IN ARBITRATION BEFORE

ARBITRATOR CAREY M. FISCHER, ESQ.

RE: IN THE MATTER OF:
ISSUE: DISMISSAL OF JAMES WELLS
CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE,
Petitioner,
v.
JAMES WELLS,
Respondent/Grievant.
____________________________________/
_____________________________________________________________________

ARBITRATION DECISION
FINDINGS, ANALYSIS
AND CONCLUSION

_________________________________________________________________
Appearances:
FOR EMPLOYER, CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE:
Eugene K. Pettis, Esquire
Adrian J. Alvarez, Esquire
Haliczer, Pettis & Schwamm, P.A.
FOR FORMER EMPLOYEE/GRIEVANT, JAMES WELLS:
Bruce H. Little, Esquire
Bruce H. Little, P.A.
JAMES WELLS will be referred to herein, either by his proper name, last name
only, or as Grievant.
1

The CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE will be referred to either as the CITY or

EMPLOYER.
Issue for Determination
Did public employer, The CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, have cause to
terminate/dismiss the Grievant, JAMES WELLS, formerly a police officer with Fort
Lauderdale Police Department.
The Process:
The undersigned, as the mutually agreed upon Arbitrator, conducted a binding and
final arbitration as the concluding dispute review process, pursuant to Article 43 of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement entered into by the CITY and the bargaining unit of
which JAMES WELLS was a member [Fort Lauderdale Police Lodge 31, FOP]. The
hearing, which lasted three full days, submission of written briefs and this decisions
timing were in accordance with Article 43. The conclusion of the final hearing was the
date that the last brief was served (April 28, 2016).
Article 15 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement provides that an Employee
may be disciplined only for cause involving deficiencies in performance and/or
deficiencies in conduct. It also requires the EMPLOYER to inform the Employee, in
writing, prior to or at the time action is taken against the Employee of; (1) the reason for
the discipline; (2) the penalty assessed; and (3) the effective date of the penalty.

On March 20, 2015, the CITY delivered a letter to WELLS, providing him with
written notice of his termination from employment, based on charges contained in the
letter, a portion of which follows:
On October 16, 2014 an allegation was made to the Office of
Internal Affairs that indicated you acted and communicated in a
racist manner by distributing text message communication to your
coworkers using disparaging and offensive racial terminology.
Additionally, you authored text messages that maligned your
coworkers. After review of all the evidence, your actions constitute
a violation of the Fort Lauderdale Police Department Policies and
Procedures manual section 118E (12) H Engaging in conduct
prejudicial to the good order of the department and 118E (12) D
Conduct unbecoming a police officer.
The letter, signed by Police Chief Franklin C. Adderley, continued:
Your conduct is inexcusable and jeopardizes the publics trust in our
agency. Not only did you demonstrate a lack of integrity and poor
judgment, your actions confirmed a disregard for Department
policies and procedures.
Pursuant to the agreed upon grievance process, Officer WELLS filed a written
request for a hearing with the Chief and also was afforded an opportunity to engage in a
multi-level process of appeals to explain his role in sending some of the text messages.
Chief Adderley upheld the recommended discipline (suspension and termination). An
additional level of appeal was to City Manager Lee Feldman, who, after review of the
data, agreed with the recommendation for termination. 1

Pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, a City employee can contest the discipline by filing a grievance.

WELLS timely filed a request for final and binding arbitration, contesting his
termination by claiming that the CITY did not have cause to terminate him.

In a

proceeding such as this contractual arbitration, the EMPLOYER has the burden of proof
to show that there was cause for the disciplinary action it chose to enact. The Employee
has the opportunity to defend himself. Therefore, in this arbitration, the CITY is the
Petitioner and WELLS is the Respondent/Grievant.
Witnesses, Exhibits and Other Material Considered for Decision:
Witnesses presented by:
a).

CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE:

Nilda Perez, mother of Priscilla Perez
Priscilla Perez (video testimony)
Sergeant David Cortes, Fort Lauderdale Police Department, Office of
Internal Affairs
Sergeant Francisco Vetancourt, Fort Lauderdale Police Department,
Office of Internal Affairs
Major Karen Dietrich, Fort Lauderdale Police Department, Office of
Internal Affairs
Lee Feldman, City Manager, City of Fort Lauderdale
Timothy Donnelly, Esq., Assistant State Attorney, Broward County
State Attorneys Office
Chief Franklin Adderley, City of Fort Lauderdale Police Department

b).

