In the case of Wortham v. Dayton, 2023-Ohio-1767, an appellate court upheld the board could terminate the officer for violating police department rules of conduct when the officer made a false statement during a pre-disciplinary hearing.
In this case, the officer argued that (1) the evidence considered by the Board and the trial court was insufficient to sustain the decision to terminate the officer’s employment; (2) the Board failed to comply with the trial court’s remand orders when the Board did not listen to a recording of the incident that ultimately led to the officer’s termination; (3) that the officer’s termination was unreasonable considering the violation, and; (4) that the officer’s termination violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights to free speech and due process. In response, the Board argued that (1) officers need to be trustworthy, so lying during an official process is sufficient grounds for termination; (2) the recording had not been admitted into evidence, so the Board was not required to listen to the recording; and (3) the officer was fired because the officer lied, not because of what was said. The appellate court ruled in favor of the Board on all four counts.
In support of its decision in favor of the board, the appellate court explained that the Board and trial court considered testimony from other officers and found that testimony to be credible. The appellate court next that the board did, in fact, complied with the trial court’s order but was not required to listen to the recording because that recording had not been admitted into evidence. The appellate court further explained that officers are held to a higher standard when it comes to being truthful because any dishonesty on behalf of the officer may impact the officer’s ability to act as a credible witness at trial. The appellate court finally explained that the officer’s First Amendment right to free speech was not violated because the officer was not terminated for what he said, but rather, for the fact that he lied about it at a pre-disciplinary hearing.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.