Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—ARBITRATION—University police officer’s discharge upheld for false reports and excessive force, (Aug 20, 2025)

By WK Editorial Staff

The arbitrator found the officer made a pretextual stop without probable cause, escalated a routine encounter, and used egregious force.

A police officer employed by the University of Oregon filed a grievance contesting his termination following an incident involving a late-night campus stop and arrest. The university discharged the officer for violations of multiple departmental policies, including use of force, truthfulness, documentation of mobile audio/video (MAV), and failure to disclose exculpatory information. The arbitrator denied the grievance, concluding that the university established just cause by clear and convincing evidence. The discharge was deemed appropriate given the officer’s willful misconduct, repeated dishonesty, and the seriousness of the violations (University of Oregon and University of Oregon Police Association (Levak, Arb. Nov. 18, 2022)).

Stop of bicyclist. The incident occurred in October 2018, when the officer stopped a bicyclist on campus after observing what he described as erratic behavior. The officer activated his patrol vehicle’s emergency lights and siren, pointed his firearm at the bicyclist, and issued verbal arrest commands. When the bicyclist did not immediately comply, the officer tackled and arrested him. However, video footage from both the patrol vehicle’s MAV system and the officers’ body cameras painted a different picture. The bicyclist had been riding slowly and lawfully in the bike lane, had dismounted before entering a crosswalk, and had not posed a threat.

False statements. The arbitrator found that the officer’s Affidavit of Probable Cause, Use of Force Report, and Arrest Report contained multiple knowingly false statements. These included claims that the bicyclist swerved into traffic, posed a safety risk, and failed to respond to commands. Furthermore, the officer failed to disclose the existence of the MAV recording to the prosecutor, despite receiving a direct request two days before the criminal trial. The officer testified falsely at trial and did not correct the record, even though he had reviewed the video footage beforehand. The trial court ultimately acquitted the bicyclist of all criminal charges except one minor traffic infraction.

Additionally, the arbitrator found that the officer continued to provide false testimony at the arbitration hearing. Despite being confronted with the video evidence, the officer maintained his original narrative and insisted the arrest was justified. The arbitrator concluded that this testimony was “not credible” and flatly contradicted by the objective footage.

Serious and willful. The union contended that the officer had not been properly warned about the policies, and that the university only took disciplinary action after receiving a tort claim notice. It also argued that a different officer involved in the arrest had not been disciplined, suggesting disparate treatment. However, the arbitrator rejected these arguments, finding that the officer was fully aware of the policies, had received proper training, and had every opportunity to amend his reports. Moreover, the arbitrator found that the officer’s conduct stood out in both seriousness and willfulness, and that the university had reasonably distinguished between the roles of the officers involved.

Due process concerns. Furthermore, the arbitrator held that the due process concerns raised by the union were unfounded. The officer was given adequate notice of the charges, had union representation during the investigation, and was afforded a full opportunity to present his defense. The failure of a supervisor to review the use-of-force report did not, in the arbitrator’s view, undermine the integrity of the disciplinary process.

Thus, the arbitrator concluded that all four charges—misuse of force, dishonesty, failure to document video evidence, and withholding exculpatory material—were proven by clear and convincing evidence. The officer’s continued dishonesty, even under oath, compounded the misconduct. Although the officer had no prior disciplinary record, the arbitrator emphasized that trust and integrity are fundamental to law enforcement. Dishonesty alone, especially when sustained and deliberate, is grounds for discharge. Accordingly, the grievance was denied in its entirety.

Attorneys: Akin Blitz and Andrea Coit for University of Oregon. Dan Thenell for the University of Oregon Police Association.

Companies: University of Oregon; University of Oregon Police Association

Cases: Arbitration Labor PublicEmployees Discharge