ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

24A-001-PTFD · Pinetop Fire District · 2025-06-30

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

JD Ottman

Appellant,

vs.

Pinetop Fire District,

An Arizona Fire District,

Respondent Agency.

No. 24A-001-PTFD

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: March 3, 2025, March 4, 2025, March 5, 2025, and March 6, 2025, with the record held open until June 10, 2025 to allow the court reporter’s transcript to be included in the record, and for the submission of written closing statements.

APPEARANCES: Elizabeth Tate, Esq. appeared on behalf of Appellant JD Ottman (hereinafter “Ottman”). Jeffrey C. Matura, Esq. appeared on behalf of Respondent Agency Pinetop Fire District, An Arizona Fire District (hereinafter “District”).

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: The District’s Exhibits 1 through 37 were admitted into evidence. Ottman’s Exhibits G, J, M, N, X, and Y were admitted into evidence.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times relevant to this matter, Ottman held the position of the Module Captain of the District’s Fuels Crew. Jim Morgan (hereinafter “Chief Morgan”) is the Fire Chief of the District and Richard Wallace (hereinafter “Chief Wallace”) is the Assistant Fire Chief of the District.

2. On March 7, 2024, Chief Morgan issued to Ottman a Pre-Disciplinary Action Process Notice to inform Ottman that the District had completed its investigation and, based upon the results of that investigation, concluded that Ottman violated the District’s policies. Chief Morgan also informed Ottman that the intended level of discipline was a demotion from his supervisory position and that he was entitled to request a pre-disciplinary hearing.

3. Ottman requested a pre-disciplinary hearing that occurred on March 11, 2024. Ottman attended the hearing with his labor representative, provided Chief Morgan with his first written rebuttal, and discussed the intended discipline. Chief Morgan considered Ottman’s first written rebuttal and the other information provided during the hearing. Following the hearing, Ottman sent Chief Morgan an e-mail stating that he wanted to appeal the disciplinary action against him, which was his right under the District’s policy.

4. On March 25, 2024, Chief Morgan sent Ottman a Disciplinary Action Notice, in which he informed Ottman that the District decided to further investigate some of the issues raised in his first written rebuttal. Chief Morgan also told Ottman that he was “continuing to contemplate the potential disciplinary action in the form of demotion, which may include withdrawing approval for you to deploy on any wildland assignment in which you would function in any supervisory role.” Chief Morgan included this language to clarify that the contemplated demotion referenced in the earlier Pre-Disciplinary Action Notice included any supervisory capacity on a wildland assignment. Ottman then submitted his second written rebuttal, which Chief Morgan reviewed and forwarded to Brenda Transchina, a resource consultant who was hired by the District to conduct an investigation into allegations involving Ottman. Transchina thereafter prepared a supplemental report to address Ottman’s earlier complaints from his first written rebuttal and the additional issues raised in his second written rebuttal. Transchina concluded that Ottman’s complaints were not substantiated.

5. Transchina’s supplemental report also further solidified Chief Morgan’s inclination to choose demotion as the appropriate disciplinary action because Ottman displayed a lack of accountability in how he handled the complaints against him and during the District’s investigation.

6. On April 23, 2024, Chief Morgan sent Ottman a Letter of Intended Discipline. The letter informed Ottman that Chief Morgan intended to demote him based upon the conclusions of the District’s investigation. Although the letter offered Ottman the opportunity to provide any additional information, Ottman stated that he had already provided everything in his prior rebuttal letters, but that “if he could do this over again, he would do it differently.” The April 23, 2024 Letter of Intended Discipline provided, in relevant part, as follows:

JD,

As you are aware, subsequent to the initial pre-disciplinary notice and hearing held on March 11, 2024, the district completed a follow-up interview based on your rebuttal and information brought to light at that time. I have reviewed the subsequent findings of the follow-up interview conducted by Human Resource Strategies.

Based upon these findings and the original findings from the initial investigation, I have determined that it is my preliminary intent to impose disciplinary action as follows:

Demotion from Fire Fuels Tech IV (Captain) to Fire Fuels Tech II

Removal of approval for you to deploy on any wildland assignment that involves supervisory functions. This restriction may be changed based on performance improvements over the one-two years.

