Human Resource Center
Human Resource Center
 Employee Resources
 Departmental Orders Minimize

DEPARTMENTAL RULES

Sheriff's Department Rules, Policies, and Orders  


100.7 Uniforms shall not be worn by employees while not on official duty, except in going to and from work or when engaged in authorized part time or volunteer work, where the uniform is required.  All other occasions for wearing of the uniform shall require special permission of the Director of Corrections and Undersheriff, Division Chief, or their designee. 

Appellant deputy admitted he violated this rule when he acknowledged the rule but wore his uniform and sidearm to his child support hearing. In re Strauch, CSA 37-11, 7 (12/20/11).

Back to top


Rule 200.2  Deputy sheriffs and employees, if witness to the use of force, shall not fail to report the use of force to a supervisor, nor fail to make a complete report to a supervisor.

This rule applies to a witness to, and not the actor in, a use of force incident.  It is illogical to require the actor to witness her own actions, particularly since another rule requires the actor to file a use of force report.   In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07and 50-08, 21 (2/27/09).  

Rule 200.4  Deputy sheriffs and employees shall not depart from the truth, knowingly make misleading statements, or falsify any report, record, testimony, or work related communications.

The same evidence which establishes a violation of CSR 16-60 E. also establishes a violation of Departmental Order 200.4.2, Commission of a Deceptive Act.  In re Romero, CSA 01-12, 8 (4/17/12).

Fraternization is not limited to sexual relationships, but includes any personal relationship between a deputy and an inmate. In re Romero, CSA 01-12, 9 (4/17/12).

Deputy sheriff violated this rule where he: spent inordinate amounts of time with an inmate, placed his own funds in her inmate account, sought her out 10 times per month when she was out of custody, and engaged in a 20-minute phone call from her. In re Romero, CSA 01-12, 9 (4/17/12).

Deputy sheriff’s failure to self-report his personal relationship with an inmate was a violation of this rule. In re Romero, CSA 01-12, 9 (4/17/12).           

Agency established that appellant was dishonest in violation of departmental rule when appellant's description of her use of force against inmate and assertion that force was justified because other deputy involved had difficulty controlling inmate were contradicted by other deputy's testimony and by Diginet recording of the incident.   In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07and 50-08, 21-22 (2/27/09).

Appellant's denial that supervisor's inquiry into her knitting on duty was an order to cease because it inaccurately described her crocheting as knitting was dishonest in light of the obvious intent of the supervisor's question.   In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07and 50-08, 4 (2/27/09).

Where evidence showed that use of crochet needles in jail setting was potentially harmful, and the directive to cease bringing crocheting materials to work were clear to other deputies present when directive was given, appellant's assertion that order applied only to yarn was dishonest.   In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07and 50-08, 4 (2/27/09).

Deputy sheriff's denial that sergeant's "please do not do this again" was an order to cease knitting on post was dishonest in light of the obvious intent of the words and the sergeant's authority over appellant.   In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07and 50-08, 4 (2/27/09).

Back to top


Rule 200.9  Deputy sheriffs and employees shall not fail to devote undivided attention to their duties.

Appellant's knitting on duty prevented her from giving her full attention to her primary duties, in violation of departmental order.   In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07 and 50-08, 5 (2/27/09).

Rule 200.13  Deputies shall not refuse to obey a lawful order of a supervisor

Supervisor's directive need not be prefaced with words like "I order you" to be the lawful order of a superior.   In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07and 50-08, 9 (2/27/09).

Rule 200.15  Deputy sheriffs and employees shall not willfully or intentionally display any disrespectful, insolent or abusive language or behavior toward any supervisor, department employee, employee of other official agencies of the public, while on duty.  

This rule must be evaluated under the totality of the circumstances surrounding the allegedly offensive conduct. In re Gutierrez , CSB 65-11A, 4 (4/4/13).

Factors to be considered under this rule are whether the appellant intended to be disrespectful, insolent or abusive and whether the subject of the conduct reasonably found it disrespectful, insolent or abusive.  In re Gutierrez , CSB 65-11A, 4 (4/4/13). 

When deputy sheriff engaged in extended dispute of superior's directive to leave crochet needles out of the jail, she violated this rule.  In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07 and 50-08, 6 (2/27/09). 

Rule 300.10  Deputy sheriffs shall not indulge in immoral, indecent, or disorderly performance of duties or cause the public to lose confidence in the department.

Deputy sheriff who yelled obscenities at a secured inmate during book-in, distracted deputies engaged with other inmates, and disrupted the book-in area, with potentially dangerous results, violated written departmental rule against disorderly performance of duties.  In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07and 50-08, 15 (2/27/09).

