Client Outcomes

Discipline Against Two Stanislaus County Sheriffs Deputies Set Aside as
“Unjustified”

Introductory Notice to Law Enforcement Agencies:

Whether the discipline handed down to deputies or officers is suspension or termination, the discipline will not be upheld if it is based on a bias against the peace officer, if it represents selective enforcement, or if it is otherwise unjustified. This lesson is evident from two recent cases defended by Goyette & Associates involving Stanislaus County Sheriffs Deputies: One involved a suspension, the other a termination; both were entirely set aside.

Patrol Deputy’s 15-day suspension is completely reversed.

Stanislaus County Patrol Deputy Robert Winget was surprised when an IA investigation was initiated based on a conversation he had with a friend who worked as a records clerk in the Sheriff’s department. Deputy Winget was even more surprised when he received a 15-day suspension for that conversation. It seems a certain records department supervisor, standing 25 feet away, concluded that this conversation was loud, was offensive, and was discourteous to fellow employees. Rather than discuss the situation with Deputy Winget, however, the supervisor made it her mission to take the matter to a commander, make sure an IA was initiated, and to see that discipline was administered. Unfortunately the Sheriff’s department went along with this and decided to administer the 15-day suspension.

Fortunately the MOU between the Stanislaus County Deputy Sheriffs Association and the Sheriff’s department provides for appeals to discipline that lead to binding arbitration. Through this process, a neutral arbitrator was able to hear what really happened. Deputy Winget had merely been mutually venting with his friend and records clerk about his frustration over returned citations from traffic court clerks. The records clerk was not offended by Deputy Winget’s conversation, and told IA investigators during her interview that there was no problem whatsoever. The arbitrator decided that since Deputy Winget was speaking to this records clerk, and since this clerk saw no problem with the conversation, stated Deputy Winget was not discourteous or offensive, and was equally surprised that an investigation was even being conducted, there was no basis for the 15-day suspension. While the County brought several witnesses who testified that Deputy Winget’s speech during the conversation at issue was somewhat loud, only the records department supervisor who was standing 25 feet away, and her close friend, another supervisor, felt the conversation was discourteous or offensive. The arbitrator ultimately gave their statements no weight, primarily since he wondered how the supervisor could be standing 25 feet away, with the records clerk and the other supervisor having their backs toward her, yet still observe that their facial expressions showed they were offended by Deputy Winget’s conversation. Like Deputy Winget, and like the records clerk he was speaking to, Goyette & Associates was surprised a Sheriff’s department would waste everyone’s time with discipline based on such an incident. Thankfully, the appeal procedure before an arbitrator was available to show the Sheriff’s department that such discipline was entirely unjustified.

Termination of Sheriff Deputy-Custodial is reversed as “ unjustified”.

Since Sheriff Deputy-Custodial Grant Beard had worked for the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s department for over three years without receiving any discipline, written reprimand, or admonishment of any kind regarding his work performance, he was understandably surprised when he was terminated for two minor incidents that occurred within a one week period. Deputy Beard was especially surprised since neither incident involved violation of any written County policy, and since both incidents involved conduct commonly practiced by the majority of his coworkers.

First, Deputy Beard was one hour late for a training day, and then left the space on his timecard for that day blank when he turned in the timecard. When Deputy Beard was asked to correct this ‘deficiency,’ he entered the commonly used designation “8T” to signify a training day. Second, Deputy Beard was told by his Sergeant to “fix” a safety cell log used in the jail on which he had made several observations. Even though other deputies had made the majority of the observations on the log form, his sergeant directed him to “fix” the log form and stood by to see which corrections he would make. Deputy Beard entered missing information on the heading portion of the form, and also made several after-the-fact entries on the observation portion of the log form. The County considered both these incidents blatant displays of dishonesty, and terminated Deputy Beard without any progressive discipline.

At hearing, when the arbitrator heard the testimony of both County witnesses and witnesses for Deputy Beard, the termination was found to be entirely unjustified. The arbitrator found the County’s basis for termination lacking for various reasons, including the fact that in either the County or the Sheriff’s department had a written policy governing either of the alleged incidents, the fact that the County’s investigation of Deputy Beard was far from neutral and unbiased, and the fact that Deputy Beard’s co-workers practiced the very same conduct for which they were not disciplined.

More specifically, multiple Deputies, Sergeants, and Lieutenants testified that there is no policy regarding how a timecard should be filled out for training days. Rather, these witnesses testified that it is common practice to either leave the space blank or to enter “8T” on timecards for a training day. Witnesses testified that it is customary to enter “8T” on a timecard for a training day, even though training days typically involve only between 5 and 6 hours of classroom training, not a full 8-hour period in the classroom. Based on this testimony, and on the fact the maximum gain to Deputy Beard for marking A8T@ on his timecard for the training day (even though he was one hour late) would have been one hour of sick time, the arbitrator concluded that Deputy Beard did not exhibit dishonesty warranting termination.

Regarding the after-the-fact observations that Deputy Beard added to the safety cell log, the arbitrator also found that Mr. Beard did not exhibit dishonesty warranting termination. The arbitrator based this finding on several factors, including the fact that co-workers engaged in this same practice, that Deputy Beard had nothing to gain by making the addition (since he was not the Deputy who had made the majority of the observations on the log form), and the fact that his Sergeant appeared to act in a biased manner against Deputy Beard. This bias was demonstrated by the fact that she gave only a vague order to “fix” the log form, that she stood adjacent to Deputy Beard and watched to see what corrections he would make, that she did not write any Memo or give Deputy Beard any verbal counseling following the additions made to the form in order to teach him the additions were not allowed, and finally the fact that his Sergeant even acted as the IA officer for the investigation into Deputy Beard’s conduct. This last fact is especially curious; the County should know that any IA investigation should not be conducted by either a supervisor to the employee being disciplined, or a witness to the incident forming the basis for discipline. Deputy Beard’s Sergeant was both his supervisor and a witness to both the incidents asserted by the County as the basis for termination. Accordingly, the arbitrator not only reversed the termination, but no suspension of any kind was recommended. Rather, the arbitrator awarded Deputy Beard full back pay with interest and any lost benefits.

In sum, these two cases show that discipline that is unjustified will be reversed when presented at hearing to a neutral arbitrator. Whether the discipline is suspension or termination, the employer must have a valid basis for the discipline to be considered justified.

Gary G. Goyette, Esq.
Goyette & Associates, Inc.

Gary G. Goyette is the managing partner of Goyette & Associates, Inc., which specializes in the representation of public safety employees and their associations in numerous types of legal matters, throughout northern and central California.