However, prior to my making a final disciplinary decision, you have the right to respond to provide any additional information and/or mitigating circumstances, as well as any and all reasons why this intended action should not be implemented. I will take into consideration any new information that you provide prior to taking any disciplinary action. According to PFD’s “Corrective Action Disciplinary Process” policy, you have five business days (by May 1, 2024 @ 0900 hours) to respond in writing. Additionally, you may request a pre-disciplinary hearing at which you may present such information; if you wish to have a pre-disciplinary hearing, that will be held on May 2, 2024 @ 1600. Recognizing that you have already provided your rebuttal to the initial investigation, there is no reason for you to repeat that information; rather, any additional information you provide should be based on the new information that I have cited below that came as a result of the most recent interview.

Failure to respond in writing to this letter of intended discipline will waive your right to response and will result in my implementing the intended action. However, if you choose not to respond, once final disciplinary action is imposed, you will have the right to appeal the action as per policy.

The factors that I have considered in contemplating disciplinary action include the following violations of PFD policy:

Management Philosophy:

(Page 4) Encourages employees to “attempt to resolve conflict in collaborative and cooperative timely manner.”

You chose not to involve Craig in working on corrective action for Thompson because he felt Craig was “negotiating” for Thompson. Your excluding Craig reflects a failure to resolve conflicts in a collaborative manner.

Corrective Action Disciplinary Process:

(Guideline IV.A): “It is the policy of the Pinetop District that supervisors administer discipline in a positive, corrective and progressive manner.”

You failed to follow the progressive discipline process by documenting incidents

and/or problems or issuing verbal reprimands.

You demonstrated a lack of knowledge of understanding of the policy by stating that he had issued verbal reprimands to Thompson, when he had no written

documentation, which is a required element outlined in the policy.

Standards of Conduct:

(Policy Statement) “It is the policy of PFD to prohibit any conduct that interferes with operations, discredits the district, is offensive to customers or fellow employees, or endangers the safety of any individuals.”

(Guidelines) “The following conduct is prohibited and may subject the employee involved to corrective and/or disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal.

(A). “Providing false of misleading information when applying for employment or at any time during employment.”

In your written rebuttal, you made statements and/or accusations that were

unfounded and/or inflammatory, and thereby misleading. Examples of such

include:

You stated that Thompson lied several times about being sick, but could only identify one date, for which you did not actually have proof that Thompson wasn’t sick.

You stated that Thompson had lied on his payroll on December 5, without

having seen the timecard or actually having evidence that it was a lie.

You stated in your original rebuttal that Thompson’s timecard of December

5 was “forged,” yet you have not even seen the timecard.

In the interview, you brought up the Hatfield/Dopazo investigation, saying that you did not know what that was about, yet the original email about the problem was sent to you; additionally, you were interviewed in the investigation.

D). “Demonstration of incompetence or inability to adequately perform job duties; or demonstration of neglect, inefficiency or indifference in the execution of duties.”

Your repeated failure to address various issues that you claimed arose with Thompson reflects either incompetence or inability to perform your supervisory responsibilities and/or demonstration of neglect of such duties. These include:

Failure to address Thompson’s laughing and walking away when he

admonished him for his misconduct.

Failure to seek identification of an unknown individual who made threats of

violence toward both you and Thompson.

Failure to seek details and verify allegations made by an unknown individual against one of his crew members.

Failure to address the threats of violence made by an unknown individual

against you and Thompson, including challenging the individual or reporting this to his supervisor or to any other authority on the wildland assignment.

Failure to report to your supervisors that threats of violence had been made by an unknown individual against both him and a crew member.

Failure to address and document Thompson’s various misconduct that you deemed as unacceptable:

Repeated use of the hand sign

Use of inappropriate language

Inappropriate workplace discussions

Ongoing tardiness/late notifications

Failure to follow the progressive discipline process/policy by documenting

incidents/problems and/or issuing verbal reprimands.

(O) “Unprofessional language or behavior, profanity, mistreatment, disrespect or

discourteous treatment of customers, visitors or other employees.”

Your use of profanity when addressing Thompson

Your written text message telling him to burn his comp time and look for

another job

Your reference to the position of Fire Fuels Tech II as “grunt shovelers”

(during the pre-disciplinary hearing) is derogatory and disrespectful of

employees within that job classification.

