Goding v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of King Cnty.

• Decision Date: 14 December 2015
• Docket Number: No. 72890–3–I.,72890–3–I.
• Citation: 366 P.3d 1,192 Wash.App. 270
• Parties: Wayne GODING, Respondent/Cross–Appellant, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF KING COUNTY; Respondent, King County, a municipal corporation; King County Sheriff's Office, a department of King County, Appellants/Cross–Respondents.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

192 Wash.App. 270

366 P.3d 1

Wayne GODING, Respondent/Cross–Appellant,

v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF KING COUNTY; Respondent,King County, a municipal corporation; King County Sheriff's Office, a department of King County, Appellants/Cross–Respondents.

No. 72890–3–I.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1.

Dec. 14, 2015.

Publication Ordered Jan. 12, 2016.

Lynne Janet Kalina, John Robert Zeldenrust, Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Appellant/Cross–Respondent.

Stephen Patrick Connor, Anne-marie E. Sargent, Connor & Sargent PLLC, Derik Ramon Campos, Attorney at Law, Seattle, WA, for Respondent/Cross–Appellant.

Cheryl Diane Carlson, Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Other Parties.

DWYER, J.

¶ 1 Under applicable civil service law, when the county sheriff imposes a severe sanction—such as suspension without pay—upon a commissioned deputy the disciplinary decision must be made "in good faith for cause."¹ In such a circumstance, the disciplined employee may request that the local civil service commission review the disciplinary decision in order to ensure that the sheriff's action complied with the legal standard. If the civil service commission upholds the sheriffs action, the disciplined employee may seek judicial review of the commission's decision. This review, however, is extremely limited. The court may not disturb the decision of the commission unless that decision was made arbitrarily or capriciously.² And where the commission's decision is " made with due consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing," its decision is not, as a matter of law, arbitrary or capricious.³

¶ 2 In this case, as a sanction for work-related misconduct, the King County Sheriff imposed a one-day suspension without pay, coupled with a reassignment to a less desirable detail, upon Deputy Wayne Goding. After a hearing, the civil service commission upheld the sheriff's action. Goding sought review in the superior court, which reversed the commission's decision. Given that the record makes clear that the commission duly considered the evidence presented at the hearing before it, the commission did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in upholding the sheriff's action. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the superior court and reinstate the decision of the civil service commission.

I

¶ 3 Goding was employed as a shuttle deputy in the warrants unit of the sheriff's office. As a shuttle deputy, Goding, together with his colleague Deputy Bruce Matthews, was responsible for transporting inmates. This sometimes involved shuttling inmates to and from the jail and a hospital.

¶ 4 On March 27, 2012, Sheriff's Sergeant Michael Porter sent an e-mail to several employees, including Goding, discussing "some ‘friction’ recently between the jail staff and our staff who work the transport shuttle." In the e-mail, Porter instructed Goding and the other employees that,

I expect any of our people working on the shuttle run to above all be courteous and professional in all contacts with jail staff. Anything less than a professional attitude and courtesy will not be tolerated regardless of the perceived "provocation."

Follow the jail staff directions unless they make a request that is unsafe or illegal.

....

Rather than getting into a conflict with jail staff about what you feel is "not your job", just do what they ask, and bring it to my attention later if you feel they are asking you to do something that is not appropriate for whatever reason. I will be meeting with the ITR [Intake, Transfer, and Release] sergeant at the jail weekly to work out any issues that may come up regarding roles and responsibilities. We will also expect the same level of professional courtesy on the part of the jail staff, and I expect to be notified promptly if there are issues regarding their conduct.

¶ 5 At the civil service commission hearing, Sheriff's Captain Joseph Hodgson recalled that in March 2012, Porter came to his office to notify him that "[t]here was some friction between Sheriff's Office personnel and jail staff that needed some attention."

¶ 6 Over time, Hodgson noticed that Goding and Matthews "seemed to be the focus of the complaints" from the jail. In fact, during the summer of 2012, Hodgson received two separate complaints—one involving Matthews and the other involving Goding—from employees of the King County Department of Adult and Juvenile Detention alleging that Goding and Matthews failed to properly comply with requests to complete inmate booking paperwork.⁴ The complaint against Goding alleged that he was "argumentative and unprofessional" when interacting with a jail employee.⁵

¶ 7 In response to these complaints, Jail Captain Jerry Hardy spoke with Hodgson regarding Hardy's intention to restrict Goding's and Matthews' "freedom to roam" the jail. Hodgson recalled that Hardy "just felt that they were so disruptive and they were so hostile toward jail staff, that they—his assessment was that they couldn't be trusted to roam around and work with jail staff in random places."

