Brown v. District of Columbia Public Employee Relations Board, 19 A.3d 351

Anthony Brown was an MPD officer whose employment termination underwent multiple arbitral and PERB reviews beginning with 1998–1999 incidents tied to his separation from his wife.
An initial arbitration award in 2001 reinstated Brown due to a procedural rule violation, which the MPD challenged and PERB rejected; case was remanded for merits-based reconsideration.
On remand, the arbitrator found conduct unbecoming an officer and imposed a 120-day suspension, and separately considered Maryland criminal-law implications but found lack of requisite intent to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
PERB remanded the case again for application of the correct standard of proof; in December 2004 the arbitrator held Brown’s misuse of the telephone constituted a criminal act, with termination as the sole applicable penalty.
The Labor Committee filed petitions for PERB review; PERB denied review in 2007, and the Superior Court denied Brown’s petition, holding the PERB had not lost jurisdiction and that the arbitrator acted within authority; Brown appealed.
The issues on appeal are (i) whether the 120-day time limit affected PERB jurisdiction, and (ii) whether the Douglas factors should have been applied to the remand decision; the court affirmed the Superior Court’s denial of review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
120-day time limit governs PERB jurisdiction	Brown argues PERB lost jurisdiction after more than 120 days.	PERB argues the limit is directory, not mandatory, and no waiver occurred.	Limit is directory; no jurisdictional reversal; waiver found for lack of objection.
Douglas factors required on remand penalty	Brown contends the Douglas factors were not applied on remand.	Brown did not raise the Douglas issue below; thus waived.	Douglas issue waived; not addressed on the record.

JBG Properties, Inc. v. District of Columbia Office of Human Rights, 364 A.2d 1183 (D.C.1976) (directory vs. mandatory time limits, balancing effect when directory)
Spicer v. District of Columbia Real Estate Comm'n, 636 A.2d 415 (D.C.1993) (time limits generally directory absent sanctions)
Teamsters Local 1714 v. District of Columbia Public Employee Relations Board, 579 A.2d 706 (D.C.1990) (time limits usually directory absent sanctions)
Vann v. District of Columbia Board of Funeral Directors, 441 A.2d 246 (D.C.1982) (directory vs. mandatory with balancing inquiry)
Harris v. District of Columbia Comm'n on Human Rights, 562 A.2d 625 (D.C.1989) (delay in review; prejudice concerns)
Anjuwan v. District of Columbia Dep't of Public Works, 729 A.2d 883 (D.C.1998) (excessive delay in review not always reversible)
Howard University v. Metropolitan Campus Police Officer's Union, 512 F.3d 716 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (procedural arbitrability challenges must be raised at arbitration)
Hope Electrical Corp. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 545, 380 F.3d 1084 (8th Cir.2004) (procedural jurisdiction challenges not raised at arbitration are waived)