Appeals court upholds dismissal of Mattawa police officer
SPOKANE — The Washington Court of Appeals, Division 3, has found a civil service commission decision that upheld the termination of a Mattawa police officer was justified and the evidence supported the commission’s ruling.
John Ingersoll was hired by the city of Mattawa as a police officer in 2009. A few years after his employment started Ingersoll’s wife and children were taken to a domestic violence safe house and Ingersoll was not made aware of their location. Mattawa placed the officer on administrative leave shortly after and he was sent a Loudermill letter by the acting mayor. A Loudermill letter lists allegations against a public employee and informs the employee of their right to respond. The letter accused Ingersoll of domestic violence, harassment, intimidation of several Mattawa citizens and other allegations.
Ingersoll denied the allegations at a subsequent meeting and he was sent a second Loudermill letter in January 2013, which repeated the original allegations while expanding on others. In addition, the letter noted Ingersoll’s personnel file was missing and he was instructed to undergo a “fitness for duty” exam.
John Turley was hired as Mattawa police chief around that time and located Ingersoll’s personnel file, which reportedly contained a letter from the King County Sheriff’s Office (KCSO), his former employer. The letter indicated Ingersoll was fired from the KCSO, which was different from Ingersoll’s statement on his job application, on which he claimed he resigned from the KCSO in “good standing.”
Turley issued Ingersoll a disciplinary notice in February 2013 for failure to follow the directions in the second Loudermill letter. About a month later Ingersoll met with a doctor for the fitness duty evaluation. The doctor concluded Ingersoll had a personality trait disorder, he was “prone to denial” and reportedly engaged in problematic behavior. The doctor found most law enforcement agencies would not consider Ingersoll as fit for duty.
As a result, a third Loudermill letter was sent to Ingersoll by the mayor and a disciplinary hearing was held in May 2013. The city’s civil service commission heard from both the city and Ingersoll with regard to eight allegations that were made against the officer, seven of which involved misconduct and the eighth related to the doctor’s conclusion of Ingersoll not being fit for duty.
Even after dismissing the seven misconduct allegations, the commission upheld the eighth allegation and Ingersoll’s termination was final. Ingersoll petitioned Grant County Superior Court to review the decision, but the petition was rejected and Ingersoll appealed to the higher court.
Ingersoll’s appeal boils down to two main issues, the first of which being his belief that the commission made a mistake when it considered his behavior during the hearing. The second issue relates to the officer’s contention that the commission’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious.” With regard to the behavior issue, the appeals court found the commission was not wrong for considering Ingersoll behavior during a hearing they took part it.
“Mr. Ingersoll appeared to act consistently with (the doctor’s) evaluation and his actions served to help validate the report,” reads the decision. “The fact that the behavior tended to corroborate the allegations against him may have been fortuitous for the city, but it was not something that could be predicted, let alone be the subject of prospective notice. Mr. Ingersoll controlled his own behavior.”
On the second issue raised in the appeal, Ingersoll points to the seven misconduct allegations that were dismissed for insufficient evidence and/or failure to take timely disciplinary action. In their final decision the commission relied on the facts of three of the incidents, which they previously found did not independently justify Ingersoll’s termination. The officer contends because the counts were dismissed, they should not have been considered in the commission’s final decision to uphold his termination.
The judges ruled because the doctor relied on the same incidents in his assessment of Ingersoll’s fitness for duty, the commission was right in doing the same to reach its conclusion, as the allegations provided “background evidence” about Ingersoll’s fitness for duty.
Richard Byrd can be reached via email at city@columbiabasinherald.com.
Become a Subscriber!
You have read all of your free articles this month. Select a plan below to start your subscription today.
Already a subscriber? Login