¶ 8 On August 8, 2012, Hodgson "wrote out an e-mail providing my expectation as to how [Matthews and Goding] conduct themselves and the directions that they would take when they were at the jail." In the e-mail, Hodgson specifically instructed Matthews and Goding that,

I have been informed of conflict that exists between the two of you and staff at the RJC [Regional Justice Center] Jail. This conflict goes back to some point prior to my arrival in CID [Criminal Investigation Division]. According to what I have been told, the issues revolve around your perceived resistance to compliance with jail policies and requests. I talked to Sergeant Porter shortly after my arrival in CID and at my direction, he explained to each of you that the jail facility is the domain of the jail staff and that we do not make the rules there and we do not dictate or dispute policy there. If you are asked to complete a task or observe a procedure in order to complete processing of prisoners, the expectation is that you will complete that task, as requested, without criticism or resistance. If you have concerns regarding the necessity, propriety, or practicality of that task or request, you are expected to bring the issue to the attention of Sergeant Porter. He and I will address the concerns with RJC Jail Command. These issues will not be worked out by you with jail staff at ITR. If you have concerns that are of an emergent, safety nature and cannot wait, you are expected to notify Sergeant Porter or me immediately, so some type of resolution can be reached immediately.

....

[T]he expectation set forth by Sergeant Porter and being reiterated by me at this time is that you do not express your side of these arguments to jail staff. The reality is that by not pursuing concerning issues via proper channels, you are weakening your position.^[6]

That same day, Porter sent an e-mail to Goding and Matthews stating that Captain Hardy "has asked me to pass on his decision that both of you be restricted to areas of the jail which are necessary for your transport functions."

¶ 9 On August 14—in a meeting attended by Goding, Matthews, Porter, Hodgson, and Sheriff Sergeant Bob Lurey—Goding and Matthews detailed their version of events and voiced their concerns.⁷ Hodgson "reaffirmed the same expectations that I established in the e-mail, that they would comply with jail requests unless it was a dire situation of officer safety or emergent in some way that was going to place somebody in jeopardy or place somebody's career in jeopardy, at which time they were notified that they should immediately contact Sergeant Porter or myself to get resolution."

¶ 10 In December 2012, following an internal investigation, Sheriff Captain Scott Somers, an Internal Investigation Unit Commander, issued Goding a written reprimand for his failure to properly complete required inmate booking paperwork.⁸

¶ 11 On February 20, 2013, near the end of Goding's shift, Goding and Matthews were instructed by Sheriff's Sergeant Christopher Myers to transport a suspect with a felony warrant from Enumclaw to the Regional Justice Center jail in Kent.

¶ 12 When Goding and Matthews arrived in Enumclaw to pick up the suspect, Harlan Phipps, Phipps was not restrained. Goding put restraints on Phipps and placed him in the Sheriff's van.⁹ At the civil service commission hearing, Myers recalled that, prior to Matthews' and Goding's departure with Phipps, Myers "anticipated that we were going to have difficulties booking Mr. Phipps, and I told them that if we had difficulties booking Mr. Phipps to please give me a call because I wanted to talk to the medical staff and find a way we can somehow get him booked into jail."

¶ 13 Once at the jail, the staff removed Phipps' restraints and two nurses examined him. Jail Officer Michael Ley, Goding, and Matthews were nearby as Phipps was being examined. Following the examination, the nurses informed Matthews and Goding that, for medical reasons, they were declining to admit Phipps into the jail.¹⁰ One of the nurses observed "a lot of eye rolling by Detective Goding when he received the news [that] Phipps was declined."

¶ 14 Matthews telephoned Myers to inform him of the nurses' refusal to admit Phipps. Matthews gave the telephone to one of the nurses who spoke with Myers. Myers then spoke again with Matthews. Myers instructed Matthews to "take Mr. Phipps to Valley Medical Center and release custody of him there." Matthews relayed this instruction to Goding.

¶ 15 As Ley assisted in gathering Phipps' belongings, he noticed that Phipps was not restrained. Ley requested that Goding handcuff Phipps prior to escorting him through the jail. Goding refused to comply with Ley's request, asserting that it would be illegal for him to handcuff Phipps.

¶ 16 Ley then approached Jail Sergeant David Richardson and asked him to reiterate to Goding the jail's policy regarding restraining inmates. At the civil service...