A police officer claimed that his termination was improper and violated his due process rights. He had been on temporary sick leave at the time and was suspended without pay and ultimately fired on the basis of various accusations stemming from an off-duty verbal and physical fight he had been involved in outside a restaurant/bar. His termination was vacated and he was awarded back pay and a new disciplinary hearing ordered because the disciplinary hearing did not hear live testimony from complaining witnesses or witnesses to the fight, but instead hearsay statements from the department's internal affairs investigation and testimony from the officer who put together the internal investigation report. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, finding that the intermediate appeals court should have determined whether sufficient competent evidence supported the charges. The evidence presented was both competent and sufficient to support the claim that the officer had engaged in inappropriate behavior that constituted conduct unbecoming an officer. It was enough to warrant his firing. Neither the officer's decision to proceed with the hearing without an attorney nor the hearing officer's decision not to call a witness to the fight violated the officer's due process rights. Ruroede v. Borough of Hasbrouck Heights, #a-95-11 ,2013 N.J. Lexis 598.
     A police officer employed by a city was terminated after he committed an act of domestic battery and then lied about doing so. The union representing officers filed a grievance asserting that the discharge was not for just cause. An arbitrator agreed, and ordered that he be reinstated. A trial court found that the arbitration decision was void and in violation of public policy. An appeals court upheld that ruling. “We are aware of no case, and no statute, that requires an allegation of misconduct in this context be proved by clear and convincing evidence because the misconduct may also be criminal and because the City seeks to discharge the officer. There is well-defined and dominant public policy against acts of domestic violence. Acts of domestic violence are even more disturbing when committed by a police officer – whether on or off duty. It is a violation of public policy to require the continued employment of an officer who has been found to be abusive and untruthful. We find the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence. The Arbitrator concluded the act was proved by a preponderance and the lie was proved by a preponderance. It would be repugnant to public policy to retain [him] as a police officer in these circumstances.” Decatur Police Benevolent and Protective Ass’n Labor Committee v. City of Decatur, #4-11-0764. 968 N.E.2d 749 (Ill. App. 2012).
     Arbitrator reinstates a property room supervisor that was terminated for ineffectiveness. Although she did not possess the necessary leadership qualities for supervision, the penalty was reduced to a 20-day suspension because she had been rated as "highly effective" in her last performance report. City of Arlington, Tex. and Grievant, 124 LA (BNA) 648 (Moore, 2007).
     Appellate court rejects a lack of evidence defense and sustains the termination of a city worker for opening coworker e-mails. Her claim that someone else must have used her password to log on lacked merit. Gornes v. City of Dayton, #22065, 2007-Ohio-4548, 2007 Ohio App. Lexis 4083 (2d App. Dist.).
     Arbitrator annuls a suspension given to a Florida police officer who failed to respond to successive Hurricane mobilization alerts sent to his defective first generation pager. City of Hialeah and Dade Co. P.B.A., 121 LA (BNA) 745, AAA Case #32-390-00076-05 (Hoffman, 2005). [2005 FP Dec]
     Arbitrator annuls the termination of an officer who made an allegedly unlawful entry into a residence to make an arrest without a warrant. "... it is most evident that had the Department thoroughly investigated, it too would have determined that this grievant could have reasonably believed he complied with Florida law. If F__'s training was flawed in some way, then the grievant cannot be blamed ..." City of Atlantic Beach, Fla. and FOP, 121 LA (BNA) 105, FMCS #04/06117 (Hoffman, 2005). {N/R}
     Second Circuit holds that a mayor and chief of were entitled to qualified immunity in a suit brought by officers because disciplinary proceedings continued against them, following their acquittal of criminal charges of abusive conduct. Deters v. Lafuente, 03-7129, 368 F.3d 185, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 9651, 21 IER Cases (BNA) 520 (2d Cir. 2004). {N/R}
     California appeals court finds that a demoted sergeant was not guilty of having sex with a young girl, did not violate police procedures, and is entitled to reinstatement of rank and pay differential. Collier v. Long Beach Civil Serv. Cmsn., #B147806, 2002 Cal. App. Unpub. Lexis 8639, 2002 WL 31087774 (Unpub. Cal. App. 2002). [2003 FP Feb]