JAMES WELLS:
Officer Collis Atkinson, City of Fort Lauderdale Police Department
4

Detective E, (Undercover) City of Fort Lauderdale Police

Department
Former District Chief Scott Gooding (retired, Broward Sheriffs
Office)
James Wells

Exhibits:
a).

Offered by CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

b).

Email chain regarding complaint from Ms. Perez to Chief

Adderley;
Consent to Search Forms;
Text messages (with labels);
Text messages (without labels);
City of Fort Lauderdale Police Policy 118 Rules of Conduct
(12/01);
Memo from Major Dietrich to Chief Adderley re: determination
that the officers violated the rules of conduct;
Internal Affairs Report;
Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City of Fort
Lauderdale and the Fort Lauderdale Police Lodge 31, Police
Officers & Sergeants;
Broward County State Attorneys Office Brady list for Officers;
and
City of Fort Lauderdale Police Policy 118.1 Code of Ethics.

Offered by JAMES WELLS:

1.
2.
3.
4.

City of Fort Lauderdale Police Policy 118 Rules of Conduct

(9/14);
City of Fort Lauderdale Police Policy 118 Rules of Conduct
(1/15);
Two-page Internal Affairs document re: Officer Jeffrey
Feldewert;
One-page Internal Affairs document re: Detective Rosalind
Wilson;
5

5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Internal Affairs Report re: Officer Krystal Smith;

Internal Affairs Report re: Officer Jeffrey Feldewert;
Internal Affairs Report re: Detective Rosalind Wilson;
Officer James Wells Personnel File;
Termination letter to Officer Wells from Chief Adderley.

Other Material Considered for Decision:

a).

Transcripts of Hearing (February 17, 18, 19, 2016)

Eight hundred eighty-three pages (883); (Tr when cited herein)

b).

Briefs submitted by the Parties

Total seventy-one pages (71)

c).

Numerous Appellate Court cases and Arbitration Decisions.

Underlying Facts and History

Review of testimony and exhibits reveals that, in October of 2014, Police Chief
Adderley received a complaint from someone outside the Police Department involving
four police officers, one of whom was Officer JAMES WELLS (the others being Officers
Alex Alvarez, Jason Holding and Christopher Sousa)2.
The complaining person was later identified as Priscilla Perez, the former fiance
of Officer Alvarez. Perez claimed that there was racism within the Police Department
and, as proof, she attached screen shots of a series of text messages that she alleged were
transmitted between the four officers. She had never met or communicated with JAMES
WELLS, however, she was aware that her fiance, with whom she was living at the time,

The only issue in this arbitration is whether there was cause to terminate Officer Wells.

was a friend and co-worker of WELLS. Also transmitted was a copy of a home produced
video that Alvarez had created and transmitted to his fellow officers.
Perez recounted that her relationship with Officer Alvarez was such that they
routinely checked each others cell phones, having exchanged passwords. In fact, her
testimony was that the checking (phone sweeps) was done on a daily basis. It included
looking at text messages, emails and pictures, even bank records. She said that she would
frequently hear Alvarez in phone conversations with WELLS where racially derogatory
terms were used by both officers when they were just joking around.
She described being very upset at what she saw in various group chat texts
between the officers. Accordingly, she took screen shots of the images, deleted the
contacts (leaving the phone numbers of those sending and receiving) and copied them to
her mothers cell phone. Moving the material to her mothers cell phone was done due to
her concern that Alvarez would check her (Perez) cell phone and become enraged.
Aside from the racially insensitive video that was produced and transmitted by Alvarez
(for which there is no evidence that WELLS took any part in producing or transmitting
and which was not admitted into evidence), forty nine text messages were entered. Not all
were blatantly offensive, but some were. Of those, four directly attributed to WELLS,
contained racially insensitive material. WELLS use of questionable language, included
the following:
Niggers and faggot