Workplace Violence:

(Policy Statement) “It is the policy of the PFD that threats or acts of physical violence, including intimidation, harassment, and/or coercion which involve or affect District employees or which occurs on District property or at District functions shall not be tolerated.”

(Definition) “Threats or Acts of Violence are defined as conduct against persons or property that is sufficiently severe, offensive or intimidating to alter the condition of District employment, or to create a hostile, abusive or intimidating work environment for one or more District employees.”

• Your verbal conveyance to Thompon of a physical threat to “cut off his fingers

and shove them down his throat” or “cut off his fingers and shove them up his

ass” -- whichever was actually said -- is abusive and intimidating.

• Regardless of the intent or the interpretation of the statement, the words used

reflect a threat of physical violence.

(Guideline B) “Any employee who experiences or witnesses such acts, conduct, behavior or communications that would fall within the definition above shall immediately notify their immediate supervisor or another member of management.”

• You failed to notify your supervisor or any member of management when an

unknown individual – described by you as a “random firefighter” – poked you

in the chest and made a threat of physical violence against you and Thompson.

In addition to the policy violations outlined above, it became evident that after three plus years as a supervisor at Pinetop Fire, you have a lack of knowledge or understanding of policy.

Examples include:

Fraternization policy: You accused Craig and Moseley of being in violation of the policy based on what you perceived as favoritism; however, the policy specifically defines fraternization as involvement in a relationship of a romantic or intimate nature. Thus, you did not consider the policy in its’ totality.

Drug/Alcohol policy: You indicated that Thompson was in violation of this policy because he had not told you of his health condition and or that he was taking medication.This is indicative that you did not read the policy that requires an employee to report use of a medication to the Fire Chief, not to the supervisor.

Corrective Action Discipline policy: You stated multiple times that you had issued verbal reprimands to Thompson; yet, you had never documented anything in writing.

This indicates that you are unaware that policy requires verbal reprimands to be documented in writing.

Workplace Violence policy: You stated that all violations are subject to incidents on district premises; when in fact the policy specifically states that threats or acts of violence not occurring on District premises but involving an employee of the District if the threats or acts of violence affect the legitimate interests of the District.

............................

7. On May 6, 2024, the District issued to Ottman a Letter of Final Discipline that provided, in relevant part, as follows:

JD,

On April 23, 2024, you received a second Letter of Intended Discipline; subsequently, on May 2, 2024, you attended a pre-disciplinary hearing in which you were afforded the opportunity to present any additional information and/or mitigating circumstances, as well as present any and all reasons why the intended action should not be carried out. Additionally, prior to the May 2

hearing, you submitted a written response to the letter of intended discipline.

In contemplating my disciplinary decision, I have taken into consideration the following:

• All of the information and findings presented throughout the interview and investigation process. (Note: The specific violations of policy are summarized on pages 3-5 below)

• The responses/rebuttals you have provided both in writing and in the two pre-disciplinary hearings you attended.

• While the investigation was initiated based upon an allegation related to a specific event, the investigation ultimately revealed a pattern of numerous leadership failures beyond just the issues related to the alleged incident on the Grapevine Fire.

• Throughout this investigation, you have not demonstrated accountability for your actions with the exception of your failure to report the actions of the “random firefighter” on the Grapevine Fire. Rather, you have blamed others and provided excuses for your inactions.

• In 2022, following an investigation related to other employees of the Fuels Crew, I identified that you had some leadership deficiencies at that time. The District invested in you by providing you with leadership training, as well as individual leadership coaching.

• The PFD Corrective Action/Disciplinary Process policy sets forth the norms of the discipline process and allows for management to exercise discretion in determining the degree of the discipline to be administered based on the underlying employee conduct.

After careful consideration of all of the above, I have concluded that it is no longer in the best interest of the Pinetop Fire District to have you continue in a position of supervisory responsibility. Thus, I have determined that it is my final decision to uphold my intention to impose disciplinary action as follows:

Demotion from Fire Fuels Tech IV (Captain) to Fire Fuels Tech II step 4

Your new hourly pay rate will be $22.99.

• Removal of approval for you to deploy on any wildland assignment that involves supervisory functions. This restriction may be changed based on performance improvements over the next one to two years.

