Employee’s affair gets her disciplined — was it fair?
June 26, 2008 by Fred HosierPosted in: Here comes the judge, Special Report
A federal court has ruled that a city did not violate the Constitutional rights of an employee who received a verbal reprimand for having an affair. The employee, Sharon Johnson, was a police officer for LaVerkin City, UT and a member of the county’s SWAT team.
The somewhat complicated story (but we’ll boil it down to the important parts) starts when she separated from her husband and started divorce proceedings.
During that time, the city sent Ms. Johnson to a training conference elsewhere in Utah — a regular type of refresher course.
At the conference, after training sessions had ended for the day, Ms. Johnson had an affair with another police officer who was not from her department.
Somehow her husband learned of the affair. First the husband told police supervisors his estranged wife had been raped at the conference. Ms. Johnson told her superiors the sex had been consensual.
Then her husband made another false accusation — that his estranged wife had the affair with the city police chief.
The City Council decided to investigate and placed both Ms. Johnson and the chief on administrative leave. The county also asked Ms. Johnson to step down from her SWAT team position until the matter was cleared up.
The investigation was to be confidential, but somehow it leaked to the local newspaper which printed the story on the front page.
Ms. Johnson’s husband recanted his story, and the chief and Ms. Johnson were eventually reinstated to their jobs.
As a result of City Council’s investigation, they learned of her brief affair with the officer from another department. Council’s investigator recommended that Ms. Johnson receive a written reprimand over the incident.
The reasoning for the discipline was based upon the law enforcement code of ethics requiring officers to “keep [their] private life unsullied as an example to all and behave in a manner that does not bring discredit to [the] agency.” The reprimand said Ms. Johnson has allowed her personal life to interfere with her duties as a police officer.
Ms. Johnson refused to sign the written reprimand at which point it turned into a verbal-only reprimand.
When Ms. Johnson sought reinstatement to the SWAT team, the county required her to obtain a letter stating she was in good standing with the city and was no longer on administrative leave. The city’s letter only said that she was no longer on leave, so the county chose not to reinstate her to the SWAT team.
Employee files lawsuit
A few months later, Ms. Johnson resigned from the police force, believing her credibility as an officer had been undermined by the city’s actions. She sued the city and city manager.
She argued that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas established “a broad-based fundamental right to engage in private sexual conduct.”
But the 10th Circuit Court decided it was reasonable for the police department to privately admonish Ms. Johnson’s personal conduct consistent with its code of conduct when it believes that discipline will further the public’s respect for its officers and the department they represent.
In other cases, personal conduct off the job has resulted in someone’s firing.
HRB wrote earlier about the saga of news anchors at the CBS-TV affiliate in Philadelphia. One anchor, Alycia Lane, was let go because, according to the station, she became the news instead of just reporting it. Her firing came before she had a court date on charges she slapped a New York City police officer. Those charges have effectively been dropped.
How much should personal conduct outside work matter to a person’s career? Does it depend on the type of job? What type of jobs should have so-called “morals clauses” in contracts? Let us hear from you.
Tags: affair, court, discipline, fired
June 27th, 2008 at 10:45 am
The article makes no mention of whether the male employee from the other police force received a reprimand for his involvement in the affair. And the other person mentioned in the article as receiving a reprimand for personal conduct is also a female. I think personal codes of conduct are important to some jobs, but I don’t think it is right if they are used against some people (or people of a particular gender, race, etc.) and they receive reprimands for their behavior while other people don’t for the same type of behavior.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:13 am
If the employee knows the conducted expected of him/her both professionaly and personnaly before hired or at hire there is no question in this matter.
