Secore Decision 5-27-11

8/6/2019 Secore Decision 5-27-11

1/7

N O . CV 09-4042280-S SUPERIOR COURTCITY OF HARTFORD J.D. OF HARTFORD

AT HARTFORDS.MAY 25, 2011ARTFORD POLICE UNION

MEM ORANDUM OF DECISION

Plaintiff, City of Hartford m oves to modify or vacate an arbitration aw ard of theCo nnec ticut State Board of Me diation and Arbitration on public policy grounds. Defendan t,Hartford Police Union, acting on behalf of grievant Matthew Secore, countermoves to confirmthe aw ard. The facts are as follows:

Hartford police officer Secore learned that his brother had been seve rely beaten by agro up of people and was in Hartford H ospital. He found his brother on a gurney in the hospitalhallw ay w ith a neck brace and covered with blood all over his face. He learned tha t one of thepe op le who had allegedly attacked his brothe r was still at the Hartford Police S tation. Secore,out of uniform and off duty, went to the station whe re he gained access to the holdin g cell. Herhe confronted th e only individual in the cell, nam ed Mr. Perez. W ords wer e exch anged . Secorgrabbed Perez, slammed him against a wall in the cell and punched him once with his fist.An oth er officer pu t his arm on Secore, and Secore backediOff. ,

Pe rez filed a ci tiz en 's com pla int ag ain st Se'coie' Ire^ilfflfilgluShis be ing arre sted for thezMwmm


2/7

assault. Subsequently he was allowed accelerated rehabilitation on that charge. The incidentwas investigated by a police panel which found that the behavior of Secore violated the policeCode of Ethics and recommended to the Chief of Police that Secore be terminated for conductunbec om ing a Hartford police officer. He was terminated. The union, on behalf of Secore,grieved the discipline and the matter came to the Board of Mediation for arbitration.

The submission was: "(1) Whether the Chief of Police for the City of Hartford had justcause to terminate the employm ent of Officer M atthew Secore? (2) If not, what should theremedy be?"

The aw ard, after reciting at great length the claims of the city and the union, in itsdiscussion stated: "The treatment of a person by an off duty officer wa s, without questionunac ceptable . On this point there is no disagreement." The award wen t on to state: "The Citywas well within its rights to discipline the aggrievement. It had jus t cause to do so."No neth eless, the Panel found that termination was too severe a pena lty. Rather a long termsuspension wo uld have the same impact upon the grievant and the Department with regard tounacceptable behavior of an Officer when dealing with a person in custody.

Therefore, the award states, "The Panel is issuing a long term suspension in lieu oftermin ation as well as ordering the grievant to enroll in an anger managem ent course. The


3/7

puipo se of discipline is to correct, as well as to punish, an inappro priate job perfo rma nce. Thelong term suspension, coupled with anger management, hopefully will allow this Officer toreturn to duty and be a credit to himself, the Department and the City."

The award was: "The Chief of Police for the City of Hartford did not have just cause toterminate the em ploym ent of Officer Matthew Secore. Th e termination shall be replaced by aninety (90) day suspension. The grievant is further req uired to attend and successfully com plean appropriate anger mana gem ent course. He is to made wh ole for any lost regular w ag es an dbenefits beyond the ninety (90) days suspension until he is reinstated."

Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-41a(2) provides: "An arbitration aw ard may be vacated whe n 'thaward violates clear public policy." The City maintains th at the arbitration award in this casemust be vacated "because Secore's reinstatement as a police officer violates clear public policyand is contrary to law."