Deputy sheriff's unjustified violence against an inmate was disorderly performance of her duty to keep inmates safe.   In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07and 50-08, 22 (2/27/09).

No Violation Found

No violation found where only proof was agency’s assertion that appellant’s gestures “clearly amount  to” immoral and indecent conduct, Evaluation of the totality of the circumstances is required. In re Gutierrez, CSB 65-11A, 4 (4/4/13).  

Hearing officer did not misinterpret this rule where agency’s only proof of error was that the efficiency of the agency was impaired because a charge was investigated, a lawsuit was filed and discipline resulted.  In re Gutierrez, CSB 65-11A, 4 (4/4/13).

Rule 300.17.1 Fraternization with Prisoner

Fraternization is not limited to sexual relationships, but includes any personal relationship between a deputy and an inmate. In re Romero, CSA 01-12, 9 (4/17/12).

Deputy sheriff violated this rule where he: spent inordinate amounts of time with an inmate, placed his own funds in her inmate account, sought her out 10 times per month when she was out of custody, and engaged in a 20-minute phone call from her. In re Romero, CSA 01-12, 9 (4/17/12).

Rule 300.17.3, Reporting of Prohibited Associations.

Deputy sheriff’s failure to self-report his personal relationship with an inmate was a violation of this rule. In re Romero, CSA 01-12, 9 (4/17/12).

Rule 300.19 Deputy sheriffs and employees shall not violate any lawful rule, duty, procedure or order. 

CSR 16-60 Y and DO 300.19 apply only in the absence of a more specific violation. In re Gutierrez, CSA 65-11, 8 (8/28/12).

This catchall rule is cumulative where other more specific career service rules are alleged by the agency.  In re Gutierrez, CSA 65-11, 6 (8/28/12).

Appellant did not violate the Sheriff's Department rule against disrespectful language by answering co-worker’s phone calls with “what are you wearing” where co-worker participated in the practice.  In re Gutierrez, CSA 65-11, 6-7 (8/28/12).

Appellant did not violate DO 300.1 by answering calls from a co-worker with “what are you wearing?” where  the words were not patently offensive, the co-worker willingly engaged in the practice, and it was a common greeting among some employees, including the co-worker. In re Gutierrez, CSA 65-11, 7-8 (8/28/12).

Supervisor’s gestures to a co-worker to lift her shirt and sit on his lap was not immoral conduct under CO 300.1 where agency failed to establish the orderly performance of their duties were impaired thereby, or that the public lost confidence in the agency. In re Gutierrez, CSA 65-11, 8 (8/28/12).

The application of more specific violations renders this catchall rule moot. In re Strauch, CSA 37-11, 7 (12/20/11).

Deputy sheriff's loss of control when she yelled obscenities at inmate through closed door, causing other inmates to yell back and diverting other officers' attention from control of other inmates, breached her primary duties of care, custody and control of inmates, in violation of departmental rule.   In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07and 50-08, 16 (2/27/09).

Back to top 


300.2 Deputy Sheriffs and employees shall not display any badge or identify themselves as Denver Sheriff Department (DSD) employees for any purpose, except when necessary for identification  purposes in furtherance of an official duty, or in the course of authorized activities, or off-duty employment. 

Deputy violated this rule by his acknowledgment that he wore his uniform and sidearm to his child support hearing. In re Strauch, CSA 37-11, 7 (12/20/11).

300.20 Deputy sheriffs and employees shall not indulge in any conduct which is contrary to Career Service Authority rules and Regulations.

The application of more specific violation renders this catchall rule moot. In re Strauch, CSA 37-11, 7 (12/20/11).  

 300.21 All employees of the Department shall read and obey all directives and orders issued by the Mayor, the Manger of Safety, Director of Corrections and Undersheriff, command officers or their designees that relate to the Sheriff Departments’ duties and assignments.  Employees shall also read, maintain familiarity with, and carry out all Department Orders, Post Orders and written procedures relating to their specific duty posts and assignments.

This strict liability rule applies irrespective of intent.In re Strauch, CSA 37-11, 7-8 (12/20/11).

Deputy who wore his uniform and sidearm outside of work violated this rule irrespective of his intent. In re Strauch, CSA 37-11, 7-8 (12/20/11).

This rule requires deputies actively to read and maintain familiarity with all agency orders and procedures. In re Strauch, CSA 37-11, 7-8 (12/20/11).

Agency failed to prove violation by a preponderance of the evidence where it failed to specify what conduct violated the departmental order.  In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07and 50-08, 16 (2/27/09). 

