Pennsylvania arbitrator sustains a five-day suspension of a sergeant for assaulting a subordinate officer, but overturns a demotion. The bargaining agreement did not specify demotion as a disciplinary option and a suspension plus demotion was double punishment for the same misconduct. City of Duquesne and Teamsters L-205, 126 LA (BNA) 1723 (Felice, 2009).
     First Circuit concludes that it is not double jeopardy to suspend an employee for the purpose of conducting an investigation and to later terminate the employee, based on the facts disclosed in the investigation. Zayas v. Bacardi Corp., #07-1950, 524 F.3d 65, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 8387 (1st Cir.).
     Arbitrator holds that an employer did not have just cause to terminate a supervisory employee for making sexual comments, because he had been required to view a CD and to review the organization's sexual harassment policies. "Double jeopardy" prevented further discipline. Meijer and Grievant "H", 120 LA (BNA) 700 (Obee, 2004). [2005 FP Mar]
     Employee was not subject to double jeopardy when he was terminated for the incident for which he was initially suspended, where the penalty was not imposed until the incident had been investigated and the fire chief made his decision. City of Coweta, Okla. and IAFF L-3483, 119 LA (BNA) 42, FMCS Case #02/09594 (Moore, 2003). {N/R}
     Management did not subject a police officer to double jeopardy when it transferred him due to his performance deficiencies, after disciplining him for those lapses. Assignment-related decisions do not constitute double jeopardy. City of Topeka Police Dept. and FOP L-3, 118 LA (BNA) 519, FMCS Case #01/16809 (Erbs, 2003). {N/R}
     Arbitrator overturns the firing of a public employee who was suspended for six days, but shortly afterwards was fired for an accumulation of disciplinary offenses. The discharge was barred by double jeopardy. Transit Auth. of River City and Amal. Transit Union L-1447, 118 LA (BNA) 939, FMCS Case #020822/15082-7 (Goggin, 2003). {N/R}
     Management did not commit double jeopardy when it denied a merit increase to an employee it had disciplined six months earlier for insubordination, where his entire performance was evaluated. State of Alaska Dept. of Corrections and Public Safety Employees Assn., 117 LA (BNA) 674, Alaska Case #01-C327 and PSEA Case #01-01C (Henner, 2002). {N/R}
     Management did not have just cause to terminate an employee, after he filed of a grievance contesting his suspension and demotion. The added punishment violated the double jeopardy concept. St. Lucie County, Fla. and Teamsters L-769, 115 LA (BNA) 1046, FMCS Case #00/13783 (Frost, 2001). {N/R}
     California appellate court upholds a decision to terminate an officer, who had been fired, then reinstated. Double jeopardy does not apply to employment decisions. Ziegler v. City of So. Pasadena, 73 Cal.App.4th 391, 1999 Cal.App. Lexis 642, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 424 -- as modif. at 1999 Cal.App. Lexis 690. [1999 FP 164- 5]
     A firefighter who was denied a promotion after he failed random drug test was not subjected to double jeopardy; the grievant was not demoted and was still receiving same rate of pay. City of Corpus Christi, Tex. and Firefighter's Assn., 113 LA (BNA) 329, AAA Case #70-390-00005-99 (Allen, 1999). {N/R}
    Police dept. could not give a one-day disciplinary suspension to an officer for misuse of his take-home police car, because dept., already had taken back the vehicle for 30 days. Arbitrator holds that the second action was "double jeopardy," because there was a delay of several weeks. Metro. Dade Co. and Grievant, 25 (8) LAIG #5074 (Hoffman, 1995). {N/R}
     Management did not have the right to impose a 7-day suspension in addition to a 3-day suspension already imposed on the employee for being in tavern drinking beer during a noon break. The grievant was not told that that he was being suspended for three days pending further investigation into the matter. City of Kenosha, Wis. and AFSCME L-71, 76 LA (BNA) 758 (McCrary, 1981). {N/R}
     Termination of an officer as additional punishment after suspension was imposed is not double jeopardy; use of hearsay evidence at trial was permissible. Cross v. State ex rel. Linton, 419 N.E.2d 991 (Ind.App. 1981). [82 FP 85-9]
     The double jeopardy defense is not applicable to disciplinary trials. Bart v. State Dept. of Law Enf., 52 Ill.App.3rd 487, 367 N.E.2d 773 /at 776. [82 FP 85-9]
     A Florida agency may not take disciplinary action on one occasion, and at a later date increase the punishment. Dept. of Environmental Protn. v. Barker, 654 So.2d 594, 1995 Fla.App. Lexis 4422. {N/R}
     Police dept. could not re-discipline officer who resigned over drug charge, and was later reappointed a probationary officer. An employee may not be twice disciplined for the same offense. Branza v. Martin, 570 N.E.2d 411 (Ill.App. 1991). [1992 FP 37-8]
     Punishment imposed on a police officer by the Civil Service Board was invalid because the Police Dept., through its internal review system, had punished him earlier. In re Officer J.L. Mitchell, 88 N.C. App. 602, 364 S.E.2d 177, 1988 N.C.App. Lexis 104. {N/R}
     A Florida Criminal Justice Stds. and Trng. Cmsn. determination on decertification of a peace officer is a different proceeding than a disciplinary disposition by the state's Career Serv. Cmsn., and is not double jeopardy. Walley v. Florida Game and Fish Cmsn., 501 So.2d 671, 1987 Fla. App. Lexis 7653. {N/R}
     If an employee is exonerated of misconduct in the current context, he cannot be disciplined for prior acts. Jackson v. S&W Bd. of New Orleans, 503 So. 2d 634, 1987 La. App. Lexis 8632. {N/R}
     A reprimand cannot be increased to more serious punishment at a later time. DPS, State Police v. Rigby, 401 So. 2d 1017, 1981 La. App. Lexis 4151. {N/R}
     Double punishment in consecutive trials is not allowed. Appellate court reversed the aggravated punishment imposed in the second trial. Silver v. City of Harrisburg, 422 A.2d 704 (Pa.Cmnwlth. 1980). [82 FP 85-10]
     The Florida Career Service Cmsn. has consistently held that an agency lacks the authority to discipline an employee twice for a single offense and is fundamentally unfair. An agency is entitled to suspend an employee for a period of time necessary for investigation and disposition of charges; when followed by a suspension, the employee is not placed in jeopardy twice for the same offense. Dept. of Corr. v. Duncan, 382 So.2d 135 (Fla. App. 1980). {N/R}
     Having concluded an investigation, disciplinary action may not be increased at a later date, "nor may an agency discipline an employee twice for the same offense." Fla. Dept. of Transp. v. Career Serv. Cmsn., 366 So. 2d 473, 1979 Fla. App. Lexis 13951. {N/R}
     An officer's record of prior misconduct was admissible in a hearing to determine propriety of his proposed discharge and was not double punishment. N.Y. State Dept. of Correctional Services and AFSCME C-82, 69 LA 344 (Kornblum, 1977). {N/R}