By Mitchel Wilson
In Horne v. City of Detroit, 27 AD Cases 1518 (2013), the court dismissed a former Detroit police officer’s ADA claim and granted summary judgment for the City of Detroit. The court concluded that the City lawfully terminated Horne after he plead guilty to four counts stemming from him firing eight rounds from an AR-15 into the home of his wife’s lover.
As part of a plea agreement, Horne pleaded guilty to reckless use of a firearm and received one-year probation; afterward the charge would be dismissed. At the hearing, Horne described how on Christmas Eve, he stalked his wife to discover the identity of her lover, followed her lover home, and fired upon him when he entered the house. Due to the seriousness of the crime and his suspension being the fifth disciplinary action taken against Horne, the court recommended the City terminated him and the City agreed.
Horne claimed that the City of Detroit fired him because of a disability and was therefore subject to protection of the ADA. But Horne could not convincingly show that the City was aware of his disability, clinical depression, because he only mentioned that he was depressed at the criminal hearing and remarked that he was “much better now.” Furthermore, a disabled person can be dismissed for cause as long as the reason is not a pretext. Here, the City of Detroit, the court ruled, showed that Horne was terminated for conduct unbecoming an officer as a consequence of his criminal conviction.
The trial board said: “On this particular day he took that AR-15 — we are not talking about a Glock, but an AR-15 assault rifle — and fired not one round but eight rounds into a dwelling on Christmas Eve . . . on Christmas Eve most people are at home. Homes are occupied, and he fired an AR-15 into a house. Those bullets could have ricocheted. Those bullets could have gone through and through. . . This is an officer that should not be in this Department. . . .” Horne endangered the safety of the people he took an oath to protect when he randomly shot eight rounds into a citizen’s home.
Horne’s main defense was presenting evidence of other officer’s punishments that did not result in termination, such as an officer suspended for driving under the influence. However, he failed to connect these to any pretext argument against the City. The court ruled that simply because other officers warrant discipline, does not mean that firing Horne was unwarranted nor that it was motivated because he has depression. Horne mistakenly believed that because the charges would be dropped after a year, that his conviction is irrelevant, however … “Horne points to no policy that says a later dismissal of a guilty plea warrants reinstatement, especially after he admitted guilt to the trial board.”
