CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

BILOXI, MISSISSIPPI

APPELLANT

RONALD WEEKS
VERSUS

APPELLEE

CITY OF BILOXI

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Before the Biloxi Civil Service Commission (hereinafter "the Commission") is the appeal
ofRonald Weeks (hereinafter "WEEKS") appealing his termination from employment with the City
ofBiloxi (hereinafter "the COB"). The appeal hearing before the Commission began on March 27,
2013, and upon agreement of the parties and due to the unavailability of witnesses, was continued
and reconvened on June 24,2013, June 25, 2013, and June 26, 2013. Commissioners Handler,
Moss, Ryan, and Smith heard the appeal. Upon the conclusion of evidence on June 26,2013, the
Commission requested that the parties submit proposed Findings ofFaet and Conclusions of Law,
and the hearing was held open pending the announcement ofthis decision. Now, having considered
the evidence and testimony presented by the parties, the Commission finds that the termination of
WEEKS should be upheld and issues the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
FINDINGS OF FACT

1. WEEKS was employed as a police officer by the COB from Apri129, 1991, until he was
terminated on October 19,2007, effective October 31,2007. (COB Exhibit 0104). At the time of
his termination, WEEKS was a Patrol Officer working patrol on the 3:00 p.m. - 11 :00 p.m. shift.
2. On June 6,2007, WEEKS reported to work at the Biloxi Department ofPolice. WEEKS
testified that immediately after shift briefing, at or about 3:00 p.m., he requested permission from
his supervisors, Lt. Andrew Balius and Sgt. Michael Brumley, to go to Biloxi Regional Medical
Case: 24CI2:13-cv-00125

Document #: 1-1

Filed: 10/02/2013

Page 1 of 29

Center (hereinafter"BRMC") to check on a friend, Cheryl Rodolfich, who apparently had attempted
suicide. (WEEKS Test.). WEEKS was given permission to go to BRMC by Sgt. Brumley and he
went to check on Mrs. Rodolfich. (Brumley Test.). It bears noting, that at the time Mrs. Rodolfich
was married to a Biloxi Firefighter and was the subject ofan ongoing criminal investigation into her
alleged stabbing of her husband. The Commission further notes that there is no evidence of any
intimate relationship between WEEKS and Mrs. Rodolfich, and it appears from the evidence before
the Commission hat their relationship was a platonic friendship.
3. Sgt. Brumley testified that it was his understanding that WEEKS would be at BRMC for
just a short while and then he would "get 10_8 1n or back in service. (!Q.). Sgt Brumley specifically
testified that WEEKS did not have permission to stay at BRMC as long as he wanted. (kl.). As the
afternoon progressed a number ofcalls were coming in to WEEKS assigned patrol area and WEEKS
was needed back in service.

<MD. Further, Lt. Balius had been to BRMC and had observed WEEKS

visibly emotional over Mrs. Rodolfich's situation. (Balius Test.). When WEEKS had not radioed
in a..c; back in service by 4:30 p.m., Sgt. Brumley radioed WEEKS and asked when he would be "10
8. 11 (Brumley Test.). WEEKS advised that he would be "10-8" shortly. (rd.).
4. At or about 5:00 p.m., Lt. Balius inquired of Sgt. Brumley as to whether WEEKS had
returned to service. (Balius Test.). After checking with dispatch and learning that WEEKS was still
out, Lt. Balius ordered Sgt. Brumley to order WEEKS to get back in service. @.). Sgt. Bnunley
then drove to BRMC, where he found WEEKS in a common area of the hospital speaking with
medical staff about Mrs. Rodolfich's medical condition, and specifically discussing committing her
to a psychiatric institution. (Brumley Test.). Sgt. Brumley then directed WEEKS to report to the
station immediately. (Id.).

1"10-8" is the Biloxi Department of Police's radio code for "officer in service."
Case: 24CI2:13-cv-00125 Document #: 1-1
Filed: 10/02/2013 Page 2 of 29
2

5. Once back at the station, Sgt. Brumley met with WEEKS in the Sergeants' office to
discuss the length oftime WEEKS had been at BRMC and to determine ifWEEKS was emotionally
able to go back in service for the remainder ofhis shift or ifhe needed to go home for the day. (Id.).
Sgt. Brumley testified that during this meeting, he observed WEEKS go through what Sgt. Brumley
described as various mood swings. (Id.). Sgt. Brumley testified that at times during the conversation
WEEKS was aggressive and defiant both in body posture an tone, and that at other times he was
emotional (Le., crying) and apologetic. (14.). Sgt. Brumley also testified that WEEKS went on an
"emotional tirade" regarding another officer's characterization of Mrs. Rudolfich as "the crazy lady
on Howard Avenue," and according to Sgt. Brumley, WEEKS even blamed the police deparbnent
and one of the investigations specifically for pushing Mrs. Rodolfich to commit suicide. (14. and
COB Exhibit 0003-0005). Sgt. Brumley testified that WEEKS' emotional state during the meeting
in the Sergeants' office was significant to him because police officers are trained to keep their
emotions under control. (Brumley Test.). Sgt. Brumley stated that he had never experienced the
emotional swings displayed by WEEKS with any other officer and felt that the situation had rendered
WEEKS emotionally compromised and unable to finish his shift. (Id.).
6. On the basis ofthe encounterin the Sergeants' office, Sgt. Brumley testified that he asked
WEEKS if he needed to take the rest of the day off.

ag. and COB Exhibit 0003-005).

WEEKS

agreed that due to his emotional state at the time it was best ifhe took the rest ofthe day off, and told
Sgt. Brumley that he would put ill for leave time. (14.).
7. Before ending the conversation with Sgt. Brumley and leaving to go home for the day,
WEEKS made a comment to Sgt. Brumley about he and his brother having "white knight syndrome"
and always wanted to help people. (COB Exhibit 0003-0005). Sgt. Brumley then sent WEEKS
3

Case: 24CI2:13-cv-00125

Document #: 1-1

Filed: 10/02/2013

Page 3 of 29

home for the day and cautioned him against returning to BRMC in unifonn. (Id.). Sgt. Brumley
then briefed Lt. Balius on the encounter with WEEKS in the Sergeanfs office, and Lt. Balius
reported the incident up the chain of command to Major Britt. (Brumley Test. and COB Exhibit
0003-005). Sgt. Brumley then wrote a narrative of the incident at BRMC and his encounter with
WEEKS in the Sergeant's office. (COB Exhibit 0003-0005). Sgt. Brumley testified that the
narrative was necessary to document what he considered "abnormal behavior by an officern
displayed by WEEKS. (Brumley Test.).
8. WEEKS admitted that he was emotional regarding the incident with Mrs. Rodolfich and
agreed that it was best that he not return to duty that day. (WEEKS Test.). WEEKS further admitted
that he had no legal right or duty to discuss Mrs. Rodlfich's medical or psychological health and/or
treatment with the medical staff at BRMC.

ag.).