Many employers have behavioral expectations. Employees should be held accountable to behavorial standards the employer sets. If the standards are not applied to all employees in the same manner the employer looses credibility with it’s employees and leaves themselves open to litigation.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:16 am
I am in total agreement with the disciplinary actions of the companies/municipalities IF the male employees are held to the same standard. Although there is no additional information in the article above regarding the police officer in Utah, one assumes that previous, similar cases involving any male officers were investigated by her legal team. The question regarding the female reporter would be posed as well. Although it may sound that way, I am not an extreme feminist, or even activist, but have had the unfortunate opportunity to work in companies where the same standard of conduct was not held to the male employees as it was to the female employee. Other than that, I totally agree with holding the employee to the standard of “behaving in a manner that would not bring discredit” to the department.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:23 am
I was fired from one of the worlds largest bottling companies for having a relationship with a married co-worker. I was a Production Line Manager and she was a Quality Control Technician. The companies argument was that because I worked the night shift and, as such, was the only manager on duty at times. Therefore, they claimed I was, in effect, the “Plant Manager”. And, as the “Plant Manager”, everyone working during those times was working “for” me and not “with’ me. So, they saw it as me having a relationship with an employee.
Right or Wrong???
June 27th, 2008 at 11:38 am
I honestly do not think she should have been punished at all. I think it is ridiculous that a upset soon to be ex-husband can ruin the career of his former spouse by spreading lies. Also what she does outside of work that is not illegal should be her business. The only reason it effected her job is because her husband lied and exaggerated a story. Where is his punishment? I too would like to know what happened to the other officer involved.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Whether or not the other officer received an reprimand is irrelevant. The case centers on one particluar department’s code. Bottom line is this article speaks to code of conduct violations. The inference of gender bias is unecessary.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Absolutely a person should be held accountable for their behavior both on and off the job, even moreso if the job is a government position. In the case of the affair, behaving in a deceitful manner should never be ignored simply because the deceipt behavior was sexual. We wouldn’t think twice about reprimanding an employee for getting caught shoplifting or engaging in any other type of deceitful behavior yet we struggle with an affair because we get “hung up” on the fact that sex is involved. The truth is, when your employee get’s caught lying, deceiving or being dishonest about anything they poorly represent you and your business. In this case it involved police officers and that makes it even more critical that people do not lose respect or trust because the employee demonstrates that off duty they are capable of deceitful behaviors. The same goes for politicians, school teachers, judges, lawyers and all others who have the power to influence people. These people are role models whether they are on or off duty and they know this when they choose the profession. In the case of private industry, I guess it depends on the industry and how much honesty and integrity matter to the employer. I would think it would (or should) always matter. People like to do business with those they feel they can trust.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:52 am
I have to agree with Michelle. Almost 10 years ago my estranged husband did something similar where he told some of my co-workers that I was having an affair with my boss, which wasn’t true, simply because he was bitter about my having left him and he couldn’t believe that it could be because of his behavior. Unfortunately, this caused me much grief and while I’m still employed at the same company, and we are divorced, there is no doubt that this cast me in an unfavorable light and I am still have to work hard to overcome it.
In this case, her suspension from the SWAT team was a result of her husband’s lies, which I would call slander, and she should have been reinstated. Her “affair” with another man (policeman or not) had no bearing on her role, and it was nobody’s business. The only reason these employment actions were taken was because of her disgruntled husband. She should sue him for slander if you ask me.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Mary is correct. The article states the two involved in the affair are from different departments, therefore the policies may be different.
This being a personnel matter it should not be a matter of public record. In the third paragraph below “Employee files Lawsuit” it states “the 10th Circuit Court decided it was reasonable for the police department to privately admonish Ms. Johnson’s personal conduct”. With the statement being so specifict to say “privately” I wonder if the leak to the local newspaper was pursued?
June 27th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
The complicating issue here is that she was essentially a public servant, and that changes the nature of the policies that an employee is subject to significantly. In this case you had a clear violation of a known and reasonable policy. (although personally I think the policy is a bit extreme) In the private sector, she would have had a case for invasion of privacy and probably the case law that was mentioned in the article. However, the male police officer involved in the affair should absolutely have received the same disciplinary measures in my mind and as an HR practitioner. I would think that her attorney would pursue that angle under Title VII at least.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
My understanding is that this “public servant” was in the middle of a divorce, so if she went and slept with someone else other than her ex-husband then so what. I don’t think that is an affair or anyoneone’s business, especially when the other officer was from a different department, which means there should have been no conflict of interest. I believe that the one who should have been reprimanded was the husband for slandering not only his ex-wife but the chief. People in glasses houses !!!!
