Opinion ID: 591862
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Legal Cause for Termination

Text: 18 We should uphold Reno's termination decision if we find that substantial evidence [was] placed before the City Council from which it could have made a finding that legal cause existed to terminate Turner. See Lapinski v. City of Reno, 603 P.2d 1088, 1090 (Nev.1979). In making our determination, we are limited to the record before the City Council, id., which includes the record created during the two prior hearings. 19 The Nevada Supreme Court has determined cause to be: 20 ... legal cause, and not any cause which the officer authorized to make such removal may deem sufficient. It is implied that an officer cannot be removed at the mere will of the official vested with the power of removal, or without any cause. The cause must be one which specifically relates to and affects the administration of the office, and must be restricted to something of a substantial nature directly affecting the rights and interests of the public. The cause must be one touching the qualifications of the officer or his performance of his duties, showing that he is not a fit or proper person to hold the office. An attempt to remove an officer for any cause not affecting his competency or fitness would be an excess of power and equivalent to an arbitrary removal. 21 Lapinski, 603 P.2d at 1090 (quoting Whalen v. Welliver, 104 P.2d 188, 190-91 (Nev.1940)); see Rust v. Clark County School District, 683 P.2d 23, 25 (1984). The six charges against Turner include: 22 [Turner] inappropriately gave assurances to and promised the complainant [Ward] a job in contravention of civil service rules, regulations and established merit system principles; 23 ... orchestrated and participated in an illegal real estate transaction; 24 ... applied pressure which was inappropriate under the circumstances [to secure the sale of real property]; 25 ... illegally acted in the capacity of a real estate broker or salesman; 26 ... furnished to the complainant [Ward] an advance copy of the oral examination questions and rating standards for the purpose of influencing the outcome of the examination process in violation of civil service rules, regulations and established merit system principles; 27 ... requested sexual favors from the complainant which, under the attendant circumstances, constitutes a violation of the city's harassment policy. 28 Each one of the above charges brought against Turner, if supported by substantial evidence, provides ample ground for dismissal. Each allegation is central to the fitness for the office of Fire Chief for the City of Reno. As stated by the district court, [i]n view of the fire chief/applicant relationship between him and Ms. Ward, Otis Turner had no business developing any kind of relationship with her, whether business or personal. 29 We need focus only on the four charges found substantiated by the district court. 2 30 We find that at least three charges were supported by substantial evidence. The first charge is the least supported. Ward testified, on three separate occasions, concerning Turner's alleged assurances to and promises that he could influence her ability to gain a fire fighter position. Her mother testified that Ward told her she definitely would get the position; an attorney Ward consulted and her ex-husband testified that she told them that Turner had promised her the job. Turner admits he discussed her chances with her and that he could have told her her applicant number, but denies telling her he could get her hired despite the fact that her number did not make the hiring cut-off point. The evidence substantiates the fact that Turner engaged in inappropriate discussions with Ward, but it does not substantiate that he actually promised her a fire fighter position. 31 The second and third charges are well substantiated in the record. Documents evidence Turner's heavy involvement in the real estate transaction. It is undisputed that Turner selected the appraiser, paid for the services, advertised the property in the newspaper with his phone number, showed the property, selected the lending company and met with the representative, and chose the title company and escrow officer (a friend of his). Moreover, Turner lent Ward $13,000 to facilitate the real estate transaction, he also participated (if not incited) her representation to the mortgage company that the money was a gift from her parents. Ward also testified, and Turner did not deny, that Turner repeatedly convinced Ward to go forward with the purchase when she expressed concern as to her financial capabilities. 32 The fifth charge is substantiated not only by the testimony of Ward that Turner gave her a copy of the oral examination questions, but her production of the document. A fingerprint expert found nine of Turner's fingerprints on it. Turner admitted making twelve photocopies of the document for distribution at a meeting, suggesting that one of these persons could have distributed the document. The persons present at the meeting, however, testified that they never gave their copies to any candidate. 33 We find that there is no genuine issue of material fact relating to the City Council's evidential support for its finding that it had cause to discharge Turner.