Mr Moores seems to have “employment law” experience with some state tribunals and the EEOC but I have no idea why he put his client on the stand to admit to taking a call from his spouse while on duty and then becoming “aroused” and turning on his cell phone to video to view porn on the job. The department’s “star witness” obviously didn’t know any of this and wasn’t very credible to the commissioner. She stated in her report (vis a vis) that she wouldn’t have even upheld the 90-day suspension had it not been for the employee’s own admissions in his testimony that he was viewing porn on the clock!
I’ve read that this particular classification is NOT unionized and I don’t really know if it is or isn’t. However, I can’t imagine a union rep putting their own “client” on the stand to make those admissions in there!
Without listening to the testimony, we have no idea why Moores decided to do this. It is possible he did it in rebuttal because he believed the department’s witness’ testimony might be considered to be too damaging to his client and didn’t want to let it go.
Interesting case, NSR. Thanks for sharing. Don’t really care about the sex – just the principle.
