State Personnel Board rescinds rejection of ABC Investigator
-- Investigator disproved allegations of cheating
On October 3, 2008, The State Personnel Board (SPB) overturned an ABC Investigator's rejection during probation thereby reinstating a CSLEA member wrongly accused of cheating on a Golden West Academy exam.
A veteran United States Park Police Officer, Jorge Martinez, joined the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) as an investigator in the fall of 2007 to continue serving the public and the State of California. A stellar student, Martinez was at the top of his class; consistently the best in physical fitness and known to all as a compulsive studier. His instructors relied on his prior experience and academy performance to set an example for his classmates. A mid-term evaluation requested Martinez to help his less experienced classmates excel.
On a late November morning, however, a fellow recruit reported to academy staff that she had witnessed what she believed was Martinez cheating on an exam. Recruits take their exams on laptop computers which randomize the questions - making it difficult to engage in academic dishonesty. By the end of the day, two additional recruits, friends of the recruit who made the initial report, came forward with additional information purporting to support the cheating allegations.
Academy staff conducted a cursory, conclusory investigation. Within a few days - and without seeking any exculpatory evidence or interviewing any of Martinez's study partners - the academy expelled him. The Department, without conducting any independent investigation, accepted the academy's findings and rejected Martinez during his probationary period in January, 2008.
Over two days of hearing in May and June, 2008, SPB Administrative Law Judge Linda McAtee heard testimony from Investigator Martinez, several of his classmates, and those who had accused him of cheating. Importantly, the academy instructor on whose report ABC relied when it rejected Martinez, testified that he might have believed Martinez's adamant, consistent denials had he been told that Martinez tutored other students and that his knowledge of the specific test on which he was accused of cheating was such that he could not have cheated. The investigator never asked those questions, however, of Martinez or anyone in his class. He also seemingly forgot, despite having signed off on his mid-term evaluation, that the academy was on record recognizing Martinez's exemplary performance and broad knowledge of test material.
The SPB's decision specifically found that Investigator Martinez had no reason to cheat: he arrived at the academy prepared from both his prior job experience and his excellent study habits. His class rank - 4th at the time he was expelled - and his test scores also supported his innocence. The decision also found the testimony of Martinez and the witnesses for his side to be credible over the testimony of those who accused him.
The Board concluded that no substantial evidence supported a finding that Investigator Martinez cheated on the exam and the academy's report - on which ABC relied - contained exaggerations, inaccuracies, and was not thorough.
Investigator Martinez's rejection was set aside and the Board ordered him reinstated with full back pay in accordance with state law. This is a major victory for Investigator Martinez and all CSLEA members as the burden of proof in appeals of rejection during probation require the employee to overcome a presumption of truth given to the agency's allegations. CSLEA hopes this win will encourage departments to investigate allegations more thoroughly before wrongfully rejecting CSLEA members.
-- Investigator disproved allegations of cheating
Source: Christiana Dominguez, Legal Staff
Date: 10/16/2008
A veteran United States Park Police Officer, Jorge Martinez, joined the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) as an investigator in the fall of 2007 to continue serving the public and the State of California. A stellar student, Martinez was at the top of his class; consistently the best in physical fitness and known to all as a compulsive studier. His instructors relied on his prior experience and academy performance to set an example for his classmates. A mid-term evaluation requested Martinez to help his less experienced classmates excel.
On a late November morning, however, a fellow recruit reported to academy staff that she had witnessed what she believed was Martinez cheating on an exam. Recruits take their exams on laptop computers which randomize the questions - making it difficult to engage in academic dishonesty. By the end of the day, two additional recruits, friends of the recruit who made the initial report, came forward with additional information purporting to support the cheating allegations.
Academy staff conducted a cursory, conclusory investigation. Within a few days - and without seeking any exculpatory evidence or interviewing any of Martinez's study partners - the academy expelled him. The Department, without conducting any independent investigation, accepted the academy's findings and rejected Martinez during his probationary period in January, 2008.
Over two days of hearing in May and June, 2008, SPB Administrative Law Judge Linda McAtee heard testimony from Investigator Martinez, several of his classmates, and those who had accused him of cheating. Importantly, the academy instructor on whose report ABC relied when it rejected Martinez, testified that he might have believed Martinez's adamant, consistent denials had he been told that Martinez tutored other students and that his knowledge of the specific test on which he was accused of cheating was such that he could not have cheated. The investigator never asked those questions, however, of Martinez or anyone in his class. He also seemingly forgot, despite having signed off on his mid-term evaluation, that the academy was on record recognizing Martinez's exemplary performance and broad knowledge of test material.
The SPB's decision specifically found that Investigator Martinez had no reason to cheat: he arrived at the academy prepared from both his prior job experience and his excellent study habits. His class rank - 4th at the time he was expelled - and his test scores also supported his innocence. The decision also found the testimony of Martinez and the witnesses for his side to be credible over the testimony of those who accused him.
The Board concluded that no substantial evidence supported a finding that Investigator Martinez cheated on the exam and the academy's report - on which ABC relied - contained exaggerations, inaccuracies, and was not thorough.
Investigator Martinez's rejection was set aside and the Board ordered him reinstated with full back pay in accordance with state law. This is a major victory for Investigator Martinez and all CSLEA members as the burden of proof in appeals of rejection during probation require the employee to overcome a presumption of truth given to the agency's allegations. CSLEA hopes this win will encourage departments to investigate allegations more thoroughly before wrongfully rejecting CSLEA members.
| contactus@cslea.com | (800) 551-1414 | 2029 H Street • Sacramento, CA 95811 |