     Arbitrator reverses the termination of an officer accused of brutality. The only impartial evidence came from a fellow officer who was threatened with termination if he did not implicate the grievant. The threats violated the grievant's right to Due Process. City of Cincinnati and Queen City L-69 FOP, AAA Case No. 52-390-00481-1, 117 LA (BNA) 637 (Duff, 2002). [2002 FP Dec]
     Arbitrator accepts the excuse that a city employee unknowingly ate marijuana brownies, because the baker corroborated his story. City of Oklahoma City and AFSCME L-2406, FMCS Case #01/11126-8, 116 LA (BNA) 1394 (Eisenmenger, 2002). [2002 FP Nov]
     Arbitrator overturns a five-day disciplinary suspension given a federal officer for harassment of his ex-wife. Inconsistencies in testimony warranted reversal. U.S. Border Patrol and AFGE L-2366, FMCS #00/03035, 115 LA (BNA) 660 (Goodman, 2001). [2001 FP 68]
     Arbitrator reinstates a jail deputy identified as involved in seven drug transactions. Poor training of an undercover agent and deficient investigative methods raise doubt of the deputy's guilt. Arbitrator applied the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof. Shelby Co. Sheriff's Office and AFSCME L-1733, 109 LA (BNA) 929 (Singer, 1997). [1998 FP 134-5]
     State supreme court finds sufficient behavioral evidence that a corrections officer was asleep on the job. Absolute proof of unconscious somnia unnecessary. Miss. Dept. Corr. v. McClee, 677 So.2d 732 (Miss. 1996). [1997 FP 54]
     Illinois appellate court reaffirms the general rule that only a preponderance of evidence is needed to support the termination of a public employee, even if the conduct is also a criminal offense. Teil v. Police Bd. of Chicago, 671 N.E.2d 760, 1996 Ill.App. Lexis 640. [1997 FP 21]
     Arbitrator reinstates police lieutenant who allegedly lied about having sex with another officer while on duty. Clear and convincing evidence required when charges are serious. Tallahassee (City of) and Police Benev. Assn., FMCS #96-010155, 34 (1691) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 1638 (Ferguson, 1996). [1997 FP 5]
     Appellate court sustains termination of a NYCPD officer, based on a handwriting expert's testimony, for sending a threat to the Governor and signing another person's name. Mahabir v. Kelly, 627 N.Y.S.2d 346 (A.D. 1995). [1996 FP 38]
     Terminations of officers reversed, where evidence consisted of a report by a police captain of his internal investigation, including his summaries of statements he received and interviews he conducted. None of the statements were under oath, and none of the persons were available for cross-examination. McLean v. Mecklenburg Co., 448 S.E.2d 137 (N.C. 1994). {N/R}
     Illinois appellate court holds that a “preponderance of evidence” is all that is legally necessary to support termination proceedings. Clark v. Bd. of Fire & Police Cmsnrs., 245 Ill.App.3d 385 (at 391-2), 613 N.E.2d 826 (1993).
     A Commission may adopt a higher standard of proof than the statute requires for the protection of employees. Lewis v. Hayes, 152 Ill.App.3d 1020 (1987).
     If a city's Fire and Police Commission adopts the higher standard of "clear and convincing evidence," to be used in cases where criminal acts are alleged, the higher standard must be used to judge an accused. Schinkel v. Bd. of Fire & Police Cmsnrs. of Algonquin, 262 Ill.App.3d 310, 634 N.E.2d 1212, 1994 Ill.App. Lexis 818. {N/R}
     Mere fact police officer was convicted of a misdemeanor (negligent homicide) did not prove he violated the dept. firearms policy, where the city failed to introduce the policy into evidence at the disciplinary hearing, and failed to specify how and why the officer discredited the dept. Beyersdoerfer v. Shocket, 93 Ohio App.3d 647, 639 N.E.2d 818 (1994); app. den. 637 N.E. 12 (Ohio 1994). {N/R}
     Arbitrator reinstates employee terminated for violating employer's Rule Book because management failed to prove it adequately trained her on its contents. ATE Mgmt. and I.B.T. L-639, AAA 16-300-00155-94, 104 LA (BNA) 353 (Feigenbaum, 1995). [1995 FP 117-8]
     Appellate court refuses to overturn a finding that an officer struck the complainant; officer claimed the citizen was injured when the police car abruptly stopped. LaFemina v. Brown, 598 N.Y.S.2d 784 (A.D. 1993). [1994 FP 100]
     Arbitrator holds that management had just cause to discharge a police officer for attempting to sell cocaine and failing to prevent a felony; only evidence was the testimony of two admitted drug-dealing former police officers. City of Miami and FOP L-20, 92 LA (BNA) 175 (Abrams, 1989). {N/R}