Nigger lover in the wagon (part of a quote from the movie, Django
Unchained)
Nigger hit three cars
Niggers everywhere
Other questionable messages dealt with WELLS response to text conversations
with the three others that involved allegedly inappropriate emojis, such as ghosts or
reference to the hoods. Yet others dealt with co-workers diction or work habits.
Despite the inference that her motives, in submitting the allegedly offensive text
messages to the Police Department, were those of a concerned citizen, a likely scenario
is that Perez was upset with Officer Alvarez and suspicious that he was carrying on an
overly friendly relationship with a female officer. And so, nearing the end of her nuptial
plans, she took photos of evidence that supported her claim that Alvarez and others,
including WELLS, were engaged in ongoing communications that were racist and
otherwise inappropriate for police officers.
After receiving communications from Perez, the Police Department opened an
investigation in its Office of Internal Affairs (IA). As part of the investigation, Internal
Affairs investigators obtained consent to search the iPhone used by Perez to store the text
messages at issue (her mothers iPhone). In reviewing the text messages, and comparing
the phone numbers to known phone numbers in the Departments system, investigators
were able to confirm the identity of the participants in the group messages. During the
investigation, Officer WELLS gave a required sworn statement and acknowledged being
8

the author of those messages that were identified with his number. Officer Alvarez
resigned from the Department and did not give a sworn statement.
Interviews were conducted and statements obtained within the Department in
order to determine whether any criminal laws, or Department policies, had been violated.
The subsequent finding was that no criminal laws had been violated, but that Department
(and therefore City) policies had been violated. At the conclusion of the fact finding
efforts, the collected material was forwarded to Major Karen Dietrich, the presiding
officer within the Office of Internal Affairs. Major Dietrichs conclusion was that the
nature of the text message exchanges showed an ongoing practice between the officers
that was offensive, sometimes violent in nature and clearly derogatory toward minority
groups, such as African Americans and homosexuals. Some of the messages seemed to
center around police work within the Department, such as actual details, a police chase
involving WELLS, and ongoing criminal investigations. Major Dietrich recommended
that WELLS be suspended and subsequently discharged from the Police Department.
Chief Adderley reviewed the text messages, the video created by Alvarez
(commented on by WELLS) and the Internal Affairs report and determined that
WELLS actions violated CITY policy and the Police Departments mission statement
and core values.
The CITYs determination was that WELLS activities showed a lack of integrity,
poor judgment, and a disregard for policies and procedures. As a result, the CITY
claimed that his actions jeopardized the public trust of the Police Department, had a
9

negative impact on WELLS interaction with the community and with his coworkers and
would affect his credibility in official proceedings (such as testifying in criminal trials
where WELLS was a key or only witness to an alleged violation of law).3 Termination
was affirmed.
In contrast, WELLS job performance and supervisor ratings were consistently
good. He received Department commendations and got along well with fellow officers.
Two of WELLS fellow officers, both African American, affirmed that they did not hear
or experience any racist actions or comments during the times they either trained with or
served with him. Prior to service with Fort Lauderdale, he was a military police officer in
the U.S. Army, having been honorably discharged after serving two tours in Iraq.
A few days prior to conclusion of the Internal Affairs investigation, the
investigative material was provided to City Manager, Lee Feldman, who was aware of
the ongoing process. In addition, he saw the video Alvarez had created in wanting to
make sure he understood the details of what had transpired.
Feldmans concern on behalf of the CITY was that release of the I A report to the
public would have the potential for extremely traumatic events, that it had the ability
to destroy the relationship between the City, the Police Department and the community
that we serve. [Tr 267]

Officer Wells, who is white, was assigned to District 2, which is the near Northwest section of the City primarily
black. His desire was to be in an area that had excitement, such as bail outs and chases, as well as having the
opportunity to help people restore peace to their lives.

10

Feldman knew that elected officials, the community at large, the faith-based
community and many others, including the news media, would learn about the matter.
He was concerned about the inflammatory nature of the text messages, and was
flabbergasted that that type of texting would occur which was not reflective of the
type of community we want to have here in Fort Lauderdale. [Tr 268]
A decision was made to release the entire report and to be transparent and open. A
press conference was called, representatives of the NAACP and faith-based community
were consulted and personal conversations were held with the CITYs elected officials.
Discussions were held with the police union, with the Black Police Officers Association
and with the rank and file officers in order to show that such activities would not be
condoned in any way.
So, now, what had started out as seemingly private text messages, amongst friends
who happened to be police officers, later became known to officials of the Police
Department. Once the IA investigation was concluded, the matter could no longer be an
in-house proceeding. Now, the greater community (and the world) would become aware.
And now, the alleged context of the text messages would arguably become less important
than the perception and image they created. With a city population that is estimated to be
30% African American and 25% Hispanic, and a 2,700 member Police Department that
is quite diverse, the City Manager determined that extreme disciplinary actions were
needed to limit the potential for additional damage to relationships between officers, and
between the Police Department and the community it serves.
11

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:

