According to news reports, the city of Philadelphia and several groups, including Citizens Police Oversight Commission, the UPenn Carey Law School’s Advocacy for Racial and Civil Justice Clinic, and the Defender Association of Philadelphia, are requesting the Pennsylvania Supreme Court make changes to the arbitration system used in many cases involving recently fired police officers. The move comes shortly after Lieutenant Marc Hayes was reinstated to his job on the police force after he had been fired for sexual harassment as part of an arbitration claim.
The Problem with Arbitration in Law Enforcement
The city and advocacy organizations argue that Philadelphia police officers win reinstatement cases in arbitration at a high rate and this costs taxpayers millions of dollars in settlements and back pay while eroding public trust in police. According to the state, 75% of officers fired between 2019 and 2024 were reinstated.
Advocates argue that police misconduct and accountability become huge problems that erode morale when bad actions by some officers are interpreted by the public as corrupting the entire force after dishonored law enforcement officers are reinstated to their former positions. They say that the current arbitration system has resulted in retaining rogue officers who threaten women and communities of color. They argue that police chiefs and commissioners are best positioned to make final judgments in police disciplinary actions.
Case in Point
The current case involving arbitration and police officer reinstatement centers upon Lieutenant Marc Hayes. Hayes was fired in 2020 after he sent sexually explicit text messages and a bestiality video to two women police officers. According to the evidence, Hayes suggested to one of the female officers that she could pretend she didn’t remember the messages, and he told the other that he had recommended her for promotion after an investigation was underway.
After arbitrating the matter, the arbitrator reduced Hayes’ termination to a suspension of 50 days, finding that his actions did not rise to the level of harassment because the women had not said they were offended by his conduct.
The city is arguing that the arbitrator wrongly interpreted the meaning of sexual harassment by failing to use the definitions in the police contract.
The Changes the City Is Seeking
The city is seeking police arbitration reform related to its use in matters involving police officer reinstatement. Under current standards, an appeal of an arbitration decision in these cases can only be made if the city or municipality can prove any of the following:
- The arbitration process was flawed.
- The arbitrator lacked jurisdiction.
- The arbitrator exceeded their powers.
- The decision deprived the police of their constitutional rights.
The city is asking the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to overturn Hayes’ reinstatement or carve out a public policy exception that would allow the termination to stand because Hayes violated the city’s sexual harassment policies.
