Case & Policy Update

Volume 42 | August 20, 2021

OPA Issues Findings for No-Mask-in-Hospital Case

In January, a hospital nurse tweeted that an SPD officer had refused to wear a mask while in the hospital and “spoke to frontline workers like we were garbage.” This tweet went viral, and multiple complaints were filed. OPA recently completed its investigation into this case.

The named employee (NE) entered the hospital to assist in the transportation of a detainee. He was not wearing a facemask. A nurse handed him a mask, which he did not put on, and then a second nurse, the complainant, approached him and told him facemasks were required for patient and staff safety. The NE told her that he was focusing on his job and would consider wearing a mask later. He was approached by multiple other hospital staff and refused their requests to wear a face mask. In these interactions, the NE explained “I’ve got my things going on, my HR department knows about it,” and expressed safety concerns about wearing a mask if the detainee tried to fight him. Eventually, he put on a face mask after speaking to a nurse supervisor. He agreed to wear it until it was time to interact with the detainee.

Six months earlier, the NE had submitted a memo to SPD Human Resources (HR) requesting a medical exemption from the Governor’s and Chief of Police’s orders requiring face masks, as well as from SPD’s facial shaving requirement. The memo did not include official verification of a medical condition. HR neither expressly approved nor denied his request. The NE was not diverted from his regular patrol duties, and no steps were taken to avoid placing him in contact with others or otherwise mitigate risks caused by a lack of face covering. During OPA’s investigation, two of the NE’s medical providers gave written statements expressing his need for a medical exemption to the mask mandate.

OPA identified two potential policy violations: adherence to law and professionalism. For the first allegation, the investigation found that there were significant gaps in how SPD evaluated, verified, and treated mask mandate medical exemptions. As a result, OPA recommended a not sustained finding and issued a Management Action Recommendation (MAR) suggesting improvements to handling, assessing, and documenting medical exemption requests. The MAR also reminded officers of their obligations to comply with mask mandates and/or intervene or report when other officers do not comply.

OPA recommended a sustained finding for the second allegation—professionalism—because the NE’s approach, demeanor, and communication with hospital staff was unprofessional. This was avoidable behavior that, in OPA’s estimation, likely eroded public trust unnecessarily.

OPA also posts the Case & Policy Updates here.