WELLS counsel argues that the standard of proof for the CITY should be greater
than the preponderance of the evidence standard, citing cases dealing with license
revocation proceedings. He also seeks to expand the contractual definition of cause to
just cause (a more stringent standard which involves seven test criteria). However, this
proceeding does not involve a license revocation; rather, it involves a dismissal from
employment. The issue of whether or not WELLS termination from employment could
or would affect his certification from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement is not,
and cannot be, a consideration in this decision. Likewise, the Collective Bargaining
Agreement (Article 14, Section 1, G. and 15, Section 1), uses the term cause, not just
cause when listing the CITYs rights . . . [t]o suspend, demote, discharge, or take other
disciplinary action and impose sanctions for cause involving deficiencies in performance
and/or deficiencies in conduct.
Article 43, Section 3.4 reads, The arbitrator shall have no power to change,
amend, add to, subtract from or otherwise alter or supplement this Agreement or any part
thereof or any amendment thereto. Section 4.0, in part, provides that, The arbitrator,
therefore, shall not have the authority to change the intent of the parties as determined by
generally accepted rules of contract construction. The arbitrator shall not render any
decision which, in practical or actual effect, modifies, revises, detracts from, or adds to
any of the terms or provisions of this Agreement.

12

WELLS asserts that his privacy rights were violated by the capture and disclosure
of text messages without his permission. He cites Florida Statute Chapter 934, which is
entitled Interception and Disclosure of Wire, Oral or Electronic Communications
Prohibited, in arguing that both Perez and the CITY had no permission to disclose the
electronic communications. As such, he argues that Perez illegally intercepted the
communications, which, if proved, would make use of them against the law.4
Noteworthy in its absence in the exclusionary language of the statute is the term,
electronic communications. While there remains legal debate as to whether the intent
of the Florida Legislature was to include electronic communications in the prohibition
from use, the key issue lies in whether these electronic communications were
intercepted, as referenced in both state and federal law.
Florida courts have generally referred to federal decisions in determining the
meaning of the word intercepted. Those court decisions have consistently held that, in
order to be intercepted, the communications must have been acquired at the time of, or
during, their transmission. In other words, they were not intercepted within the statutes
meaning if they were retrieved after being stored. In this case, had Perez installed some
type of spyware program to copy the text messages as they were being transmitted, they
would be subject to exclusion for her illegal interception.

Florida Statute, Section 934.06, in substance, provides that no part of any wire or oral communication may be used
in a trial, hearing, proceeding, etc., if such communication was intercepted without permission of both sides.

13

However, no competent evidence was presented consistent with the legal

definition of intercepted electronic communications and, therefore, the facts show that
Perez actions were not illegal. Accordingly, the CITY was justified in accepting receipt
of the material it obtained from Perez and using it in its investigative and disciplinary
process.
WELLS argues that he had a right to privacy in communicating with his fellow
officers. He is correct, but only to the extent that any person has such a right. Clearly,
enactment of the statutory prohibitions reflects a policy decision to allow each party to a
conversation to have an expectation of privacy from interception resulting in use by
someone else. No interception having occurred in this case means WELLS had no
enforceable expectancy of privacy. Put simply, WELLS had no legal right to assume that
the texts would not be read by someone outside his circle, or to have a guarantee they
would remain private after transmission (versus during transmission). Perez actions let
the proverbial cat out of the bag. Did she want justice or revenge? The answer is not
relevant because her actual motive does not matter.
This leads to another area of defense asserted by WELLS, that being, that his First
Amendment constitutionally protected rights to free speech were violated by the CITY
taking disciplinary action. With respect to public servants/police officers, courts have
had to weigh and balance societys interest in freedom of speech with the employers
interest in maintaining efficiency and discipline in the workplace. A public employee,
such as WELLS, cannot be discharged from employment on a basis that infringes the
14

employees protected interest in freedom of speech, or freedom of expression. What type

of speech or expression is protected, and what is not, has been decided by the United
States Supreme Court and interpreted by other courts.
In order to determine whether the CITY (a public employer) properly discharged
WELLS (a public employee) for engaging in speech, one must look to a balance between
the interests of WELLS, as a citizen, to comment upon matters of public concern and
the interests of the CITY in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs
through its employees. 5
Said another court, Vigilance is necessary to ensure that public employees do not
use authority over employees to silence discourse, not because it hampers public functions, but simply because superiors disagree with the content of employees speech.

