By Jim Cline and Troy Thornton
Arbitrator Kenneth J. Latsch found that the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department had just cause to terminate Officer Raymond Cuevas for accessing the department database in furtherance of a romantic relationship. The termination occurred after the Department sustained “conduct unbecoming an officer” charges against Cuevas when he accessed the Department’s database to locate the address of a former romantic interests’ new boyfriend who he then confronted at the discovered address.
Former Officer Cuevas, who had worked for the Department for roughly four years, had been romantically involved with another member of the Department, Officer Kendra Johnson. After confronting Cuevas due to his apparent relationship with another woman, Johnson broke off communication with Cuevas. Months later, while on duty Cuevas noticed Johnson’s truck being driven by another man (with Johnson also in the vehicle). Cuevas attempted to follow the truck back to Johnson’s address, but it had taken a detour and was not in the driveway when Cuevas arrived at the residence. Instead, Cuevas found a vehicle that he was unfamiliar with, and called to his partner to run the plates.
After discovering that the vehicle belonged to fellow LVMPD Officer Bergman Gadea, Cuevas went to the address. Cuevas started pounding on the door Gadea opted not to open the door.
Gadea followed up with a call to his brother, also a member of the LVMPD, to speak about the incident. While they were on the phone, Cuevas returned to Gadea’s address, and began pounding on the door again. Gadea contacted dispatchers to report the incident, and several officers responded to the call.
Following a criminal investigation into the matter, Cuevas was arrested by for the misdemeanor of “coercion.” During the investigation, he claimed to have discovered the address through the Clark County Assessor’s website. The Department determined that under Nevada law, the records violation was actually a felony. It also determined that under the Department’s discipline matrix a felony could not be mitigated and required termination.
The Union argued that termination was not the appropriate level of discipline to apply here. It argued that Cuevas had a clean employment record throughout his four years at the Department, having never been subject to any level of discipline. The Union relied on a disciplinary matrix utilized by the Department, as well as similar situations involving other officers of the Department that did not result in termination.
The Department believed that it did in fact have just cause to terminate Cuevas’ employment. It stated that Cuevas knowingly violated Department policies by accessing confidential information for his personal use, and that his actions at Gadea’s residence constituted an improper threat. The Department also disputed the Union’s belief that Cuevas’ actions did not fall under the termination category in the disciplinary matrix bargained between the parties.
Arbitrator Latsch upheld the Department’s decision to terminate Cuevas. In doing so, he found that Cuevas was adequately warned about the consequences of his actions, the rule that Cuevas violated was a reasonable one, and that the Department conducted a thorough and fair investigation to establish Cuevas’ guilt. Additionally, Latsch found that, contrary to the Union’s arguments, the Department’s decision was appropriate when considering the parties’ discipline matrix. Here, Cuevas’ use of Department resources to track down and confront an individual created too great of a risk for the Department to keep him employed.
I recognize that discharge is the most extreme personnel action that can be taken, and that the decision to impose discharge must be well-explained by the Employer. I also recognize that as Arbitrator, I cannot substitute my judgment for the Employer’s analysis of the situation at the time that the decision to discharge was made. In other words, I must determine if the Employer, at the time the decision to discharge Mr. Cuevas was made, had just cause for its decision.
Records access violations have often been cause for the end of many police department employee’s careers. So have romantic relationships gone awry. The violations have to be viewed in the context of overall circumstances to assess whether or not they arise to the level of a “capital offense” warranting summary discharge. Such violations may or may not be fatal, depending on the entire context.
Here one unusual factor present was the agency’s assessment that the records violation was a felony under state law. To the extent that claim was accurate, it effectively curtailed any ability to argue mitigation. But even setting aside that unique factor relating to Nevada law, the overall circumstances presented here pointed to the probability of discharge. Arriving at your ex’s new boyfriend’s house with an addressed acquired through an improper records access and then pounding on the door — all while on duty — does not suggest a high likelihood of career survival. The fact that the relevant acts were all members of the department aggravated the situation. The officer’s inability to maintain boundaries and emotional control would have persuaded the arbitrator he was a risk for retention. The arbitration result here was predictable.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on General Principles of Contract Interpretation, Notice of Rule, Consistency in Rule Enforcement, Reasonableness of Rule and Thorough and Fair Investigation**
