University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 3-1-2006 TENNESSEE BOARD OF PROBATION & PAROLE, Petitioner, vs. NIKEISHA ROYSTON, Grievant Follow this and additional works at: http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_lawopinions Part of the Administrative Law Commons This Initial Order by the Administrative Judges of the Administrative Procedures Division, Tennessee Department of State, is a public document made available by the College of Law Library, and the Tennessee Department of State, Administrative Procedures Division. For more information about this public document, please contact administrative.procedures@tn.gov
BEFORE THE TENNESSEE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONER IN THE MATTER OF: ) ) TENNESSEE BOARD OF PROBATION & ) PAROLE, ) Petitioner ) ) v. ) ) NIKEISHA ROYSTON, ) Grievant ) DOCKET NO. 26.41-080426J INITIAL ORDER The Step V Civil Service hearing of this matter was held on March 1, 2006, in Memphis, Tennessee, before Rob Wilson, Administrative Judge, assigned by the Secretary of State, Administrative Procedures Division, and sitting for the Commissioner of the Tennessee Civil Service Commission. Nikeisha Royston, Grievant, proceeded on her own behalf. The State was represented by Columba McHale, Senior Counsel for the Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole. The subject of this hearing was the July 15 th, 2005 termination of Grievant for violating the code of ethics policy by being arrested for felony aggravated assault. This matter became ready for consideration on June 30, 2006. After consideration of the record, it is determined that Grievant s termination is upheld, based on the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Nikeisha Royston was terminated from employment with the Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole on July 15 th, 2005. The termination was based on the fact that Ms. Royston
was arrested for aggravated assault on July 5, 2004. During a domestic dispute, Ms. Royston cut her husband with a 12 inch kitchen knife. Ms. Royston s husband required fourteen stitches. 2. Ms. Royston began working for the Board of Probation and Parole in October of 2002 as a Probation/Parole Officer 2. Her duties included supervising and monitoring of offenders; submission of parole violation reports, attending revocation hearings, and working with various levels of law enforcement. 3. At the time of her termination, Ms. Royston was assigned to the absconder unit. Her duties involved working with the public, sheriff s department, and other agencies to locate offenders. As part of her job, Ms. Royston was also required to testify at parole revocation hearings. 4. On July 5, 2004, after having an argument with her husband, Ms. Royston was arrested for aggravated assault and transported to Jail East in Memphis. Mr. Royston was treated at St. Francis Hospital. 5. The arrest record for Ms. Royston listed her occupation as a probation officer and State Probation as her employer. 6. The Board of Probation and Paroles placed Ms. Royston on administrative leave with pay on July 9, 2004. After a due process hearing she was placed on leave without pay effective September 5, 2004. Ms. Royston s criminal case was bound over from General Sessions Court and a criminal indictment was filed on December 14, 2004. On May 5, 2005 the case was nolle prosequied and an Order of expungement was entered. 7. An intent to terminate letter was sent to Ms. Royston on June 8, 2005, but was returned as undeliverable. A faxed copy of the letter was sent to Ms. Royston on June 17 th, 2005. Ms. Royston did not attend the due process hearing. 2
8. Ms. Royston was sent a termination letter on June 27, 2005, with the effective date of termination being July 15, 2005. The letter stated that Ms. Royston had violated the Agency s Code of Ethics policy 202.01, and also that she had engaged in conduct unbecoming an employee in state service, and that her termination was necessary For the good of the service, as outlined in T.C.A. 8-30-326. 9. Throughout the hearing Ms. Royston consistently maintained that she did not intend to harm her husband. She did not, however, deny stabbing him with a knife, and the fact that he required fourteen stitches as a result of the stabbing is undisputed. 10. On January 8 th, 2003, Ms. Royston s supervisor gave Ms. Royston an oral warning for sing inappropriate language in the workplace. The written documentation of the oral warning stated that Ms. Royston should maintain self-control and professionalism at all times. This incident was unrelated and prior to Ms. Royston s arrest for aggravated assault, but was offered by the State to show that Ms. Royston has had self-control issues previously. 11.20-10-.06: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, OPINION AND ANALYSIS 1. Grievant is charged with violating Tennessee Department of Personnel Rule (8) Gross misconduct or conduct unbecoming an employee in the State service. (12) Participation in any action that would in any way seriously disrupt or disturb the normal operation of the agency, institution, department or any other segment of the State service or that would interfere with the ability of management to manage. (15) Acts that would endanger the lives and property of others. and also with violating Section VI, Standards of Conduct, Board of Probation and Parole Ethics Policy: It is intended that the public trust in the conduct of the Board and its employees be ensured by conduct being above reproach (b) any conduct that would create a justifiable impression in the public mind that the public trust is being violated is prohibited. 3
