Opinion ID: 221737
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Merrifield's Termination and Administrative Appeal

Text: In January 2007 Merrifield represented the County at a corrections conference in Florida. On the afternoon of January 22 he sent a sexually graphic image to the personal cell phone of Robert Apodaca, one of his subordinates at the youth correctional facility. Although the use of personal cell phones at the facility was prohibited, Apodaca received the image at work and displayed it to coworkers. One became upset and complained. Merrifield was placed on administrative leave with pay on January 25. On February 22 defendant Annabelle Romero, the County's Director of Corrections, issued a letter recommending Merrifield's termination. The letter stated that an internal investigation had revealed that Merrifield had sent pornographic images to a subordinate employee via cell phone and had participated in a sexually inappropriate environment at the facility, and participated in other improper behavior among staff at the facility. Aplt.App., Vol. 1 at 59. It added that the investigation had also discovered failings on [Merrifield's] part as a supervisor and improper conduct in [his] supervisory dealings with employees. Id. By that time Merrifield had retained an attorney to represent him and had informed the County that all communications on the matter should go through his attorney. On February 23 the attorney sent a letter to defendant Bernadette Salazar, the County's Human Resources Director, requesting that the County make a number of documents available for inspection and copying. The requested documents included [e]ach and every policy, protocol or memorandum the County claims [Merrifield] violated, id. at 60, and documentation of the allegations in the Romero letter. Salazar responded in a letter dated March 5. The letter included copies of County policies on cell-phone use, sexual harassment, and the responsibilities of managers and supervisors, and it offered Merrifield's attorney the opportunity to review Merrifield's personnel file. But it denied Merrifield's request for further information and documents. It explained that both the meeting at which Merrifield had received Romero's letter and his forthcoming predisciplinary hearing afforded him the opportunity to explore the basis for the recommendation of termination. Id. at 63. The letter also noted that if Merrifield chose to appeal any disciplinary action taken against him, he would be entitled to a full evidentiary hearing and that [m]uch of [his] request is geared towards preparation for such a hearing and should be sought through appropriate procedures during the appeal process. Id. at 63-64. Merrifield attended the March 8 pretermination hearing with his lawyer. Afterwards Salazar agreed with Romero's recommendation to terminate Merrifield's employment. Merrifield, through his attorney, appealed the recommendation to defendant Roman Abeyta, the County Manager. Abeyta rejected the appeal and terminated Merrifield in a March 21 letter. Abeyta described Merrifield's admitted sending of the cell-phone image as action displaying poor judgment, as intolerable behavior, and as an example of the unacceptable behavior [Merrifield had] displayed in [his] capacity as the Administrator. Id., Vol. 2 at 367. He further found that Merrifield had participated in sending and receiving inappropriate e-mail utilizing County equipment while on County time, id., and that he had used his County cell phone inappropriately by making calls that were not work-related, id. at 368. Merrifield then invoked his right under County personnel rules to appeal the termination to a hearing officer. The hearing officer conducted a nine-day posttermination hearing in April, May, and June. On July 19, 2007, the hearing officer issued a 19-page decision affirming Merrifield's termination. She decided that she was to review Abeyta's decision under an arbitrary-and-capricious standard, rejecting Merrifield's argument that the proper standard of review was de novo. She said that discipline was justified by Merrifield's transmission and display of sexually explicit images via his cellphone and his work computer and by his contributing to an atmosphere of misuse of County computer equipment at the facility. Although she held that the County had not acted arbitrarily or capriciously in deciding that the proper discipline was termination, she said that had she been imposing discipline ab initio[, she] ... would have demoted [Merrifield] to a non-supervisory position and... suspended him without pay for five weeks, id., Vol. 1 at 55 n. 2. She also ruled that Merrifield had been afforded due process, stating that [a]s to each of the matters which I have found would support discipline, [Merrifield] was given sufficient notice that these matters were the basis for termination, in part because [h]e was given an opportunity to respond to these matters at the pre-termination hearing. Id. at 55.