June 27th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
I agree with Deb 100%. I cannot say it any better than she did.
June 27th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
But how was she deceitful? She acknowledged that she had consensual sex. Not publicizing one’s private activities, that are lawful by the way, is not deceitful. I still think she was a victim of her husband’s malice — period.
June 27th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
I agree with Julie. If I was being held hostage by some nut-job, I wouldn’t care if the SWAT person with the nut-job in their cross-hairs had an affair with another police person. I would be hoping the SWAT person’s aim was good.
June 27th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
I agree completely with CT. Where is Deb (and Mike) getting all of this “… behaving in a deceitful manner …” and comparing their (the two officers) behavior with “… shoplifting or engaging in any other type of deceitful behavior …” and being “… caught lying, deceiving or being dishonest about anything.”? The story doesn’t indicate one way or the other about the officer’s response to the inevitable question “Are these allegations true?” so, where is the deception? For all we know, she responded in the affirmative, end of subject (or it should have been).
Either way, two consenting adults meeting in private for whatever purpose (barring illegal behavior) is no one’s business but theirs. I’d like to have seen some charges brought against the estranged spouse. Somebody should put a pinch in his pennies for his outrageous lies and ruining his wife’s career with his petty jealousies.
June 29th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Although perhaps a bit antiquated, municipal employers do invoke morals clauses in some jurisdictions. I agree that the male officer would not necessarily be subject to the same disciplinary action, as his department’s policies could have been different. However, had the female officer in question brought suit based on gender discrimination, because one or more male officers in her department had had illicit affairs without a similar punishment, the outcome might have been different. Her ex-husband’s behavior appears to be what caused the real problem; not a discreet affair that was conducted out of town. I find it difficult to believe that no male officer has ever had a similar liaison that was, or could have become, known to his superiors – her husband’s behavior embarrassed the department, not hers.
June 30th, 2008 at 9:32 am
The issue at hand is not whether the estranged husband’s lies were believed or not. The department in question followed its own internal procedures and took the step of suspending it’s chief officer while the investigation was being completed. This is standard procedure in nearly every police department of which I know (and I am a former police officer myself). Like it or not, police officers are held to a higher standard of conduct both on and off duty; this is necessary because they are responsible for maintaining the public’s trust. Once trust is gone, it’s very hard to earn back.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:05 am
As a former law enforcment officer who believes that employees should conduct themselves ethically when representing the department, i.e. conference, training, daily duties, I believe that there should be more discipline by depeartments regarding that type of behavior. As a female it sickens me that there are and continue to be numerous promiscuois law enforcement officer’s (both male and female) out there who give those of us who attempt to live decent lives a bad reputation regardless of the circumstances behind the conduct. That being said, based off the information provided, the Chief seems to be the innocent victim. And yes, the discipline should be to both the male and female officer in question. However, if that male’s department doesn’t adhere to the same standard, then there is no discrimination. In defense of the female, her husband was out of line and should be charged with making a false report. Not to be bias, but my understanding of the Utah culture does raise a bit of a red flag in that I wonder if it had been a male officer would the same discipline have applied…. Unfortunaltely, the female officer escalated her dirty laundry and the end result was not in her favor. Not only is her reputation tarnished, but she lost a position that is not typically available to females, and the perception of females in a male dominated profession is once again under suspicion…
August 22nd, 2008 at 4:23 pm
The court was right, in law, but a grave injustice was done the officer. That injustice was done by husband, her superiors, the city and the state. Now from a HR stand point she violated the police department’s code of conduct. So she should have been reprimanded. It does not matter how the information came to their attention. Once it did they had a responsibility to act on it. Should they have dismissed her from SWAT? If she was good at what she did, no. If she wasn’t she shouldn’t have been in SWAT in the first place.
Now the husband is an idiot. He filed false charges. That’s misdemeanor fraud. He accused a powerful government employee, the police chief, of having an affair with his wife. That’s just stupid.