Consideration must be given to the manner, time and place of the employees expression,
as well as the context. One must consider whether the statements impair harmony
amongst co-workers, have a detrimental impact on close working relationships for which
loyalty and confidence are necessary, or impede the performance of the speakers duties
or job performance in relation to the public employers function. Additional factors are
the responsibilities of the employee to the agency and the employees role in contact with
the public.7

Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968)

Rankin, et al. v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 384 (1987)
7
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 140, 147-149 (1983)
6

15

Did WELLS expressions reflect comment on matters of public concern?

Certainly, crime, law enforcement and justice are matters of public concern. The
operation of a police agency, or a city, are matters of public concern. But, it is a
hyperbolic stretch to say that WELLS communications related to matters of any
political, social or other community concern. Sometimes, the dividing line between
public concern and private interests is murky. The former involves First Amendment
protection; the latter does not. WELLS testified that his use of the N word was
sometimes in a joking fashion and other times in referring to the worst of the worst
criminals.
We have all heard the N word used. Rap and Hip Hop artists do so. It was used
over a hundred times in the movie Django Unchained.

Sometimes, it is part of

gangsta or street talk.

WELLS argues that it is merely that a word, the meaning and import of which is
dependent on the context and thought process of both the speaker and the listener, or in
this case, the author and recipient. He denied any intent to denigrate African Americans.
He denied any intent to express hateful, racist expressions. Yet, the word itself, and the
context in which it was used, along with other exchanges amongst the officers, leads to
the inescapable conclusion that its use was distasteful, unprofessional and derogatory.
Yes, just a word, but one that conjures up images for which a proper context does not
exist when used today by police officers (white or black) about residents of Fort
Lauderdale.
16

I have chosen to not recite every piece of evidence or every argument presented
during this extensive hearing process, not because they were not analyzed, but because I
need not add to the potential shame and upset this incident has caused, nor to the length
of this decision.

A young police officers career and a citys relationship with its

residents have been dramatically affected. Was it racism; was it risqu private jokes gone
viral? I have heard testimony and argument pro and con. Both sides were represented by
extremely qualified, experienced, articulate and talented counsel. The post hearing briefs
were comprehensive and reflective of zealous advocacy.
Whether he was joking, jiving, or just using epithets to describe criminal elements,
his use of such words for either amusement or personal entertainment amongst friends,
does not rise to the level of constitutional protection. Although made in a private setting
(that became public), such comments arguably suggest a bias or prejudice against the
very citizens that WELLS interacted with on a daily basis. This becomes more critical
because, while only a small percentage of his time on the job in District 2 dealt with
exciting things, the chases and stuff, 90% of the time, he was attending to nonviolent/non-emergency service matters in helping people to restore peace to their
life. [Tr 681]
The tasks facing police departments are considerable as populations have grown
more culturally, racially, ethnically and religiously diverse. It is well known throughout
this country that tension and conflict exists between police and some populations of the
communities they serve. Unavoidably, the role police have in enforcing the law and
17

maintaining order places officers in key positions to deal with all kinds of conflicts.
Additionally, the actions of officers and the perceptions of the public result in heightened
media, political and public attention. Bad news travels fast. Perceptions become reality.
Enough gossip turns into fact.
Among other challenges for police are the differing attitudes toward law, justice,
government, social and sexual attitudes/identities and relationships by the individuals and
groups, to which police are expected to respond. Departments, citizen review boards and
others work to enhance the capacity of the police to be on the front lines in an efficient,
fair, impartial and just manner.

Police work is stressful, sometimes dangerous,

sometimes boring, and always critical to the functioning of a city. Dealing with stress, as
WELLS suggested as a reason for his actions, is understandable. But, doing so at the
expense of potentially undoing that which the City, most of his fellow officers and
community leaders have strived to do, has consequences. It is logical to assume that, as
longtime police officers themselves, Department officials from the Chief on down, might
lean toward siding with officers in disciplinary matters. These are public servants who
have seen what it is like to be in the heat of battle, to experience the indignities
sometimes foisted on them and to seek to gain the respect, trust and assistance of the
public. In fact, emblazoned on many Department vehicles is the phrase, We Build
Community, an obvious public attempt to promote unity in a multi-cultural
environment.

18

The heat of battle is one thing; denigrating a whole group as part of ones personal
entertainment is another. A slip of the tongue in a fit of pique or a one time indiscretion
may be allowable. But, the conduct in this case is not. Most assuredly, WELLS had no
intention for any of this to become public.