Rule 400.5  Deputy sheriffs shall not taunt, embarrass, intimidate, threaten, or harass any prisoner or encourage or permit others to do so. 

Deputy sheriff who yelled obscenities at inmate, threatened and harassed inmate in violation of departmental rule.   In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07and 50-08, 16 (2/27/09). 

D.O.1100.4. Supervisors and administrators shall limit their on-duty actions and relations with other employees to those actions prescribed by their duties and procedures or actions considered reasonable and appropriate to the work situation.

Appellant’s status as captain and acting chief required him to set a respectful tone rather than accept or participate in locker-room banter in the sheriff's department.  In re Gutierrez, CSA 65-11, 8-9 (8/28/12).

Captain violated DO 1100.4 requiring appropriate workplace conduct by his sexually-oriented comments and gestures toward a co-worker, even though co-worker fully participated in the sexual banter. In re Gutierrez, CSA 65-11, 8 (8/28/12).

Captain violated DO 1100.4 when he failed to heed his supervisor's counseling to act more professionally, responded to a subordinate’s request for time off by texting “only if u r nice to me,” told a female co-worker to unbutton her blouse more, motioned for her to expose her breasts and sit on his lap, and failed to stop inappropriate conversation by others, cautioning them instead to "just be careful", where there was testimony that a deputy found this type of conversation inappropriate in the workplace, In re Gutierrez, CSA 65-11, 8-9 (8/28/12).

Order 2440.1. G.  Human Relations/Code of Ethics and Standard of Conduct

Conduct is measured by an objective standard under departmental rule requiring sheriffs to adhere to guiding standards of conduct and ethical rules. In re Gutierrez, CSA 65-11, 12 (8/28/12).

Conduct violated department's objective standards of conduct when it was deemed offensive by three employees and appellant admitted the conduct was stupid and caused him to be ashamed.  In re Gutierrez, CSA 65-11, 12 (8/28/12).


Order 2420.1B.4. 

No error in hearing officer’s finding of no violation where evidence did not support finding of: quid pro quo harassment; alteration of terms and conditions of employment; interfered with another’s work performance; or subjected another to an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment, In re Gutierrez , CSB 65-11A, 4 (4/4/13). 

Order 2420 aB.5(J) Employees joking or engaging in behavior that could be observed as offensive by a third party.  

This rule does not require evidence that a third party witness actually observed the action and was offended by it. In re Gutierrez , CSB 65-11A, 5 (4/4/13).

Presence of the word “could” in this D.O. means the actual presence of an offended witness is not required to prove a violation. In re Gutierrez, CSB 65-11A, 4 (4/4/13).  

The plain language of this rule requires an objective analysis of the conduct at issue.  In re Gutierrez, CSB 65-11A, 5 (4/4/13).  

Even though appellant’s gestures to colleague to expose her breasts and to sit on his lap did not establish sexual harassment where she actively participated in sexual banter, his gestures could be seen as offensive by reasonable third party in violation of this rule. In re Gutierrez, CSB 65-11A, 5 (4/4/13).

Back to top


Order 2440.1. 3   Code of Ethics

Written directives couched in vague, aspirational terms like "accountable for everything we do" and "strive for excellence" and reference to the golden rule provide guidance but are not orders to be enforced.  In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07and 50-08, 7 and 17 (2/27/09).

Back to top


2700.11 Uniform Policy…General Uniform Information.  The uniform may be worn only when an officer is in route to the job (includes: on duty and authorized uniformed off-duty employment) or returning home from work and when otherwise authorized by the Director of Corrections and Undersheriff or designee.

Deputy’s acknowledgment that he wore his uniform and sidearm to his child support hearing was a violation of this rule regardless of his of his intent. In re Strauch, CSA 37-11, 8 (12/20/11).

Back to top


2730.1F Employee may be required by their supervisors to report for medical tests or for a special physical or mental examination.  If the supervisor believes that an employee cannot perform the duties of the position in an acceptable manner due to medical problems or disabilities, a fitness for duty examination may be required.

Before sending an employee for a fitness for duty examination, requiring her to use sick or vacation leave, a supervisor must reasonably believe the employee cannot perform his or her duties due to medical problems or disabilities.  In re Martinez, CSB 09-12A, 3 (8/15/13).   

Sheriff's departmental order on fitness for duty examinations was not intended to allow a supervisor to send an employee for an examination out of spite or on a whim, or without sufficient information to form a reasonable belief that mental or physical issues or disabilities were preventing an employee from performing the job in an acceptable manner. In re Martinez, CSB 09-12A, 3 (8/15/13).   

