IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION ) GRIEVANCE ARBITRATION
)
between )
) [REDACTED] - Discharge
City of Kent, Washington ) Grievance
)
-and- ) PERC Case No. 137801-R-23
)
Kent Police Officers )
Association ) May 3, 2024
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
APPEARANCES
For City of Kent, Washington
Gregory E. Jackson, Attorney
Tammy White, City Attorney
[REDACTED], Chief of Police
[REDACTED], Sergeant
[REDACTED], Commander
[REDACTED], Boulevard Property Manager
[REDACTED], Commander
[REDACTED], Assistant Chief of Patrol
For Kent Police Officers Association
David Luxenberg, Attorney, McGavick Graves, P.S. Tacoma,
Washington
Luke T. Absher, Attorney, McGavick Graves, P.S. Tacoma,
Washington
[REDACTED], President
[REDACTED], Vice-President
[REDACTED], Police Officer
[REDACTED], Detective
[REDACTED], Police Officer
[REDACTED], Grievant
JURISDICTION OF ARBITRATOR
Article 15, Grievance Procedure, Section 15.5, Steps and
Time Limits, Step 5 of the 2022-2024 Collective Bargaining
Agreement or Contract (Union Exhibit #22) between City of Kent,
Washington (hereinafter "Employer" or “City”) and Kent Police
Officers Association (hereinafter "Union" or “KPOA”) provides
for an appeal to arbitration of disputes that are properly
processed through the grievance procedure.
The Arbitrator, Richard J. Miller, was selected by the
Employer and Union (collectively referred to as the "Parties")
from the Law Enforcement Disciplinary Panel issued by the
Washington PERC. A hearing in the matter convened on March 12-
13, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in the City’s conference room. The
Parties were afforded full and ample opportunity to present
evidence and arguments in support of their respective positions.
The Parties' counsel elected to file electronically post
hearing briefs with receipt by the Arbitrator no later than
April 15, 2024. The post hearing briefs were submitted in
accordance with that deadline date. The Arbitrator then
exchanged the post hearing briefs electronically to the Parties'
counsel on April 15, 2024, after which the record was considered
closed.
The Parties agreed that the grievance is a decorous matter
within the purview of the Arbitrator and made no procedural or
substantive arbitrability claims.
ISSUES AS DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR
1. Did the City have just cause to discharge the Grievant,
2. If not, what is the appropriate remedy?
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
The City of Kent is located within the metropolitan area
encompassing Seattle and its suburbs. The Union is the
recognized bargaining representative for all non-supervisory
commissioned Police Officers and Sergeants of the Kent Police
Department (“KPD”), with some noted exceptions. The Parties
have been signatories to several Collective Bargaining
Agreements, including the current Contract from January 1, 2022
through December 31, 2024. (Union Exhibit #22).
The Grievant, [REDACTED], was hired by the KPD as a
Police Officer in the Patrol Division on May 14, 2002. Officer
[REDACTED] was supervised by several Sergeants. Officer
[REDACTED] remained a Police Officer throughout his tenure with the KPD.
One of the areas being regularly patrolled by Officer
[REDACTED]and other Police Officers is the BLVD Apartments. The
BLVD Apartments is a 136-unit residential community operated by
Bellwether Housing, a non-profit affordable housing provider.
The HLVD Apartments have been source of continual problems with
residence trepassing and failure to remove items from abandoned
units. Police Officers, including Officer [REDACTED] have made
calls to HLVD on several occasions. In fact, in a span of just
two-and—a half months between December 2, 2002 and February 18,
2023, the KPD responded to the BLVD Apartments 24 times for
complaints of trepassing or unwanted individuals.
The Officers who responded to these incidents at the BLVD
Apartments felt that property management took minimal steps to
prevent such activity, such as not removing personal property
from vacant apartments, not boarding up doors, and not
installing security cameras. Instead, they merely called the
KPD and expected arrests, which the KPD was prohibited from
executing.
Officer [REDACTED] recognized that there was little the KPD
could do to rectify the concerns of management and even less
that the property managers were willing to do. Suffice it to
say, there was tension between the responding Officers and BLVD
property managers.
On December 19, 2022, former BLVD Apartment Manager
[REDACTED] phoned 911 for police assistance with male and female
suspects who were unlawfully occupying an apartment unit. Ms.
[REDACTED] reported that the suspects barricaded the door to the
unit to prevent apartment maintenance from accessing the unit;
that the suspects had been trespassed from the BLVD Apartments
on two separate occasions; that the suspects had a history of
aggression towards BLVD Apartment staff; and that the suspects
were currently being aggressive to staff.
