CONTRA COSTA DEPUTY SHERIFF GETS JOB BACK
After two long years,
former Contra Costa Deputy Sheriff Michael Cauraugh, has recently won
his job back at arbitration before John L. Saltonstall, Jr. Sheriff
Warren Rupf terminated Deputy Cauraugh on August 23, 1994, for allegedly
pointing his service weapon at a co-worker while both were awaiting
commencement of a departmental briefing.
Cauraugh was represented
by Phil Ginsburg of the San Francisco law office of Carroll, Burdick
& McDonough. Arbitrator Saltonstall ruled that the county failed to
sustain its burden of proving the alleged conduct. He opined as follows:
"I conclude that
there is a reasonable doubt as to whether in fact the grievant
deliberately pointed his gun at the head of [his co-worker] during the
course of their altercation on June 2, 1994, and therefore that the
grievant’s discharge cannot be upheld. The grievant’s discharge on
August 23, 1994, was not for just cause. His remedy is that he is to be
reinstated with full back pay, fringe benefits and full seniority, but
minus six months and minus appropriate deductions for other moneys
received during the time of his separation from the county's
employ."
Significantly because the
county accused Cauraugh of felonious conduct (i.e., waiving his weapon
at a co-worker in a hostile manner), the county was required to prove
its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Background
Michael Cauraugh joined
the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office in 1988. While he had been
disciplined previously, Cauraugh's evaluations left no mistake that he
was a well-liked, well respected and accomplished deputy.
On June 2, 1994, Cauraugh
arrived early at the Sheriffs Department's substation for a pre-dawn
briefing involving numerous co-workers, convened for the purpose of
executing a search warrant. Prior to the commencement of the briefing,
Cauraugh and several of the other deputies bantered and barbed with each
other, as they were often accustomed to doing.
After a couple of
deputies directed a humorous barb at Cauraugh, he removed his gun from
its holster, and, in a non-threatening, good natured manner, waved it
loosely with one hand in the air in the direction of the individuals
bantering with him. At the time, Cauraugh was leaning back in his chair
in a relaxed position and his feet were on the desk. The gun was exposed
briefly.
The act of jokingly
removing one's weapon from one's holster, known as "breaking
leather" was in no way a unique gesture among officers at the
Sheriff's Department, particularly those who, like Cauraugh were
stationed at the West County Bay Station. From across the room, a fellow
deputy, and ultimately, the complaining party, sharply directed Cauraugh
to put his gun away.
He did. That deputy later
accused him of pointing his weapon at her in a deliberate and
threatening manner.
While Cauraugh
acknowledged "breaking leather" he was not subsequently
terminated for this activity. His Notice of Termination stated as
follows:
"You drew your
firearm and deliberately pointed it at another deputy sheriff, causing
that deputy sheriff to be threatened."
The winning arguments
Ginsburg persuasively
demonstrated that Cauraugh was not terminated for merely removing his
weapon and engaging in horseplay, but rather because he was specifically
alleged to have pointed his gun in a hostile and threatening manner at a
co-worker. Therefore, Ginsburg argued, the county was obligated to prove
its case with proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Through testimony and
exhibits, Ginsburg successfully demonstrated that the complainant's
account of what transpired left too many questions unanswered, too many
contradictions and inconsistencies, and was just too strongly disputed
to support Cauraugh's termination.
Even though the
complainant alleged that Cauraugh pointed the gun in her face for ten
seconds in a violent manner, and despite the fact that 13 individuals
were present in the briefing room that morning, only one other
individual claimed to have witnessed the event as the complainant
described it. The only other witness who observed the interaction
between Cauraugh and the complainant testified definitively that
Cauraugh never pointed his weapon at her in a deliberate manner.
The arbitrator's decision
The arbitrator agreed
with Ginsburg's position that because the county's discharge of Cauraugh
was based on an allegation that surmounted to accusing him of committing
a felony, the county was forced to shoulder a very heavy burden of proof
- i.e., proof beyond a reasonable doubt (citing, Elkouri & Elkouri,
"How Arbitration Works," (4th Ed.), 661-663).
Arbitrator Saltonstall
then pointed out that of the five witnesses produced by the county, only
two claimed to have witnessed the incident in question. Cauraugh and
Ginsburg produced seven witnesses, of whom two claimed to have witnessed
the incident.
Ultimately, the
arbitrator concluded that county counsel was unable to shake the
testimony of Cauraugh's corroborating witness on cross-examination. The
arbitrator concluded that given the totality of the evidence presented,
the department could not satisfy its burden of proof to sustain
termination for the alleged conduct.
Cauraugh returned to work
on December 2. He looks forward to a long and productive "second
life" at the Contra Costa Sheriff's Department.
LDF Home Page | News
Article Index