9. Assistant Chief of Police Rodney McGilvary testified that WEEKS behavior at BRMC
and during his meeting with Sgt. Brumley in the Sergeants' office was brought to his attention on
the afternoon of June 6, 2007, by Major Charles Britt. (McGilvary Test.). Asst. ChiefMcGilvary
testified that he considered the matter serious and found it concerning that an officer would be
discussing the mental health ofa patient to whom he was not related, while on duty and in uniform.

ag.).

Asst. Chief McGilvary further testified that he was personally familiar with WEEKS'

employment history, and McGilvary was concerned that WEEKS was again involving himselfin a
situation as a police officer that he had no business involving himself in, in other words, displaying
poor judgment. (Id.).
10. Asst. Chief McGilvary infonned Bruce Dunagan, the then Director of the Biloxi
Department of Police, of the situation involving WEEKS, and both Director Dunagan and Asst.

Case: 24CI2:13-cv-00125

Document #: 1-1

Filed: 10/02/2013

Page 4 of 29

Chief McGilvary met with Sgt. Brumley on the evening of June 6, 2007 to discuss the matter.
(McGilvary Test. and Dunagan Test.). Asst. Chief McGilvary testified that as a result of that
meeting, he directed Lt. Balius to contact WEEKS and advised him not to return to work on the
following Monday, the next day ofhis work schedule, without a note from his doctor saying that he
could return to work. (McGilvaryTest.). Asst. Chief McGilvary further testified that the request for
a doctor's note was not an order for a medical examination or fitness for duty evaluation, and that
he routinely made such a request ofofficers CIsD.
11. On June 7, 2007, Asst. ChiefMcGilvary and Director Dunagan reviewed Sgt. Brumely's
narrative report (COB Exhibit 0003-0005) of the June 6, 2007 incident at BRMC and in the
Sergeant's office. (McGilvary Test. and Dunagan Test.). Director Dunagan testified that he
considered WEEKS' behavior, particularly the behaivior displayed in Sgt. Brumely's office, toward
a superior officer, to be unusual, a cause for concern, and made he and Asst. Chief McGilvary
question whether a fitness for duty exam may be necessary. (Dunagan Test.).

Asst. Chief

McGilvary and Director Dunagan then did what they both testified is standard procedure when
reason to consider a fitness for duty exam arises, which is to review the entire personnel file ofthe
officer. (McGilvary Test. and Dunagan Test.). Their review of WEEKS , personnel file revealed
multiple prior incidents in which WEEKS displayed a pattern ofpoor judgment as a police officer,
specifically with regards to relationships with female civilians ag.). WEEKS personnel file included
documentation of the following incidents:
1)

A November 1996 incident in which WEEKS, while off duty, administered an

intoxilizer to Ms. Lauren Schwemley, who he had been socializing with at a local
bar. As a result of that incident WEEKS received verbal counseling from the
department. (COB Exhibit 0084-93);

Case: 24CI2:13-cv-00125

Document #: 1-1

Filed: 10/02/2013

Page 5 of 29

2)

A December 1996 incident in which WEEKS was accused of calling and harassing
Ms. Rachel Jordan, who he had met while on the job, about dating her after she had
explained to him that she was not interested. As a result of that incident WEEKS
was issued a no contact order by the department. (COB Exhibit 0080-83);

3)

A February 1998 incident in which WEEKS was accused ofmaking an inappropriate

comment ("do I need to put you over my knee and spank you") to Ms. Rachel Carson
when responding to a trafiic accident. As a result of that incident, WEEKS was
suspended for five (5) days, a disciplinary action upheld by this Commission (COB
Exhibit 0043-64);

4)

An April 1998 incident in which WEEKS was accused ofdenying an arrestee, Ms.

Belinda Balius, an OR (recognizance) bond after arresting her for driving on a

suspended license, even though she met the qualifications for the bond. WEEKS was
further accused ofdriving by Ms. Balius' home the following day an inquiring of her
feelings toward him. As a result of that incident, WEEKS received a no contact
order from Director Moffett and was demoted from Sergeantto Patrol, a disciplinary
action which was again upheld by this Commission. (COB Exhibits 0022-42 and
0074-79);
and most recently
5)

An April 2007 incident in which WEEKS was again accused of inappropriate

conduct relating to his pursuit of a relationship with a woman, Ms. Julie Parker,
whom he met when responding to a call that Ms. Parker's wallet had been stolen at
a local grocery store. As a result of that incident, WEEKS was for the third time
issued ano contact order. (COB Exhibit 006-0021).

12. Further, a review ofWEEKS' personnel file revealed a prior fitness for duty evaluation
report by a psychologist, Dr. Thomas Yamel1 of The Counseling Center of Biloxi, that stated that
WEEKS had moved from a low risk for employment problems at his hiring to a moderate risk and
that without psychological intervention, it was predicted, by Dr. Yamell, that WEEKS would
become a high risk. (McGilvary Test., Dunagan Test., and COB Exhibit 0094-95). Both Director
Dunagan and Asst. Chief McGilvary testified that WEEKS behavior on June 6, 2007, coupled with
his prior history of poor judgment relating to women while on duty, and the potential liability the

City could face for allowing an officer with WEEKS' history to continue his employment with the
6

Case: 24CI2:13-cv-00125

Document #: 1-1

Filed: 10/02/2013

Page 6 of 29

department without first being cleared for duty by appropriately qualified medical personnel, was
at best unwise, and thus the situation constituted reasonable grounds to send WEEKS for a fitness
for duty exam pursuant to Civil Service Rule and Regulation Section 5.l2(b) (hereinafter "Section
5.12(b )"). (McGilvaryTest. and Dunagan Test.). Further, both Asst. ChiefMcGilvary and Director
Dunagan testified that the decision to request a fitness for duty evaluation had nothing to do with
WEEKS' use of the tenn "white knight syndrome." @.).
13. Once Director Dunagan determined that a fitness for duty evaluation for WEEKS should
be requested, he instructed Asst. Chief McGilvary to contact Jill Pol in Human Resource to apprise
her ofthe situation and to find out how to have a fitness for duty evaluation authorized. ag.). Mrs.
Pol advised Asst. Chief McGilvary that only Mayor Holloway could authorize a fitness for duty
evaluation of an employee pursuant to Section 5. 12(b). (Dunagan Test. and Pol Test.).
14. Both Director Dunagan and Jill Pol testified that they met with Mayor Holloway within
days of J1..me 6, 2007 and reviewed the situation and WEEKS' entire personnel file with Mayor
Holloway. @.). Both Director Dunagan and Jill Pol testified that Mayor Holloway authorized a
fitness for duty evaluation ofWEEKS, pursuant to Section 5.12(b), and delegated the responsibility
to arrange the fitness for duty exam to Mrs. Pol and to advise WEEKS to Director Dunagan. 04.).
Mrs. Pol then located a psychologist, Julie D. Teter, Psy.D., to perform the exam. (Pol Test.). Mrs.
Pol testified that she used Dr. Teter because Dr. Teter had been used in the past for fitness for duty
exams. QQ.}. Mayor Holloway testified that it was not unusual for him to give an order approving
personnel action and then to delegate the authority to implement the order to the Human Resources
or to one of his department directors. (Holloway Test.).

