Opinion ID: 3164647
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Olascoaga Accident Review

Text: The revised Last Chance Agreement chastised plaintiff Captain Stevens for exercising poor judgment and unprofessionalism inconsistent with Department standards for its captains and for violating Department policies, citing the Olascoaga incident along with three other incidents. Stevens has not shown that 16 Case: 15-11265 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 Page: 17 of 24 Chief Hobbs did not honestly believe that her conduct warranted a Last Chance Agreement and then termination. Captain Stevens argues that there was no explicit Department policy requiring that accident review panels receive and review complete accident review packets (including photographs). Stevens testified that panels frequently decided whether an accident was chargeable based solely on a verbal description of the accident. Neither she nor any officer she knew had been disciplined “for conducting an accident review panel without having the complete packet available.” The Department does have written policies stating that detailed photographs must be made of accidents involving city property or vehicles. Stevens stresses that these policies still do not specifically state that accident review panels must review the photos of the accident. Of course, defendants argue, that is the whole point of the photos and accident review packet. In any event, Captain Stevens emphasizes that the first review panel officers’ written statements and sworn testimony do not reflect them feeling threatened or intimidated by her. Stevens argues that she accurately described the accident to them. Stevens also points out that her non-chargeability finding was not “utterly unsupportable,” and Lieutenant Armstrong, although not a review panel member, admitted that it “could go either way.” 17 Case: 15-11265 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 Page: 18 of 24 The district court did not err in concluding that Captain Stevens failed to show pretext as to the Olascoaga incident. It is clear that photographs were supposed to be taken of Officer Olascoaga’s accident and that as a matter of best practices Stevens should have shared them with the original review panel as it considered whether the accident was chargeable. Stevens outranked each panel officer and advised each that the accident was non-chargeable. The Last Chance Agreement persuasively stated how this could have improperly influenced the panel: The significant difference between your rank and [the panel officers’] was at best a factor creating undue influence over their abilities to render independent judgments. At worst, the manner you used was intimidating, due largely to the strong opinion you voiced before they had an opportunity to form their own judgments about the facts, and the fact that you are a captain and they are merely sergeants. They understood that you expected them not to exercise their own independent judgment and discretion, but rather, to echo, or rubberstamp your conclusions. Thus, their review was a mere formality. From your experience as an investigator and as a manager, you should be keenly aware that this is not a competent, honest, nor a professional manner in which to conduct any investigation. Although Stevens disputes the Agreement’s description of her demeanor, she does not dispute approaching the original panel officers about what finding to make. The record indicates that Chief Hobbs saw the photographs and accident packet and reasonably concluded that Stevens’s “non-chargeable” finding was unsupportable and that her accident description had misled panel members. Further, a second review panel, upon reviewing the accident packet, unanimously 18 Case: 15-11265 Date Filed: 12/22/2015 Page: 19 of 24 found that the accident was chargeable. Importantly, it is irrelevant whether defendants’ decision to take adverse action against Stevens was imprudent or even unfair, so long as it was not discriminatory. See Flowers, 803 F.3d at 1338. Stevens’s evidence does not rebut the fact that Chief Hobbs disciplined Stevens because he honestly and reasonably believed that she acted improperly. There is no evidence of a discriminatory motive.