UPDATE: 03/09/22 5:18 p.m. The Municipal Fire and Civil Service Board had two issues at hand to settle, one was that Glover was a probationary employee at the time of his termination or a permanent status employee.
After about four hours, the board voted and agreed Glover was on a probation period when he was let go in October, 2021.
That means he only has a right to appeal that he was not given ample time to prove himself.
If he were a permanent employee, he would have had more rights upon termination.
Therefore, his wrongful firing claim lost out to LCG today.
Reporting Supervisor Cydra Wingerter LCG’s Chief Administrative Officer said after a TikTok video was posted of an officer dancing partially in uniform and the chief found no reason to investigate, that’s when they really started to question his ability to lead the department.
Glover said said he was not given a chance to prove himself.
ORIGINAL POST: LAFAYETTE, La. (KLFY) — Former Lafayette Police Department (LPD) chief Thomas Glover is going before the Lafayette Municipal Fire and Police Civil Service Board today to argue that he was wrongfully terminated.
News 10 will live stream the meeting in the player above.
After his firing, Glover stated that he was hearing rumors in the police department 24 hours before that it was because he had fired an employee for punching a handcuffed individual.
Furthermore, Glover explained that he was going up against a police department that’s 150 years old and trying to modernize it for the 21st Century. He stated that there are people going against that, plus he felt he was an outsider.
Glover is from Dallas, Texas where he served nearly four decades in law enforcement.
Also, Glover stated he was told that his job was to bring about reform and discipline to the department in the use of force. Glover claims he did everything he was expected to do.
The former chief was fired by Lafayette Mayor-President Josh Guillory in October of 2021.
He explained his termination was enforced shortly before full state civil service protections would have kicked in for him.
The former chief also argues he did not receive defined performance measures and that his work performance was not discussed with him.
Glover believed that his “working test period” ended after six months on the job. During that time, he was not given reason to believe he would be fired, he said. Lafayette Consolidated Government (LCG) said that the probation period was 12 months long.
Attorney Micheal Hebert, arguing on behalf of Lafayette Consolidated Government (LCG) at the meeting, said that Glover’s motion to dismiss entirely centers on civil service rule seven, which provides a six-month working test period.
Hebert said the issue with referencing this rule is that it’s a municipal civil service board and not a municipal fire and police civil board.
“It’s not your rule,” Hebert said.
Glover’s attorney, J. Arthur Smith III, said that the classification plan for the rule includes the police chief, and that the rule commenced on the first day Glover went to work.
Smith said there should be no argument that Glover served the six months and he was never told there were any discrepancies with his work. Inversely, he was told he was “doing good work,” not that he failed as an employee.
Under the rules, he’s deemed to have satisfactorily completed the probationary period and entitled to notice of termination and to rebut, Smith said. “That’s due process. The employer has burden of proof in this situation in terms of what his position is and they have not proved that.”
After hearing initial arguments from both LCG’s and Glover’s attorneys, the board proceeded to allow witnesses to testify.
Adam Marcantel, Director of LCG’s Civil Service Department, said that the police chief is a classified position under fire and police. He also said that the working test period for fire and police civil service is six months to a year.
Ricky Zeno, LCG Human Resources (HR) manager said that rule seven comes from the municipal civil service and that the six-month working test period would not apply to fire and police, but there is a working test period for police employees under fire and police and it is one year.
Glover said that his understanding of the working test period came from conversations with the previous police chief and other employees within the police department. Glover believed the working test period was typically six months, and that it only went up to a year if there were issues on the job, which he said he was given no reason to believe he was underperforming.
However, the board agreed that Glover was a probationary employee at the time of his termination.
The board voted to deny appeal and summary disposition. They then began the hearing process to determine if Glover was given ample time to demonstrate his ability to perform his job.
Additional witnesses began testifying on various aspects of Glover’s work.
Glover said he was blindsided by his termination and he believes he was not given a fair opportunity to prove himself capable of his job.