In fact, when questioned he readily

acknowledged that the words he chose could upset some segments of the community.
Between his training in the Army, his Academy training to become a police officer, the
various oaths that he took along the way and recognition of what policing should be, it is
surprising and sad that WELLS conduct departed so far from acceptable standards.
Certainly, the City would want to have a mix of officers in its Northwest section. And,
moreover, knowing that there was no shortage of exciting things, the Departments
desire was to place qualified personnel in locales where they were capable of responding
to various neighborhood challenges.
Police departments are not an agency whose capacity and mandate are directed
toward solving the underlying causes of the problems and tensions they face
(discrimination, intolerance, access of equal education, social services, employment).
Yet, they need to be ready to effectively deal with the repercussions and explosions.
Without trust, which is always tough to achieve and difficult to maintain, the community
cannot feel secure. By developing a reputation of being fair, police can help to create
security.

19

In those instances where the officer and the accused are the only ones who are
potential witnesses, breaches in integrity, arguably showing bias, will be seized upon by
competent defense counsel to challenge the veracity of the arresting officer.
Did WELLS engage in conduct prejudicial to the good order of the department?
Was his conduct unbecoming a police officer?
Major Dietrich, who had been employed by the Department for 26 years in many
different divisions, put it simply, saying, Police officers are held to a higher standard.
We are expected to rise above anybody else . . . . On duty, off duty, in uniform, out of
uniform, it doesnt matter . . . . Nobody cares what the normal person does in their life,
but everybody cares about what the police officer does . . . . Its common sense that as
police officers, we dont get to walk around and make offensive racial slurs and to speak
in a violent manner such as the text messages . . . . You put all that together, it was
pretty clear that they were engaging in conduct that was unbecoming a police officer. It
would send shock and awe through the community, and it did send shock and awe
through the community . . . .
We knew from the get go that this was going to be a huge black eye on the
department, that this was going to set us back light years in what our Police Chief had
been able to do . . . . [Tr 326-329]
Assistant State Attorney Donnelly, a career prosecutor with the Broward State
Attorneys Office, testified as to the potential negative effect that this incident could have
on the prosecution of crimes, citing credibility and the issue of bias of a police officer, as
20

important factors. He recounted that the prosecutors office took a look at open cases
involving WELLS to see if he was an essential witness in proving the elements of a
crime. The decision was made to drop certain cases where Officer WELLS was an
essential witness, without whom a case could not be successfully prosecuted. 8
Chief Adderley, whose career as a member with the Department spanned nearly
36 years, had never seen anything like this (referring to the response of the community
and the national attention this incident generated). Said the Chief, Well, obviously we
need to make sure that we have people that are credible that can be witnesses in court and
that we can be able to successfully deal with the individuals that are actively involved in
crime in the city. And if we dont have a group of people that can do that, our police
department has no credibility. [Tr 526-527]
The Chief discussed disruption to his agency and the prejudicial nature of the
incident. To him, . . . this was a termination case . . . . and he forwarded his
recommendation to the City Manager. [Tr 543]
City Manager Feldman discussed the effect on the Department that, in his opinion,
warranted dismissal. Said Feldman,
So for the Police Department to be effective, it needs to have good
internal objectives. Officers need to be able to work together in a
very diverse environment, a very high stressed environment.
When an officer undertakes activities that will undermine that, that is
[sic] actions that are prejudicial to the conduct of the Department.
[Tr 279-280]
8

Nine felony and nine misdemeanor cases were dropped/dismissed as a result of Wells name being placed on a list
of officers under investigation.

21

Another key element in Feldmans decision was that Officer WELLS would not be
allowed to testify in certain court cases prosecuted by the State Attorneys office thereby
preventing WELLS from performing essential duties and functions of the job. [Tr 278]

CONCLUSION
Based on a preponderance of the evidence and with due regard to the issues
raised by the parties, I find that the City of Fort Lauderdale met its burden of proof
and did have cause to terminate/dismiss the Grievant, JAMES WELLS. Therefore,
the CITYs prior determination of discipline is AFFIRMED and the grievance is
DENIED.
Issued this 24th day of May, 2016.
SIGNED:

/s/ Carey M. Fischer

Carey M. Fischer, Esquire
Arbitrator

Copies furnished to counsel via Email, including a Statement for Services (incorporated
herein, but not attached):
Bruce H. Little, Esq. (bruce@brucehlittle.com)
Eugene K. Pettis, Esq. (epettis@hpslegal.com & cmarr@hpslegal.com)

22