A city terminated a police officer for insubordination after the officer intentionally failed to appear for an interrogation regarding alleged workers’ compensation fraud. A hearing officer recommended reducing the discipline to a 10-day suspension, explaining that the officer’s repeated failure to appear was equivalent to missing a meeting. Following oral argument, the civil service commission determined that termination was warranted.
Senior Counsel Atkinson made several successful arguments. First, the hearing officer had found that all of the allegations in the termination notice were true. The department had issued several lawful orders to the officer to appear, the officer knowingly failed to obey, and was therefore insubordinate.
Second, the hearing officer’s recommendation to reduce the discipline undermined the department’s ability to investigate officer misconduct. California law enforcement agencies have the right to order officers to appear for an interview and to discipline them for failing to comply. If a department could not investigate its own officers, it would erode the public’s trust in law enforcement.
Third, intentionally failing to appear for an administrative interview regarding workers’ compensation fraud is a significant offense. The California legislature determined that workers’ compensation fraud was so important that it is excluded from the statute of limitations in the Police Officer’s Procedural Bill of Rights.
Finally, Senior Counsel Atkinson argued that missing a meeting was completely different from the intentional insubordination in this case. An employee who oversleeps and fails to report for duty is not akin to one who intentionally refuses to appear for an administrative interview.
The commission agreed and upheld the officer’s termination.