Jim Cline and Kim Lowe
In City of Maumee, Arbitrator Szuter upheld a police officer’s termination for gross incompetence and inefficient performance. Even though Officer A_ was a five-year member of the department and several infractions would not have been enough, on their own, to sustain the termination, Arbitrator Szuter found that the volume of infractions in a short time was an aggravating factor, as was Officer A’s failure to take accountability.
Officer A worked for the City of Maumee, Ohio for 5 years, during which time she had attendance violations and other infractions. In 2020, Officer A was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) for errors made in performing a field sobriety test and letting another officer go to the wrong alarm when she knew he was needed elsewhere. While the PIP was still in effect, throughout the first half of 2021, Officer A was documented for: 1) taking photos of the Law Enforcement Automated Data System (LEADS) with her personal cell phone to help input data, 2) routinely taking 3-4 times as long as other officers to complete mandatory reports and charges, 3) driving over 100 mph and accessing her mobile computer at 108 mph, and 4) failing again to perform a field sobriety test and take the suspect to the hospital and complete her report. The City investigated these instances, held a disciplinary hearing, and ultimately terminated Officer A. She grieved the termination.
The City of Maumee argued it had just cause for Officer A’s termination, since the four 2021 incidents were more than enough for termination according to the disciplinary policies. It also noted that it put Officer A on a PIP and she was aware that she would be terminated if her performance did not improve. She was also given appropriate opportunity to contest the grounds and appeal her discipline.
Arbitrator Szuter considered Officer A’s five-year history with the City of Maumee to be an aggravating factor, rather than a mitigating one:
However, in this case, five years is an aggravating factor. A five-year officer should know how to do the [field sobriety test]; …a five-year officer should know common equipment violations like taillights; a five-year officer should know to check on criminal history before writing a report; a five-year officer should know the city; in a five-year officer should be aware of potential dangers to themselves and coworkers in approaching a vehicle and escorting a suspect into a vehicle.
The number of infractions in a short period was also a factor in Arbitrator Szuter’s decision,
The aggravating factors on this record, when taking the penalty in context of the offenses, are simply the great number of them in a short period of time…. Taken alone, the taillight stop and the disorientation to the hospital could have been lesser penalties. However, they must be taken in the context of so many other infractions.
Predictably the union’s case turned on an argument that there was a lack of progressive discipline. That was a challenging argument to make since the City not only had placed her on a PIP, it had issued a five-day suspension her for previous performance failures.
There is no “one size fits” all in the application of progressive discipline. While often the steps of progressive discipline might warrant moving from a short suspension to a longer suspension, in the case the arbitrator considered the gravity and volume of her errors and concluded that progressive discipline that preceded her discharge was adequate. Based on the facts characterized in this decision, that’s a call that most arbitrators would have made.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on Mitigating Factors**