Officer [REDACTED] was dispatched to the BLVD Apartments at
11:08 a.m. and arrived on site at 12:06 p.m., about an hour
later. Police Officer [REDACTED] was also in attendance along
with two maintenance persons. Six minutes and twenty-seven
seconds of Officer [REDACTED]’s actions at the BLVD Apartments
were captured by Ms. [REDACTED] on her cell phone. The reason
for secretly taping this conversation was based on Ms.
[REDACTED]’s belief that Mr. [REDACTED] and other Officers were
not satisfying the property managers demands to do more than
what they previously had been doing.
Officer [REDACTED] related the following to Ms. [REDACTED].
At the 4:14 mark on the video, Officer [REDACTED] made comments
about the justice system not giving them the outcome that they
would prefer and told them to utilize street justice as a
solution. Officer [REDACTED] said, "By no means am I telling
you guys to do this, but street justice is a lot better than
actual justice. I'm not telling you guys shit. Ok, I'm just
telling you, you guys just saw what the justice system just did,
not a god damned thing."
Officer [REDACTED] further explained what he would do if it
were his home and that he would be “whoopin” some ass and then
calling the police afterwards. At the 4:32 mark on the video,
Officer [REDACTED] said, "I know this isn't your guys' true
homes and stuff like that, but if this were my home and somebody
was in my house and they were on my property and not leaving, I
would be whoopin' some fucking ass. I'm calling 911 afterwards
to scrape up their bloody bodies away. Because that justice is
gonna be a lot better than no justice at all. And again, I'm
not trying to tell you guys what to do by any means, but..."
At the 6:01 mark on the video, Officer [REDACTED] said,
"But again, by no means am I telling you, no vigilante shit, but
with a big bat, swing a big bat."
Officer [REDACTED]’s criminal trespass investigation was
completed in thirteen minutes. Officer [REDACTED] cleared the
scene at 12:25 p.m., nineteen minutes after he arrived. Officer
[REDACTED] testified that he completed his investigation by the
time that he was speaking with Ms. [REDACTED], and thus he was
able to turn off his body worn camera that would have captured
his recorded statements to Ms. [REDACTED].
Officer [REDACTED] admitted in his arbitration testimony
that the suspects barricaded the vacant apartment unit door and
that he, Officer [REDACTED], never entered the apartment unit
unlawfully occupied by the suspects. Officer [REDACTED]
testified that he stood in the corridor outside of the apartment
and spoke to the suspects in the apartment through the
barricaded door. Officer [REDACTED] testified that he was sure
that he asked the suspects for their names, but he admitted that
if the suspects provided their names, he did not record their
names anywhere. Officer [REDACTED] testified that he did not
write a formal written trespass report for either suspect, and
Officer [REDACTED] testified that he did not take any additional
steps to identify either suspect. Nevertheless, Officer
[REDACTED] testified that he verbally trespassed the suspects
from the BVLD apartments. However, if true, he did not
memorialize that trespass warning or the suspects’ identity in
any way that would allow for future enforcement by him or any
other Kent Police Officer. Officer [REDACTED] testified that he
did not take any of these additional steps to further this
trespass investigation.
Ms. [REDACTED] captured Officer [REDACTED]’s reasons for
not taking any additional policing steps on the video when
Officer [REDACTED] explained: “I’m not going to go in there and
push...push the envelope.” (Employer Exhibit #2, pg.4, Ins. 2-
8).
Officer [REDACTED] admitted in his testimony that he
violated the KPD’s mission statement and also violated KPD
Policy 13.10, Conditions of Work - Code of Conduct that provides
in pertinent part:
Unbecoming Conduct: Employees of the Police Department
shall conduct themselves at all times, both on and off
duty, in a manner that does not reflect negatively on the
Department. Employee conduct, which brings discredit on the
Department, may subject the employee to discipline.
(Employer Exhibit #3).
On January 24, 2023, BLVD Apartments Manager, [REDACTED]
sent an email to the KPD about continuing issues that
they were having on the property. He included the video that
was taken by Ms. [REDACTED] on December 19, 2022. The video was
reviewed by several members of the KPD management, including
Commander [REDACTED] who was ultimately assigned to IA #23-001
to investigate. He reviewed the emails, Officer [REDACTED]'s
body worn camera, the video from the BLVD Apartments,
interviewed BLVD Apartments Manager [REDACTED], and Officer
[REDACTED]. Officer [REDACTED] and the two maintenance workers
who were present during the recording with Officer [REDACTED]
and Ms. [REDACTED] were not interviewed because of their
presence during this interview.
