Title: In re Towle

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

IN_RE_TOWLE.94-207; 164 Vt 145; 665 A.2d 55

[Filed 25-Aug-1995]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.


                                 No. 94-207


Grievance of David Towle                          Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
                                                   Labor Relations Board

                                                  May Term, 1995


Charles H. McHugh, Chair

       David C. Sleigh and David J. Williams of Sleigh & Williams, St.
  Johnsbury, for appellant

       Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Timothy B. Tomasi and F.
  Michael Seibert, Assistant Attorneys General, Montpelier, for State of
  Vermont


       PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley and Johnson, JJ., and Cook,
  Dist. J., Specially Assigned


       GIBSON, J.  Grievant David Towle appeals a decision of the Labor
  Relations Board upholding his dismissal from employment with the Department
  of Corrections for engaging in gross misconduct.  We affirm.

                                I.

       On August 27, 1991, J.P., a female probation and parole officer, filed
  a sexual harassment complaint against grievant.  At that time, J.P. told
  District Director Greg MacDonald that grievant had physically forced her to
  masturbate him and perform fellatio on him on August 22 while he drove her
  and her two children to a doctor's appointment.  Grievant, a probation and
  parole field supervision officer, was not on duty at the time of this
  incident.  J.P. also complained that grievant sexually harassed her at work
  by fondling and kissing her, and that she was afraid of him.  Following
  J.P.'s complaint, MacDonald and Area Manager James Spinelli began an
  investigation and suspended grievant with pay.

 

       Spinelli and MacDonald interviewed grievant on September 13, 1991. 
  Grievant admitted the acts but claimed that he did not force J.P. to
  perform them.  He told the investigators that there were five other
  occasions between fall 1990 and late spring 1991 when he and J.P. had
  engaged in fellatio while he was on duty.  Two of the incidents occurred in
  a state office building and three took place in a state vehicle while
  grievant was supposed to be performing field checks on parolees.

       When the investigators interviewed J.P., she maintained that she did
  not consent to the sexual acts.  J.P.'s therapist, Michael Watson, was
  present during the interview.  He told Spinelli and MacDonald that J.P. had
  post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) caused by childhood sexual abuse and
  that it prevented J.P. from being able to effectively refuse to engage in
  sexual acts when pressured.  Watson stated that J.P. also suffered from
  dissociative disorder, which caused her to disassociate herself mentally
  from sexual acts performed under pressure even though yielding physically. 
  Based upon the evidence obtained from grievant, J.P. and others, Spinelli
  concluded that grievant had engaged in sexual acts while on duty, that the
  acts were not mutually consensual, and that grievant had sexually harassed
  J.P.  Spinelli further concluded that J.P.'s PTSD and dissociative disorder
  plausibly explained her apparent inability to rebuff grievant's repeated
  advances.  Spinelli reported these conclusions in writing to his superior,
  Richard Turner, Director of Corrections Services.

       On November 4, 1991, Turner told grievant that he was contemplating
  dismissing him for three reasons: (1) on five occasions, grievant had oral
  sex either in the office or a state vehicle while on duty, (2) his behavior
  represented a pattern of sexual harassment of J.P., and (3) he had made
  sexual advances toward another woman, T.H., while he was on duty.  Pursuant
  to the notice of potential dismissal, Turner met with grievant to give him
  an opportunity to respond to the allegations.  At this meeting, Turner
  refused grievant's request to view J.P.'s mental health diagnosis,
  maintaining that those records were confidential.

       By letter of December 16, 1991, Turner notified grievant that he was
  dismissed from

 

  employment effective December 17, 1991.  The discharge letter stated
  that grievant was fired for "engag[ing] in sexual acts, and/or sexually
  inappropriate behavior with a female Department of Corrections employee,
  during the period from about October 1990 to August of 1991, while either
  in a state office or a state vehicle."(FN1)  The letter stated that such acts
  were considered "gross misconduct and sufficient cause to warrant
  [grievant's] dismissal."  Because it was unclear that grievant knew J.P.
  did not consent to the advances, Turner did not base his decision on J.P.'s
  allegations of sexual harassment.

       Grievant filed a grievance with the Board.  The Board found that the
  State acted reasonably in dismissing grievant and upheld the disciplinary
  action.  In grievant's appeal to this Court, he contends that: (1) the
  State did not have just cause for dismissing him; (2) firing him but not
  J.P. was discriminatory treatment proscribed by the state employees'
  collective bargaining agreement; (3) the Board erred by allowing hearsay
  testimony; and (4) the State did not afford him an adequate opportunity to
  defend himself prior to his termination.

                               II.

       We treat the Board's decisions with deference.  See In re Grievance of
  Vt. State Employees Ass'n, 139 Vt. 501, 506, 431 A.2d 474, 477 (1981).  We
  presume that the Board's actions are correct and reasonable, see
  International Ass'n of Firefighters Local 2287 v. City of Montpelier, 133
  Vt. 175, 178,