Criminal Justice

Submitted by: Submitted by

Views: 10

Words: 541

Pages: 3

Category: Other Topics

Date Submitted: 08/31/2015 08:26 AM

Report This Essay

CRG 550

Legal Issues in Criminal Justice Administration

TITLE AND CITATION: Ross v. Clayton County, 173 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 1999)

TYPE OF ACTION: Ross, a correctional officer with Clayton County, appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment for Clayton County and the grant of summary judgment for the individual defendants in his civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding his demotion from the rank of sergeant.

FACTS OF THE CASE: In February 1992, Ross was hired by Clayton County as a correctional officer on a 12-month probationary period, known as “working test.” Andre, who was on probation, moved in with his brother Ross in October 1992.

Georgia Department of Correction regulation GA. Comp. R&Regs. R. 125-2-1-.07(d) prohibits correctional officers from associating with, corresponding, or doing business with active probationers unless they get permission before hand.

On December 1, 1992, Ross’s brother was accused of kidnapping and raping a woman at the apartment. Police responded to the woman’s 991 call, and Ross was very confrontational toward them. Through this incident Ross’s association with Andre came to light, which was unknown to his employer.

On December 3, 1992, Ross was summoned to meet with the warden and other supervisors. Ross was informed he could tell his side of the story at that time. After the meeting, Ross was demoted to Correctional Officer II. A written notice of the demotion explaining that it was for “conduct unbecoming an officer,” was conveyed to Ross on December 4. A supplemental notice citing Georgia’s Department of Correction Regulation regarding association with probationers and explaining the reason for the demotion in detail was given on December 15, 1992.

In February 1993, Ross appealed the demotion to the Clayton County Civil Service Board. Personnel regulation did not give probationary employees a right to appeal. The board apparently gave Ross an appeal. However, the Board affirmed...