to fulfil the minimum staffing requirements of four full-time patrol officers. This case because the contract provision at issue was not developed during bargaining decided in interest arbitration.
Filed Under: Contract Interpretation
September 10, 2015
By Erica Shelley Nelson and Brennen Johnson
In Weaving v. City of Hillsboro, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that an Oregon police officer with ADHD could not qualify as disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prevented him from asserting the ADA’s protections. In his lawsuit, the Officer alleged that the City violated the ADA by terminating him because of this ADHD. At trial, a jury agreed with him and awarded over $775,000 in damages, including back-pay and front-pay, as well as attorney’s fees. However, the Court of Appeals reviewed the case and overruled the verdict after determining that the Officer’s ADHD did not present symptoms that were severe enough to qualify as a disability under the ADA.
Filed Under: Disability Discrimination
August 28, 2015
By Jim Cline and Geoff Kiernan
In County of Allegheny, 134 LA 134 (Heekin 2014) the arbitrator upheld a discharge of a corrections officer who used his sick time, rather than his vacation time, to travel to Dallas for a photo shoot for a body building magazine. The Officer's participation was confirmed with posted pictures of his photo shoot on Facebook. The arbitrator found just cause for the Officer’s discharge given that the CBA stated that sick leave was “not a right of taking” such as vacation and the fact that a poor discipline record including a recent last chance agreement. The arbitrator rejected the Union’s claim that there was a “right” to use sick leave as if it was a form of vacation.
Filed Under: Arbitration Rulings, Contract Interpretation
August 25, 2015
By Jim Cline and Jordan Jones
In Prince George's County v. Prince George's County Police Civilian Employees Association, a Maryland appellate court vacated an arbitrator’s decision which had reinstated a civilian employee with the Prince George’s County Police Department. The Court rejected the arbitrator’s conclusion that the civilian employee must be informed of his right to have a Union representative present before being subjected to questioning that may lead to discipline by the County. The Court stated that expanding the requirement of Weingarten rights to “employees that are the focus of a criminal investigation violated public policy.”
Filed Under: Weingarten
August 25, 2015
By Jim Cline and Jordan Jones
In Booth v. Pasco Cnty., the Eleventh Circuit held that a Florida Fire Union and the County were liable for their retaliation against two firefighter union members. The Court rejected the Union’s claims that its communications warning their members that an EEOC complaint the firefighters brought against the Union and its members would cause their dues to increase when a jury had determined the primary purpose of the communication was retaliations, not a genuine notice of a dues increase. The Court also upheld the jury verdict, holding that the County had unlawfully retaliated when it ordered the firefighters to submit to a fitness for duty process, a process initiated after it alleged that the content of their EEOC complaint revealed they were “paranoid” and raised a fitness question.
Filed Under: Discrimination
August 21, 2015
By Jim Cline and Jordan Jones
In City of Tampa, 133 LA 1128 (Smith, 2013) the arbitrator held that an officer who was discharged for violating excessive force should be reinstated. The arbitrator found that the City of Tampa (Employer) did not consider the officers lack of previous discipline and potential for retraining.
Filed Under: Arbitration Rulings
August 19, 2015
By Jim Cline and Jordan Jones
In Seneca County Sheriff's Office, 133 LA 1113 (Harlan, 2014) the arbitrator held that there was just cause to discharge a corrections officer (officer) for falsifying records relating to his job duties. The arbitrator found that the Officer had falsified records to hide the fact that he did not actually perform walkthroughs of jail cells.
Filed Under: Arbitration Rulings
August 19, 2015
By Jim Cline and Geoff Kiernan
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.
Filed Under: Discipline, Loudermill, Prediscipline Procedure
August 17, 2015
By Jim Cline and Geoff Kiernan
In State of Alaska, 133 LA 1436 (DiFalco 2014) an arbitrator ruled that the State properly paid Correction Officers who voluntarily demoted themselves back to a lower classification, even though the result was that they were paid less than if they had not been promoted in the first place. The arbitrator conceded that while the results of this were unfair to several Corrections Officers, he stressed that it was not his job to do what was fair but to interpret the contract language as it appeared in the CBA.
