144 A.3d 14
D.C.2016Background
- MPD proposed terminating Officer Dunkins for off-duty misconduct; AAP recommended a 30-day suspension.
- Dunkins requested a Departmental Hearing; AAP found her guilty but recommended 30-day suspension and MPD Chief imposed termination.
- Arbitrator held 6-A DCMR § 1001.5 required only a 30-day suspension; MPD appealed to PERB.
- PERB affirmed Arbitrator, ruling § 1001.5 controlled and barred penalties greater than the AAP recommendation.
- MPD challenged PERB’s reliance on § 1601.5(a) as incorporating § 1001.5; Superior Court affirmed PERB; MPD appealed.
- Issue before the court was whether MPD could override the AAP and impose a greater penalty; court affirmed PERB’s ruling as rational under controlling regulations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §1001.5 govern penalties and bar greater penalties than the AAP recommendation? | MPD argues §1001.5 is procedural and not controlling here. | PERB held §1601.5(a) incorporates §1001.5, preserving its effect. | PERB’s interpretation rationally indefensible; §1001.5 governs. |
| Is §1613.2 a valid constraint on penalty increases when §1001.5 applies? | MPD argues Hutchinson controls and §1613.2 allows the original penalty. | PERB did not resolve Hutchinson here; §1001.5 controls anyway. | Court does not resolve Hutchinson here; upholds PERB via §1001.5. |
| Should Hutchinson v. DC Office of Employee Appeals guide the interpretation of “penalty proposed”? | Hutchinson supports interpreting “penalty proposed” as the original proposed sanction. | OEA interpretation not binding here; PERB’s interpretation acceptable. | Not controlling in this MPD case; PERB’s reading affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hutchinson v. District of Columbia Office of Emp. Appeals, 710 A.2d 227 (D.C. 1998) (interprets 'penalty proposed' as the original proposed sanction)
- Fraternal Order of Police/Dep’t of Corr. Labor Comm. v. District of Columbia Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 973 A.2d 174 (D.C. 2009) (deference to PERB when reviewing CMPA matters)
- Drivers, Chauffeurs, & Helpers Local Union No. 639 v. District of Columbia Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 631 A.2d 1205 (D.C. 1993) (PERB deference; rationally indefensible standard)
- Public Emp. Relations Bd. v. Washington Teachers’ Union Local No. 6, 556 A.2d 206 (D.C. 1989) (defer to PERB interpretation under CMPA framework)
- District of Columbia v. Henderson, 710 A.2d 874 (D.C. 1998) (regulatory hierarchy; regulations override agency orders)