When an arbitration award is challenged, a court always begins by stating the principlethat arbitration is favored as a mean s of settling private dispu tes. As stated in State v. NewEngland Health C are Employee's Union, 271 Conn. 127, 134 (2 00 4 , '" . . .we undertake judicireview of arbitration awa rds in a man ner designed to minim ize interference w ith an efficient aneconomical system of alternate dispute resolution. . .Furthermore, in applying this general rule


4/7

deference to an arbitrator's award, [e]very reasonable presumption and intent will be made infavor of the [arbitral] award and of the arbitrato r's acts and proc eed ing s.'" (Citations o mitted)

When an arbitration award is challenged on the basis of violation of clear p ublic p olicythe court goes on to say: "A challenge that an award is in contravention of public policy ispremised on the fact that the party cannot expect an arbitration award approving conduct whichis illegal or contrary to public policy to receive judicial endorsement any more than parties canexpect a court to enforce such a contract between them. .. .When a challenge to the arbitrator'sauthority is made on public policy grounds, however, the court is not concerned with thecorrectness of the arbitrator's decision but with the lawfulness of enforcing the award."

The public policy must be ascertained by reference to laws and legal precedents and notfrom general consideration of supposed public interest. Id.

In resolving public policy challenges, the Supreme C ourt requires a two step analysis. Astated in State v. AFSCME, Council 4, Local 387, AFL-CIO, 282 Conn. 467 , 476 (2000). "Firsthe court determines whether an explicit, well defined and dominant public policy can beidentified. If so , the court then decides if the arbitrator's award violated the public policy."

This court has no difficulty identifying the explicit, well defined and d om inate pu blicpol icy inv olved in this case. Secore at the very least assaulted Perez in violatio n of Conn. Gen.


5/7

Stat. 53a-61. Because Secore was a police officer and Perez w as in custody, Secore alsoviolated Perez's constitutional rights. 42 U.S.C. 1983.

The next question is whether the arbitra tor's award itself violated public policy. Thearbitration panel recognized that Secore 's treatment was unac ceptab le. It further recognized thCity had a right to discipline Secore and had just cause to do so. Bu t the Panel found thattermination was too severe a penalty. The Panel further found that the City was not con sistentwith similar discipline issued by the City to other officers which allegedly v iolated the Code o fConduct in their physical treatment of suspects/prisoners. The Board co uld also have found frothe evidence that the penalty w as too severe because S ecore acted in a flash of anger, threw asingle punch and that whe n restrained by another officer, he backed aw ay and later was trulyremorseful of the single act. The Panel then, havin g found that the police ch ief did not have juscause to terminate Secore, in response to the second part of the submission, found the remedyshould be a three months suspension without pay and Secore taking an anger management class

The question then is whether such an award violates public policy.In Board of Police Commissioners v. Stanley, 92 Conn. App . 723 , 741 (2005), the

Appellate Court states, "When a municipal employee violates public policies enumerated in statstatutes and employments regulations, a reviewing court cannot enforce an arbitral award


6/7

reinstating him to employmen t as police officer." Ho wev er, in a footnote, the court said, "W e not hold that the violation of a criminal statute is a per se public violation sufficient to justif yvacating an arb itrato r's decision. Instead, we conclude that this case poses a narrow , blatantexample of the board's proper exercise of its power to dismiss."

In State v. New England Healthcare Employees Union, 271 Conn. 127, 138 (2004), theSupreme Court specifically rejected the notion that because an employee violates public policyby abusing a patient in a mental hospital that "the conduct is grounds for termination, per se."The court stated: "We agree with the union that such a rule is not required to advance the publipolicy of prote cting clients from mistreatmen t. Rathe r, an arbitrator reasonin g may c onside rcircumstances such as the length of employment, previous instances of harmful conduct by theemployee, and the circumstances and severity of the misconduct under review in determining tlikelihood of future misconduct and whether discipline less severe than termination wouldconstitute a sufficient punishment and deterrent."

In this case, the Panel, taking into account all the circumstances of the incident at the jaidetermined that rather than terminating Secore, a three months suspension without pay andrequiring him to take an anger management course was a mo re appropriate punishment. Thiscourt concludes that such an award does not violate public policy.


7/7

Based on the foregoing, defendant's motion to modify orva cate the Bo ard's aw ard isdenied and plaintiffs motion to confirm the award is granted.

. .J^crSatter, JTR

Secore Decision 5-27-11

Documents

Transcript of Secore Decision 5-27-11