On May 15, 2023, the KPD issued a Notice of Pre-
Disciplinary/Loudermill Hearing (the “Notice”) to Officer
[REDACTED]. The Notice set forth two separate allegations
against Officer [REDACTED], including violations of: City of
Kent Policy 2.14.2(F); and, KPD Policy 13.10, Conditions of Work
- Code of Conduct. The KPOA responded to each individual
allegation in a Position Statement, filed with the KPD on June
29, 2023.
The KPD held a Loudermill Hearing on June 29, 2023, at
which the Parties discussed the allegations and KPOA’s Position
Statement at great length. Chief [REDACTED] issued notice to
Officer [REDACTED] on July 14, 2023 placing him on paid
administrative leave until a Notice of Discipline could be
completed. The KPD, over Chief [REDACTED]’s signature, issued
such Notice of Discipline on July 20, 2023, wherein the KPD
sustained the allegation as to KPD Policy 13.10 only. The
KPD terminated Officer [REDACTED]’s employment effective July
21, 2023.
On July 24, 2023, the KPOA filed a grievance over the
termination of Officer [REDACTED] pursuant to Section 15.5 of
the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The KPOA asserts that
Officer [REDACTED] was terminated without just cause in
violation of Section 12.1 of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement. In filing this grievance, the KPOA seeks the
following remedies: (1) the full reinstatement of Officer
[REDACTED] to his previously held rank and position; and (2)
full back pay and benefits from the date of termination to the
date of reinstatement.
The instant grievance was denied by the City, with the KPOA
demanding final and binding arbitration, pursuant to the
contractual grievance procedure on October 17, 2023. The
Arbitrator was assigned to the instant case from the Law
Enforcement Arbitrator Roster, which is administered by PERC.
KPOA POSITION
Chief [REDACTED] plainly summarized his rationale for
terminating Officer, concluding “[i]n essence, I do not
trust you to adhere to our values, expectations, and policy
requirements, which in turn compels me to end your employment.”
To restate, Chief [REDACTED] concluded Officer [REDACTED]’s
conduct was so egregious that he could not trust Officer
[REDACTED] do his job as a member of the KPD. Chief
[REDACTED]’s statement, however, is not supported by the
evidence or testimony presented at arbitration. To be blunt,
the reason Chief [REDACTED] gave for terminating Officer
[REDACTED] is not true - and KPOA proved it at arbitration.
Chief [REDACTED]’s termination rationale put a cap on a
process replete with inconsistencies, irregularities, and patent
violations of Officer [REDACTED]’s right to due process. The
evidence and testimony demonstrated that Chief [REDACTED]:
mischaracterized facts to escalate the severity of the incident
at issue; scoured Officer [REDACTED]’s record for aggravating
factors while dismissing relevant mitigating factors; improperly
applied the principles of progressive discipline by escalating
to the most extreme punishment unnecessarily; imposed a level of
discipline inconsistent with a recent analogous case; and, when
that was not enough, attempted to implicate additional policy
violations never charged in a back-door attempt to justify his
termination decision.
In light of the evidence, it cannot reasonably be found
that the City had just cause to terminated Officer [REDACTED].
Chief [REDACTED] molded the facts and cherry-picked Officer’s
[REDACTED]’s record to fit his narrative. Chief [REDACTED]
engaged in a result-oriented process with a pre-determined
outcome in mind. This is evidence of an unfair process, feigned
to arrive at a pre-determined outcome.
Officer [REDACTED] has acknowledged at every step that his
comments at the BLVD Apartments were a lapse in judgment. He
has taken accountability and recognized that some level of
discipline is necessary. However, termination was excessive.
Officer [REDACTED] has been a dedicated servant in the Kent
Community for over 20 years. He is well-respected by his peers
and, despite Chief [REDACTED]’s failure to consider the same,
boasts considerable accolades and numerous examples of positive
police work benefiting the City over the last 20+ years.
The KPOA respectfully requests that a reasonable level of
discipline be imposed, that Officer [REDACTED] be reinstated to
his most recent position, and that he be awarded full back pay
and benefits.
