“substandard employees “
But that’s just it, he wasn’t a “substandard employee”. There’s nothing about that in the article except that he was dismissed for excessive use of force in two instances that look highly questionable in terms of his superiors choosing to drop the hammer on him instead of the bad guy. Since his history of complaints dates from the 90’s, this looks much more like they fired him on a pretext, rather than him suing them on a pretext. Believe me, I hate it when people cry anti-Semitism or racism or whatever over nothing or trifles, but your interpretation of the facts presented frankly doesn’t make sense.
As is typical in these types of articles we are only getting one side, the employee’s. If he had been wrongly terminated he would have sued for that and not this hostile work environment type of case.
False allegations of abuse are a real problem for all LEOs, however based solely on the article it appears that this agent was investigated for the first abuse allegation and determined to be at fault and received disciplinary action. He there after was investigated for engaging in the same kind of serious misconduct, determined to be at fault and was terminated.
That’s why I referred to him as a substandard employee. In the LEO world one screw-up can negate all the atta-boys you built up over your career. Two screw ups for the same infraction is often terminal.