Neutral Arbitrator Reinstates Boston Superior Officer Represented by the Boston Police Superior Officers Federation

The City of Boston terminated a veteran superior police officer after a civilian co-worker alleged that he sexually harassed her and created a hostile work environment. The City terminated the superior officer, even though the 16 witnesses interviewed during the City’s own investigation either contradicted or failed to corroborate any of the complaining co-worker’s allegations. A neutral arbitrator agreed with the Boston Police Superior Officers Federation that the termination was inconsistent with basic elements of just cause. The arbitrator directed the City to reinstate the superior officer and make him whole for lost wages and benefits.

The arbitrator held that the superior officer did not violate any rule when he asked the civilian co-worker out on a date because there was no rule against employees dating and the co-worker never demonstrated that the request was unwelcome. (The City did not dispute that romantic relationships, including with subordinates, were neither prohibited or uncommon).

The arbitrator further held that the City did not prove that the officer superior engaged in any pervasive offensive conduct: no witnesses could corroborate any of the co-worker’s allegations; the co-worker’s testimony contained “disturbing” inconsistencies with her statements to Police Department investigators; the co-worker did not allege that any harassing conduct had occurred in reasonable proximity to the time when she lodged her complaint; and the co-worker’s claim that the superior officer caused her to be stressed was unpersuasive, given that her family has received death threats in relation to testimony in a murder trial.

The arbitrator further held that the superior officer had not taken any adverse or illegal action against the co-worker as retaliation for her turning him down for a date. The arbitrator agreed that the actions purported to be retaliation simply were reasonable and minor supervisor actions that were consistent with performance problems identified by previous supervisors.

Essentially, the arbitrator determined that while the superior officer may have been abrasive and rude, he did not create a pervasive hostile work environment based on the co-worker’s disinterest in him romantically. Because the City could not prove the existence of a hostile work environment, it lacked just cause to terminate the officer.
Attorneys Leah Barrault and Ian Russell represented the Union in this arbitration.