Opinion ID: 1452540
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Brogdon's Appeal

Text: After receiving a copy of the trooper's report, Brogdon requested reinstatement. The City did not honor this request. Brogdon then moved for summary judgment. The court denied the motion, for two reasons. First, there remained a material issue of fact concerning the possibility of criminal charges being brought against Brogdon based on the findings in the trooper's investigation because the trooper had referred the case to the district attorney for disposition and the district attorney had not yet acted. Second, there existed material issues of fact concerning the City's right to seek reconsideration before the grievance committee. Brogdon moved for reconsideration of this decision, arguing that the question whether the City had a right to seek reconsideration of the committee decision was a question of law for the court. While the motion for reconsideration was pending, the district attorney wrote Brogdon's counsel concerning the trooper investigation and report. The letter stated: The report was evaluated to determine whether charges of Official Misconduct, Simulation of Legal Process, Theft in the Third Degree, or any other charges should be filed. As of July 30, 1993, a determination was made that no charges of any kind would be filed. Presently the case is closed and no additional investigation has been requested. The determination to forgo prosecution at this time, of course, does not preclude future criminal prosecution with regard to this matter, nor does it constitute a promise not to prosecute with regard to this matter. This letter was filed with the superior court. In response to Brogdon's motion for reconsideration the court agreed that it was a question of law as to whether the grievance committee should be allowed to reconsider its ruling. [4] The court went on to rule, sua sponte, that it is appropriate that the grievance committee further consider whether the trooper investigation resulted in a sufficient basis for termination. [5] (Footnotes omitted.) The court thereupon remanded the case to the grievance committee. Three of the five members of the grievance committee on remand had not served on the original grievance committee which had issued the original decision. [6] The three new members decided that the trooper investigation amounted to a finding of illegality sufficient to warrant termination. The two members who had participated on the committee when it made its original determination dissented. Based on the majority's decision the superior court then granted summary judgment in favor of the City. The court erred in denying Brogdon's motion for summary judgment. The decision of the first grievance committee was not appealed by either party and was, therefore, dispositive of Brogdon's grievance. [7] The decision was sufficiently clear that it was capable of being enforced. It called for a trooper investigation to determine whether Brogdon was or was not guilty of criminal wrongdoing. If the former, his termination would stand; if the latter, he would be reinstated. The finding of the trooper investigation was also sufficiently clear. It found Brogdon not guilty of criminal wrongdoing. Therefore, under the committee decision, Brogdon should have been reinstated. [8]