CITY POSITION
Officer [REDACTED]’s grievance fails to articulate any
evidence to establish that the City violated any provision of
the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Officer [REDACTED] admits,
as he must, that Articles 12 and 16 of the Contract reserve the
City’s right to discipline and to determine the appropriate
discipline for violations of KPD Policies is reserved to the
City. Officer [REDACTED] admits that his comments, actions, and
inaction on December 19, 2022, constitutes Unbecoming Conduct in
violation of KPD 13.10, that is both misconduct and a serious
violation of KPD Policy.
Officer [REDACTED] admits that his conduct on December 19,
2022, is not his first violation of KPD 13.10, and that his
disciplinary history includes six previous Internal
Investigations in a little over a decade. Officer [REDACTED]
admits that prior to December 19, 2022, that the City and the
KPD took three of the five steps of progressive discipline
prescribed in KPD Policy 14.30, by issuing Officer [REDACTED]
verbal reprimands, written reprimands, and suspensions, and that
the fourth of the five steps, demotion, was unavailable to the
City because Officer [REDACTED] was a Patrol Officer, the lowest
rank of commissioned Officer in the City, and therefore
Officer [REDACTED] could not be demoted. Consequently, the next
step on the ladder of progressive discipline, is termination.
The best predictor of future behavior is past performance,
and that is one of the reasons that employers keep and maintain
disciplinary history and performance reviews. Officer
[REDACTED]’s performance and disciplinary history paints a
pattern of misconduct, poor and inconsistent performance, and a
long pattern of poor judgment that manifests in discourtesy,
improper comments, and discredit to the KPD and the other
Officers that wear the uniform.
Chief [REDACTED] exercised the discretion reserved to him
by the Contract and by KPD Policy to determine the correct
discipline for Officer [REDACTED]’s violations of Kent Policy.
Officer [REDACTED]’s violations of KPD Policy 13.10 constitutes
just cause to terminate his employment, and the City
respectfully requests that the Arbitrator affirm Chief
[REDACTED]’s decision to terminate Officer [REDACTED]’s
employment and to enter an Award for the City.
ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE
Discharge is the ultimate penalty that can be assessed
against an employee by management. Discharge severs the
employment relationship. Discharge also serves to terminate all
of the benefits which flow from regular employment: economic
well-being; self-sufficiency; the satisfaction of work; the
individual's standing in the community; and the individual's
sense of personal dignity and worth. Suffice it to say, the
discharge of an employee must be closely scrutinized by the
Arbitrator.
The Parties agree that the applicable Collective Bargaining
Agreement for this case is the 2022-2024 Contract. (Union
Exhibit #22). Article 12 and 16 of the Contract reserves the
right of the City to “suspend, demote, discharge, or take other
disciplinary action against such employees for just cause.”
It is the overwhelmingly accepted principle in arbitration that
the burden of proof in discharge cases is on the City.
It is generally the function of an arbitrator in
interpreting a contract provision which requires "just cause" as
a condition precedent to discharge not only to determine whether
the involved employee is guilty of the wrongdoing as charged by
the employer, but also to safeguard the interests of the
discharged employee by making reasonably sure that the cause for
discharge was just and equitable. The term "just cause" implies
a standard of reasonableness under the unique circumstances of
each case. An employee will not be discharged by action which
is deemed by an arbitrator to be arbitrary, capricious,
discriminatory, unduly harsh, or disproportionate to the proven
offense committed by that employee.
To that end, the Parties agreed in the November 24, 2021
Memorandum to formally incorporate the utilization of
Daugherty’s Seven Tests, which is a well-known and well-
recognized guide for establishing “just cause” for conducting
employee investigations and determining whether and what
discipline is appropriate. The agreed upon Seven Tests are as
follows:
Test One - Did the employee have adequate notice of the
work rule or performance standard at issue and the possible
consequence of his/her failure to comply. Alternatively,
was notice not required due to the nature of the violation?
Test Two - Is the work rule or performance standard
reasonably related to the orderly, efficient, and safe
operation of the Department or the performance that the
department might properly expect? Unless a rule places
an officer or another in an unsafe position or the rule
is illegal, the officer is expected to follow the rule, and
grieve the rule later.
Test Three - Did the Department investigate the matter to
determine whether the employee in fact engaged in the
alleged misconduct at issue before taking disciplinary
action?
Test Four - Was the investigation conducted timely, fairly,
and objectively?
Test Five - Does the Department have clear and convincing
evidence for termination, demotion and suspension, or a
preponderance of the evidence for other Imposed discipline,
that the employee violated the work rule or performance
standard?