2. T.C.A. 8-30-326 states in part, (a) An appointing authority may dismiss any employee in the authority's division when the authority considers that the good of the service will be served thereby. No dismissal of a regular employee shall take effect unless, at least ten (10) days before the effective date thereof, the appointing authority gives notice to such employee and files a written statement with the commissioner. The employee shall have an opportunity to file with the appointing authority a written statement regarding the proposed dismissal, a copy of which shall be filed with the commissioner. A regular employee who is disciplined shall have the right to file a grievance as provided in 8-30-328 or, if such employee believes that a disciplinary action or layoff is because of race, creed, national origin, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical handicap, such employee may file a complaint pursuant to title 4, chapter 21 or a grievance pursuant to 8-30-328. 3. The proof presented by counsel for the State established that Ms. Royston s job as a probation officer required that she work with police officers, lawyers, and offenders. 4. The position of the Board of Probation and Parole is that Ms. Royston can no longer be effective in her job because various law enforcement personnel would no longer trust her due to the fact that she was arrested for aggravated assault. Additionally, the Board feels that Ms. Royston may have difficulty supervising offenders who may have also been arrested for aggravated assault. Ms. Royston argued that her job performance should not be affected by an arrest that did not result in a conviction and was later expunged. In Reece v. Tennessee Civil Service Commission, 699 S.W. 2d 808, 813 (Tenn.App. 1985), it was held that The good of the service may in proper cases justify or require the discharge of public employees when their efficiency or usefulness in their position has been seriously impaired by their own fault, by the fault of others, or by blameless misfortune. The Reece case involved a Department of Corrections employee who was arrested for manufacturing marijuana. The case received an 4
enormous amount of publicity and Reece was terminated. The charge was eventually dismissed but the termination was upheld. Although the facts in Reece are distinguishable from the facts in the present case, the Good of the Service analysis is applicable. It is likely that Ms. Royston s effectiveness in her position could be seriously impaired by her arrest. 5. Also of importance is the fact that Ms. Royston is charged with violating the Department of Personnel Rule 11.20-10-.06: (15), Acts that would endanger the lives and property of others. Regardless of the fact that the State elected not to prosecute Ms. Royston for aggravated assault, the fact remains that Ms. Royston stabbed her husband with a knife causing him serious bodily injury. The incident wasn t an accident, or a misunderstanding, or due to carelessness or some other mistake. Mr. Royston required fourteen stitches to close his wound. This was clearly an act that would endanger the life or property of others, and consequently an obvious violation of Department of Personnel Rule 1120-10-.06. Nevertheless, the present case is a civil case involving a termination for the good of the service and not for the commission of a crime. However, Ms. Royston s arrest for aggravated assault does cast doubt on her competency and ability to execute her job duties, sufficient to justify her termination for the good of the service. As is stated in the Board of Probation and Parole s Ethics Policy 202.01: Section VI, Standards of Conduct, It is further intended that the public trust in the conduct of the Board and its employees be insured by conduct being above reproach (b) any conduct that would create a justifiable impression in the public mind that the public trust is being violated is prohibited. In her position as a probation officer, Ms. Royston would be responsible for initiating probation violation proceedings for offenders who have been arrested for various reasons, including felony aggravated assault. It is entirely possible that such a scenario could create a justifiable impression in the public mind that a conflict of interest exists, and such a conflict of interest could erode the public s trust in Board of Probation and Parole employees. 5
The issues in this case are not easily resolved, especially if they are considered individually. It is possible that Ms. Royston could still perform her job without incident, just as it is also possible that the public s trust would not be violated by the knowledge that a probation officer was once arrested for felony aggravated assault. However, when all of the factors are considered together the termination for the good of the service is justified. First, Ms. Royston violated Department of Personnel rules by endangering the life of her husband. Second, Ms. Royston violated the Board of Probation and Parole s ethics policy by being arrested for a felony; conduct that is certainly not above reproach. Third, Ms. Royston s actions would create an impression that the public s trust in Board of Probation and Paroles employees is being violated. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that termination of Ms. Royston s employment with the Board of Probation and Paroles is appropriate and is UPHELD. This Initial Order entered and effective this 3rd day of August 2006. Rob Wilson Administrative Judge 6
Filed in the Administrative Procedures Division, Office of the Secretary of State, this 3rd day of August 2006. Charles C. Sullivan II, Director Administrative Procedures Division 7