Firing of Miami Beach Police Captain Upheld on Appeal
The case was decided in binding arbitration, then went to the courts in an attempt to reverse the officer's firing.
December 09, 2019 at 06:00 AM
3 minute read
EMPLOYMENT
Michael Elkins
MLE Law
The Miami Beach Police Department alleged Capt. Alex Carulo repeatedly sent pornographic material on the city's email system, and an internal affairs investigation ended with his firing.
The police union challenged the firing and asked for reinstatement, and the case went to binding arbitration. The arbitrator sided with the city, finding just cause for dismissal.
Carulo sued in Miami-Dade Circuit Court to overturn the decision, arguing the city violated the police officer's bill of rights by waiting too long to discipline him. The city simultaneously sued to confirm the award, and the cases were consolidated.
The trial court granted the city's dismissal motion and confirmed the award. On appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal issued a per curiam decision in May affirming dismissal.
Describe a key piece of testimony, evidence, ruling or order in your case and how it influenced the outcome: The finality of this case was four years in the making. The case started as a labor arbitration. The city fired the police officer, and the police union fought for the individual to get his job back. Despite the horrific nature of the facts, there was a point during the labor arbitration where it felt like this case could go either way.
Labor arbitrators generally do not like to keep employees fired. They tend to try and find any opening to return the employee to work, albeit many times with a lengthy suspension. Oftentimes, if a fired employee throws themselves on the mercy of the arbitrator and in their testimony owns the error, insists it will never happen again, agrees they were wrong and even offers up additional training and rehabilitation, they stand a better chance of being returned to work.
I fully expected the former officer to do just that. I was prepared to counter what I thought would be contrived contrition. Instead, the former officer did not show contrition. In fact, his testimony was the opposite of contrition. This was a major turning point and likely was the difference between his remaining fired and being returned to work and set the stage for the future legal matters going forward.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250