Grelle v. City of Windcrest
| Decision Date | 12 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | SA-19-CV-00125-XR |
| Parties | Michael J. GRELLE, Plaintiff v. CITY OF WINDCREST, Defendant |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas |
Malinda Ann Gaul, Gaul and Dumont, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff.
Charles Straith Frigerio, Attorney at Law, Hector Xavier Saenz, Law Ofcs. of Chas. S. Frigerio, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant.
ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On this date, the Court considered Defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 26), Plaintiff's response (ECF No. 27), and Defendant's reply (ECF No. 28). After careful consideration, the Court issues the issues the following order.
This case arises out of Plaintiff Michael Grelle's termination from the Windcrest Police Department ("WPD") by Chief of Police Al Ballew on April 18, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that he was terminated on the basis of his race, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), and on the basis of a perceived disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (the "ADA"). ECF No. 1. Defendant City of Windcrest (the "City") moves for summary judgment, arguing that the sole reason for Plaintiff's termination was his treatment of an arrested suspect during the last of three service calls made to the same residence on the evening of February 8, 2018. ECF No. 26.
At 10:04 p.m. on February 8, 2018, Plaintiff and Officer Adam Espinoza were dispatched to 8727 Tradewind Drive in Windcrest, Texas to respond to a service call from Megan Marie Johnston, who reported that she was being harassed by her former partner and the father of her child, Daniel Torrez. Acting as the primary officer, Officer Espinoza arrived first and observed Torrez standing at the front door of the residence. Officer Espinoza directed Torrez to leave the premises, and to arrange for another time to meet with Johnston. Torrez walked to his vehicle and drove away, and Office Espinoza cancelled the call before Grelle arrived at the scene.
Approximately thirty minutes later, Plaintiff and Officer Espinoza were dispatched to the same location to respond to a second call from Johnston indicating that Torrez had returned to the property. Plaintiff located Torrez in an alleyway behind the house, handcuffed him, and put him in the backseat of his patrol car.2 Plaintiff then returned to the residence to speak with Johnston. She explained that Torrez had been "to the front and back of [her] house and peeping through windows" and that she believed he was intoxicated. ECF No. 26-3 at 50. She did not want to press charges, however. The officers approached Torrez in the patrol car and observed that he smelled of alcohol, but neither identified any signs of intoxication. After running a check on Torrez's license plate number and determining that he did not have any outstanding warrants, Plaintiff released Torrez from his handcuffs and ordered him to leave the location. Torrez left, walking in the opposite direction of his vehicle.
An hour later, the two officers were dispatched to Johnston's residence for a third time. Torrez had returned to the house, entered through a second-floor window, and kicked open the door to Johnston's bedroom. During the altercation that ensued, Torrez pulled out his knife, and another person in the home, Sergio Pina, stabbed him in self-defense. Both suffered injuries. By the time the officers arrived, Torrez had fled the scene. The officers searched the area surrounding the house, and Plaintiff made requests over the radio for emergency services, for a DPS helicopter to help locate Torrez, and for assistance from the Bexar County Sheriff's Office in securing the perimeter. He led Mr. Pina to the back of his patrol car and read him his Miranda warning in anticipation of his interview with investigators. He then returned to the house to check on Johnston's five-year-old son, who was asleep upstairs.
Shortly after Plaintiff had returned outside, three other officers arrived at the scene: Lt. Daniel Hernandez, the Commander of the Investigations Division, Sgt. Kenneth Thuleen, the patrol operations supervisor, and Robert Chapa, the on-call detective. Dispatch reported that the suspect had been located at a nearby Valero gas station, and the officers at the scene left for Valero, where Torrez was arrested and treated by EMS for superficial wounds on his head and leg.
While at the Valero, Plaintiff approached Lt. Hernandez, Sgt. Kenneth Thuleen, and Det. Chapa and asked them if he could take Torrez to the police department. Lt. Hernandez asked Plaintiff if EMS had provided documentation indicating that Torrez's wounds were superficial and not life-threatening. Plaintiff stated that he had not received anything from EMS but would include that information in his report. He then suggested that the bandage on Torrez's head should be removed before taking him in for booking, so as not to alarm the magistrate's office and derail the intake process with concerns about his medical condition. Ultimately, Plaintiff did not need to remove the bandage, however, because Torrez removed it himself.