Supervisor who ordered fitness for duty examination did not have reasonable basis for concluding that employee had a breakdown when she did not witnessed the incident, and the direct supervisors who witnessed it believed it was not a breakdown and would have sent the employee back to work.  In re Martinez, CSB 09-12A, 4 (8/15/13).  

Lacking sufficient information to reasonably conclude that appellant's inappropriate behavior prevented her from performing her job acceptably due to medical problems or disabilities, management faced a disciplinary issue, not a medical one.  In re Martinez, CSB 09-12A, 4 (8/15/13).  

Every act of inappropriate behavior does not justify an order for a fitness for duty examination.  In re Martinez, CSB 09-12A, 4 (8/15/13).  

Deference to management decision-making cannot replace evidence or the requirement that management have sufficient information to form a reasonable belief that a fitness for duty examination is justified.  In re Martinez, CSB 09-12A, 4 (8/15/13).

Back to top


Order 5011.1G Use of force

Deputy sheriff violated departmental order on proportionate use of force when she shoved the face of a non-threatening, though drunk and argumentative, inmate into a Plexiglass ® window three times, unnecessarily increasing the force of each shove.   In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07and 50-08, 18 (2/27/09).

Deputy sheriff who used force upon an inmate violated department rule when she failed to file a use-of-force incident report required by that department rule.   In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07and 50-08, 20 (2/27/09).

Even though sheriff department use of force rule permits grabbing inmate's hair to prevent spitting, appellant's repeated slamming of inmate's head into Plexiglas®, after inmate was under control was disproportionate response, in violation of agency rule regarding use of force.   In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07 and 50-08, pp 19 (2/27/09).

Where deputy sheriff justified repeatedly slamming the face of a shackled inmate into Plexiglas® window because the inmate had spit in her face, potentially exposing her to AIDS virus, deputy's justification under use of force rule became suspect when deputy acknowledged she did not seek prophylactic course of treatment following the incident.   In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07 and 50-08, 21 (2/27/09).

Uniform policy

Where sheriff's department dress code prohibited hair adornments that are not minimal size, plain design, and matching or dark color, appellant's persistent refusal to remove seven-inch long, brightly colored, flapping butterfly hair sticks that did not match her hair was a violation of dress code under this rule.In re Norman-Curry, CSA 28-07 and 50-08, 9 (2/27/09).

Back to Top


DEPARTMENTAL RULES

Denver Human Services

Agency Rules/Policies/Orders


DHS Employee Handbook, P.10, Code of Ethics

Communication, Language, and Behavior

Display professionalism by using appropriate and civil language, tone and affect. Likewise, your attitude and non-verbal communication should be business-like, respectful and appropriate.

Use accurate and respectful language in your written and verbal communications to or about clients, customers or co-workers. 

Respect

Treat colleagues and clients/customers with respect.

Recognize the value of teamwork, cooperation, and collaboration as a means to provide excellent services to our clients/customers, our community and each other. 

In contrast to unenforceable vision statements in employee handbook, specific ethics provisions, which provide reasonably clear measures of behavioral expectations, are enforceable. In re Quezada, CSA 40-12, 8 (4/5/13). 

Ethics provision to treat colleagues and clients with respect, and to cooperate, and collaborate in providing excellent services, are enforceable standards. In re Quezada, CSA 40-12, 8 (4/5/13). 

Appellant’s admission that she told her supervisor she was refusing to do assigned work, violated established standard to be respectful.  In re Quezada, CSA 40-12, 8 (4/5/13). 

Appellant’s hostile and sarcastic words and gestures to her supervisor violated established ethics standard to be respectful in the workplace.  In re Quezada, CSA 40-12, 8 (4/5/13).

Back to top


Performance Enhancement Plan for 2012.

Section 1- Duties

Leadership and Management

Case Management Supervisor I – Operations.

Description: Ensures that federal reporting deadlines are met…Assists employees with difficult and unusual assignments…Reviews work for accuracy and completeness…

Violation established where appellant caused agency to miss mandated compliance standard and her attempts to reassign blame were unpersuasive. In re Quezada, CSA 40-12, 7-8 (4/5/13).

Back to top


 
 Contact Us Minimize

OHR Employee Relations Unit
201 W. Colfax Ave., Dept 412
Denver, CO 80202

For general employee relations questions contact:
Peter.Garritt@denvergov.org
HR Supervisor, Employee Relations and Records
720 913-5671

Mark.Croteau@denvergov.org
Staff HR Professional
720 913-5654

For ADA questions contact:
Wilma.Springer@denvergov.org
ADA Coordinator
720 913-5620

To leave a message, please call:
(720) 913-5710