Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—ARBITRATION—Snapchat post targeting women in law enforcement justified suspension, (Apr 23, 2025)

By WK Editorial Staff

The caption of the posted video stated “Another reason why women shouldn’t be in LE… Burnt your ass. And I’m fat.”

An arbitrator denied a grievance filed by a deputy sheriff who was suspended for three days after posting, while off duty and intoxicated, a Snapchat video from his body-worn camera accompanied by a caption disparaging women in law enforcement. He argued that the county lacked just cause to impose the suspension. The union conceded that discipline was warranted but argued that the penalty was excessive. The arbitrator found the county had just cause to impose the suspension and to assign remedial training (Thurston County and Thurston County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (Diamond, Arb. Sept. 6, 2024)).

Video. The deputy posted the video after reviewing his own bodycam footage from a recent field encounter involving a female officer. The caption stated, “Another reason why women shouldn’t be in LE… Burnt your ass. And I’m fat.” The video circulated among officers in multiple law enforcement agencies. Several female colleagues described the post as sexist and expressed discomfort working with the grievant. One officer requested a shift change to avoid further contact.

Discriminatory impact. The arbitrator credited testimony showing the video was widely viewed and that the caption created reputational damage for the department. Although the grievant self-reported the incident, expressed remorse, and had no prior discipline, the arbitrator concluded that the caption, even if intended as a joke, had discriminatory impact. The county charged the deputy with three separate violations: discrimination, conduct unbecoming, and unauthorized use of a portable recording device. The arbitrator found all three violations substantiated.

No intent to offend? The union argued that the caption was a drunken, sarcastic remark not intended to offend. The arbitrator rejected this defense, concluding that intent did not absolve the grievant from responsibility for the effect of his words. The arbitrator also held that the sheriff’s office reasonably interpreted its own discrimination policy and acted within its rights to maintain a respectful workplace.

While the union challenged the fairness of the investigation and pointed to alleged bias by a senior officer, the arbitrator found that the grievant was afforded due process, including written notice, a Loudermill hearing, and representation. The argument that the grievant was treated more harshly than comparators was dismissed as unsupported by relevant precedent.

Suspension. Although the county initially proposed a five-day suspension, it ultimately imposed a one-day suspension and held two additional days in abeyance. The arbitrator concluded this was proportionate, especially given the serious policy violations and impact on the workplace. The grievant’s disqualification from future field training officer assignments, which carried additional compensation, was found to be a collateral administrative consequence, not a separate grievable discipline.

The arbitrator upheld the suspension in its entirety and encouraged the county to reconsider the grievant’s eligibility for career advancement following the abeyance period and successful completion of training.

Attorneys: Britaney R. Garrett for Thurston County. Dan Thenell for Thurston County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association.

Companies: Thurston County; Thurston County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association

Cases: Labor Arbitration PublicEmployees