Case: 24CI2:13-cv-00125

Document #: 1-1

Filed: 10/02/2013

Page 7 of 29

15. On June 11,2007, Director Dunagan had a memo hand delivered to WEEKS informing

him to report to a fitness for duty examination with Julie D. Teter, Psy.D. on June 12,2007. (COB
Exhibit 0096). The Commission finds that Mayor Holloway authorized the fitness for duty
evaluation prior to Director Dunagan's memo of June 11, 2007. There was no evidence presented
to the contrary, and no evidence that such authorization is required to be in writing per the Civil
Service Commission Rules and Regulations.
16. On June 12,2007, WEEKS was evaluated by Dr. Julie Teater, Psy.D., a psychologist
practicing with Consulting Psychological Resources in Biloxi, Mississippi. (COB Exhibit 0109
112). Dr. Teater conducted a clinical interview and administered psychological tests to WEEKS.
Dr. Teater's findings include the following:
The recent incident in April suggests that he has not changed his behavior
toward women that was noted in previous complaints. His actions in June also raise
concerns that he violated a hospital patient's privacy regarding the status of her
health. Both of the incidents suggest the abuse of his position ofpower as a police
officer... Mr. Weeks does appear to have a continuing problem with his judgment.
It is reasonable that this problem will continue to lead to his inability to perform his
essential job functions. Based on his long history of poor judgment (particularly
involving women), it is felt that Mr. Weeks is NOT FIT FOR Duty. Due to the
lengthy history ofrepeated poor judgment, it is felt that further efforts to correct his
problem are likely to be ineffective.
(COB Exhibit 0109-112 at p. 0111(emphasis in original)).
17. On June 19, 2007, WEEKS was advised via a second memo from Director Dunagan that
Dr. Teter found him unfit for duty. (COB Exhibit 0097). The memo further advised WEEKS to
provide any relevant psychological andlor psychiatric records that he would like considered to Dr.
Teter by July 12,2007.

ag.).

Case: 24CI2:13-cv-00125

Document #: 1-1

Filed: 10/02/2013

Page 8 of 29

18. On July 10,2007, WEEKS submitted to Director Dunagan and Jill Pol a letter from Dr.
W.R. Fellows, M.D., an internist, stating that WEEKS had been under his care for medical problems,
and that "I have noted nothing in the health of Officer Weeks that would prevent his fulfilling his
duties as a Biloxi Police Officer." (COB Exhibit 0113).
19. On July 17, 2007, Dr. Teater issued an Addendum to her Report in which she concluded
that, in light of Dr. Fellows' letter, there were no changes to her previous opinion. (COB Exhibit
0114).
20. However, because of the apparent differing opinions of Dr. Teater and Dr. Fellows,
Mayor Holloway decided to get another opinion on the fitness for duty of WEEKS. (pol Test. and
COB Exhibit 0100). In a letter dated August 8, 2007, Mayor Holloway directed WEEKS to report
on August 16,2007, to Dr. Mark Webb, a psychiatrist practicing at Mississippi Neuropsychiatric
Clinic in Jackson, Mississippi, for a second fitness for duty examination. (COB Exhibit 0100).
21. On August 16,2007, Dr. Webb conducted a psychiatric evaluation ofWEEKS. Based
on that evaluation, Dr. Webb produced a report in which he concluded that WEEKS suffered from
Dysthymia and Dependent Personality Traits, and that he was ultimately not fit for duty.
Specifically, Dr. Webb opined:
In looking at the long history in his personnel file and in talldng to Mr. Weeks, it is

obvious that he has difficulty with women. He has trouble with boundaries with
women in general and seems to be quite persistent in interacting with women ....
While dependency personality traits are very common in the population, it is very
worrisome when it is in someone who has a position ofpower. As a police officer,
Mr. Weeks encounters many women. A person ofpower who has dependent traits
is quite dangerous. The most glaring example is in April of 2007, in which he
responded to a call of a distressed school teacher and within a week, he was having
a sexual relationship with her.... With Mr. Weeks' Dysthymia and Dependent
Personality Traits, he is not Fit For Duty. These illnesses in a person of significant
power are a very lethal combination which has been borne out in multiple incidences
9

Case: 24CI2:13-cv-00125

Document #: 1-1

Filed: 10/02/2013

Page 9 of 29

during Mr. Weeks' career as a police officer.

(COB Exhibit 0115~19 at p. 0118-19).
22. Director Dunagan testified that once he obtained Dr. Webb's report and opinion that
WEEKS was unfit for duty, he felt that he had no choice but to recommend to Mayor Holloway that
WEEKS be tenninated. (Dunagan Test.). Director Dunagan testified that his decision to recommend
termination was based solely upon the fact that both a psychiatrist (Dr. Teter) and a psychologist (Dr.
Webb) had provided the opinion that WEEKS was unfit for duty.

ag.). Further, WEEKS' continued

employment thereafter would place the City and Department of Police at too great of a risk of
liability for any potential lawsuit filed as the result of WEEKS' future actions. ad.). Director
Dunagan testified that "white knight syndrome" played no role in his decision to recommend the
termination ofWEEKS.

ag.).

Further, while WEEKS has argued that Asst. ChiefMcGilvary and

Sgt. Brumley had political motivations to terminate him, WEEKS made no argument and presented
no evidence that Director Dunagan had any political motivations in recommending termination.
Moreover, the Commission finds that Director Dunagan made the recommendation for termination
to Mayor Holloway, not Asst. Chief McGilvary or Sgt. Brumley, and there has been no credible
evidence presented that Director Dtmagan's motivations for recommending WEEKS' termination
were other than those reasons he testified to, namely the fact that both a psychiatrist and a
psychologist had provided the opinion that WEEKS was unfit for duty, and WEEKS' continued
employment thereafter would place the City and Department of Police at too great of a risk of
liability for any potentia11awsuit filed as the result of WEEKS ' future actions. ad.).
23. On September 11,2007, Director Dunagan had a letter hand-delivered to WEEKS in
which he advised WEEKS that based upon the opinions of both Dr. Teter and Dr. Webb, that
10

Case: 24CI2:13-cv-00125

Document #: 1-1

Filed: 10/02/2013

Page 10 of 29

WEEKS was unfit for duty, and pursuant to Section 5.12(b), Director Dunagan would be
recommending termination to Mayor Holloway. (COB Exhibit 0098). The letter further advised
WEEKS that the ultimate decision would be made by Mayor Holloway, and WEEKS could respond
to the reasons given for his recommended termination, both orally and in writing, to Mayor
Holloway in a meeting between WEEKS and Mayor Holloway scheduled for September 19,2007.

ag.).

Further, the letter advised WEEKS that if Mayor Holloway confirmed Director Dunagan's

recommendation for termination, that WEEKS could appeal the termination to the Commission
within ten (10) days of the date of the letter, pursuantto Miss. Code Ann.

21~31-23.

ag.).

