Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver

24 HOURS A DAY: 866.964.4513

  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    • Labor Representation
    • Civil Litigation
    • Personal Injury
      • Example of Case Results
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • Maritime Law
    • Estate Planning
    • DOE Security Clearance Hearings
    • Peace Officers
    • Firefighters
    • EMS Agency Investigations
    • Criminal Defense
  • Our Team
  • Classes
  • Media
    • RLS In The News
    • Bulletins
  • Resources
    • Links
    • Resources
    • MOUs
  • Clients
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer

Progressive Discipline: It Matters

April 20, 2018 by Hien Nguyen

From: PORAC

Nicole Pifari
Attorney at Law
Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC

Can a department ignore the concept of progressive discipline? Can it fire an officer for dishonesty even though the person who spearheaded the investigation concluded the officer had been truthful? Can a department set higher standards for one officer than for the rest of his team, then fire him for failing to meet those standards?

For seven years, the officer in this case thrived working on Patrol and received only positive reviews. He led his department in DUI arrests and received awards for his work in catching drunken drivers.
The officer was accepted into his department’s Criminal Investigations Unit. Unfortunately, due to no fault of his own, he worked under three different supervisors during his nine months as a detective. The last supervisor, after working only two months with the officer, gave him his first ever “improvement needed” performance rating. The supervisor later admitted that his department does a poor job of training detectives, letting them “take their training into their own hands.”

This supervisor gave the officer a choice: go back to Patrol or be placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). The officer chose the PIP. But like so many other aspiring detectives, he found himself hopelessly buried in bottomless paperwork. After three months, he was deemed to have failed the PIP and sent back to Patrol.

Months later, he was placed on another PIP under the guise of bringing him up to standard. His supervisor would later state that if it had been up to him, he never would have instituted the second PIP, pointing out the officer’s history of being a “top gun” in DUIs, “highly regarded” and “one of the top performers” on his team.

The PIP requirements seemed to set the officer up for failure. He was required to make a certain number of FI contacts and write a certain number of tickets each shift. Despite supposedly performing at a substandard level, he was being asked to outperform everyone on Patrol to pass his PIP.

Yet he was doing it. The captain initiated an in-depth inquiry into the FI contacts the officer had claimed on his activity sheet, confirming that the officer had contacted every person listed but had not completed and turned in a physical FI card for each contact. Some of the cards were found in his duty bag and others stuffed in his uniform pockets.

The department fired him, essentially claiming that he was incompetent and lied to his supervisor by failing to fill out all of the cards.

Attorney Julia Fox represented the officer and they took the case to arbitration. Through three days of testimony, they showed that for most of his career, the officer’s performance had not been substandard. In fact, the department acknowledged that an incompetent person wouldn’t have been given the duties the officer had earned over the years. Importantly, he had never been subject to discipline.

Quite damning to the department’s case was testimony from the officer’s immediate supervisor that the PIP standards forced him to perform at a higher level than was required of any other patrol officer. The supervisor cited the officer’s struggle in Detectives and opined that he was suffering from a lack of confidence, a lack of faith and generally getting worn down by the PIP process. Even more importantly, the supervisor, who had led the investigation into the missing FI cards, testified that he did not believe the officer had been dishonest or deceptive, just disorganized.

The department leaned heavily on the dishonesty charge in arguing that progressive discipline was not appropriate in this case because even if he didn’t intentionally fail to turn in the FI cards, his behavior was certainly reckless. The department argued this demonstrated a “fundamental, fatal flaw in judgment” that lesser discipline would not address.

The arbitrator disagreed. There was just cause for some discipline, she felt, but she did not believe he had been dishonest nor was there just cause to terminate him. She pointed out that the PIP standards had him outperforming everyone else, so his ticket writing did not support just cause for termination. She allowed the officer to be disciplined with a 30-day suspension and ordered he be reinstated with back pay.

In her written decision, the arbitrator repeatedly emphasized that this was a “12-year police officer with no prior discipline.” So, does progressive discipline really matter? Yes.

The officer in this case and his family are incredibly grateful to PORAC LDF, RLS and Julia Fox.

About the Author
Nicole Pifari is a member of the Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver Legal Defense of Peace Officers Practice Group. She represents officers in administration

Filed Under: Bulletins Tagged With: julia-fox, nicole-pifari

ELEVEN OFFICES TO SERVE YOU
Contact Us

Pleasant Hill (Main)

2300 Contra Costa Boulevard
Suite 500
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
PH: 925.609.1699
FX: 925.609.1690

Get Directions

Redwood City

(by appointment only)
2421 Broadway Street
Suite 200
Redwood City, CA 94063
PH: 650.701.5238
FX: 925.609.1690

Get Directions

Truckee

(by appointment only)
10418 Donner Pass Road
Suite C
Truckee, CA 96161
PH: 925.609.1699
FX: 925.609.1690

Get Directions

Encino

16130 Ventura Boulevard
Suite 600
Encino, CA 91436
PH: 747.221.7100
FX: 747.221.7101

Get Directions

Sacramento

(by appointment only)
1 Capitol Mall
Suite 345
Sacramento, CA 95814
PH: 916.646.2860
FX: 925.609.1690

Get Directions

Fresno

2377 West Shaw Avenue
Suite 208
Fresno, CA 93711
PH: 559.224.9100
FX: 925.609.1690

Get Directions

San Francisco

220 Montgomery Street
15th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
PH: 415.341.9341
FX: 925.609.1690

Get Directions

Los Angeles

(by appointment only)
(mail to Santa Monica)
1999 Avenue of the Stars
Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
PH: 310.393.1486
FX: 310.395.5801

Get Directions

Santa Monica

(by appointment only)
1428 2nd Street
Suite 200
Santa Monica, CA 90401
PH: 310.393.1486
FX: 310.395.5801

Get Directions

Ontario

3401 Centre Lake Drive
Suite 440
Ontario, CA 91761
PH: 909.509.5001
FX: 909.509.5015

Get Directions

Santa Rosa

(by appointment only)
2300 Bethards Drive
Suite F
Santa Rosa, CA 95405
PH: 707.576.8954
FX: 925.609.1690

Get Directions

© 2019 Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer | SITE: TU-D

  • Contact Us

  • News Alerts