Wrongful Termination Legal Process

I am in an ongoing employment dispute with my police department

I was placed on administrative leave on May *, *, and given a target letter for an internal affairs investigation, which was vague and did not identify any policy violations... By June *, *, the investigation was completed and forwarded to the Chief of Police. On July *, *, the Chief issued a determination letter accompanied by a Personnel Action Form, signed by the Chief and City Manager, reflecting termination effective july *, *, thereby ratifying the action at the level of final municipal authority.

July *–*, * (Procedural Sequence) The termination action was imposed prior to any meaningful opportunity for Officer Casiello-Gemme to respond or be heard, with his written response submitted only after the effective date of termination, thereby reversing the pre-disciplinary sequence required by law and City policy. The issuance of a finalized termination determination before affording the required opportunity to respond indicates that the disciplinary decision had been made prior to completion of the pre-termination process, raising concerns that the outcome had been predetermined.

July *, * Officer Casiello-Gemme, through counsel, submitted his response to address “his side of the story” pursuant to Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, * U.S. * (*). Officer Casiello-Gemme submitted his written response without access to the investigative materials relied upon by the City, limiting his ability to meaningfully respond. August *, * Chief Garcia forwarded email to Officer Casiello-Gemme’s counsel, from City Manager Mestas, which rejected Officer Casiello-Gemme’s response to address “his side of the story” pursuant to Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, * U.S. * (*) entirely.

August *, * Counsel for Officer Casiello-Gemme submitted a formal Notice of Appeal, regarding above referenced matter, to the City of Raton, which was acknowledged by City Clerk Desire’e Trujillo. Counsel for Officer Casiello-Gemme challenged the action, advising the City of Raton that termination could not lawfully be imposed without affording due process and appeal rights. August *, * - Rescission of Termination After Appeal Filed (August *, *) Chief John Garcia issued written notice, via email, to Officer Casiello-Gemme’s counsel, stating: “I am hereby rescinding the notice of termination dated */*/*.” This rescission occurred only after Officer Casiello-Gemme’s counsel had submitted a formal Notice of Appeal expressly raising procedural sequence and due-process concerns regarding the termination.

Post August *, * Despite rescission of the termination, Officer Casiello-Gemme was not returned to duty and remained without a final employment determination, notwithstanding the continuation of compensation. Because Officer Casiello-Gemme was terminated effective July *, *, without the required pre-termination process, the City violated his due-process rights. The subsequent rescission does not negate the deprivation, does not cure the violation, and does not relieve the City of its constitutional obligations. August *, * The City issued a revised predetermination letter, this time offering an opportunity to appeal to the City Manager.

September *, * The City, through counsel, produced the Internal Affairs Report to Officer Casiello-Gemme and his counsel, absent of records of interviews for certain witnesses referenced in the investigation. September *, * Officer Casiello-Gemme, through counsel, again submitted his response to address “his side of the story” pursuant to Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, * U.S. * (*). Counsel for Officer Casiello-Gemme issued a preservation notice directing the City to preserve all communications and documents related to Officer Casiello-Gemme, the investigation, and disciplinary proceedings.

September *, * Officer Casiello-Gemme appeared for an appeal hearing before City Manager Mestas, the final decision-maker for disciplinary appeals. The hearing reflected a closed and predetermined outcome and lacked meaningful consideration of the evidence and arguments presented by Officer Casiello-Gemme. No written decision was issued following the hearing, nor was any explanation of the reasoning provided, as required by policy.

Post-September *, * City Manager Mestas failed to issue a written decision or explanation as required by, and within the timeframe prescribed by, City policy. September *, * – Personnel Board Appeal Filed Counsel for Officer Casiello-Gemme submitted a formal Notice of Appeal to the City of Raton Personnel Board pursuant to City of Raton Ordinance, Title III, § *.*(C)(*), citing the City’s failure to comply with required disciplinary procedures, including the failure to issue a timely written decision, and asserting that the City Manager had divested himself of jurisdiction to take further action.

I'm still trying to tell you the timeline

September *, * – Statutory Deadline Expired Pursuant to City of Raton Ordinance § *.*(C)(*), the Personnel Board was required to hold a public hearing within ten (*) calendar days of receipt of the appeal. No hearing was scheduled, convened, or noticed within the required timeframe. The City’s failure to comply with the mandatory statutory deadline deprived the Personnel Board of jurisdiction to proceed. September *, * – January *, * The City took no action to issue a written decision, acknowledge the pending appeal, or schedule a Personnel Board hearing within the required statutory timeframe, resulting in a complete cessation of the appellate process.

January *, * While the appeal remained pending and unresolved, the City, through counsel, offered Officer Casiello-Gemme the option to resign while simultaneously asserting that termination was mandatory - an internally inconsistent position presented without resolving the appeal or providing a name-clearing hearing. This settlement offer, presented to Officer Casiello-Gemme on January *, *, was set to expire the following day, January *, *, at *:* PM, providing limited time for consideration. January *, * With the appeal still pending and unresolved, the City - through counsel - extended its resignation ultimatum to February *, *, at *:* PM, further evidencing predetermination and the use of termination as leverage rather than the outcome of a fair adjudicative process.

February *, * Counsel for Officer Casiello-Gemme advised the City in writing that the only resolution acceptable to Officer Casiello-Gemme would be full reinstatement with restoration of employment status and return to duty, subject to appropriate terms ensuring protection against retaliation or further adverse action, and that resignation was not acceptable. February *, * – Untimely Attempt to Schedule Hearing More than 150 days after the appeal was filed, the City initiated contact regarding scheduling of a Personnel Board hearing for March *, *, well outside the mandatory ten-day statutory period.

I finally have a hearing scheduled with them on March *,

I have an attorney

I was wondering what your thoughts on it are

Can I give you the allegations against me and why I think they are unsubstantiated

Do you think a District Court judge would void everything and reinstate me