• This action shall be effective May 8, 2024.

• You are scheduled to return to duty at 0700 on May 13, 2024. If for any reason you wish to wait until the following week and return after May 13, you may use PTO to cover your hours.

In accordance with PFD policy “Disciplinary Appeals,” you have the right to appeal this disciplinary action decision to the Fire Board within seven business days of this notification. The deadline to file the appeal is May 14, 2024, by 5:00 pm. If you wish to appeal, you shall provide a written notice of appeal to me, stating your basis for appeal, including a brief summary of my final action. Upon receipt of your notice of appeal, I will promptly notify the Fire Board, who shall handle the appeal as an important business matter.

...................................................

As noted above, the following violations of PFD policy were considered:

...............................

Corrective Action Disciplinary Process:

• (Guideline IV.A): “It is the policy of the Pinetop District that supervisors administer discipline in a positive, corrective and progressive manner.”

• You failed to follow the progressive discipline process by documenting incidents

and/or problems or issuing verbal reprimands.

• You demonstrated a lack of knowledge of understanding of the policy by stating that he had issued verbal reprimands to Thompson, when he had no written

documentation, which is a required element outlined in the policy.

...............................

D). “Demonstration of incompetence or inability to adequately perform job duties; or demonstration of neglect, inefficiency or indifference in the execution of duties. “

Your repeated failure to address various issues that you claimed arose with

Thompson reflects either incompetence or inability to perform your supervisory

responsibilities and/or demonstration of neglect of such duties. These include:

Failure to address Thompson’s laughing and walking away when you

admonished him for his misconduct.

Failure to seek identification of an unknown individual who made threats of

violence toward both you and Thompson.

Failure to seek details and verify allegations made by an unknown individual

against one of your crew members.

Failure to address the threats of violence made by an unknown individual

against you and Thompson, including challenging the individual or reporting

this to his supervisor or to any other authority on the wildland assignment.

Failure to report to your supervisors that threats of violence had been made by an unknown individual against both you and a crew member.

Failure to address and document Thompson’s various misconduct that you

deemed as unacceptable:

Repeated use of the hand sign

Use of inappropriate language

Inappropriate workplace discussions

Ongoing tardiness/late notifications

Failure to follow the progressive discipline process/policy by documenting

incidents/problems and/or issuing verbal reprimands.

(O) “Unprofessional language or behavior, profanity, mistreatment, disrespect or

discourteous treatment of customers, visitors or other employees.”

Your use of profanity when addressing Thompson

Your written text message telling Thompson to burn his comp time and look for

another job

Workplace Violence:

Your verbal conveyance to Thompson of a physical threat to “cut off his fingers and shove them down his throat” or “cut off his fingers and shove them up his ass” -- whichever was actually said -- is abusive and intimidating. Regardless of the intent or the interpretation of the statement, the words used reflect a threat of physical violence.

You failed to notify your supervisor or any member of management when an unknown individual – described by you as a “random firefighter” – poked you in the chest and made a threat of physical violence against you and Thompson.

8. Ottman requested an appeal regarding the May 6, 2024 Letter of Final Discipline.

9. The District assigned the appeal to the Arizona Office of Administrative

Hearings (hereinafter “OAH”), pursuant to an Intergovernmental Agreement between the OAH and The District. The rules and procedures of the OAH are to be used during the hearing process. Except as otherwise provided by law, the decision of the Administrative Law Judge at the Office of Administrative Hearing shall be non-binding. The decision shall be forwarded to the Fire Board upon receipt. The Fire Board shall then affirm, modify, or reject the decision within a reasonable time.

10. A hearing was held on March 3, 2025, March 4, 2025, March 5, 2025, and March 6, 2025.

11. Damon Thompson, (hereinafter “Thompson”), is a full-time firefighter and emergency medical technician for Timber Mesa Fire District.

12. Thompson was a seasonable employee for the District from September of 2022 to March of 2024. Thompson was a member of the Fuels Crew at the District. The Fuels Crew mitigates hazardous fuels for potential fire danger. The Fuels Crew removes trees and bushes.

13. Ottman was Thompson’s supervisor. Darryl Craig (hereinafter “Craig”) was

a co-supervisor on the Fuels Crew. If an issue arose, Thompson would first go to a lead, then to Craig, and last to Ottman.

