Fraternal Order of Police No. 7, Inc. v. City of Hutchinson, Kansas
123641
| Kan. Ct. App. | Mar 4, 2022Background
- Officer Jonathan Suda (Hutchinson PD) responded to a Feb. 25, 2018 traffic complaint involving another off‑duty officer, Anna Ruzhanovska.
- Suda turned off his body camera at the scene, entered Ruzhanovska's car, did not perform field sobriety testing, and drove her to the law enforcement center.
- Internal investigator Duckett concluded Suda violated policy, shut off his camera without valid reason, failed to test for impairment, and was deceptive in the investigation.
- Chief terminated Suda for (1) disabling his body camera, (2) failing to conduct impairment testing, and (3) providing untruthful/evasive statements during the investigation.
- Union pursued the MOU grievance process: arbitrator issued an advisory Decision and Award finding two violations but not clear and convincing evidence of lying and recommended reinstatement (no back pay); City Manager and then City Council rejected the arbitrator's factual conclusion as advisory and upheld termination; Union appealed under K.S.A. 60‑2101(d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitrator was the sole, binding fact‑finder under the MOU | Arbitrator's factual findings are binding — City must accept them; only disposition is advisory | MOU makes the arbitrator's decision advisory, including factual findings; City Manager/Council may review and decide | Arbitrator's findings are advisory (both facts and disposition); City acted within MOU authority |
| Whether the City's finding (esp. that Suda was untruthful) was supported by substantial evidence | Evidence did not support conclusion of dishonesty; arbitrator found insufficient evidence | Record contains evidence a reasonable person could accept to support the City's findings | City's decision was supported by substantial evidence; Union failed to meet its burden to show otherwise |
| Whether the City's decision was arbitrary or capricious | Upholding termination despite arbitrator's findings was arbitrary/capricious | Decision was based on record review and permissible judgment; not without adequate principles | Court: not arbitrary or capricious; Union did not prove requisite standard |
| Who bears burden on appeal to overturn City decision | (implied) City must justify deviation from arbitrator | Union bears burden to show City acted outside authority or without substantial evidence | Union failed to meet its burden; appellate review is de novo |
Key Cases Cited
- Denning v. Johnson County, 299 Kan. 1070 (2014) (describes de novo review under K.S.A. 60‑2101(d) and treats half‑truths as untruths)
- Jayhawk Racing Properties, LLC v. City of Topeka, 313 Kan. 149 (2021) (contract interpretation is a question of law reviewed without deference)
- City of Lenexa v. C.L. Fairley Const. Co., 245 Kan. 316 (1989) (apply ordinary contract‑interpretation rules to arbitration clauses)
- Stueckemann v. City of Basehor, 301 Kan. 718 (2015) (challenger bears burden to show governmental decision should be reversed)
- Owen Lumber Co. v. Chartrand, 283 Kan. 911 (2007) (standard for assessing substantial evidence on administrative findings)
- Robinson v. City of Wichita Employees' Retirement Bd. of Trustees, 291 Kan. 266 (2010) (defines "arbitrary" and "capricious" in administrative context)
- U.S.D. No. 434 v. Hubbard, 19 Kan. App. 2d 323 (1994) (illustrative on differing fact‑finder roles under statutory due process; distinguished on contract vs statute grounds)