DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Agency vs. RHONDA SANDERS, Grievant

Transcription

1 University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Agency vs. RHONDA SANDERS, Grievant Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Administrative Law Commons This Initial Order by the Administrative Judges of the Administrative Procedures Division, Tennessee Department of State, is a public document made available by the College of Law Library, and the Tennessee Department of State, Administrative Procedures Division. For more information about this public document, please contact administrative.procedures@tn.gov

2 BEFORE THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE IN THE MATTER OF: DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Agency DOCKET NO: J v. RHONDA SANDERS, Grievant INITIAL ORDER This Fifth-Step Civil Service administrative proceeding was heard on June 22, 2005, at Nashville, Tennessee, before John Hicks, Administrative Judge, assigned by the Secretary of State, Administrative Procedures Division, and sitting for the Tennessee Civil Service Commission. John Drummond, General Counsel for the Tennessee Department of Correction, represented the State. Grievant Rhonda Sanders proceeded on her own behalf. The subject of the hearing was Grievant s termination for conduct unbecoming a State employee by violating TDOC Policy # Employee/Offenders Relationships. After consideration of the record and argument, it is DETERMINED that the termination for conduct unbecoming a State employee by violating TDOC Policy # Employee/Offenders/Relationships. should be UPHELD. This determination is based on the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:

3 Findings of Facts 1. On March 12, 2004, Staff Sergeant Barbara McWilliams was working second shift overtime in the kitchen. Sergeant McWilliams duties in the kitchen were to insure the security of the inmates in the kitchen and make sure that safety is carried out and to watch for and to report any unnecessary or mistreatment of inmates as well as staff. 2. On March 12, 2004, Grievant Rhonda Sanders was employed as a food service worker. 3. At 2:00 p.m., Sergeant McWilliams and Grievant accounted for the inmates that were in the kitchen and secured the kitchen. 4. At 6:50 p.m., the staff closed down the kitchen. A search of the inmates and returning their identification cards is part of the closing procedure. Sergeant McWilliams is to be the last person to leave the kitchen. 5. Ten of the eleven inmate identification cards were returned to the accounted for inmates. One identification card belonging to Inmate Ridley remained. Inmate Ridley was unaccounted for. 6. Sergeant McWilliams placed Officer Mosley in charge while she went to the back of the kitchen to search for Inmate Ridley. Sergeant did not see anyone. She opened the dry goods room and discovered Inmate Ridley and Grievant Sanders cuddled. 7. Sergeant McWilliams searched the kitchen and then personally reported the incident to shift commander Captain Wright. 8. Assistant Food Service Manager Martha Champion supervised Grievant Sanders at Riverbend Maximum Security Institution during the time periods purgnent to this matter. 2

4 During this period Ms. Champion observed Grievant Sanders as being a very touchy feely person. Grievant Sanders had an act of touching the inmates. 9. Ms. Champion talked to Grievant Sanders about incidents of touching inmates and on one occasion documented an incident with Inmate Mason. 10. Ms. Champion documented and incident of physical contact on August 23, 2002, with Inmate Rogers, on August 28, about switching shift without approval, on September 4, 2003, for tardiness, on August 22, 2002 for offensive remarks to the Warden, on August 1, 2002, being argumentative, and on November 1, 2002 and January 13, 2003 for failure to comply with proper call-in procedures. 11. On December 18, 2002, Grievant Sanders was given a three day suspension for entering the visiting gallery through the inmate entrance, even though this was the second time Corporal Allen had advised you NOT to enter the area. On this date the visiting gallery was full of inmates and their families. After Officer Johnson had processed another inmate to the visiting area, he discovered that you had entered the visiting gallery and was talking to an inmate and his visitor. You were charged violation of TDOC Policy # , Employee/Offender/Relations, fraternizing with inmate and their family. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Upon review of the record and the argument of the parties, it is concluded that the Department met its burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence EXAMPLES OF DISCIPLINARY OFFENSES. The following causes are examples of those considered for disciplinary action and should not be considered the only cause of action. (8) Gross misconduct or conduct unbecoming an employee in the State service. 3