24. WEEKS testified that he met with Mayor Holloway on September 25, 2007, and that he
wrote a letter to Mayor Holloway responding to the reasons for the recommended termination, which
was

hand~de1ivered

to Mayor Holloway by WEEKS at their meeting. (WEEKS Test. and COB

Exhibit 0153 -154). At the September 25, 2007 meeting, WEEKS requested that Mayor Holloway
delay his decision on the termination so that WEEKS could have additional time to obtain a report
on his fitness for continued duty. (WEEKS Test.). Mayor Holloway agreed, and gave WEEKS until
October 15,2007, to provide any documentation that he wanted considered. (COB Exhibit 0102).
Further, Mayor Holloway allowed WEEKS to remain on administrative leave, with pay, WEEKS'
employment status since June 19,2007. (COB Exhibit 0102).
25. On September 17, 2007, WEEKS requested a copy ofthe reports ofboth Dr. Tater and
Dr. Webb from Jill Pol. (Weeks Exhibit Kat p. 028). Mayor Holloway, for unknown reasons,
decided not to provide WEEKS with hard copies of the reports, however, he instructed Pol and
Director Dunagan to allow WEEKS the opportunity to read and review the reports and make any
notes he wanted to make. (Po] Test. and Dunagan Test.). On the afternoon of October 9,2007,

11

Case: 24CI2:13-cv-00125

Document #: 1-1

Filed: 10/02/2013

Page 11 of 29

Director Dunagan made the reports available to WEEKS in Director Dunagan's office. (Dunagan
Test.). WEEKS testified that he was only allowed fifteen (15) minutes to review the reports because
Director Dunagan had another appointment. (WEEKS Test.). However, Director Dunagan testified
that he cleared his calendar in order to allow WEEKS the opportunity to review the reports, pursuant
to the Mayor's directive, and that WEEKS was allowed as long as he wanted to review the reports.
(Dunagan Test.). Director Dunagan testified that WEEKS spent approximately forty-five (45)
minutes reading the reports and taking notes. @.).
26. On October 11,2007, WEEKS again requested that Mayor Holloway delay his decision
regarding WEEKS' employment, and WEEKS requested more time to obtain and submit additional
documentation. (COB Exhibit 0104). Mayor Holloway denied WEEKS' request, explaining that
WEEKS had been given adequate time, since June 19,2007, to obtain a fitness for duty evaluation
from a mental health professional of his choosing. (COB Exhibit 0097 and 0104). In a letter dated
October 19, 2007, Mayor Holloway advised WEEKS that he was terminated, pursuant to Section
5.12(b), based on the fmdings of both a psychologist and psychiatrist that WEEKS was unfit for
duty. (COB Exhibit 0104). The 1etter further advised that the effective date ofWEEKS ' termination
was October 31, 2007. @.). Mayor Holloway, Director Dunagan, and Jill Pol all testified that
Mayor Holloway made the ultimate decision to terminate WEEKS. (Holloway Test. , Dunagan Test.,
and Pol Test.).
27. The October 19, 20071etter from Mayor Holloway to WEEKS advising ofthe Mayor's
decision to terminate WEEKS' employment with the City also advised WEEKS that he had ten (10)
days to appeal the decision to the Commission, pursuant to Civil Service Rules and Regulation
11.02(a). (COB Exhibit 0104). WEEKS timely appealed his termination to the Commission on or
about October 25,2007. (Weeks Exhibit A at 001-08).

Case: 24CI2:13-cv-00125

12
Document #: 1-1

Filed: 10/02/2013

Page 12 of 29

28.

WEEKS then engaged the services of Dr. William Gasparrini, Ph.D., a clinical

psychologist practicing with Applied Psychology Center in Biloxi, Mississippi. (WEEKS Test.).
Dr. Gasparrini evaluated WEEKS on February 20, 2008, by clinical interview and the administration
of various psychological tests. (COB Exhibit 0133-141 and WEEKS Exhibit N). Dr. Gasparrini
produced two nine~page reports containing his evaluation ofWEEKS. (COB Exhibits 0133-41 and
0144-52). The parties had been given a deadline ofJuiy 22, 2008, to submit to the Commission the
exhibits that would be used in the appeal hearing then scheduled for July 29, 2008. The report
referred to as Gasaprrini-2, COB Exhibit 0144-52, was labeled as WEEKS Exhibit N, and it was
submitted to the Commission on July 22,2008, by WEEKS' attorney as one of WEEKS' exhibits.
When the appeal hearing was continued, at WEEKS request, to October 20, 2008, the parties were
gi ven a deadline ofOctober 13, 2008, to submit any additional exhibits they wanted the Commission
to consider. In response to that October deadline, WEEKS' attorney removed the report known as
Gasparrini-2, COB Exhibit 0144-53, from his exhibits and replaced it with the report known as
Gasparrini-1, COB Exhibit 0133-41.
29. Although WEEKS claimed that the report numbered COB Exhibit 0144-52 was a "draft
report" inadvertently placed by WEEKS' attorney into WEEKS' exhibit book filed with the
Commission, the Commission notes that both reports were typed on Applied Psychology Center
letterhead and signed by Dr. Gasparrini. Further, the report numbered COB Exhibit 0144-52 does
not bear a "draft" stamp or otherwise identify itself as a draft version, and was signed by Dr.
Gasparrini and filed by counsel for WEEKS with the Commission. The Commission finds that
Counsel for the COB did not act improperly in obtaining the information contained in COB Exhibit
0144-52, and was free to refer to the evidence submitted by WEEKS at the hearing of this cause.

13

Case: 24CI2:13-cv-00125

Document #: 1-1

Filed: 10/02/2013

Page 13 of 29

Because both COB Exhibits 0133-41 and 0144-52 were submitted by counsel for WEEKS,
inadvertently although it may have been, this Commission will consider both reports.
30. The content ofthe two (2) Dr. Gasparrini reports are identical until the final page. The
final page of the report known as Gasparrini-2, COB Exhibit 0144-52 at p. 0152, contained the
following language that was not contained in the report known as Gasparrini-1, COB Exhibit 0133
41:
Confusing the power dynamics ofhis role as a unifonned police officer on duty with
his dating relationships has repeatedly led to difficulties for him in his career. These
should be addressed through further counseling before he tries to resume work as a
police officer or in a similar position.
At present Mr. Weeks is highly motivated to return to work for the police
department. He is hopeful that the can win his case in court and regain his job. He
may be capable of working successfully as a police officer if he carefully separates
his work roles from his social life.
(COB Exhibit 0145-152 at p. 0152).
31. According to Dr. Gasparrini's report(s), there was nothing in the psychological test

results suggesting that WEEKS was unfit for duty as a police officer. (COB Exhibits 0133-0141 at
p. 0140 and 0144-0152 at p. 0151). However, Dr. Gasparrini concluded that dating women he met
through work was evidence ofWEEKS' poor judgment, and that WEEKS needed assistance through
therapy in developing strong boundaries in this regards, better judgment and improved self control.
(COB Exhibits 0133-0141 at p. 0139 and 0144-0152 at p. 0150). Dr. Gasparrini found that
confusing the power dynamics ofWEEKS' role as a unifonned police officer on duty with his dating
relationships had repeatedly led to difficulties in his career, and that WEEKS needed to maintain a
strict separation between his social life and his professional career. (COB Exhibits 0133-0141 atp.
0141 and 0144-0152 at p. 0152). Dr. Gasparrini expressed uncertainty as to whether WEEKS would
14

