Franklin Sears v. City of Hot Springs; Hot Springs Civil Service Commission; And Jason Stachey, Individually and as Chief of Police

2020 Ark. App. 247, 601 S.W.3d 426
CourtCourt of Appeals of Arkansas
DecidedApril 22, 2020
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 2020 Ark. App. 247 (Franklin Sears v. City of Hot Springs; Hot Springs Civil Service Commission; And Jason Stachey, Individually and as Chief of Police) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Franklin Sears v. City of Hot Springs; Hot Springs Civil Service Commission; And Jason Stachey, Individually and as Chief of Police, 2020 Ark. App. 247, 601 S.W.3d 426 (Ark. Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

Reason: I attest to the accuracy Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 247 and integrity of this document Date: 2021-06-17 10:05:50 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS Foxit PhantomPDF Version: 9.7.5 DIVISION I No. CV-19-387

FRANKLIN SEARS Opinion Delivered: April 22, 2020 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 26CV-18-989] CITY OF HOT SPRINGS; HOT SPRINGS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION; AND JASON HONORABLE LYNN WILLIAMS, STACHEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS JUDGE CHIEF OF POLICE APPELLEES REVERSED AND REMANDED

BART F. VIRDEN, Judge

The Hot Springs Civil Service Commission (Commission) affirmed the disciplinary

action taken by Jason Stachey, chief of the Hot Springs Police Department (HSPD), with

regard to appellant Franklin Sears, a police officer who was terminated after continually

receiving an “unsatisfactory” score on a physical-agility test. Sears appealed the

Commission’s decision to the Garland County Circuit Court, which affirmed the

Commission’s decision. Sears now appeals to this court, arguing that the City 1 wrongfully

terminated him when it failed to follow its own mandatory policy. According to Sears, (1)

the City’s doctor did not first determine whether he was medically able to pass the physical-

agility test, (2) the City provided him with a physical therapist, rather than a “certified fitness

1 Appellees will be referred to collectively as “the City.” trainer,” and (3) the City’s doctor did not perform a fitness-for-duty evaluation. Sears argues

that we should reverse the circuit court and remand for a “determination of money

damages.” His arguments have merit; therefore, we reverse and remand.

I. HSPD’s Rules and Regulations

All employees in any police department shall be governed by rules and regulations

set out by the chief of the police department after those rules and regulations have been

adopted by the governing bodies of their respective municipalities. Ark. Code Ann. § 14-

51-302 (Repl. 2013). On February 15, 2017, the Commission unanimously approved

revisions to the HSPD’s policy on physical fitness presented by Chief Stachey. On February

28, the HSPD distributed to its police officers the revised version of its rules and regulations

on physical fitness (2012.2.5), including changes to its physical-agility testing.

Revised 2012.2.5 provides that all certified police officers are required to participate

in a wellness/physical-fitness program and complete physical-agility testing twice a year.

The rules and regulations provide that a time in excess of twelve minutes and thirty seconds,

or an incomplete test, will be deemed “unsatisfactory” and constitute a violation of the

policy. If an officer receives an “unsatisfactory” score on the physical-agility test, the

following procedure applies:

1. The officer will be given written counseling for violation of this policy. The written counseling will direct the officer to place himself/herself on a fitness plan. The Officer will then have 30 days to successfully complete the agility test.

2. If the officer does not successfully complete the agility test within the allotted 30 days, the officer shall be scheduled an appointment with a physician chosen by the department.

2 3. If the physician determines the officer to be medically able, the officer will be required to attend a consultation meeting with a certified fitness trainer where the officer will receive a fitness and dietary plan to follow for 60 days. The officer will meet with the fitness trainer again after following the plan for 30 days to track his/her progress and for further consultation. The officer must then successfully complete the agility test within that 60 day period following their initial consultation with the fitness trainer.

4. If the officer does not successfully complete the agility test within the 60 day period, the officer will be scheduled a follow-up appointment with the physician to assess their fitness for duty.

5. The Chief of Police will make a final determination concerning the officer’s continued employment based on the officer’s fitness for duty evaluation and report from the physician.

II. Background

On May 13, 2017, Sears received a letter from Lt. Larry Patrick informing him that

he had received an “unsatisfactory” score on the physical-agility test taken on May 13

because he did not complete the sit-ups portion. He was given thirty days to successfully

complete the test. On June 12, Lieutenant Patrick received a letter from Cpl. Eric Wacaster

informing him that Sears had “failed” the second test because he was not able to complete

any sit-ups.

On August 8, Capt. William Hrvatin sent Sears a letter stating that he had been

“placed on a remedial dietary and fitness plan with a doctor and fitness trainer” and that he

would be required to complete the third physical-agility test sixty days after his second test.

The third test was scheduled for August 25. On August 25, Chief Stachey sent Sears a letter

placing him on administrative leave with pay because he had failed to complete the third

consecutive physical-agility test. Sears was told that he would be contacted regarding his

next appointment with Dr. English for a fitness-for-duty evaluation.

3 On September 25, Sears received a letter from Chief Stachey suspending him without

pay for two days and advising him that he must successfully complete a fourth physical-

agility test within forty-five days after the suspension, or his employment will be terminated.

Sears received another unsatisfactory score. Chief Stachey permitted Sears to take a fifth

physical-agility test, but his score was still unsatisfactory.

On December 12, Chief Stachey wrote that Sears had been “in continuous violation

of the [HSPD] physical fitness policy for the past (7) seven months despite providing [him]

with an abundance of resources, tools and time.” He further wrote that “[a]fter (5) five failed

opportunities,” Sears was terminated effective immediately. Sears requested a hearing.

III. Hearing Testimony

On January 10, 2018, a hearing was held before the Commission. Chief Stachey

testified that the purpose of revising the HSPD’s physical-agility test in February 2017 was

to make it more efficient than the 2012 test and more related to a police officer’s everyday

job duties. Lieutenant Patrick testified that he had assisted in the development of the original

physical-agility test in 2012 and in its subsequent revision.

According to Chief Stachey, the revised test is much shorter, and the frequency with

which the test is administered has been reduced to twice a year, instead of quarterly. He

testified that the new hires were required to complete the test in five minutes or less, while

current employees like Sears had to complete it in under twelve minutes and thirty seconds.

Chief Stachey said that, whereas the 2012 test could negatively impact promotions and job

evaluations, the revised test called for termination if an officer “fails” the test multiple times.

4 Chief Stachey described the revised physical-agility test. The test consists of running,

jogging, walking, or crawling seven hundred yards. There is also a twenty-two-inch

sawhorse that can be either leapt or stepped over. Additionally, the officer must complete

fifteen push-ups and fifteen sit-ups, which Lieutenant Patrick characterized as “the basics.”

There is also a requirement that the officer drag an eighty-pound dummy ten yards.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

City of Little Rock and the Little Rock Police Departmenb v. Charles Starks
2025 Ark. App. 1 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2025)
Little Rock Police Department and the City of Little Rock v. Charles Starks
2021 Ark. App. 323 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2021)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2020 Ark. App. 247, 601 S.W.3d 426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franklin-sears-v-city-of-hot-springs-hot-springs-civil-service-arkctapp-2020.