Pender Wins In Arbitration
By Randall Holcombe • Thursday March 18, 2010 9:59 AM PDT • 4 Comments
Last week I wrote about Rachel Hoffman’s death as she was being used in a sting operation by the Tallahassee Police Department to try to arrest two men on drug charges. As I noted last week, the sting operation was more successful than the TPD had originally envisioned, and rather than drug convictions, the two men were convicted of the more serious charge of murder. The unfortunate side effect was that the murder charges came about because they killed Rachel Hoffman.
I also noted last week that Hoffman’s family filed a civil suit against the City of Tallahassee for damages in this case. Meanwhile, Ryan Pender, the only TPD officer who lost his job as a result of the case, had appealed his firing and the appeal was being heard by an arbitrator. The arbitrator has ruled that Pender was unjustly fired, so should be reinstated, and be given back pay and benefits.
Police Chief Dennis Jones stands by his original decision to fire Pender, and is looking into whether the arbitration ruling should be appealed, or whether the TPD should abide by the ruling and reemploy Pender.
One commenter on my earlier post, “Federalist,” suggested that the union that defended Pender should be liable for any civil damages, not the city. That’s an interesting thought. Of course, I am well aware that anybody can sue anybody else for civil damages, and the Hoffman family chose to sue the city, not the police union. But Police Chief Jones, representing the city, says Pender’s actions were the cause of Rachel’s death, and that he did not follow city policy. Meanwhile, the union defends Pender’s behavior. In a moral (if not legal) sense, shouldn’t this make the union more responsible than the city for any damages resulting from Pender’s actions?
Tags: Criminal Justice, Drugs, Police 
“Police Chief Jones, representing the city, says Pender’s actions were the cause of Rachel’s death, and that he did not follow city policy. Meanwhile, the union defends Pender’s behavior. In a moral (if not legal) sense, shouldn’t this make the union more responsible than the city for any damages resulting from Pender’s actions?”
Er ... does not compute.
“Charles Manson, representing The Family, says Watson’s actions were the cause of Tate et al’s deaths, and that he did not follow Family policy. In a moral (if not legal) sense, shouldn’t this make Watson’s attorney more responsible than The Family for any damage resulting from Watson’s actions?”
Thomas L. Knapp | Mar 18, 2010 | Reply
Thanks for the comment, Thomas. The job of an attorney is to make the best case for the client, regardless of the client’s actions. I take it you are saying that in the same way a union’s job is to make the best case for its members, regardless of their actions.
I was thinking that if a union employee was dismissed for cause, and the union thought the cause was grounds for dismissal, the union would not view it as their responsibility to argue for reinstatement. Maybe I’m wrong about that.
I am represented by a union. (But, because Florida is a right to work state and I don’t have to join the union, I’m not a member.) I know from the material I get from the union that sometimes the union will defend employees who have grievances; sometimes not. I don’t think the police union has any obligation to defend Pender, on moral or legal grounds, if they believe his dismissal was just.
Randall Holcombe | Mar 18, 2010 | Reply
Randall, a union does have a legal obligation under Federal law and, in some cases, State law, which is commonly referred to as “duty of fair representation.”
Should a union fail to pursue every contractual and legal step possible to defend even actions repugnant to its officers and members, the worker who performed those acts can successfully sue for “damages” amounting to years of pay at the prevailing rate, and the Federal government can impose severe fines.
Taking a different tack than you, I chose to join the union that represented me, as I felt that it was not reasonable to complain about the union’s deficiencies if I was unwilling to work from the inside to make changes. Oddly, I found that most (though not all, of course) of the officers and members were unhappy with the “duty of fair representation” and other laws and regulations that force them to tolerate slackers and other unethical sorts who shelter behind such laws.
Rick Schunke | Mar 23, 2010 | Reply
Interesting concept, but Pender was employed by the city, not the police Union. The Union does not instruct its officers on work matters. Either Pender acted alone in placing the victim in harm’s way, or he was following city policy (whether written – or implied). This is what courts are SUPPOSED to find out. The trouble is that these things are civil suits because the state’s Attorney General isn’t doing his job, investigate, and bring Pender and/or the city up on charges. It’s a shame that there must be civil suits in order to get even close to justice. IF – and that’s an “IF” Pender is in fact not at fault, then it is clearly either the city or the police chief who is at fault. If Pender is not at fault, then it is department policy to conduct entrapment (which is illegal), and place citizens in harm’s way (which is also illegal).
joe4liberty | Mar 23, 2010 | Reply