 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Curry v. Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services12/30/1994
Opinion by Davis, J.
We consider in these two appeals the issue of whether the State may impose a disciplinary suspension upon an employee in a sensitive classification for an off-duty alcohol-related offense for which he received probation before judgment.
Herman L. Curry, appellant in Appeal No. 360 and Paul O. Flagg, appellee in Appeal No. 553, are corrections officers employed by the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (Department). Curry and Flagg were separately arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. Curry was found guilty by the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County; Flagg was found guilty by the Circuit Court for Washington County; and both were granted probation before judgment. Each employee was suspended from work without pay for five days on the basis of Division of Correction Directive (DCD) 50-2. Directive 50-2 contains the Division of Correction's internal disciplinary rules and procedures and allows the Department to discipline employees who are convicted of alcohol-related offenses. The directive defines "conviction" to include situations where the employee is granted probation before judgment. The employees appealed their suspensions to the Office of Administrative Hearings, and two administrative law judges (ALJs) recommended that the Secretary of Personnel (Secretary) uphold the suspensions. After hearings before the Secretary's designees, the Secretary adopted the ALJs' findings and conclusions of law and sustained both suspensions. The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County affirmed Curry's suspension, from which Curry appeals. The Circuit Court for Washington County reversed Flagg's suspension, from which the Department appeals.
Appellant Curry asks us to determine the following question:
In light of Md. Ann. Code Art. 27, Sec. 641, can the Division of Correction legally impose a five (5) day suspension under its regulations upon a correctional officer when the District Court has granted that officer Probation Before Judgment for an alcohol related offense which occurred off the work place?
The Department in Appeal No. 553 phrases the issue as follows:
Did the lower court err in holding that a Division of Correction regulation is inconsistent with and in defiance of legislative intent and therefore invalid because it includes probation before judgment in its definition of conviction?
FACTS
Appeal No. 360
Appellant Herman Curry is a corrections officer at the Maryland Correctional Institution in Jessup, Maryland. On May 30, 1992, Curry was arrested and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol. Curry was off duty at the time of the incident. On September 14, 1992, the Baltimore County District Court found Curry guilty of driving under the influence and granted him probation before judgment. The following day, Curry's superiors at the Maryland Correctional Institution suspended him for five days without pay.
The Institution justified the suspension on the basis of DCD 50-2(III)(F)(2)(b). The directive provides, in pertinent part:
An employee in a sensitive class or position who is convicted for any alcohol related offense not at the work place shall:
(1) On the first conviction be suspended for a minimum of five (5) working days, be referred to the Employee Assistance Program, be required to participate successfully in a treatment program designated by the EAP, and in addition, be subject to other appropriate disciplinary actions, up to and including termination from State service.
Section I of the directive defines conviction as fol
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Maryland DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|