Former state police officer sues; says he was fired in crisis
PROVIDENCE – The embattled exRhode Island State Police lieutenant fired shortly after he missed a supervisory shift on Christmas 2021 is suing, alleging the state police violated his sick leave and disability rights by ousting him during a mental-health crisis.
Former state police Lt. Jason E. Lawton has sued the state and the Rhode Island State Police in U.S. District Court, accusing his former employer of violating his due process rights under the 14th Amendment, as well as state and federal laws governing sick leave. In addition, Lawton charges that the state police violated his civil rights not only by denying him accommodations based on his mental impairment – a diagnosed adjustment disorder – but ultimately terminated him based on his disability.
Lawton alleges that the state’s “actions were inconsistent with state and federal law, and contrary to the state’s medical leave and sick leave policies.”
Lawton is asking the court to declare the state police actions unlawful and to be made “whole.” He is seeking unspecified damages.
The state denied the allegations in its response this week and asked Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that Lawton was disciplined after waiving his rights under the state’s Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights by consent agreement.
State police Lt. Col. Robert A. Creamer declined to comment because the Lawton matter remains in litigation.
Brian Hodge, spokesman for Attorney General Peter F. Neronha’s office, did not respond to an email inquiry from The Journal. The state is being represented by Special Assistant Attorney General Natalya A. Buckler.
Latest challenge to 2022 firing
The federal lawsuit is Lawton’s latest challenge to his January 2022 firing by then-state police Col. James Manni.
Lawton sued the state police and its former superintendent, Manni, in state Superior Court in 2022 over his firing in January after he failed to report for a supervisory shift Dec. 25, 2021, due to heavy intoxication. He accused the agency of wrongly firing him without allowing him the protections afforded him under LEOBOR.
Presiding Justice Alice B. Gibney ruled in November 2022 in favor of the state police, agreeing that Lawton, a 24year veteran of the force, had “consented to a two-day suspension and threemonth probationary period in lieu of taking his chances before a LEOBOR hearing committee.”
By agreement, Lawton had consented to the two-day suspension for having a relationship with a subordinate without notifying his superiors.
But when exactly those suspensions should have played out remains the subject of an upcoming evidentiary hearing in Superior Court.
Lawton, who had been promoted to lieutenant in November 2020, argues that though he consented to the twoday suspension, he had notified his superiors that he would use Jan. 4 and Jan. 18, 2022, as his suspension days.
The consent agreement specified that his three-month probationary term begin after he served his two suspension days and returned to work on a desk-duty assignment, the suit says.
The agreement provided that if Lawton violated the rules and regulations during the probationary period, he could be disciplined, up to and including dismissal, without rights under the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights.
What happened on Christmas night?
On Dec. 25, 2021, Lawton was scheduled as the night executive of the statewide patrol division but said he experienced a “mental health crisis” that left him incapacitated and unable to report. The division supervisor came to his home and took his service weapon.
Lawton was unable to report to duty due to heavy intoxication, according to the state police. They said they received a call from his estranged wife after she was unable to locate him.
In federal court, Lawton argues that he told Manni personally weeks earlier about stressors in his life during a drive to the airport and that the colonel had advised him to seek mental-health treatment.
“On Christmas Day, [Lawton’s] mental-health condition reached a breaking point,” the suit states. He argues he was experiencing a mental-health crisis and was too ill, mentally and physically, to report to work.
He asserts that he was entitled to discharge sick leave under state police policy, which provides for unlimited sick time, and was marked sick for Dec. 25 and 26 and for his next rotation.
Time card controversy
Lawton, in his suit, accuses Capt. Kenneth S. Buonaiuto, of the professional standards unit, of directing retroactive changes to his completed time records to indicate that he was serving his suspension days on Dec. 25 and 26 instead of being out on sick leave.
“This was a fiction, as plaintiff had not, in fact, been suspended on those days either by his choice or by the division. … The division wanted plaintiff to be characterized as ‘on probation’ even though, in reality, plaintiff was not on probation on December 25,” Lawton’s lawyer, Carly Iafrate, wrote.
The changes to the time records triggered his probation and enabled the state police to take disciplinary action against him without an independent LEOBOR review, the complaints says.
Lawton argues that the agency’s decision represents an “antiquated view of mental-health issues that [is] inconsistent with division policy and widely accepted standards.” He accuses the state police of being less concerned about his mental well-being than about the inconvenience of having to cover his shift on Christmas Day.
The aftermath
Lawton’s treatment provider requested he be placed on 45 days of medical leave.
On Jan. 20, 2022, Manni fired him, taking the position that he was on probation when he failed to appear for his Dec. 25 shift.
Lawton sued in Superior Court, with Gibney ruling in the state’s favor.
Upcoming evidentiary hearing
The parties, however, are awaiting an evidentiary hearing on whether the state police were empowered to unilaterally set Lawton’s suspension days, which could unravel the state’s win.
State law empowers the chief or highest-ranking sworn officer of a law enforcement agency to impose a suspension when an officer is under investigation for a noncriminal matter or is subject to disciplinary action.
The state police have provided Lawton’s lawyer, Iafrate, with “voluminous” discovery material on suspensions that she is reviewing in preparation for the evidentiary hearing, said Vincent F. Ragosta Jr., who, with D. Peter DeSimone and Adam J. Sholes, is representing the state police in Superior Court.
If Gibney sides with Lawton that the state police were not authorized to adjust his suspension days, “it would mean we have a LEOBOR case,” Ragosta said. He added that the evidence Lawton faces is “exquisite.”
Ragosta also faulted the LEOBOR hearing process as “not balanced.”
The three-member hearing committee is composed of a law-enforcement officer selected by the charging agency and another chosen by the implicated officer. Those two hearing committee members must then jointly select a third member, who will serve as committee chairperson.
The so-called “neutral” third committee member could be pro-officer or pro-union, Ragosta observed.
“The neutral isn’t truly neutral,” he said.
As for the evidentiary hearing, Ragosta said, “we’re ready.”
Iafrate declined to comment.
Changes to LEOBOR in the offing?
Lawton’s cases are playing out as House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi has indicated he thinks “this is the year” state lawmakers will approve changes to LEOBOR to make it easier for departments to discipline officers accused of misconduct.