HOUSTON - Today, the 14th Court of Appeals reversed a district court and affirmed the suspension of a Houston firefighter who “witnessed the station’s high-water vehicle drive off with Rockets personnel on board,” states the 14th Court’s opinion.
Court records show that after the Houston Fire Department suspended Steven Dunbar for three days without pay, Dunbar appealed the suspension to the Firefighters’ and Police Officers’ Civil Service Commission of the City of Houston, which upheld the suspension, leading Dunbar to file a petition to set aside the decision in district court.
According to the opinion, on Sept. 11, 2019, HFD Fire Station 84 hosted a public-relations event featuring Houston Rockets basketball players, during which Dunbar, an HFD district chief, witnessed the station’s high-water vehicle drive off with Rockets personnel on board. When the vehicle returned to the station, Dunbar observed that a Rockets player was driving the vehicle and the vehicle’s lights and siren were activated.
After an investigation, the department suspended Dunbar for three days, referencing a regulation that requires officers to promptly report violations.
Court records show that the trial court found “the record lacked a scintilla of evidence to support that the Plaintiff failed to promptly report the witnessed violations of Houston Fire Department’s rules and regulations and City of Houston’s policy.”
On appeal, the city argued the district court’s judgment is erroneous because substantial evidence supported the commission’s order, and that the commission’s order was free from the taint of illegality.
Dunbar contended he was not provided notice of all complaints against him in violation of the Local Government Code.
The 14th Court determined the commission’s decision was not tainted by illegality due to any lack of notice, and concluded that the commission’s order is not tainted by illegality due a lack of disclosure of complainants.
Justices reversed the district court’s judgment and affirmed the commission’s order, finding that the “evidence does not show the commission’s order was tainted by illegality,” the opinion states.
Justices Jerry Zimmerer dissented, opining that it is “undisputed” that on the day of the incident Dunbar reported the operative facts that an unauthorized Houston Rockets player drove the high-water vehicle.
“That failure to report was the sole charge against Dunbar; the commission’s order is simply not supported by substantial evidence, and I would affirm the trial court’s judgment,” writes Zimmerer.” Because the majority reverses the trial court’s judgment, I respectfully dissent.”
Dunbar discussed the event with the deputy chief on the day of the event and in the days following, according to the majority opinion.
Dunbar asserted that he could not determine whether a violation had taken place because he was aware of other events at which athletes had ridden on or driven HFD vehicles, the opinion states.
Appeals case No. 14-21-00570-CV