Opinion ID: 3164647
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Olascoaga Accident

Text: The incident that directly precipitated plaintiff Captain Stevens’s termination arose from a motor vehicle accident involving Officer Richie Olascoaga, one of Stevens’s subordinates. On August 9, 2012, as Olascoaga was backing his patrol car into a spot between two buildings, he ran over another car’s bumper lying on 2 Technically, City Manager Parker made the decision to fire plaintiff; however, the record (construed in Stevens’ favor) indicates that Chief Hobbs’s recommendation to Parker drove that decision. Thus, we focus on Chief Hobbs’s conduct. 3 Case: 15-11265 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 Page: 4 of 24 the ground. The bumper was three-to-four feet long, five-to-six inches wide and three-to-four inches high. The bumper flipped up and scratched the patrol car. 3 Sergeant David Eads was Olascoaga’s supervisor. When accidents occur, supervisors investigate and report to the watch commander (or deputy watch commander) on duty, who then assembles an “accident review packet” to help determine whether the accident is chargeable to the officer. The review packet usually includes accident report forms, a statement of the officer involved, and pictures of the accident. This review packet is given to the watch commander for the next shift or to the Criminal Investigations Division (“CID”). A panel of three officers independently reviews and assesses whether the accident is chargeable to the officer involved. If the panel finds the accident is chargeable, disciplinary action may be taken against the officer. According to Captain Stevens, despite the above process, review panels still often decide whether an accident is chargeable based solely on a verbal description of the accident and without a complete accident review packet. Stevens stresses that no written protocol specifies how the Department conducts accident reviews like the one that followed Olascoaga’s accident. Following Officer Olascoaga’s accident, Sergeant Eads responded to the scene to complete an accident report and take photographs. Eads sent a picture of 3 Upon reviewing photos of the accident, one witness in this case (Sergeant Terrell Cochran) testified that the object could technically be described as “the majority of [a] bumper.” 4 Case: 15-11265 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 Page: 5 of 24 the damage to the patrol car via text message to Lieutenant Jason Armstrong,4 who notified Captain Stevens (the watch commander on duty) about the accident 10 to 15 minutes after it occurred. Officer Olascoaga returned to the station and told Captain Stevens what had happened, and Stevens looked at the text picture of the damage to the vehicle. Stevens concluded that the accident was non-chargeable because Officer Olascoaga had not intended to hit the “piece of metal” and the accident was not preventable. Stevens did not inspect the vehicle or the “piece of metal” or review full-size photographs of the accident before reaching her conclusion. Captain Stevens contacted Lieutenant James Delk of the CID unit to participate in the accident review panel, telling him that an officer had run over a “piece of metal” that flipped up and hit his vehicle and the accident was nonchargeable. Delk intimated that he did not want to conduct an accident review until all the necessary paperwork was completed. Captain Stevens then approached Sergeant Terrell Cochran, Sergeant Raymond Daniel, and Patrol Officer Walter Randall to serve on the accident review panel. Stevens told Sergeant Cochran that Olascoaga had hit a “little piece of metal” and that the accident was non-chargeable. When Cochran asked what exactly was hit, Stevens responded that Olascoaga had hit a piece of metal “like a 4 Armstrong is now a captain, but was a Lieutenant at all periods relevant to this case. 5 Case: 15-11265 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 Page: 6 of 24 bumper” that was lying on the ground. According to Cochran, Stevens related this information loudly and “very fast.” Captain Stevens told Sergeant Daniel that Olascoaga hit an object, causing it to scratch his vehicle and the accident was non-chargeable. Stevens told Officer Randall that an officer had struck a “small metal item” while backing up his vehicle, resulting in a small scratch, and the accident was non-chargeable. Stevens did not provide any officers with photographs or any supporting documents. Based solely on Stevens’s description of the accident, each officer signed the review panel’s form determining the accident was non-chargeable. 5 On the accident review form, Captain Stevens too indicated that she found the accident was non-chargeable. Stevens then asked Lieutenant Armstrong, her subordinate, to serve as a secondary reviewer. Armstrong then examined the documents in the review packet and the one text from Sergeant Eads. Armstrong found the accident was non-chargeable. 