Backing arbiter, magistrate orders the reinstatement of fired corporal

An arbiter ruled that the corporal deserved suspension, but not firing.
& lt;a href=mailto:bjackson@vindy.com & gt;By BOB JACKSON & lt;/a & gt;
VINDICATOR COURTHOUSE REPORTER
YOUNGSTOWN -- A corporal fired from the Mahoning County Sheriff's Department for misconduct toward female deputies has been ordered to be reinstated.
Magistrate Eugene Fehr of common pleas court said Cpl. John Martynyszyn must be given back pay and compensated for lost benefits since Oct. 8, 2002, which is when an arbiter first ruled he should be given back his job.
The sheriff's department has 14 days to file an objection to Fehr's ruling and ask Judge R. Scott Krichbaum to overturn it. Sheriff Randall Wellington could not be reached to say whether he'll do that.
Fired in 2002
Martynyszyn, a 17-year department veteran, was fired in March 2002 because of complaints lodged against him by two female deputies, who said Martynyszyn berated them in front of jail inmates.
According to court documents, Martynyszyn also made threats against the woman, using a crude sexual reference that the women interpreted as meaning he would rape them.
Martynyszyn appealed and an arbiter, James Clair Duff of Pittsburgh, ruled that he deserved a lengthy suspension but should not have been fired. Duff said there was no evidence that Martynyszyn's comments were a sexual threat against the women.
Duff said that during questioning by other department officials, one of the women said she believed Martynyszyn's comments meant that he was "out to get" her and the other female deputy with disciplinary action, not to rape them.
In October 2002, the county filed a motion in common pleas court seeking to vacate the arbiter's award. In a decision handed down this week, Fehr upheld the arbiter's decision.
"This is an ugly case indeed," Duff wrote in his opinion, noting that there are conflicting opinions about what happened. He said it's clear that the two female deputies were subjected to "unwarranted verbal abuse" in front of inmates.
"It is likewise plain that Corporal Martynyszyn is a giant man who uses fear and intimidation as his allies in his constant effort to be a stickler about security" in the jail, Duff wrote.
Martynyszyn contended in court documents that his comments were merely a means of correcting the deputies for what he viewed as lax performance in the jail.
Hostile work environment
Duff called Martynyszyn's comments "stupid" and "crude," but not sexually founded. Martynyszyn's comments did create a hostile work environment for the women, but that does not rise to the level of threatening rape, Duff wrote.
He wrote that having Maj. Michael Budd spearhead the investigation as head of the department's internal affairs division was "profoundly tainted" because of "bad blood" that exists between Budd and Martynyszyn, which Budd denied.
"There is no bad blood between Corporal Martynyszyn and myself," Budd said.
Martynyszyn has a civil lawsuit pending against Budd and Wellington, accusing them of false arrest, malicious prosecution and violating Martynyszyn's civil rights.
That stems from an arrest against Martynyszyn, by Budd, in August 2000 on a charge of passing bad checks. The charge was dismissed two weeks after it was filed. The civil case is set for trial in August.
& lt;a href=mailto:bjackson@vindy.com & gt;bjackson@vindy.com & lt;/a & gt;