Case: 24CI2:13-cv-00125

Document #: 1-1

Filed: 10/02/2013

Page 14 of 29

be capable ofworking successfully as a police officert but he stressed that it would be possible only
if WEEKS carefully separated his work roles from his socia11ife. (COB Exhibit 0144-0152 at p.
0152). The Commission notes that Dr. Gasparrini evaluated WEEKS in February of 2008,
approximately four (4) months after his temlination. Further; Dr. Gasparrini's report(s) and
opinion(s) were not available to Mayor Holloway when making his decision to tenninate WEEKS,
and any finding by the Commission that Dr. Gasparrini's opinion(s) would have altered Mayor
Holloway's decision to tenninate WEEKS would be pure speculation on the part ofthe Commission,
particularly in light of the fact that both parties failed to ask Mayor Holloway this simple question
during the hearing.
32. Unfortunately, Dr. Gasparrini passed away prior to the hearing in this matter, and as a
result, WEEKS was allowed an opportunity to consult another expert to provide testimony at the
hearing. Cmllsel for WEEKS advised the Commission that the additional expert's opinion would
be limited to those generally set forth by Dr. Gasparrini, however, the new expert would be required
to provide his own professional opinions. WEEKS then obtained Stefan Massong, Ph.Dt a clinical
and forensic psychologist at Applied Psychology Center in Ocean Springs, Mississippi, to serve as
his expert witness.
33. Dr. Massong conducted two interviews with WEEKS, the first on October 9, 2012, and
the second on January 30, 2013, and produced a report which was entered into evidence at the appeal
hearing. (Massong Test and WEEKS Exhibit S). Dr. Massong testified that WEEKS had no
psychological problems on October 9, 2012, or on January 30, 2013. Dr. Massong agreed that
WEEKS suffered low or mild to moderate recurrent depression, usually under situational stress.
(Mas song Test.). Dr. Massong opined that he saw no evidence suggesting that WEEKS was unfit
15

Case: 24CI2:13-cv-00125

Document #: 1-1

Filed: 10/02/2013

Page 15 of 29

for duty in 2007. ad.). However, Dr. Massong acknowledged that the passage oftime could change
a person's circumstances, memory and perception ofevents, and he could not state to a psychological
certainty that the responses given to him by WEEKS in 2012 and 2013 were the same responses that
WEEKS would have given in 2007 when the employment decision was made by Mayor Holloway.

ag.).

Dr. Massong stated that he relied on the findings and conclusions ofDr. Gasparrini, although

he had never been provided with the report known as Gasparrini-2. ad.). While Dr. Massong was
critical of Dr. Teater and Dr. Webb for not giving a fonnal mental disorder diagnosis, he admitted
that a person could be unfit to serve as a police officer for reasons other than having a formal mental
disorder. (rd.).
34. The Commission again notes that Dr. Massong's report and opinion was not available
to Mayor Holloway when making his decision to terminate WEEKS, and any finding by the
Commission that Dr. Gasparrini's opinion would have altered Mayor Holloway's decision to
terminate WEEKS would be pure speculation on the part of the Commission, particularly in light
ofthe fact that both parties failed to ask Mayor Holloway this simple question during the hearing.
Further, Dr. Massong himself could not state with any certainty that his evaluation ofWEEKS would
have been the same had it occurred in 2007, as opposed to more than five (5) years later. Thus, the
Commission has no choice but to give little weight to the opinions of Dr. Massong.
35. Dr. Webb confirmed the opinions that were contained in his report, when he testified
that WEEKS had continued behavioral problems, a history ofdepression, and a long history of poor
judgment and dependency problems with women. (Webb Test.). Dr. Webb testified that WEEKS
had poor boundaries between his professional responsibilities as a police officer and his personal life,
especially with women. (14.). Dr. Webb found that those psychological problems posed special
16

Case: 24CI2:13-cv-00125

Document #: 1-1

Filed: 10/02/2013

Page 16 of 29

dangers in a person like WEEKS who was in a position of power and authority. QQ..). Dr. Webb
further testified that WEEKS was mentally unfit to perform the duties of the position of a police
officer as well as positions in all other phases of police work, including but not limited to a desk,
dispatch, records, or clerk position. @.).
36. Dr. Webb based his opinion on a "personnel file full ofincidences" where WEEKS had
interacted inappropriately with women on thejob and instilled fear in them all ofwhich showed poor
judgment and a lack of control, as well as WEEKS' refusal to acknowledge and get treatment to
remedy his problems. @.). Dr. Webb testified that WEEKS' problems had grown more severe as
the result ofhis failure to obtain treatment in the form ofcounseling.

ag.). Dr. Webb recommended

that WEEKS undergo long-term psychotherapy (@. and COB Exhibit 0115-19 at p. 0119).
Importantly, Dr. Webb pointed out that while Dr. Gasparrini found WEEKS fit for duty according
to the psychological test results, Dr. Gasparrini did not release WEEKS to work as a police officer.
(Webb Test.).
37. Finally, we address the length of time required to resolve this matter. WEEKS' appeal
was scheduled for hearing on seven (7) different dates. After four (4) continuances requested by
WEEKS, the appeal hearing initially convened on March 26, 2009. However, on that date, an
agreement was reached between the parties, and again at the request ofWEEKS, to stay the appeal
so that WEEKS could use his "best efforts" to obtain medical disability retirement benefits through
Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi Q1ereinafter "PERS"). Not until August 9,
2012, was the Commission notified by WEEKS that his request for PERS disability benefits had
been denied, and that he requested a rescheduling of his appeal hearing, pursuant to his October 5,
2007 Notice of Appeal. The COB then filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that WEEKS
17

Case: 24CI2:13-cv-00125

Document #: 1-1

Filed: 10/02/2013

Page 17 of 29

failed to use his best efforts to obtain PERS benefits and was unreasonably delaying his hearing. The
motion was denied, and the hearing was rescheduled.
38. WEEKS' appeal hearing finally convened on March 27, 2013. Due to the unavailability
of witnesses, the parties agreed to recess until June 24, 2013, at which time the hearing was
reconvened and continued through June 26, 2013. The parties were then requested to submit
proposed findings offacts and conclusions oflaw, and the appeal hearing has been held open by the
Commission pending this decision.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The controlling Civil Service Rule and Regulation is Section 5.12 which is entitled
"Medical Requirements," and it recognizes that those who work for the COB must be fit to perform
the position that they hold. (Civ. Servo R.R. Sec. 5.12(b). Further, Section 5.12(b) allows the
Appointing Authority to "require any member to meet the same requirements [as a candidate] when
there are reasonable grounds to question said employee regarding the [employee's] mental or
physical suitability for continued employment." (rd.).
2. In at arriving at a decision in this appeal, the Commission must first determine ifthe COB
had reasonable grounds to question WEEKS' mental suitability for continued employment. WEEKS
makes two (2) arguments against such reasonable grounds: 1) that the incidents at BRMC and in Sgt.
Brumley's office on June 6, 2007 were not sufficiently abnormal behavior for an officer to give rise
to a fitness for duty exam, and only suggest that WEEKS was temporarily emotionally compromised
from preforming his job duties on that particular day; and 2) that WEEKS' prior conduct and the
incident reports contained in his personnel file should not have been considered.