6 5 According to an August 13, 2012 note by Major Jamie Reynolds, Cochran reported feeling “intimidated” by Captain Stevens. However, it is unclear whether Chief Hobbs saw this note before deciding to present Stevens with the original or amended Last Chance Agreement. On August 27, 2012, Chief Hobbs responded to the note and inquired into Randall’s reason for signing the form; on September 7, 2012, Randall responded that while he relied on the information provided by Captain Stevens (whom Randall stated could be “pushy”), he did not feel intimidated. In his deposition, Hobbs recalled that, at the time that he disciplined Stevens, he was aware that Randall had not felt intimidated by Stevens when she approached him about Olascoaga’s accident. 6 Armstrong later stated that while he felt the chargeability determination could “go either way,” he found the accident non-chargeable because Stevens and the three accident review panel officers had made this finding. It is not clear from the record what documentation was in the 6 Case: 15-11265 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 Page: 7 of 24 At approximately 4:00 pm, Major Matson asked Captain Stevens why he had not yet received the accident review packet, and Stevens responded that it was not yet complete. Shortly thereafter, Stevens delivered the packet to Matson without all of the photographs. Matson returned the packet to Stevens and asked where the remaining photographs were. Aside from the text photo, Sergeant Eads apparently had not yet transmitted the photos he took at the scene. After the other photographs were retrieved and downloaded, Matson reviewed them and concluded that the accident was avoidable and therefore chargeable. To Matson, the photographs showed that Olascoaga had backed over a car’s bumper. Major Matson returned the accident review packet to Lieutenant Armstrong, telling him that he and Captain Stevens should review the accident photographs and seriously rethink their conclusion. Armstrong understood Matson to be saying that the accident was chargeable and that Armstrong and Stevens should change their findings. Armstrong shared this understanding with Stevens. 7 Stevens responded that she was not going to change her non-chargeable decision. Armstrong likewise did not change his finding, later testifying that he did not want to contradict Stevens because he did not feel that he could change her mind. When packet at the time that Armstrong reviewed it aside from the form signed by Stevens and the panel officers. 7 In her opening brief, Captain Stevens concedes that Matson told Armstrong that they had “made a serious error in judgment” and that they needed to “rethink whether [they] want[ed] to stand by [their] position or not,” and states that Armstrong communicated this to Stevens. 7 Case: 15-11265 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 Page: 8 of 24 Major Matson discovered that the officers had not changed their findings, Matson wrote at the bottom of the accident review form that he did “not concur with the assessment of this accident” because “[s]triking a stationary visible object is a chargeable accident.” Major Matson then spoke with the three officers on the panel, who reported that they had not been given pictures or documentation of the accident to review but rather had based their determination solely on Captain Stevens’s verbal representations regarding the accident. Matson subsequently had a second panel of three officers review the accident review packet (including the photographs). 8 This panel unanimously concluded that Olascoaga’s accident was chargeable. The original panel members, Cochran, Randall and Daniel, received a light form of disciplinary counseling for making findings without reviewing pictures or documentation concerning the accident.9 Armstrong did not receive any discipline for his role in the investigation. Based on Captain Stevens’s prior disciplinary history, Major Matson met with Chief Hobbs to determine what discipline Stevens would receive for her conduct in the accident investigation. While Major Matson initially proposed to 8 Matson testified that a Captain Skwira assembled the second panel, and he gave no indication to Captain Skwira that a prior accident review was conducted. 9 According to Matson, both Cochran and Randall were surprised when Matson showed them the photographs of the accident. Chief Hobbs testified in his deposition that two officers reconsidered their positions. Sergeant Cochran testified that the accident should have been found chargeable. 