Barrows v. City of Fort Smith, Arkansas, No. 09-756.
Facts
In June 1992, Jeffrey Barrows was hired as an officer with the Fort Smith Police Department. During his employment with the department, he rose from the rank of patrolman to major. At the time of his termination on October 17, 2007, Barrows was in charge of the department’s Administrative Services division.
Barrows served as interim chief of police from approximately August 2006 until January 2007 when Kevin Lindsey was hired as police chief. As chief, Lindsey attempted to implement the Sentinel program, a type of citizen-policing initiative. According to Barrows, (1) Lindsey implemented this program without seeking the input of staff responsible for its execution, (2) the program was inconsistent with the department’s current policies, (3) it wasted public funds, and (4) it potentially contravened state law. Barrows expressed his concerns to Lindsey and then Lindsey’s direct supervisor, Randy Reed, Fort Smith City Administrator. A meeting was then held between Barrows, Lindsey, Reed, and two other top administrators, Major Steve Howard and Major Ricky Brooks. During this meeting, Lindsey asked whether they had confidence in his ability to perform his job. Barrows and Reed stated they did not.
On August 23, 2007, Lindsey filed a complaint with Captain Alan Haney of the Office of Professional Standards, asserting that Barrows (1) failed to observe and adhere to department policies, (2) showed disrespect towards supervisory officers, (3) engaged in conduct unbecoming an officer, and (4) publically criticized and ridiculed the department. Haney investigated the complaint, and a review panel examined the investigative file. After giving Barrows an opportunity to explain his actions, which he refused, the review panel determined that Barrows had violated department rules and policies and should be terminated. The matter was then returned to Lindsey, who agreed that Barrows should be terminated.
After his termination, Barrows filed suit against the City of Fort Smith and Lindsey in his official capacity. He alleged that he was terminated for reporting concerns over Lindsey’s job performance in violation of the Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 21-1-601, et seq. The trial court determined that Barrows had attempted to undermine Lindsey’s authority and to interfere with the department’s administration and, therefore, his termination was appropriate. The court then granted summary judgment on behalf of defendants.
Appeal
On appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court stated that the Whistle-Blower Act protects a public employee who reports violations of law or waste of public funds to the appropriate authorities. The law guarantees the pubic employee freedom from discharge, threats, or any other discrimination or retaliations that relates to employment or compensation. If a public employee is punished, the employee may seek actual damages and injunctive relief through civil suit. The public employer, however, has an affirmative defense to the suit if the employee was discharged because of misconduct or poor job performance unrelated to the communication.
The court noted that there was an abundance of evidence that Barrows discussed his views of Lindsey’s competency with various people inside and outside of the department. Barrows also instructed several officers to report to him instead of Lindsey. Based on this information, the court agreed that defendants had an affirmative defense to Barrows’ claim and affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.
[…] Arkansas Supreme Court explains an affirmative defense under the … […]