Berndt v. Arizona Department of Corrections
238 Ariz. 524
Ariz. Ct. App.2015Background
- Brian Berndt, a non‑probationary corrections officer, was terminated after an incident in which he admitted rubbing his nipples in response to another officer’s joke; the Department charged him with sexual harassment, insubordination, and dishonesty.
- The Arizona State Personnel Board (Board) held an evidentiary hearing, found the Department had not proven the charges by a preponderance of the evidence, classified the conduct as "horseplay," and ordered reinstatement with an eighty‑hour suspension.
- The Department rejected the Board’s recommendation in its entirety and terminated Berndt, providing no explanation for the rejection.
- The superior court deferred to the Department under A.R.S. § 41‑783(E) and affirmed the termination; Berndt appealed to the court of appeals.
- The court of appeals considered whether corrections officers are covered by Title 38 protections (A.R.S. § 38‑1101(K)) that limit an employer’s ability to reject a board decision and require the employer to state reasons when rejecting it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Title 38 protections to corrections officers | Berndt: as a corrections officer, Title 38 applies and its protections constrain the Department’s ability to reject the Board’s decision. | Department: Title 41 (state personnel law) is later and governs covered employees, so § 41‑783(E) controls and does not require reasons. | Held: Both statutes apply; because Berndt is a law enforcement officer, § 38‑1101(K) adds protections requiring (1) a finding that the Board’s decision was arbitrary or without reasonable justification and (2) a stated reason for rejection. |
| Employer’s obligation to state reasons when rejecting Board decisions | Berndt: § 38‑1101(K) requires the employer to state reasons for amending/modifying/rejecting the Board’s decision. | Department: § 41‑783(E) contains no such requirement and governs covered employees. | Held: § 38‑1101(K) applies to law enforcement officers and requires the Department to state reasons; the Department failed to do so. |
| Whether the Board’s reduction to an 80‑hour suspension was arbitrary/capricious | Berndt: the Board’s findings were supported and the sanction fell within the Department’s progressive‑discipline chart. | Department: termination was within its discretion; it could reject the Board’s sanction. | Held: The Board acted within its discretion; the 80‑hour suspension was within the permissible range and the Department’s termination was arbitrary (agency failed to follow its policies and predecided termination). |
| Appropriate remedy (remand vs. reversal) | Berndt: seek reversal and reinstatement of Board’s sanction. | Department: remand to allow explanation for rejecting the Board. | Held: Reversal and reinstatement of the Board’s eighty‑hour suspension; remand unnecessary where, as a matter of law, the Board’s decision was not arbitrary and capricious. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fleming v. Dep’t of Public Safety, 237 Ariz. 414, 352 P.3d 446 (Ariz. 2015) (principles of statutory interpretation and construing related statutes together)
- Baker v. Gardner, 160 Ariz. 98, 770 P.2d 766 (Ariz. 1988) (when statutes conflict, apply the more recent or more specific)
- Coplan v. Ariz. State Bd. of Appraisal, 222 Ariz. 599, 218 P.3d 1056 (App. 2009) (discipline is rarely arbitrary when it falls within permissible range)
- Maricopa County Sheriffs Office v. Maricopa County Emp. Merit Sys. Comm’n, 211 Ariz. 219, 119 P.3d 1022 (Ariz. 2005) (arbitrariness can arise from disparate sanctions for similarly situated employees)
- Comeau v. Ariz. State Bd. of Dental Exam’rs, 196 Ariz. 102, 993 P.2d 1066 (App. 1999) (due process requires opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner)