Terminated San Mateo Probation Employee Ordered Reinstated With Full Back Pay

SEAN CURRIN
Senior Associate
Mastagni Holstedt, APC

Many law enforcement employees decided to join public service to make a difference in their communities. Public safety employees want to improve their communities and be supported by their administration in doing so. Sadly, support from administration is not always a foregone conclusion. Sometimes, it feels rare. A fear from many of my clients over the years has been that they could be disciplined or terminated for no reason if they fall out of favor with the Department. Thankfully, justice prevailed in the case of San Mateo Probation member Russell Pryor, when an arbitrator overturned his meritless termination for dishonesty, cleared his good name and awarded him full back pay.

Pryor began his career with the San Mateo County Probation Department 21 years ago as a group supervisor. Pryor had no discipline from the Department in his entire career, until ….

The facts of this case are relatively undisputed. On November 6, 2023, Pryor was working with his partner in the Pine 4 Housing Unit at the San Mateo Probation Department. By policy, safety checks are supposed to be conducted once every 14 minutes when the youth are in their rooms. When youth are in their rooms, staff are alerted that a safety check needs to occur by a timer on the computer that reminds them when to perform their safety checks.

Throughout the day, Pryor heard the alerts through the computer to remind him when to perform his safety checks. Unbeknownst to Pryor, when his partner came onto shift, he turned down the volume on the computer that would alert staff of the upcoming safety check. As the youth locked down in their rooms at 1438 hours, Pryor explained to the youth that his partner was leaving the unit, but when he returned, they would all be let out for Large Muscle Activity, a time when the youths come out of their rooms for exercises and a 14-minute room check would not be required.

Once Pryor’s partner left the unit, Pryor continued with his activities until he became concerned about the 14-minute timer. As Pryor walked to the computer to see the expired timer, he also observed his partner coming back onto the unit. Believing his partner was about to release the youth from their rooms (no timer needed), Pryor turned off the alarm, packed his things and headed home to take his daughter to a doctor’s appointment scheduled right after his shift ended.

Anytime an alarm goes off indicating a safety check is past due, a message will automatically be sent via email to the supervisor. Since the alarm had gone off, Pryor assumed a supervisor would approach him when he returned, and he could explain that his partner turned down the volume. A late room check would typically garner a non-punitive performance note.

For Pryor, this is where the nightmare began. Without any supervisor approaching him, the Probation Department placed Pryor on administrative leave and accused him of dishonesty. Despite his 21 years of impeccable service to San Mateo, the Department terminated Pryor. This termination made Pryor understandably upset, leaving him feeling betrayed by the Department he loved. Pryor contemplated just walking away and retiring. Fortunately, Pryor’s strong support system encouraged him to continue to fight what was so painfully wrong.

The notice of termination alleged Pryor engaged in “purposeful steps to erase any detection of a late check.” This allegation was provably false, as the disposition of his appeal hearing confirmed. The Department’s own witness admitted Pryor did not erase evidence, nor take any steps to erase evidence. Nevertheless, some Department manager simply decided to terminate Pryor despite the exculpatory evidence and facts contained in the investigation. When Chief Clark was confronted with the blatantly inaccurate statements within the notice of discipline, she attempted to evade responsibility by claiming she didn’t write the notice of discipline, and she admitted to having only skimmed the document for accuracy.

Applying a double standard, the Department alleged dishonesty to fire my client based on provably dishonest statements of its own. This conduct is both appalling and disheartening, not only to an employee who dedicated 21 years of his life to the San Mateo Probation Department, but also to the entire workforce.

Fortunately, the arbitrator dismantled this charade of a case and righted the Department’s wrongs against my client. The arbitrator severely criticized the Department’s investigation for failing to be fair and objective. Dispatching the allegations of dishonesty, Arbitrator Kong-Brown stated, “the Agency has not proven that the Appellant was dishonest. The IA investigator did not charge the Appellant with dishonesty in his investigation. This issue did not arise until there was a claim by the Department that the Appellant erased evidence of a late room check. Chief Clark testified that this was a false allegation, and the letter of dismissal falsely states that by the Appellant deactivating the system his purpose was to erase the record of the late room check and the evidence was gone … the termination of the Appellant was not for just cause.” Pryor was awarded reinstatement with full back pay.

Employees feeling singled out or targeted can often feel isolated and scared. Employers can be overbearing and hyperbolic in how discipline cases are written and presented. Most arbitrators are capable of reading through the inflammatory rhetoric to see the specific merits of the case. It’s important for employees to understand that even when you feel targeted, your employer is not the final word — due process will prevail.

GS Pryor would like to express his gratitude not only to Mastagni Holstedt, but to PORAC LDF, the San Mateo Probation and Detention Association and most importantly his wife, Jennifer, for her unwavering support through one of the scariest times of his life.

About the Author

Sean Currin is a senior associate at Mastagni Holstedt, APC, in the Labor and Employment Department. Mr. Currin represents public-sector employees in a variety of litigation, including administrative investigations, critical incidents, labor arbitration hearings and civil litigation. He serves as general counsel to large public safety unions throughout California. He is experienced in the Peace Officer’s Procedural Bill of Rights Act and often provides law enforcement officers with training presentations regarding their rights.