18

Case: 24CI2:13-cv-00125

Document #: 1-1

Filed: 10/02/2013

Page 18 of 29

3. Director Dunagan testified that he considered WEEKS' behavior, particularl y the behavior
displayed in Sgt. Brumely's office, to be unusual, a cause for concern, and made he and Asst. Chief
McGilvary question whether a fitness for duty exam may be necessary. (Dunagan Test.). Assl
ChiefMcGilvary and Director Dunagan then did what they both testified is standard procedure when
reason to consider a fitness for duty exam arises, which is to review the entire personnel file of the
officer. (McGilvary Test. and Dunagan Test.). Director Dunagan and Asst. ChiefMcGilvary then
reviewed WEEKS' personnel file, and found documentation of multiple prior incidents in which
WEEKS displayed a pattern of poor judgment as a police officer, specifically with regards to
relationships with female civilians. @.).Further, a review ofWEEKS, personnel file revealed a
prior fitness for duty evaluation report by a psychologist, Dr. Thomas Yarnell of The Counseling
Center of Biloxi, that stated that WEEKS had moved from a low risk for employment problems at
his hiring to a moderate risk and that without psychological intervention, it was predicted by Dr.
Yarnell, that WEEKS would become ahighrisk. (McGilvaryTest.,Dunagan Test., and COB Exhibit
0094-95).
4. Both Director Dunagan and Asst. Chief McGilvary testified that WEEKS' behavior on
June 6, 2007, coupled with his prior history ofpoor judgment relating to women while on duty, and
the potential liability the City could face for allowing an officer with WEEKS' history to continue
his employment with the department without first being cleared for duty by appropriately qualified
medical personnel, was at best unwise and constituted reasonable grounds to send WEEKS for a
fitness for duty exam pursuant to Section 5.12(b). (McGilvaryTest. and Dunagan Test.). Director
Dunagan then presented the information discussed above to Mayor Holloway, who the testimony
establishes authorized the fitness for duty evaluation ofWEEKS. (Holloway Test., Dunagan Test.,
and Pol Test.).
19

Case: 24CI2:13-cv-00125

Document #: 1-1

Filed: 10/02/2013

Page 19 of 29

5. Because of the facts as set forth in the preceding paragraph and earlier in this decision,
WEEKS arguments as to the alleged lack ofreasonable grounds for sending him for a fitness for duty
exam cannot be separated. The decision of Director Dunagan to recommend a fitness for duty exam
and Mayor Holloway'S decision to authorize one were clearly established by their testimony to be
a combination ofboth the incidents ofJune 6, 2007 and the prior incidents involving WEEKS' poor
judgment relating to women while on duty. (Dunagan Test. and Holloway Test.). The decision to
send an officer for a fitness for duty exam is, and always will be, a judgment call on the part of the
Director of Police and the Mayor. Pursuant to Civil Service Rule and Regulation Appendix
C(II1)(A), "... it is not the function nor the role ofthe Biloxi Civi1 Service Commission to substitute
its judgment for that of a department in the day-to-day administration and disciple of the work
force." (Civ. Servo R.R. Appx. C(III)(A).). Therefore, except in the most extreme circumstances
where there is a clear lack ofevidence ofthe need for a fitness for duty exam, which we stress is not
present in this case, the Commission must abide by Civil Service Rule and Regulation Appendix
C(III)(A), and decline to substitute its judgment for that ofDirector Dunagan and Mayor Holloway.
To do so would be to play Monday morning quarterback, and essentially strip the Director and
Mayor of their ability to use sound judgment in making such decision, and it is the very ability to
make such decisions which has allowed both Director Dunagan and Mayor Holloway to attain the
positions which they now hold or held at the pertinent time.
6. Further, the Commission finds the following case law persuasive: In Watson v. City of
Miami Beach, 177 F.3d 932, 935 (11 th Cir. 1999), the Court addressed a similar situation and held
that "[i]n any case where a police department reasonably perceives an officer to be even mildly
paranoid, hostile, or oppositional, a fitness for duty examination is job related and consistent with
20

Case: 24CI2:13-cv-00125

Document #: 1-1

Filed: 10/02/2013

Page 20 of 29

business necessity." Further, in Theiss v. City of Sturgeon Bay, 2006 WL 2375518 (B.D. Wis.
2006), supervisors noticed changes in the plaintiff's behavior and became concerned over his
psychological fitness to perfonn his duties as a police officer. The Court held that the fact that his
supervisors were concerned about Theiss' mental health provided a reasonable basis for the officer
to undergo a psychological evaluation. Id. at *1, *4.
7. Further, this Commission finds WEEKS' suggestion that an employer cannot consider
the entire personnel file, including past acts of misconduct, when making a decision on the
employees' continued employment to be utterly without merit and in need of little discussion.
WEEKS' argument that he has been subjected to "Double Jeopardy" is also without merit, as the
legal theory of doublej eopardy applies only in criminal cases to prohibit a criminal defendant from
being tried twice for the same crime, and has no application to a civil matter such as an employment
termination decision. A termination of employment and a civil service hearing are not essentially
criminal matters, and therefore, the double jeopardy clause does not apply. Ladnier v. City ofBiloxi,
749 So.2d. 139, 156 (Miss. 1999). Thus, the Commission finds that no rules or laws were violated
by the consideration ofWEEKS ' personnel file in making the decision to send him for a fitness for
duty exam.
8. Thus, this Commission finds that the evidence presented at the hearing ofthis matter was
sufficient to establish reasonable grounds under Section 5 .12(b) on the part ofDirector Dunagan and
Mayor Holloway to recommend and authorize, respectively, a fitness for duty exam of WEEKS.
9. Next, this Commission must detennine if the COB followed the correct procedure in
sending WEEKS for a fitness for duty exam and ultimately tenninating his employment. WEEKS
argues the following: 1) that the incidents of June 6,2007 should have been addressed through the
21

Case: 24CI2:13-cv-00125

Document #: 1-1

Filed: 10/02/2013

Page 21 of 29

use ofdisciplinary action pursuant to Civil Service Rule and Regulation Article 10 and not Section
5.12(b), and the failure to do so constitutes a violation of his due process rights; 2) that only the
appointing authority, Mayor Holloway, can authorize a fitness for duty exam and there is no written
evidence that he did so; and 3) that the evaluations, reports, and opinions ofDr. Teter and Dr. Webb
were not sufficient to support tennination pursuant to Section 5.12(b).
10. WEEKS' claim ofa due process violation based on the COB's alleged failure to initiate
disciplinary action pursuant to Civil Service Rule and Regulation Article 10 (hereinafter "Article
10"), is again a question ofjudgment on the part of the Department of Police chain of command.