14. In October 2022, Thompson had his picture taken with other members of the District, in which Thompson made a gesture with his hand similar to an upside down “OK” symbol. Thompson stated at hearing that he made the gesture as a joke with his friends and was unaware that some people might find it offensive. Ottman and his wife saw the Facebook picture and contacted Captain Allison Moseley, who had posted the picture on Facebook, to inform her that Thompson’s gesture could be viewed as offensive. Captain Moseley agreed to remove the picture and to verbally counsel Thompson. Captain Moseley also documented the incident and her discussion with Thompson.

15. The next summer, in July 2023, Thompson and Ottman responded on behalf of the District to a wildland fire known as the “Grapevine Fire”. During their participation in the Grapevine Fire, Thompson again made a gesture with his hand similar to an upside down “OK” symbol on two separate occasions.

16. The first occasion occurred early one morning when Thompson and another District employee left their hotel for the base camp. While walking to their vehicle, Thompson saw Ottman and another employee and made the hand gesture by his hip. Thompson and Ottman dispute whether Ottman said anything to Thompson. Thompson recalls that Ottman did not say anything to him. Ottman recalls that he told Thompson to not do it again, but admits that he did not document Thompson’s conduct. The second occasion was later that same morning after Thompson and other District employees obtained their breakfast. Thompson and Ottman testified differently during the hearing about what occurred. Thompson testified as follows:

So there was a garbage bag and I was sitting on this tailgate behind that garbage bag. Again, I had the symbol out, just on my hip. And as JD’s going to throw away his breakfast, he sees the symbol and then that’s when he exchanged words with me. At the time, I – again, I told many people I don’t remember if the knife was already out or if he pulled it out, but it was out. And, you know, he kind of signaled me and I don’t know the exact words but and he pretty much said, you’re immature, stop doing that, if you do it again I’ll cut off your finger and shove it up your ass.

Thompson also testified that Ottman raised his voice during their encounter and asked: “So you think you’re fucking funny, huh?” Thompson also testified that Ottman never told him that someone from a different crew had complained about Thompson or threatened him.

17. Ottman’s testimony is different. He described his interaction with Thompson as follows:

Afterward, I was working my way back to the crew when “some random firefighter” walked up to me and asked if I was the “mother f’er that is in charge of the Pinetop crew.” I acknowledged that I was, at which point the firefighter informed me that someone on the Pinetop crew threw him the ball gazer sign. I asked him to point out who it was and the guy pointed and said, “that skinny mother f’er on the end.” I identified that he was pointing to Thompson. The guy then poked me in the chest and said, “You need to get your f’ing guys in check and if you don’t, I will. I’ll beat both your asses and cut his fingers off and shove them down his throat.” Feeling embarrassed and ashamed, I walked back to the crew to finish breakfast and do a briefing with my crew. I looked around and then saw Thompson throw the “white power” sign to me, and I said to him, “He is going to cut your f’ing fingers off and shove them down your throat. You need to f’ing stop that shit.”

18. Ottman admitted during his testimony that he did not identify the name of the firefighter who threatened him and Thompson, did not identify the district he worked for, did not contact anyone at the scene to report the threat, did not report the threat to anyone at the District, did not contact Chief Morgan or Chief Wallace, and did not document the threat in any way. Ottman also admitted that he had his knife in his hand when he spoke to Thompson.

19. On January 15, 2024, Thompson sent Ottman a text message that he was not feeling well and wanted to use his accrued time off. Ottman responded as follows:

How about this, burn the rest of your comp time and look for another job. I’m done with all the late notices and I feel you’re not being truthful. I also will be talking to Darrell about this today. Have a great day.

Ottman admits that he sent this text message to Thompson. Thompson was surprised by Ottman’s response and decided to go to work despite feeling ill because he was afraid he would lose his job. After the morning meeting, Thompson waited to speak to Ottman. Thompson then described what happened next:

After briefing, JD and Daryll were both in the office, kind of, scrolling on his phone and they were kind of, like, exchanging words, like, to talk about something. So they, kind of, seemed busy so I, kind of, just waited there and just – out of nowhere he said, are you going to stand there or what? And I was going to like – I was waiting to talk about, you know, like, that’s going on and he just started going off on this whole thing. He said there’s, like, an empty space in my head and he said you come to work tired all the time. And I was like, I had been having thyroid issues and that’s part the reason why I had been tired but I couldn’t even get that word in. I couldn’t – I can’t really remember off the top of my head but I know I recorded it in Brenda’s interview or something like that. That’s more accurate.