8 Case: 15-11265 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 Page: 9 of 24 Chief Hobbs that Stevens be terminated, Hobbs ultimately decided to issue her a “Last Chance Agreement.” A Last Chance Agreements is the most severe sanction that a Forest Park Police Department employee can receive aside from immediate termination. On August 13, 2012, Major Matson met with Captain Stevens to present the proposed Agreement. The Agreement (1) placed Stevens on probation for 12 months and disqualified her from receiving pay increases, special assignments, or promotional opportunities; (2) revoked Stevens’s part-time employment privileges until there was a “marked improvement in [her] behavior”; (3) required Stevens to “maintain a personal life that coincides with departmental policy and the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics”; (4) exposed Stevens to immediate termination for any future violation of any rule or regulation for the following 12 months; and (5) required Stevens to waive any right to appeal a subsequent decision to terminate her employment. The Agreement stated that Stevens’s rejection of any of its terms would result in her immediate termination. According to Stevens, the Agreement was on pink paper and Matson condescendingly told her that he “thought that [she] would like the pink paper, since [she’s] a girl and that’s [her] favorite color.” Captain Stevens refused to sign the Agreement and left the meeting. Chief Hobbs met with Stevens in an unsuccessful attempt to get her to sign the 9 Case: 15-11265 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 Page: 10 of 24 Agreement. Hobbs then gave Stevens additional time to think and made revisions to the Agreement.10 The revised Agreement summarized the basis for the disciplinary action and emphasized that Captain Stevens had attempted to improperly influence the first accident review panel. The revised Agreement stated that the three officers on the first accident review panel described Stevens as “fast talking,” “coercive” and “intimidating.” The Agreement stated that Stevens presented a “pre-ordained conclusion that the accident was non-chargeable” and led the panel to “blindly sign[] the report.” The Agreement also (1) stated that Stevens was “insensitive to the inherently intimidating impact that [her] rank may have on [her] subordinates and coworkers”; (2) cited Stevens’s poor judgment in believing that the accident was non-chargeable; (3) criticized Stevens’s failure to reconsider her decision after Matson suggested she do so; and (4) cited Stevens’s unique disciplinary history, emphasizing several specific prior incidents. The revised Agreement placed Captain Stevens on probation for 12 months, and required Stevens to agree to immediate termination if she acted in any way that was “overbearing” or “domineering” or that required “more than informal 10 The record is unclear, and the parties disagree, about when Chief Hobbs revised the Agreement. Captain Stevens claims that she was presented with both the original and revised Agreement on August 13; both versions of the Agreement are indeed dated August 13. Defendants argue that the Agreement was substantially rewritten following Hobbs’s lengthy meeting with Stevens and a discussion with her counsel on August 14, consistent with Matson’s and Hobbs’s testimony. We find this fact dispute immaterial to our analysis. 10 Case: 15-11265 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 Page: 11 of 24 counseling.” As before, the Agreement required Stevens to waive any right to appeal a subsequent termination decision. Captain Stevens refused to sign the revised Agreement. Chief Hobbs recommended her termination to City Manager Parker, who signed off on Hobbs’s recommendation, making Stevens’s termination effective September 7, 2012. Lieutenant Armstrong was subsequently promoted to Acting Captain. Stevens exercised her right to appeal. On October 22, 2012, the day of her hearing, Stevens asked that she be allowed to resign. The City agreed, and she withdrew her appeal. B. Prior Disciplinary Incidents Referenced in Last Chance Agreement Because three prior incidents were recounted in the Last Chance Agreement and thus played a role in plaintiff Captain Stevens’s ultimate termination, it serves to briefly summarize them. First, in April 2010, Stevens was counseled for leaving her team without supervision at “quitting time.” Second, on February 23, 2012, Stevens was counseled and disciplined for an incident involving a Georgia Bureau of Investigation (“GBI”) officer. The GBI officer was conducting a reference check of a former Forest Park police officer. Stevens advised the GBI officer that the former Forest Park officer had once attempted to grab her chest in an apparently sexual manner. Stevens had never before reported this incident while the former officer was employed by Forest Park. 11 Case: 15-11265 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 Page: 12 of 24 Stevens was disciplined on the grounds that she had violated Chief Hobbs’s General Order #31, which states: (1) that it is Departmental policy to provide accurate and truthful information about former employees to outside parties and (2) that only the Chief (or a person he authorizes) may disclose such information to outside parties. Third, also in February 2012, Stevens filed a complaint against Captain Mark Harris (a white male) and Lieutenant Amy Hiers (a white female). Stevens alleged that she was repeatedly “attacked” by them and was scared to work with them. Major Matson, who reviewed the complaint, found it to be disjointed and confusing. The Department investigated and ultimately reprimanded Stevens for her own role in the conflict between the officers and her inappropriate behavior towards Lieutenant Hiers. 11 The accident review incident, outlined above, occurred in August 2012.