Director Dunagan testified that Article I 0 was not used because the employment action involving
WEEKS was not disciplinary in nature, but rather, was medical under Section 5.12(b). (Dunagan
Test.). The Civil Service Rules and Regulations allow the chain ofcommand to initiate disciplinary
action, or when reasonable grounds exist, send an officer for a fitness for duty exam. In fact, there
is no prohibition against doing both. Thus, it is up to an officer's chain of command to determine
which route is appropriate, and from their follow the required procedure as set forth in the Civil
Service Rules and Regulations. ll1erefore, absent clear error, the Commission must again abide by
Civil Service Rule and Regulation Appendix C(TIJ)(A), and decline to substitute its judgment for that
ofWEEKS' chain ofcommand in determining the appropriate route to follow. To arrive at any other
decision, would essentially result in a complete eradication of the availability of Section 5. 12(b)
when an officer's mental health is called into question. Accordingly, the Commission finds no error
in the decision of Director Dunagan and Mayor Holloway to proceeded under Section 5.12(b).

II. Even ifthis employment action was considered disciplinary in nature, Miss. Code Ann.
21-31-23 governs the disciplinary process and outlines the due process that must be accorded to

22

Case: 24CI2:13-cv-00125

Document #: 1-1

Filed: 10/02/2013

Page 22 of 29

an employee being disciplined. Miss. Code Ann. 21-31-23; Burleson v. Hancock County Sheriffs

l2!mb, 872 So.2d 43 (Miss. 2003), rehearing and cert. denied, 873 So.2d 1032, cert. denied, 125 S.
Ct. 809 (2004). The Commission fmds that even ifthe requirements ofSection 21-31-23 areappIied
to this case, the COB met all the due process requirements afforded a disciplinary action.
12. The first element of due process that Section 21-31-23 requires is written notice ofthe
intended termination, stating the reasons for it, and informing the employee that he has the right to
respond in writing to the reasons given for the termination within a reasonable time, and that he can
respond orallybeforethe official charged with the responsibility ofmaking the termination decision.
Miss. Code Ann. 21-31-23. The Commission finds that this requirement was met as WEEKS was
notified on September 11, 2007, by letter of Director Dunagan that his tennination was being
recommended and the letter specified the reason - because both a psychologist and psychiatrist had
found WEEKS mentally unfit for duty as a police officer. (COB Exhibit 0098-99). Further, the
letter advised WEEKS that he had the right to respond to the reasons given for his termination both
orally and in writing to the Mayor who would be making the fmal decision, and to facilitate this, a
meeting with Mayor Holloway was prearranged for September 19, 2007. @.). The testimony
established that WEEKS responded to the reasons given for his termination in writing. (COB
Exhibit 0153-54), and that he met with Mayor Holloway prior to his termination, on September 25,
2007. (WEEKS Test.; COB Exhibits 0104-05 and 0153-54).

l3. The second element ofdue process required by Miss. Code Ann. 21-31-23. is that the
official charged with making the decision must notify the employee ofhis decision in writing at the
earliest practical date. Miss. Code Ann. 21-31-23. In this case, Mayor Holloway met with
WEEKS on September 25, 2007, and less than one month

later~

on October 19, 2007, Mayor

23

Case: 24CI2:13-cv-00125

Document #: 1-1

Filed: 10/02/2013

Page 23 of 29

Holloway advised WEEKS in writing of his decision. (COB Exhibit 0104-05). The Commission
finds that this second requirement of due process was met.
14. Third, due process under Miss. Code Ann. 21-31-23 requires that the disciplined
employee be allowed to file an appeal with the Commission within ten (10) days after the
disciplinary action. Miss. Code Ann. 21-31-23. WEEKS was advised in both Director Dunagan's
September 11, 2007 letter, (COB Exhibit 0098-99), and in Mayor Holloway'S October 19,2007
letter, (COB Exhibit 0104-05), that he had ten (10) days from the date ofthe Mayor's decision to
request an investigation by the Commission. In this case, WEEKS filed a Notice of Appeal to the
Commission on October 25,2007. (WEEKS Exhibit A at p. 001). The Commission finds that this
final element of due process was also met.
15. As for WEEKS argument that only the Appointing Authority, i.e., Mayor Holloway, can
authorize a fitness for duty exam pursuant to Section 5.12(b), and there was no written evidence that
he did so, we again find this argument without merit. The only evidence presented during the
hearing ofthis matter was the consistent testimony ofboth Director Dunagan and Jill Po] that Mayor
Holloway did, in fact, authorize the fitness for duty exam of WEEKS, in their meeting which took
place within days of June 6, 2007, and prior to June 11, 2007. (Dunagan Test. and Pol Test.).
Director Dunagan, Jill Po], and Mayor Holloway all testified that Mayor Holloway often gives verbal
orders authorizing Human Resources or department directors such as Director Dunagan to carry out
those orders, which is what was done in this case. (Holloway Test., Dunagan Test., and Pol Test.)
WEEKS presented no credible evidence to the contrary. Thus, the Commission finds that the
Appointing Authority, Mayor Holloway, authorized the fitness for duty exam of WEEKS in
Compliance with Section 5.12(b).
24

Case: 24CI2:13-cv-00125

Document #: 1-1

Filed: 10/02/2013

Page 24 of 29

16. Finally, WEEKS argues that the evaluations, reports, and opinions of Dr. Teter and Dr.
Webb were not sufficient to support termination pursuant to Section 5.12(b). Dr. Julie Teater, a
psychologist, evaluated Weeks on June 12, 2007, and found WEEKS unfit for duty as a police
officer. (COB Exhibit 0109-12). Dr. Mark Webb, a psychiatrist, evaluated WEEKS on August 16,
2007, an also found him unfit for duty. (COB Exhibit 0115-19). These were the only medical
opinions available to Mayor Holloway at the time he made his decision to tenninate WEEKS, despite
the fact that WEEKS had been given approximately four (4) months to obtain his own psychological
report regarding his fitness for duty.
17. Further, while one might question the apparent extrapolation ofWEEKS behavior by Dr.
Teter and Dr. Webb to its most harmful extreme, one cannot dispute that the potential dangers
outlined by Dr. Teter and Dr. Webb are real and could happen. Even WEEKS' own expert., Dr.
Gasparrini, confirmed the opinions ofDr. Teater and Dr. Webb following his evaluation ofWEEKS
on February 20, 2008, when he opined that "[c]onfusing the power dynamics of his role as a
uniformed police officer on duty with his dating relationships has repeatedly led to difficulties for
him in his career. These should be addressed through further cOlUlseling before he tries to resume
work as a police officer orin a similar position." (COB Exhibit 0143-52 atp. 0152). Dr. Gasparrini
believed at the time he wrote and signed his report that WEEKS was unfit to perform his job as a
police officer or any similar job unless and until he completed psychological counseling to develop
boundaries between his personal and professional life. @.).
18. The Commission is aware of Dr. Stefan Massong's opinion that WEEKS was fit for
duty at the time ofDr. Gasparrini' s evaluation. However, the Commission finds that Dr. Massong's
report and opinion was not available to Mayor Holloway when making his decision to terminate
25

