Note
48 Mitchell Hamline L. Rev. 338 (2022)

The Illusion of the Public Policy Exception: Arbitration, Law Enforcement Discipline, and the Need to Reform Minnesota’s Approach to the Public Policy Exception

By
Ben Larson

In November of 2012, after a car chase, Cleveland police officers fired 137 shots at the suspects’ vehicle. An investigation revealed that thirteen officers fired more than 100 shots in the span of eight seconds. One officer, Michael Brelo, stood on the hood of the suspects’ vehicle and fired at least fifteen shots through the windshield at close range. Both individuals in the vehicle, Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams, were killed. Russell and Williams “were both homeless with a history of mental illness and drug use,” and fled after an officer attempted to pull them over for a turn signal violation. Brelo, who allegedly fired a total of forty-nine of the shots in the incident, said that he thought he and his partner were in danger. The source of this belief, according to prosecutors, was a backfiring engine that officers mistook for gunshots. Russell and Williams were both unarmed.

Ultimately, the city attempted to fire six of the officers involved. But the terms of the Cleveland police union contract allowed each officer the opportunity to challenge any termination to a third-party arbitrator who would then issue a final, binding decision. This arbitration clause also allowed the arbitrator expansive authority to relitigate any determinations made during earlier disciplinary proceedings. After the arbitrations for the six fired officers, the assigned arbitrator “ordered the city to rehire five of the six officers involved in the deadly shooting, over the fierce objections of city leaders.” Officer Brelo was the only officer whose termination stood.

Today, most police officers are represented by unions and covered by collective bargaining agreements. While the terms and structures of these agreements vary widely, they almost always permit officers to appeal disciplinary actions to immediate superiors and, if they still wish to dispute the disciplinary decision, to a neutral arbitrator.