Test Six - In regard to the discipline imposed, has the
Department applied its work rules or standards evenhandedly
and without discrimination as compared to other employees?
Test Seven - Does the discipline imposed reasonably relate
to the nature of the misconduct and the record of the
employee's service?
(Employer Exhibit #16).
Simply stated, there are generally two areas of proof
involving the discipline of City employees. The first involves
proof by the Employer of actual employee wrongdoing. The second
area of proof, once actual wrongdoing is established, is the
propriety of the penalty assessed by the Employer.
Article 12, Section 12.1(1), reserves the right of
management to “determine and administer policy.”
KPD Policy 14.20 provides in relevant part:
An Internal Affairs Investigation is conducted when it is
determined that the conduct, if proven, would constitute a
serious violation of law, a serious of Department or City
policy or procedure, or serious poor performance of the
employee, or when it is determined, prior to the initiation
of the investigation, that more than written reprimand may
be imposed of the allegations are sustained.
The IA Investigation conducted by the City established
Officer [REDACTED] did not take any additional steps to further
his situation when Officer [REDACTED] explained to Ms.
[REDACTED] that “I’m not going to go in there and push...push
the envelope.” Instead, Officer [REDACTED] lectured Ms.
[REDACTED] and BLVD Apartment staff with profanity such as
“shit,” “Goddamned,” and “fucking ass” by stating to them:
The other thing, too, is that by no means am I telling you
guys to do this, but street justice is a lot better than
actual justice...
I know this isn’t your guys’ true homes and stuff like
that, but if this was my home and somebody’s in my house
and they’re on my property and not leaving, I’m going to
whoop their fucking ass...
I’ll call 911 afterwards to scrape their bloody bodies
away....
Because that justice is going to be a lot better than no
justice at all....
Officer [REDACTED] continued: “Go with a big bat, swing –
swing with a big bat, you know?”
(City Exhibit #2).
Officer [REDACTED] admitted in his testimony that the above
statements violated the KPD’s mission statement and also
constituted Conduct Unbecoming in violation of KPD Policy 13.10
that provides in pertinent part:
Unbecoming Conduct: Employees of the Police Department
shall conduct themselves at all times, both on and off
duty, in a manner that does not reflect negatively on the
Department. Employee conduct, which brings discredit on
the Department, may subject the employee to discipline.
(City Exhibit #3).
KPD Policy 14.30 prescribes five levels of discipline:
Verbal Reprimand, Written Reprimand, Suspension, Demotion, or
Termination. (City Exhibit #31). The Chief of Police
has the discretion to utilize any of the above disciplinary
options or to combine them. (City Exhibit #23; KPD Policy
4.50). Additionally, the Chief of Police has the discretion to
alter or modify the conditions of discipline if the Chief of
Police determines that it is in the best interest of the
Department.
It is proper to give some consideration to the past record
of any disciplined employee, especially one like Officer
[REDACTED] who had 21 years of service with the City. An
offense might be partly mitigated by a good past record and it
might be aggravated by a poor one. The employee’s past record
may be a major factor in the determination of an appropriate
penalty for the proven offense. This is not to say that an
employee can never be disciplined with a long and good work
record. It is simply to indicate that in those cases the scale
must be balanced carefully and the quantum of proof necessary is
more than for a newer employee or one with an already poor
record.
Officer [REDACTED]’s 21 year disciplinary history with the
KPD as a Police Officer includes verbal reprimands (IA-#05-
5149); written reprimands (IA #12-001-February 17, 2012; IA #15-
001-PIP-June 18, 2015; IA #17-008-October 2, 2017); and
suspensions(IA-20-004; IA #20-007-April 26, 2021).
Officer [REDACTED]’s disciplinary record evinces a
consistent pattern of misconduct and poor judgment. Officer
[REDACTED]’s disciplinary history includes six IAs in the ten
years preceding this current IA. Chief [REDACTED] testified
that this is more IAs than any other member of the KPD since
Chief [REDACTED] became Chief in 2018. Chief [REDACTED]
testified that it is rare for a Kent Police Officer to have two
IAs, let alone the six that Officer [REDACTED] accrued during
the ten years preceding the current violations.
In addition, Officer [REDACTED]’s performance evaluations
have at times “needed improvements” compared to other Police
Officers. In fact, Sergeant [REDACTED] who last evaluated
Officer [REDACTED] did not include the pending IA #23-001 in
Officer [REDACTED]’s evaluation because the IA was not completed
until July 20, 2023, when Chief [REDACTED] issued a Notice of
Disciplinary Decision. (City Exhibit #11).
