Opinion
HHDCV146055713S
03-02-2016
Town of East Hartford v. East Hartford Police Officers' Association
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Antonio C. Robaina, J.
The plaintiffs herein, Town of East Hartford, move to vacate the arbitration award issued by an arbitration panel on November 10, 2014 on the basis that enforcing the award would violate public policy.
The relevant facts, as found by the arbitration panel, are that Juma Jones was hired by the town of East Hartford as a police officer in 2003 and worked in that capacity until he was discharged. He had no history of discipline. During the time of his employment, he accessed the system known as " COLLECT" on a number of occasions in violation of department policy. On one occasion, on or about January 11, 2013, he used the system to obtain the address of a former girlfriend. He went to that person's home uninvited and was arrested for criminal trespass and breach of the peace. He was placed on administrative leave the following day and an internal affairs investigation was undertaken by the East Hartford Police Department. As a result of the internal affairs investigation, it was determined that Jones accessed the system and looked up information for five different persons. The investigation concluded that the use was not for law enforcement purposes, but for Jones' own personal reasons. The investigation found that when Jones entered the reason for the inquiry into the system he described his purpose as " training" which was not true and also a violation of department policy. Jones was discharged effective as of February 22, 2013. Subsequent to his discharge, further investigation concluded that Jones had used the collect system in 2011 and 2012 to access criminal information about his own personal acquaintances. His use of the system resulted in his being charged for approximately 21 counts of computer crimes in violation of Connecticut General Statute § 53a-254. He was ultimately granted " accelerated rehabilitation" which resulted in a dismissal of his charges.
" COLLECT" is an acronym for the Connecticut Online Law Enforcement Communications Terminal System. This system allows law enforcement personnel access to state and federal records and resources. Its access is limited to law enforcement-related uses.
The arbitration panel determined that the Town did not establish just cause to terminate Jones, and that it should have proposed a lesser penalty which was a suspension without pay. The arbitration panel found that the rules were not applied evenhandedly to Jones because lesser penalties had been imposed for similar violations by prior employees and that the severity of the punishment did not equal the violations committed. The panel found that there was sufficient evidence to establish that Jones violated the rules regarding the COLLECT system, and that he accessed information from that system without having a valid law enforcement purpose for doing so. In addition, the panel found that the listing of " training" as the purpose for access to the system constituted a violation of the policy with regards to entering inaccurate information in department records. The panel went on to compare Jones' violations to the violations of two police dispatchers who had received one week suspensions for improper use of the collect system. In one instance, a dispatcher used another dispatcher's identity to make an inquiry and in another the same dispatcher entered the name of a police officer to make inquiry. A second dispatcher was found to have allowed her computer to be used for a COLLECT inquiry by leaving it on and unattended so that another person could have access to the system to make an inquiry. Each of the dispatchers received a one-week suspension. The arbitration board concluded that the dispatchers' offenses were " significantly worse" than Jones' offense because the dispatcher used another person's identification and they represented that another officer was responsible for the inquiry. The arbitration panel rejected the Town's claims that Jones' actions warranted dismissal because he searched the records for 11 individuals and that police officers are held to a higher standard of conduct than dispatchers.
Our Supreme Court has articulated a clear standard in cases where an arbitration award is sought to be vacated for violating public policy. In the matter of Burr Road Operating Company II, LLC. v. New England Health Care Employees Union District 1199, 316 Conn 618, 114 A.3d 144 (2015) the Supreme Court set out a two-pronged analysis. " First, we must determine whether the award implicates any explicit, well-defined, and dominant public policy . . . Second, if the decision of the arbitrator does implicate a clearly defined public policy, we then determine whether the contract, as construed by the arbitration award, violates that policy." Id. at 630, 631.
As for the first part of the required analysis, the court finds that there is a clearly defined public policy. As previously stated, the panel found that Jones violated the rules regarding the COLLECT system, that he accessed information from that system without having a valid law enforcement purpose for doing so, and that the listing of " training" as the purpose for access to the system constituted a violation of the policy with regards to entering inaccurate information in department records. The record establishes that Jones, on at least one occasion, used the information for an improper purpose, that is to find the address of his former girlfriend which led to his visit to her home and subsequent arrest.
The reasons for the restrictions with respect to the access and use of the COLLECT system are obvious. A police officer's access to the COLLECT system entails a unique responsibility in that he/she is being trusted with an extensive amount of sensitive, often confidential, information for the limited purpose of his law enforcement duties. For an officer to exploit that responsibility is a violation of the public trust, and as such is a violation of public policy.
With respect to the second part of the Burr Road analysis, the court must determine whether the termination of Jones was necessary in order to vindicate the public policy at issue. In that respect, the court is obligated to examine four principal factors: (1) Any guidance offered by the relevant statutes, regulations, and other embodiments of the public policy at issue; (2) whether the employment at issue implicates public safety or the public trust; (3) the relative egregiousness of the grievance conduct; and (4) whether the grievant is " incorrigible." Id. at 634.
This court finds that a violation of the public policy at issue does not require a particular disciplinary consequence. Specifically, it does not mandate termination. The court further finds that public safety is implicated as is public trust. With respect to the " egregiousness" of the offense, the court finds that there was actual harm to some of the people whose information Jones accessed. They include his former girlfriend, as aforementioned, as well as another person who was related or connected to her. As to all of the persons whose information he accessed, their right to privacy was violated. Accordingly, the court finds that the offense was egregious.
As to the fourth factor, the court is obligated to consider whether Jones is " incorrigible." In this regard, the arbitration decision indicates that Jones was a police officer for approximately nine years prior to the incident in question. There is no notation as to any negative history. While there are a number of incidents of the same behavior, some were discovered subsequent to the date of his initial suspension. As such, the court is not able to find recidivism, and neither is it able to find that recidivism is obvious from a review of the record. The record does not support a finding of incorrigibility, nor does it support a finding that the grievant is not amenable to discipline, especially in light of the severity of the penalty imposed and its likely deterrent effect.
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff's application to vacate the arbitration award is denied.