20. Thompson also recalled that Ottman asked him: “Are you going to fucking stand there or what?” Ottman admits that he asked this question to Thompson.

After his interaction with Ottman, Thompson decided to speak to Captain Moseley.

21. On January 17, 2024, Thompson sent a text message to Allison Moseley, a Captain for the District (hereinafter “Captain Moseley”), to ask if he could speak to her about the issues he was having with Ottman. Captain Moseley agreed. Captain Moseley and Thompson met on January 20, 2024, during which Thompson told Captain Moseley about what occurred with Ottman on the Grapevine Fire and with respect to his request for time off. Captain Moseley advised Thompson to speak to Chief Morgan or Chief Wallace. Captain Moseley also told Thompson that, if he did not speak to Chief Morgan or Chief Wallace, she would speak to them.

22. Approximately two days later, Captain Moseley asked Chief Wallace if Thompson had spoken to him. When Captain Wallace said that he had not, Captain Moseley told him what Thompson had said to her about Ottman. Chief Wallace asked Captain Moseley to document what Thompson told her, and so she prepared a written summary. Chief Wallace also asked Thompson to document what occurred, which he did.

23. After receiving the requested documentation from Captain Moseley and Thompson, Chief Wallace spoke to Chief Morgan and decided to place Ottman on administrative leave. Chief Wallace contacted Ottman and told him he was placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of the District’s investigation. Chief Wallace also sent Ottman written notice of his administrative leave on January 23, 2024.

24. Due to the severity of Thompson’s claims against Ottman, Chief Wallace decided to hired Transchina. Chief Wallace was then not involved in the investigation, other than to coordinate witness interviews for Transchina.

25. Transchina owns Human Resource Strategies and has provided human resource consulting to public entities such as fire districts for more than 40 years. Chief Wallace asked Transchina to investigate the allegations by Thompson against Ottman regarding the Grapevine Fire and his request for time off. Transchina reviewed the District’s policies, interviewed about a dozen witnesses, including Thompson and Ottman, and reviewed relevant documents.

26. Transchina prepared and submitted a written report to the District. Based upon the totality of the evidence reviewed, Transchina concluded that Ottman violated the District’s Standards of Conduct and Workplace Violence policies. Transchina also recognized that Ottman and Thompson provided conflicting accounts of what occurred, but even if Ottman’s version were accurate, his conduct still violated the District’s policies. Specifically, with respect to the Grapevine Fire, Transchina concluded that Ottman should have identified the other firefighter who threatened him and Thompson, should have conveyed the threat to Thompson, should have reported the treat to the supervisor at the Grapevine Fire and to Chief Wallace or Chief Morgan, and should have initiated disciplinary action against Thompson for making the hand gesture. With respect to Thompson’s request for time off, Transchina concluded that Ottman failed to document Thompson’s prior instances of tardiness and that his text message to Thompson that he should “burn the rest of his comp time and look for another job” was inappropriate and unprofessional as Thompson’s supervisor.

27. Chief Wallace reviewed Transchina’s written report. He then recommended to Chief Morgan that Ottman be demoted from his supervisory position. Chief Wallace explained why he recommended a demotion as opposed to a more severe discipline as follows:

I was really hoping that – having worked with JD. I was really hoping that he could grow from that experience and we could bring him back into the fold as leadership because I think that’s – that’s an important piece that as an organization that we offer: to give them that opportunity to make mistakes, own their mistakes and then move on from that an improve.

28. Even with the demotion, Ottman is eligible to retest and receive a promotion within the District.

29. At hearing, Ottman contended that he should have received a reprimand because it is the same discipline that was imposed against Louis Mirabelli. Ottman submitted evidence at hearing showing that after Mr. Mirabelli offered alcohol to another District employee and received only a written reprimand. However, there was no evidence submitted regarding Mr. Mirabelli’s role, responsibilities, and number of policy violations.

