By Anthony Rice
In City of Chicago, the arbitrator found that the City’s decision to demote a Chicago police officer for “problematic behavior” was arbitrary and capricious, because the decision relied solely on a complaint registered against the officer in 2007.
The officer was hired by the City of Chicago on January 3, 1977. He became a Field Training Officer in 1999 and he served in that capacity without incident until 2007. Unfortunately, the job description for Field Training Officers requires them “not have sustained Complaint Register (C.R.) investigations during the past five years resulting in a suspension of more than two days, or a record of two or more sustained C.R. investigations within five years resulting in suspensions of any length of time.” The 2007 incident did result in a CR, but it was never finalized. The officer continued to serve without incident as a Field Training Officer until 2010—when the officer was advised that the Field Training and Evaluation Review Board (“FTO Review Board”) would be evaluating his recent disciplinary history, specifically the 2007 CR investigation. The officer’s disciplinary history was review and the officer was demoted.
The arbitrator first had to deal with the standard of review to be applied in this case. Since it was a non-disciplinary case, he found the standard of review “is whether or not the demotion was arbitrary or capricious.” In other words, the officer’s conduct under scrutiny must have been established in some way beyond the FTO Review Board’s guess or its acceptance of a never finalized disciplinary action arising from a CR.
The arbitrator then turned to the issue of whether the City acted arbitrarily or capriciously in demoting the officer. In concluding that the City acted arbitrary the arbitrator relied on many factors:
[the officer]’s demotion was grossly belated, and while this is not fatal in and of itself, the City’s ultimate action was severely undermined by the fact that [the officer] performed exemplary service as an FTO for several years after the alleged actionable misconduct. Moreover, [the officer] was referred for discipline in the CR case in a timely manner, but nothing ever came of it. Even after the Police Board rendered its opinion in 2010 that at least some discipline was merited, still, as of the date of the arbitration hearing in 2012, the Department had taken no action to enforce it. The CR summary report was never finalized so as to permit it to be used as the truth of the underlying facts charged in that discipline case. Those facts stand out as a markedly ineffective explanation for the instant demotion/disqualification.
