By rssfeeds-admin 
The city denies all allegations, stating in its response to the lawsuit that any perceived punishment was “justified” and that any “claims for relief are barred by his own ‘unclean hands.'”
Officer Donald Huard formally filed suit against the department on June 13, claiming that “the department imposed on its officers an unlawful citation quota…[and] retaliated against those who refused to participate.”
In the complaint, Huard says he first witnessed the misconduct in January 2024, when, during a motor officers division meeting, his sergeant stated that “each officer in the Traffic Unit must complete five enforcement stops per day and ‘double-tap’ (give two citations) per stop, for a total of 10 citations per day.”
Huard claims that when he said “he would not participate,” he was told “that citation statistics are the sole thing the department takes into consideration,” and that “the department does not take into consideration other duties such as collision follow-ups, uniform proposals, or training curricula.”
According to Huard’s suit, the retaliation against him began just days later when Huard and another officer who spoke up against the quota were told that they “were no longer allowed to conduct motorcycle trainings.” When asked why, Huard said Martinez stated, “Why would they [the department] give you what you want if you’re not giving them what they want?”
Two weeks later, Huard and his co-officer were accused of “embezzlement” for using a city-issued credit card to pay for a 2023 lunch. However, according to court records, the reason for the credit card was to pay for the lunch.
By May, Huard was served with a “Notice of Intent to Discipline” in a June 6 Skelly Hearing. During the hearing, “the department denied the existence of a citation quota,” and removed him from the traffic unit, effective Sept. 21, for “consistently fail[ing] to perform assigned duties as a Traffic Unit Officer.”
According to the court records, however, Huard was qualified and “performed his responsibilities as a police officer in an exemplary fashion and capably performed each and every condition of his employment agreement.”
Huard says the retaliation he experienced has not only damaged his professional reputation and negatively affected his income and other employment benefits, but has also affected his mental health.
In a 32-point July 23 defense, the city denies these claims, stating that Huard “failed to suffer any injury, damage, loss or harm,” and that “the injuries and damages, if any… were directly and proximately caused and contributed to by the actions, errors, omissions, and inactions of [Huard].”
The city goes on to say that the conduct of its employees was “justified” and that “discipline was based on reasonable factors other than those complained of [by Huard].”
It also holds that Huard’s “claims for relief are barred by his own ‘unclean hands'”; in other words, he has violated a duty of good faith or has acted unconscionably.
While the city does not specify what Huard has done to dirty his hands, they claim that his “complaint is barred by the doctrines of estoppel.” According to Cornell Law, estoppel prevents a person from asserting a claim that contradicts what they have said or done before.
However, despite their numerous arguments, the city says the statute of limitations has passed, making the case moot.
Discover more from RSS Feeds Cloud
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.