On March 20, 2018, Chief Ballew submitted a request for an evaluation of Plaintiff's fitness for duty to a clinical psychologist, Kelly Shannon, Ph.D. ECF No. 27-5 at 1. In support of his request, Chief Ballew noted that, for the past year, Plaintiff had been "dealing with personal issues regarding his former girlfriend and the mother of their child." Id. These issues had escalated in recent months because his ex-girlfriend had become romantically involved with one of the WPD supervisors, Corporal Douglas Cianchetta. Id. Plaintiff's performance at work suffered as a result. Chief Ballew reported that Plaintiff exhibited mood swings and aggressive behavior, and was handling service calls in a haphazard manner. Id. Plaintiff had made troubling statements, such as "I am not able to control my emotions" and "I think I need medication," and had cried during a meeting with his supervisors. Id. Summarizing the "change in Officer Grelle's demeanor," Chief Ballew concluded, "I do believe he is experiencing various degrees of depression, animosity, anger and aggression and it is affecting his job." Id.
Dr. Shannon performed his evaluation that day and submitted his report to Chief Ballew the following day. See id. at 3–6. Dr. Shannon concluded that Plaintiff could continue to function on patrol, subject to two recommendations: (1) that Chief Ballew direct Plaintiff to seek mental health counseling and to provide the name of his chosen counselor, and (2) that Plaintiff avoid working under the direct supervision of Corporal Cianchetta to the extent possible. Id. at 5–6.
On March 27, 2018, Chief Ballew issued a memorandum to Plaintiff, notifying him of Dr. Shannon's conclusions and directing Plaintiff to seek mental health counseling. Id. at 9. Plaintiff was further required to provide the name of his counselor in writing, to notify Chief Ballew in writing when he stopped attending counseling, and, upon terminating counseling, to provide a written release from the counselor or submit to an additional evaluation by Dr. Shannon. Id.
On March 21, 2018—the same day Dr. Shannon submitted his report concluding that Plaintiff was fit for duty—Sgt. Thuleen sent a memorandum to Lt. Robert Reyes, Commander of Patrol, requesting disciplinary action based on Plaintiff's handling of the February 8, 2018 service calls, alleging various violations of WPD procedures. ECF No. 26-3 at 56–58. The next day, Lt. Reyes asked the Professional Standards Unit ("PSU") of the WPD to open an investigation. ECF No. 26-3 at 3–4.
On April 3, 2018, Chief Ballew initiated a separate investigation, this one based on a comment Plaintiff was alleged to have made in December 2017. ECF No. 26-3 at 32. Specifically, a fellow officer reported that, while she was sitting in the patrol room with several other officers, she heard Grelle state that he might not be able to control himself and would shoot Cpl. Cianchetta with his duty weapon. ECF No. 27-6 at 1–4. Plaintiff was notified about the investigations the following day and placed on administrative leave with pay. See id. at 1; ECF No. 26-3 at 44–45.
Lt. Hernandez was responsible for both investigations. After interviewing Grelle and the officers who had allegedly overheard his threatening comment and reviewing patrol room video footage, Lt. Hernandez determined that the evidence was inconclusive. ECF No. 27-6 at 4. Plaintiff returned to work on April 10, 2018. With respect to the February 8th service calls, however, Lt. Hernandez concluded that Plaintiff had violated multiple WPD policies and procedures and recommended that the matter be forwarded to the Action Review Board. ECF No. 26-3 at 54.
On April 17, 2018, Chief Ballew sent a memorandum to Windcrest's City Manager, Rafael Castillo, Jr., informing Castillo that he intended to terminate Plaintiff the following day. ECF No. 27-8. Chief Ballew explained that Grelle had "used very poor judgment and directly violated Windcrest Police Department Rules, Regulation, Policy and Procedure" during the calls on February 8, 2018.3 Id. at 1. He also cited Grelle's history of violating departmental policy, including two violations in the previous year for failing to properly search arrestees. Finally, he noted that Plaintiff had disregarded his direct written order to provide information in compliance with Dr. Shannon's recommendations following the fitness-for-duty evaluation.
Approximately one week after Plaintiff's termination, PSU opened an investigation into Officer Espinoza's conduct during the February 8, 2018 service calls. See ECF No. 27-7. Officer Espinoza was required to provide a written...
To continue reading
Request your trial