Clearly, the evidence has proved that Chief [REDACTED]’s
decision to terminate Officer [REDACTED]’s employment with the
KPD was based upon the admitted misconduct by Officer [REDACTED]
and serious KPD Policy violations on December 19, 2022.
In addition, Officer [REDACTED]’s previous disciplinary and
performance history establishes that he cannot consistently
comply with KPD Policy and performance standards. After
consideration of Officer [REDACTED]’s lengthy disciplinary and
performance record of poor judgment, offensive statements made
to BLVD Apartments staff, and the inability or refusal of
Officer [REDACTED] to consistently reach the performance
standards required of KPD there is ample evidence to sustain his
discharge.
The record is clear that the City followed the steps of
progressive discipline, pursuant to KPD Policy 14.30, by issuing
verbal reprimands, written reprimands, and suspensions, and each
of these steps failed to convince Officer [REDACTED] to exercise
better judgment and/or to consistently adhere to the Policies
and expectations of the KPD. Unfortunately for Officer
[REDACTED] the next and last step of progressive discipline
under KPD Policy 14.30 is termination. The Arbitrator should
not disturb the Chief’s decision.
Officer [REDACTED] attempts to excuse his behavior by
describing his comments to Ms. [REDACTED] as a temporary lapse
in judgment. Unfortunately, KPD Policy 13.10 does not carve out
an exception for a temporary lapse in judgment. Officer
[REDACTED]’s comments made to Ms. [REDACTED] were not made in
jest or “tongue-in-cheek.”
Officer [REDACTED] claims that Chief [REDACTED]’s failure
to immediately place Officer [REDACTED] on paid Administrative
Leave rather than wait 155 days is evidence that Chief
[REDACTED] did not believe that there was just cause to
discipline Officer [REDACTED]. Officer [REDACTED] called former
Union President [REDACTED] to support this proposition, but the
testimony of former President [REDACTED] did not support this
proposition. To the contrary, former President [REDACTED]
testified that since Chief [REDACTED] was appointed Chief in
2018, he could only recall the Terminate on of one Kent Police
Officer. Former President [REDACTED] admitted that with one
case as a data point, he could not testify to any discernible
pattern to determine whether the placement or non-placement of
an employee on paid Administrative Leave meant anything.
Officer [REDACTED] alleges that Chief [REDACTED]’s
decision to terminate his employment for violation of KPD Policy
13.10 is inconsistent with Chief [REDACTED]’s decision to
reprimand Kent Officer [REDACTED] for violation of the same
policy. (City Exhibits #37, #38). These situations are however
distinguishable.
Chief [REDACTED] testified that Officer [REDACTED]’
disciplinary history was nearly perfect and limited to one IA
that occurred many years before, whereas Officer [REDACTED] had
six IAs, not including the current IA. Moreover, former Union
President [REDACTED] admitted during his testimony that Officer
[REDACTED]’ discipline was reduced to a reprimand because his
supervisor had condoned Officer [REDACTED]’ behavior, an act for
which the supervisor himself was disciplined and suspended.
(City Exhibit #39).
Further, Officer [REDACTED]’ conduct involved him using
profanity with a suspect calling the suspect an “asshole,” a
“fucking moron,” and a “fucking idiot.” (City Exhibits #37,
#38). Officer [REDACTED] used profanity like Officer [REDACTED]
but Officer [REDACTED] did not encourage “street justice”, the
beating of criminal suspects by property owners and managers
until the suspects are dead and their bodies bloody, or
otherwise encourage citizens to take matters into their own
hands through acts of violence like Officer [REDACTED].
Clearly, Chief [REDACTED] imposed different sanctions for
Officer [REDACTED] and Officer [REDACTED] because of the
different circumstances. This demonstrates that Chief
[REDACTED] is not biased but he instead is fair and carefully
considered each of the cases and imposed the discipline that was
warranted based on the facts of each case and the involved
Officers’ varied disciplinary histories.
In the final analysis, Officer [REDACTED]’s past
performance [REDACTED]and disciplinary history represents a
consistent pattern of disregard for his job. Chief [REDACTED]
was not obligated to ignore this pattern of misconduct,
deficient performance, repeated counseling, reprimands,
performance improvement plans, and suspensions. Officer
[REDACTED], therefore, was discharged for just cause pursuant to
Section 12.1(C) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
AWARD
The grievance is denied.
Richard J. Miller
Dated May 3, 2024.