HOUSTON - The 14th Court of Appeals has declined to rehear the case of a firefighter who was suspended after he “witnessed the station’s high-water vehicle drive off with Rockets personnel on board.”
Earlier this year, the 14th Court reversed a district court and affirmed the suspension of Steven Dunbar, a Houston firefighter.
Court records show that after the Houston Fire Department suspended 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.
Dunbar discussed the event with the deputy chief on the day of the event and in the days following, according to the majority opinion.
Following the 14th Court’s decision to deny Dunbar’s motion for rehearing on Nov. 7, Justice Zimmerer dissented again.
“Because the substantial evidence clearly established Dunbar initiated telephone calls, voice-, video-, and text-messages communicating the operative facts to an appropriate superior officer the same day as the event, he initiated a ‘report’ as contemplated in HFD Reference No. I-01, Rules and Regulations, section 6.06,” Zimmerer writes.
“Because that is what the trial court found, I would grant rehearing and affirm. Because the panel fails to do so, I dissent to the panel’s decision to deny rehearing.”
Appeals case No. 14-21-00570-CV