A New Brighton police officer placed on a nine-month leave after he filed a grievance against his department may have been the subject of retaliation by the city, according to a ruling by the Minnesota Court of Appeals this week.
The higher court’s ruling reversed that of a Ramsey County district judge who had found in favor of the city.
The case will now go back to district court to be reheard.
“Obviously we are excited for Mr. Moore but it’s a good decision for employees across the state because this puts employers on notice that the Whisteblower Act covers a broad range of discipline, not just termination,” Moore’s attorney Lucas Kaster said of the appellate ruling.
The city’s attorney did not respond to a request for comment.
The Court of Appeals found that the length of leave Steven Moore was placed on “was so long and so inconsistent with its purported reason for commencing the leave” that it raised a question as to whether New Brighton’s actions violated the Minnesota Whistleblower Act and unfairly “penalized” the officer for previously challenging the city.
The act’s aim is to prevent employers from retaliation against employees who report or complain about alleged violations of the law, Kaster said.
Moore has been with the department for nearly 30 years, serving as a patrol sergeant for 21 years.
He maintains that the city started retaliating against him shortly after he filed a grievance in March of 2015 challenging his department’s decision not to pay overtime to officers who were required to attend a training.
Moore’s grievance stated that the city’s decision violated the collective-bargaining agreement between New Brighton and its police union.
Other officers joined Moore’s grievance, and the city eventually agreed to pay the overtime.
The next month, the police department launched an investigation into Moore for allegedly “improperly (approving) a subordinate officer’s unscheduled work,” court records say.
Then the next month it launched another, this time alleging Moore faked the reason he needed a sick day after a supervisor saw him at a music concert after he called in sick.
He was placed on paid leave from work June 3, 2015, as the city investigated the claims, requiring Moore to remain home-bound Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m.
The investigations took two months to complete, and Moore was ultimately found at fault for approving the unscheduled work hours. But he was deemed faultless in the other incident as it was determined Moore’s sick day in question was related to a physical injury that prevented him from serving on patrol but not from attending a concert.
He was given a five-day unpaid suspension for the first incident, but the city reportedly never told Moore he was exonerated of the second allegation. It also kept him on leave for another seven months, according to the legal opinion.
When he finally did return to work, he was ordered to serve a desk job as an administrative sergeant managing cars and equipment rather than officers.
Then, “In contrast to all his previous evaluations,” Moore received a poor evaluation for his 2015 performance and was ordered to be placed on a “counseling and guidance” plan.
He was subsequently issued an oral reprimand for insubordination in June of 2017.
It was shortly after that when he filed his lawsuit alleging that his employer’s conduct amounted to retaliation.
The district court ruled that Moore failed to prove his case and granted the city’s motion for summary judgment in its favor.
Moore appealed, and the city cross-appealed, questioning both the district and court of appeals jurisdiction over the case and defending the lower court’s summary judgement decision.
The higher court found the district court did have jurisdiction to hear the claim, and more importantly that both the disputed and undisputed facts in the case were enough to support a finding that the city’s actions “penalized” Moore and could dissuade another employee from raising concerns protected by the Minnesota Whistleblower Act.
Kaster said New Brighton may choose to appeal the decision, otherwise, the parties will likely meet for a scheduling conference to decide when the district court will rehear the case.
He added that he expects a jury to hear it.