SPB Orders Reinstatement of Hospital Police Officers
Veteran PDC Officers to Return to Duty
In July of 2004, PDC dismissed Dowling and Hanson for allegedly mishandling the transport of two developmentally disabled clients.
PDC alleged the officers acted contrary to Department policy when they left a Psychiatric Technician alone with one of the clients in a van, made an improper stop at a restaurant to dine, made an unauthorized stop at Costco to allow the clients to purchase items, improperly parked the van in a disabled parking spot, allowed the clients to purchase items that were considered contraband (a can of aerosol deodorant) and allowed these same items to enter into a secured treatment program area.
After the presentation of the evidence, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed most of the charges against Dowling and Hanson and reduced the penalty to a 5-day suspension. The Administrative Law Judge sustained only the charge of leaving the client alone in the van with the Psychiatric Technician, and stated this conduct warranted only a short suspension.
The State Personnel Board rejected the Judge’s decision and decided to hear the case themselves. In a rare split decision (3-2), the Board reversed the ALJ's factual findings and sustained the majority of the allegations against the officers. The majority ruled that a six month suspension was the appropriate penalty for the "proven" misconduct.
In deciding to put the officers back to work, the Board majority noted that PDC must shoulder some of the blame in the case because it had been “extremely lax” in its enforcement of the transportation policy. The Board majority found significant that neither the current nor preceding Transportation Sergeant was even aware PDC had implemented the policy.
In an unusual move, two of the five State Personnel Board Members including Board President William Elkins wrote a dissenting opinion arguing the Board should dismiss all the charges except the charge of leaving the Psychiatric Technician alone in the van. The minority opinion reasoned holding the officers accountable for violation of a policy that they were not aware was in effect was unreasonable. In addition, the dissenting opinion noted Dowling and Hanson's actions were in line with the commonly accepted transport policies of PDC. The dissenting opinion concurred with the ALJ that a five-day suspension was more appropriate in this case.
We are gratified the State Personnel Board is returning these veteran officers to their jobs at PDC. However, given that two State Personnel Board Members and the Administrative Law Judge concluded the penalty should only be a minor suspension, CAUSE and the officers are considering pursuing additional legal recourse to get the penalty reduced further.
Veteran PDC Officers to Return to Duty
Source: Jolie Poper & Linda Kelly, Legal Counsel
Date: 4/15/2005
In July of 2004, PDC dismissed Dowling and Hanson for allegedly mishandling the transport of two developmentally disabled clients.
PDC alleged the officers acted contrary to Department policy when they left a Psychiatric Technician alone with one of the clients in a van, made an improper stop at a restaurant to dine, made an unauthorized stop at Costco to allow the clients to purchase items, improperly parked the van in a disabled parking spot, allowed the clients to purchase items that were considered contraband (a can of aerosol deodorant) and allowed these same items to enter into a secured treatment program area.
After the presentation of the evidence, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed most of the charges against Dowling and Hanson and reduced the penalty to a 5-day suspension. The Administrative Law Judge sustained only the charge of leaving the client alone in the van with the Psychiatric Technician, and stated this conduct warranted only a short suspension.
The State Personnel Board rejected the Judge’s decision and decided to hear the case themselves. In a rare split decision (3-2), the Board reversed the ALJ's factual findings and sustained the majority of the allegations against the officers. The majority ruled that a six month suspension was the appropriate penalty for the "proven" misconduct.
In deciding to put the officers back to work, the Board majority noted that PDC must shoulder some of the blame in the case because it had been “extremely lax” in its enforcement of the transportation policy. The Board majority found significant that neither the current nor preceding Transportation Sergeant was even aware PDC had implemented the policy.
In an unusual move, two of the five State Personnel Board Members including Board President William Elkins wrote a dissenting opinion arguing the Board should dismiss all the charges except the charge of leaving the Psychiatric Technician alone in the van. The minority opinion reasoned holding the officers accountable for violation of a policy that they were not aware was in effect was unreasonable. In addition, the dissenting opinion noted Dowling and Hanson's actions were in line with the commonly accepted transport policies of PDC. The dissenting opinion concurred with the ALJ that a five-day suspension was more appropriate in this case.
We are gratified the State Personnel Board is returning these veteran officers to their jobs at PDC. However, given that two State Personnel Board Members and the Administrative Law Judge concluded the penalty should only be a minor suspension, CAUSE and the officers are considering pursuing additional legal recourse to get the penalty reduced further.
| contactus@cslea.com | (800) 551-1414 | 2029 H Street • Sacramento, CA 95811 |