The language from the court documents mentioned in this article are graphic. Reader discretion is advised.

TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – A Michigan Court of Appeals ruling said the Michigan State Police (MSP) can’t fire a female trooper who pleaded “no contest” to two counts of assault and battery.

What happened?

MORE NEWS: MSU Misses Bowl Eligibility Losing to Rutgers

Trooper Megan Moryc allegedly got drunk during an off-duty Michigan State Police Troopers Association (MSPTA) party and was accused by several male coworkers of sexual assault. The court documents say she had “wedged her fingers into the anal crevices of a co-worker while he was walking next to his wife” which caused him to jump forward. That’s when Moryc tried to grab his genitals. Moryc also struck a second male coworker in the genitals which was caught on surveillance video.

Camera footage appears to show her attempting to grab the anal crease and genitals of a third male coworker and “attempted to use physical manipulation tactics traditionally utilized for purposes of gaining compliance from citizens in order to do so.” Surveillance cameras also allegedly captured Moryc grabbing the genitals of other male coworkers.

Moryc received a suspension.

Grand Traverse County Police suspended Moryc with pay pending an investigation and ultimately charged with two counts of assault and battery and two counts of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct. Pursuant to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, she was suspended without pay. She went on to plead no contest to the two counts of assault and battery in exchange for the dismissal of the two counts of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct. She received a 30 day jail sentenced and was released after 21 days.

What does a “no contest” plea mean?

Pleading no contest is not an admission of guilt but is treated comparably in court. According to Michigan law firm Kershaw, Vititoe & Jedinak, PLC, a defendant may elect to plead “no contest” meaning that he or she does not challenge the accusations asserted by the prosecutor but does not confess to the court why he or she is guilty – although it has the exact same effect as a guilty plea according to MCL 767.37.

MSP completed a full investigation of the incident after Moryc’s sentencing and she was able to present evidence on her own behalf at an administrative interview on the matter. MSP decided that she had violated the MSP Code of Conduct and fired her in August of 2021.

The MSPTA filed a grievance on Moryc’s behalf, and an arbitration hearing was subsequently held. The arbitrator issued an award in February 2022. The arbitrator explained that the dispute between the parties essentially turned on whether termination was an appropriate sanction or whether the grievant should have been subjected to progressive discipline, including suspension without pay, before being terminated.

How did the arbitrator rule?

MORE NEWS: Michigan Stuns Ohio State

The arbitrator did not believe Trooper Moryc’s actions constituted fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct and observed that Trooper Moryc explained in her administrative interview that she was just playing a “game” with her coworkers.

The arbitrator did agree with the MSP’s conclusion that Trooper Moryc’s actions violated the MSP Code of Conduct however, they also believed that there was not “just cause” for termination in this case. The arbitrator pointed out that the incident was fueled by the grievant’s excessive intoxication, and noted that the MSP had not terminated other employees over offenses committed while drunk.

The arbitrator concluded: “While discipline was appropriate, termination was too severe. It was one incident at a time when (the grievant) was highly intoxicated. It was not premeditated. She otherwise had a good record with no prior discipline. The conduct occurred off- duty, while she was not in uniform. It is my conclusion that considering the totality of the circumstances her conduct was not so serious as to require termination of employment. The parties’ contract calls for progressive discipline when appropriate. It is my conclusion that progressive discipline is appropriate in this case.”

The MSP filed a complaint.

The arbitrator ordered the grievant to be reinstated and ordered her punishment be reduced to an unpaid suspension. The arbitrator also ordered that she should be offered back pay from June 1, 2021, to her reinstatement.

The MSP subsequently filed a complaint against the MSPTA, arguing that the arbitrator exceeded the scope of her powers by requiring the MSP to reinstate the grievant’s employment and filed a motion to vacate the arbitrator’s award. The MSP further argued that the arbitration award violated a well-defined and dominant public policy against sexual harassment in the workplace. It explained that allowing the grievant to continue working for the MSP in spite of committing sexual harassment would exempt MSP from this public policy.

A trial court heard oral arguments on competing motions between the MSP and MSPTA and issued an opinion and order that vacated the arbitrator’s award stating that the discipline of the officer is a discretionary action assigned to the Plaintiff (MSP) according to the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The trial court didn’t make any decisions about whether the arbiters ruling violated public policy.

An appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals followed. In their conclusion a three-judge panel said, “Under the CBA, the arbitrator is given the power to determine whether an employee was discharged without just cause. The arbitrator concluded the grievant (Moryc) was discharged without good cause and instead determined that unpaid suspension was proper in this case. The trial court therefore erred by vacating the arbitrator’s award.”

Michigan News Source reached out to attorney Timothy Dlugos, the attorney representing the troopers association, but he had no further comment on the ruling. We also contacted the MSP about the court ruling. Shanon Banner, MSP Director, Communications & Outreach Division said, “At this time, we are still reviewing the ruling and considering our options.”