Montana Supreme Court Enforces Arbitration Award Reinstating Officer Who Failed Fitness For Duty Exam

Written on 02/07/2025
LRIS

Rhonda Staton was hired as a police officer by the City and County of Butte-Silver Bow (BSB), Montana in 2001, and she was promoted to de­tective in 2008. In 2017, she received a verbal reprimand for tardiness, and another in 2018 for refusing to investigate underage drinking at a football game. In late 2018, a captain discovered misplaced files assigned to Staton, prompting an investigation. Staton admitted that she felt over­whelmed and expressed a desire to re­turn to patrol. She was not disciplined for this, but her mental health became a concern. In 2019, Staton filed a hostile work environment complaint which was not substantiated; however, a report did note that a coworker she had accused of “uncomfortable and violent behavior” had apologized for their behavior toward Staton. Staton wrote that she felt she was “barely functioning” in the workplace and was “clearly distraught” about the matter.

Despite her struggles, Staton was not suspended or formally dis­ciplined; however, there were notes documenting concerns about her mental health from multiple offi­cers in her division. In early 2020, Staton’s taser went missing, which prompted another meeting with her supervisor. The supervisor expressed concern for her mental well-being and ordered her to undergo a Fit for Duty Evaluation (FFDE), placing her on paid leave until the outcome of the examination. The FFDE was conduct­ed by a licensed psychologist. The psychologist concluded that Staton did not present as a “well-grounded, psychologically-emotionally stabi­lized individual” and that she would not be recommended as a new hire. Notably, his report did not ascribe a particular diagnosis and did not specify if the condition was temporary or permanent.

Despite the fact the FFDE found that Staton was not fit for duty, she was kept on paid administrative leave for another four months. On July 27, 2020, BSB notified Staton of their intent to terminate her based on the results of the FFDE report and her recent performance issues, and she was terminated on August 24, 2020.

The Butte-Silver Bow Police Protective Association filed a griev­ance on her behalf challenging the termination. The grievance process was not resolved, so the matter was submitted to arbitration in April 2021. The Arbitrator ruled in favor of the Union, finding that the performance issues were not significant enough to warrant an FFDE, and ordering BSB to reinstate Staton. The Arbitrator also ruled that BSB had not followed their own policies to prioritize reha­bilitation for employees facing mental health issues and had failed to convene a review board to determine if she was qualified to continue employment. The Arbitrator specifically found the doctor’s FFDE unreliable and insufficient.

BSB did not reinstate Staton, but instead arranged for an independent medical evaluation with a second doctor. The second doctor’s evalua­tion resulted in no diagnosis and no recommendations for rehabilitation strategies. BSB then filed a motion to vacate the arbitration award, which was denied in part by the Second Ju­dicial District Court of Butte-Silver Bow County. The Court remanded the matter back to the Arbitrator to reconcile the original award, Staton’s inability to return to service, and the additional FFDE performed after the arbitration. BSB filed a motion for relief from the order, which went untouched by the district court for 60 days, prompting an appeal to the Montana Supreme Court. The issue on appeal was whether the district court abused its discretion in denying BSB’s motion to vacate the Arbitrator’s award and remanding the matter to the Arbitrator to fashion an appro­priate remedy.

The Montana Supreme Court ruled that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to vacate the arbitration award, up­holding the Arbitrator’s decision to reinstate Staton.

“Here, the Arbitrator’s reasoning involved her interpretation of the CBA’s provisions for discipline and termination, matters properly within the scope of the issue presented by the parties for arbitration: whether there was cause for termination. Even if the Arbitrator’s reasoning involved errors of fact and law, her award is limited to that issue. The District Court found error in the Arbitrator’s interpretation of the CBA. A court may not overturn an arbitrator’s decision, however, ‘simply because the court believes its own interpretation of the contract would be the better one.’” The Court found that the Arbitrator’s conclu­sion regarding the legitimacy of the first FFDE – that it was “completely unreliable” – supported her finding that “there was no other evidence establishing good cause as required by the CBA to terminate Staton.”

The Court also reversed the lower court’s remand, asserting it had ex­ceeded the narrow statutory limits for review of arbitration awards and had improperly supplemented the record with the subsequent FFDE evaluation. The Court specifically found the lower court’s remand was outside the statutory bases for review, and it was an abuse of discretion. The Court remanded to the lower court to confirm the original arbitration award.

City & Cnty. of Butte-Silver Bow v. Butte Police Protective Ass’n, 419 Mont. 217 (Mt. 2024).