Sergeant Reinstated After Insubordination Charges Overturned

Sergeant Molly Hansen was employed by the Guadalupe Police Department during a work shift in June 2010. Part of Sergeant Hansen’s duties included creating the work schedule for the Department. One of the chief’s confidants, an officer actively seeking Sergeant Hansen’s position, met with the chief and expressed his displeasure about the work schedule he had received. Chief of Police Mitchell confronted Sergeant Hansen in the Department parking lot, accusing her of making changes to the Department work schedule without his permission. Sergeant Hansen found this conversation odd as she had routinely created the Department schedule with little to no input from the chief. During the discussion, Sergeant Hansen became upset when she realized that the chief’s displeasure stemmed from this officer’s displeasure with his schedule.

After the conversation with the chief in the parking lot, Sergeant Hansen went into her office to continue her duties. The chief and his confidant continued to discuss the issue in the parking lot, ultimately forming a plan to confront Sergeant Hansen again regarding the work schedule. The chief and his “witness” then went to Sergeant Hansen’s office to continue the conversation regarding the schedule.

Unbeknownst to Sergeant Hansen, the officer stood outside her office acting as a witness while the chief rehashed the changes to the schedule. When Sergeant Hansen walked out of her office to retrieve the schedule from the bulletin board, she noticed the officer standing in the hallway. Sergeant Hansen told the officer to leave multiple times. When he did not leave, she placed her hand on his chest and gave him a subtle push.

The Department sought a criminal investigation for battery against Sergeant Hansen for her making contact with the officer in the hallway. The district attorney refused to file the charges, and the Department — using only the criminal investigation into the meritless battery accusations — served Sergeant Hansen with a Notice of Termination in August 2010.

The matter was heard before an arbitrator. The arbitrator considered the fact that Hansen is in her 60s, is 5 feet 3 inches tall and weighs 105 pounds, while the “battered” officer is about 6 feet tall and weighs 240 pounds. The arbitrator determined that the testimony of the officer was not credible. During the arbitration, the officer demonstrated the level of force purportedly used by Sergeant Hansen. During his demonstration, the officer shoved his attorney with such force that his attorney was sent flying across the room. This was high comedy in light of the fact that the officer had previously stated he was not knocked off balance. Moreover, the height, weight and age disparity between the officer and Sergeant Hansen made the officer’s testimony look ridiculous. The arbitrator in his decision found the officer’s testimony inaccurate. The arbitrator found the contact more similar to a touching rather than an attack. The arbitrator also found that Sergeant Hansen had no intent to injure or harm the officer.

Even more bizarre was the fact that the Department did not conduct an administrative investigation into the incident. The Department simply took the findings of the criminal investigation and drafted a report without conducting any additional interviews of Sergeant Hansen, the officer or the chief. The failure to investigate would become problematic for the Department for two reasons. First, aside from the battery, the Department also alleged Sergeant Hansen was insubordinate. Second, the Department alleged Sergeant Hansen neglected her duties when she failed to respond to a call for service. The Department’s sole reliance on the criminal investigation, which focused entirely on the battery, made it impossible to prove the insubordination and neglect-of-duty charges.

The Department alleged that Sergeant Hansen was insubordinate during her conversations with the chief. The only evidence that the Department brought forward was the testimony of the chief. The chief testified that Sergeant Hansen’s tone and demeanor during their conversations were insubordinate and could not be tolerated. The arbitrator found that the chief’s testimony was inaccurate. Specifically, the Guadalupe Police Department chain of command is very small. So small, in fact, that Sergeant Hansen was second in command at the Department. It was evident to the arbitrator that the chief and Sergeant Hansen had, in the past, engaged in many frank conversations. These previous conversations proved that when the chief and Sergeant Hansen had disagreed in the past, Sergeant Hansen had been allowed to voice her opinion freely. The arbitrator found that Hansen, while “pissed off” during the confrontation, was not insubordinate because the chief had never given her any order to change her tone or her demeanor.

The Department also alleged that Sergeant Hansen neglected her duties after being confronted by the chief by failing to answer a radio call. Both the chief and officer had given previous statements to the criminal investigator that they had responded to a call for service and Sergeant Hansen failed to respond. Specifically, the chief stated that because of Hansen’s inaction he was forced to respond as a backup for officer-safety reasons. Fortunately for Sergeant Hansen, the dispatch records and CAD history showed that not only had she answered on the radio but also that she arrived at the call in a matter of minutes after the call came out. Needless to say, the arbitrator was not convinced Sergeant Hansen had neglected her duties. Ultimately, the arbitrator overturned the Department’s decision to terminate Sergeant Hansen and awarded her back pay.

On behalf of Sergeant Hansen, I would like to thank everyone who supported her through this ordeal. Also, thanks to PORAC and the LDF for providing Hansen with the resources to clear her name and return to the position that was unjustly taken from her. Finally, Sergeant Hansen would like to thank the Guadalupe Police Officer’s Association for its unwavering support throughout her appeal process.

Case Update

As of the publishing of this article, Sergeant Hansen continues her fight to return to duty. Call it sour grapes or retaliation, but after receiving the arbitration award reinstating Sergeant Hansen with back pay, the Department used the arbitration award to require Sergeant Hansen to undergo a fitness for duty examination. Sent to a Department doctor, she was found unfit for duty. Sergeant Hansen is in the midst of appealing the doctor’s decision and seeking any and all legal remedies available to her.