30. Chief Morgan testified that when he was first hired, he had to demote Steven Fuller, an employee, for grabbing a firefighter, which would have been a violation of state law. Ottman contended that he should not have been demoted for his conduct because he did not violate state law like Mr. Fuller. However, the District may imposed in an circumstance wherein an employee is unable or unwilling to meet the requirements of the current position.

The District’s Policies and Procedures

31. The District’s Administrative Policies and Procedures provide, as following:

...............................

DEMOTIONS

I. PURPOSE

To allow for the option of placing an employee in a position of lower classification status and pay if the employee is unable or unwilling to meet the requirements of the current position.

II. SCOPE

This policy applies to all employees of the PFD.

III. POLICY

It is the policy of PFD to consider the option of placing an employee in a position of lower classification status and pay if the employee is no longer suited for the current position or if it is necessary to prevent a layoff.

......................................

Workplace Violence

III. POLICY

It is the policy of the PFD that threats or acts of physical violence, including intimidation, harassment, and/or coercion which involve or affect District employees or which occurs on District property or at District functions shall not be tolerated.

IV. DEFINITIONS

A. Threats or Acts of Violence are defined as conduct against persons or property that is sufficiently severe, offensive or intimidating to alter the condition of District employment, or to create a hostile, abusive or intimidating work environment for one or more District employees.

......................................

V. GUIDELINES

A. Prohibited workplace violence includes, but is not limited to, the following:

1. Threats or acts of violence occurring on District premises, regardless of the relationship of the District with the individual(s) involved.

2. Threats or acts of violence not occurring on District premises, but involving someone who is acting in the capacity of a representative of the District.

3. Threats or acts of violence not occurring on District premises, but involving an employee of the District if the threats or acts of violence affect the legitimate interests of the District.

B. Any employee who experiences or witnesses such acts, conduct, behavior or communications that would fall within the definition above shall immediately notify their immediate supervisor or another member of management. Failure to report such information according to the guidelines within this policy shall be grounds for disciplinary action.

C. The District shall promptly and thoroughly investigate any report of threats or acts of violence. The identity of the individual making a report shall be protected to the greatest extent possible.

STANDARDS OF CONDUCT

IV. GUIDELINES

The following conduct is prohibited and may subject the employee involved to corrective and/or disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal. The list of examples is illustrative of the type of behavior that is not permitted, but this list is not intended to be all-inclusive.

................................................

D. Demonstration of incompetence or inability to adequately perform job duties; or demonstration of neglect, inefficiency or indifference in the execution of duties.

................................................

O. Unprofessional language or behavior, profanity, mistreatment, disrespect or discourteous treatment of customers, visitors or other employees.

................................................

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The OAH presides over this matter pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes, (hereinafter “A.R.S.”), § 41-1092.01(J) and an Intergovernmental Agreement between the OAH and The District.

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(3), the District bears the burden of persuasion because this matter involves disciplinary action.

3. The standard of proof an all issues is that of the preponderance of the evidence. A.A.C. R2-19-119. A preponderance of the evidence means proof which leads the trier of fact] to find that the existence of the contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence.

4. The District established by a preponderance of the evidence that the its decision to demote Ottman from his supervisory role was appropriate based on Ottman’s violations of the District’s Polices and Procedures. The evidence presented at hearing shows that Ottman failed to comply with the District’s Workplace Violence Guidelines and its Standards of Conduct. It is undisputed that Ottman failed to document the improper conduct of his team member Thompson and failed to inform anyone at the District about the threat received from the other firefighter at the Grapevine Fire. Ottman failed to initiate disciplinary action against Thompson for again making the hand gesture, and sent an inappropriate and unprofessional text message to Thompson in response to his request for time off. Furthermore, Ottman failed to establish that his demotion was based upon retaliation.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that JD Ottman’s appeal is dismissed and the District’s May 6, 2024 decision to demote JD Ottman is affirmed.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, June 30, 2025.

/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Jeffrey C. Matura, Esq.

Barrett/Matura, P.C.

[email redacted]

Pinetop Fire District

John Rowlinson, Board Chair

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff

Jim Morgan

Pinetop Fire District

[email redacted]

Elizabeth D. Tate, Esq.

[email redacted]

JD Ottman

[email redacted]