5 3. It is CONCLUDED that Grievant s conduct was unbecoming of an employee in the State s service. 4. Administrative Policies and Procedures # I. AUTHORITY: TCA , TCA , TCA II. PURPOSE: To establish guidelines for employee and inmate/probationer/parolee relationships. III. APPLICATION: To all Department of Correction (TDOC) staff, inmates, volunteers, TRICOR staff, employees of privately managed institutions, and contract employees and vendors. IV. DEFINITIONS: a. DEPARTMENTAL: Any rule, regulation, or function pertaining to a TDOC institution. b. OFFENDER: Any incarcerated inmate, any person currently on active probation or parole supervision, or any former inmate who has been discharged from TDOC custody or probation/parole supervision for less than on (1) year. c. EMPLOYEE: For purpose of this policy only, an employee is considered to be any individual employed by the Tennessee Department of Correction, any individual serving as a volunteer to the department, any contract employee providing services to the department, and any TRICOR employee. d. SEXUAL MISCONDUCT: Any unwanted behavior or unwated act of a sexual nature directed towards any individual by an employee, volunteer, visitor, or agency representative. e. SEXUAL HARASSMENT: Unwelcome or unsolicited sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. f. SEXUAL CONDUCT: The intentional touching of another individual or of the individual s intimate parts and/or clothing covering the individual for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification. 4

6 g. SEXUAL ABUSE: The subjection of another person to any sexual act or contact between employee, volunteer, or agency representative by force, persuasion, inducement, or enticement. V. POLICY: Relationships between TDOC employees and offenders shall be only of a professional nature. All offenders shall be treated equally in a nondiscriminatory manner. VI. PROCEDURES: a. Employees shall conduct themselves in a professional manner when interacting with offenders. b. It is the duty of each employee to correct all incarcerated offenders observed in violation of departmental rules and regulations in a fair, consistent, and impartial manner. c. Conversation with inmates shall be limited to that necessary as part of the employee s duties. Inmate questions which cannot be answered shall be referred to the immediate supervisor. Inmates shall be addressed by name, rather than TDOC numbers. d. Social relationships are prohibited, including but not limited to emotional, sexual, or romantic attachments with offenders in an institution, offenders on parole or probation, and former inmates who have been discharged from TDOC custody or probation/parole supervision for less than one year. e. Social relationships are also prohibited with relatives, family, and/or clearly identifiable close associates of such persons unless written approval is obtained fro the commissioner for central office employees, wardens for institutional employees, Academy superintendent for TCA employees, or the Executive Director of TRICOR immediately upon establishment of such relationships. When an employee is related in any way to an offender and/or an offender s relatives, the employee will report this fact to the warden or central office director upon employment or when the relationship becomes known to the employee. Upon receipt of this information, the local manager and appropriate assistant commissioner will review and determine appropriate action to be taken. f. Allegations of employee sexual misconduct, sexual harassment, sexual contact and/or sexual abuse shall be investigated in accordance with Tennessee Department of Correction policies and Tennessee statutes. If the accusations are found meritorious, then the employee(s) shall be 5

7 subject to disciplinary actions, up to and including termination, or appropriate actions where necessary, in accordance with Tennessee statute and TDOC policies. Consent on the part of an offender is not a defense on the part of the employee as a response to charges of any form of sexual misconduct. g. Employees who fail to report a violation of this policy shall be subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination. 5. It is CONCLUDED that Grievant s conduct was unbecoming a State employee by violating TDOC Policy # It is CONCLUDED that Grievant s conduct violated TDOC Policy # VI A by touching and cuddling with Inmate Ridley on March 12, It is CONCLUDED that Grievant s conduct violated TDOC Policy # VI B by not correcting Inmate Ridley for inappropriate touching and cuddling on March 12, It is CONCLUDED that Grievant s conduct violated TDOC Policy # VI C by conversing with Inmate Ridley in an unnecessary manner on March 12, It is CONCLUDED that Grievant s conduct violated TDOC Policy # VI D by improper social relations with Inmate Ridley on March 12, Specifically Grievant improperly cuddled with Inmate Ridley in a closed room. termination. termination. 10. It is CONCLUDED that the above conduct is proper grounds for Grievant s 11. It is CONCLUDED that Grievant received progressive discipline prior to her 12. It is CONCLUDED that the testimony of Staff Sergeant Barbara McWilliams is credited. This conclusion is based upon her demeanor at the hearing and upon the requirements of TDOC Policy # VI G that requires employees to report violations of the policy. 6

8 13. It is CONCLUDED that the Grievant s conduct seriously interfered with the Department s ability to manage and insure institutions safety. 14. It is ORDERED that Grievant s termination be UPHELD. This Order entered and effective this 25 th day of January John G. Hicks Administrative Judge Filed in the Administrative Procedures Division, Office of the Secretary of State, this 25 th day of January Charles C. Sullivan, II, Director Administrative Procedures Division 7