Case: 24CI2:13-cv-00125

Document #: 1-1

Filed: 10/02/2013

Page 25 of 29

WEEKS, and any finding by this Commission that Dr. Gasparrini's opinion or Dr. Massong's
opinion would have altered Mayor Holloway's decision to terminate WEEKS would be pure
speculation on the part ofthe Commission, particularly in light ofthe fact that both parties failed to
ask Mayor Holloway this simple question during the hearing. Further, Dr. Massong himself could
not state with any certainty that his evaluation ofWEEKS would have been the same had it occurred
in 2007, as opposed to more than (5) five years later. (Massong Test.). The Commission finds this
significant since the applicable and relevant point in time for the inquiry into whether a public
employee is capable, qualified, or fit for duty is the time that the termination decision was made.
Koshinski v. Decatur Found!):, Inc., 177 F.3d 599, 601 (7th Cir. 1999). Thus, the Commission has
no choice but to give little weight to the opinions of Dr. Massong.
19. A municipality like the City ofBiloxi has an obligation under the law to monitor its
police officers, investigate complaints and other matters ofwhich it has notice that call into question

an officer's fitness for duty, and to take appropriate action to ensure the public's rights are protected.
Watson v. City of Miami Beach, 177 F.3d 932, 935 (11 til Cir. 1999) (City cannot forgo a fitness for
duty exam to wait until a perceived threat becomes real or until questionable behavior results in
injuries.); Bonsignore v. City of New York, 683 F.2d 635-37 (2d Cir. 1982) (City was liable for
failing to ensure that its police officers were mentally fit to carry guns without endangering
themselves or the public); Davis v. Lynbrook Police Dept., 224 F.Supp. 2d463, 479 (RD.NY. 2002)
(City sued for failure to supervise its police officers); Thompson v. City of Arlington, 838 F.Supp.
1137,1147-48 (N.D. Tex.1993) (City was required to ensure that plaintiff was mentally capable of
exercising safely the awesome and dangerous power of an armed police officer; it has an overriding
interest in making sure that its police force is staffed only by those who are particularly suited for
26

Case: 24CI2:13-cv-00125

Document #: 1-1

Filed: 10/02/2013

Page 26 of 29

the job). In Theiss v. City ofSturgeon Bay, 2006 WL 2375518 (B.D. Wis. 2006), the Court held that
ensuring that a police officer is mentally fit for duty is a legitimate concerning any police
department. rd. at *4. Similarly, in Redmond v. City ofOverland Park, 672 F.Supp. 473 (D. Kan.
1987), the municipality and its police chiefhad a clear interest in determining whether an employee
was psychologically fit for the position for which she was hired and an obligation to the public to
ensure the psychological well being ifits offices. Id. at 487.
20. The testimony established that WEEKS was tenninated by Mayor Holloway because
Dr. Teater and Dr. Webb had found him unfit for duty. (Dunagan Test. and COB Exhibits 0098 and
0104-05). The Commission finds that the COB had good cause to terminate WEEKS' employment.
21. Lastly, this Commission must determine that WEEKS' fitness for duty was the only
reason he was tenninated, and that it was not a pretext for some other politically motivated reason.
WEEKS testified that he was terminated in retaliation for his involvement in signing a petition and
sending a "vote ofno confidence" in Director Dunagan's leadership ofthe Department 0 fPolice to
Mayor Holloway. (WEEKS Test.). WEEKS further testified that he was terminated for his role in
lobbying for pay raises for police officers. (N.). However, WEEKS presented no documentary
evidence in support ofhis contention, and failed to call even one witness to support his claim. The
only evidence WEEKS presented on this issue was his own self-serving testimony.
22. To the contrary, Director Dunagan testified that a letter was sent to Mayor Holloway that
contained a list ofdemands and was critical ofDirector Dlmagan's leadership for things like failing
to equip the officers with tasers. (Dunagan Test.). Director Dunagan testified that he was unaware
ofWEEKS' involvement in sending that letter or signing the petition. (N.). WEEKS admitted that
he was only one of approximately fifty-one percent (51 %) of the officers on the police force who
27

Case: 24CI2:13-cv-00125

Document #: 1-1

Filed: 10/02/2013

Page 27 of 29

signed the petition, and he had no proofthat other officers who signed the petition were singled out
for special treatment or terminated for being unfit for duty.

(WEEKS Test.).

Further, the

Commission has already found that Mayor Holloway, and not Director Dunagan, made the decision
to terminate WEEKS.
22. WEEKS further testified that he attended Biloxi City Council meetings where pay raises
for police officers were requested, and that his name appeared in newspaper articles in the Sun
Herald on August 28th and 29th, 2007, in connection with the pay raise requested by members of
the Department ofPolice. @.). WEEKS testified that his termination was in retaliation for being
involved in the pay raises, because "his situation came up" so close in time to his name appearing
in the newspaper articles. @.). However, neither Director Dunagan nor Mayor Holloway testified
to having any knowledge ofWEEKS ' involvement in the pay raises. (Dunagan Test. and Holloway
Test.).
23. What is more, WEEKS does not claim that either Director Dunagan or Mayor Holloway
had political motivations in terminating WEEKS, but rather claims that it was Sgt. Brumley and
Asst. Chief McGilvary who had such political motivations. (WEEKS Test.) Again, the only
evidence presented by WEEKS on this issue was his own self-serving testimony. Both Asst. Chief
McGilvary and Sgt. Brumley testified that they had no wish or desire to see WEEKS terminated, and
no documentary evidence or supporting witness was presented by WEEKS to the contrary.
(McGilvary Test. and Brumley Test.). Further, the Commission finds it unlikely that fellow officers
who stood to benefit from payraises would have objections to WEEKS' participation in that matter.
Further, Asst. ChiefMcGilvary's and Sgt. Brumley's opinions of Director Dunagan's leadership at
the time, or even their own participation in the vote of no confidence, are unknown to the

28

Case: 24CI2:13-cv-00125

Document #: 1-1

Filed: 10/02/2013

Page 28 of 29

Commission. as the parties failed to make inquires on this issue with those witnesses. Moreover,
neither Sgt. Brumley nor Asst. Chief McGilvary had any involvement in the Mayor's ultimate
decision to tenninate WEEKS, and neither were present in any meeting with the Mayor to discuss
that decision. (Holloway Test., Dunagan Test., Pol Test., McGilvaryTest. and Brumley Test.). Thus,
this Commission finds that there was no credible evidence that WEEKS was sent for a fitness for
duty evaluation because ofpolitics, or that his termination was motivated by politics.
24. Based on the foregoing, The Commission hereby affirms the decision of the City of
Biloxi by majority vote of the Commission present at the appeal hearing.

~\. Findings and Conclusions issued this the \~ day of September, 2013.

BY:

COMMISSION

By:/&rb/)
COMMISSIONER SMITH
Prepared by:
Counsel for the Commission
Ian L. Baker, Esq.
Baker & Brewer, PLLC
1891 Pass Road
Biloxi, MS 39531
Tel. 228-388-0053
Fax 228-388-7041
ibaker@baker brewerlaw.com

Case: 24CI2:13-cv-00125

ATTESTED:

~~~~\JGi~

C
MISSION SECRETARY
(SEAL)

Document #:291-1

Filed: 10/02/2013

Page 29 of 29