Fired cop faces retraining after his forced reinstatement

Judy Odierna

Thursday, Dec. 12, 2002 | 10:47 a.m.

A former North Las Vegas Police officer who has been fighting a contentious legal battle with the city for more than five years was expected to get his job back today.

However, former Officer Joe Austin will not be back patrolling the streets soon. He will not be able to return to street work until he completes a training program, including a physical and knowledge component, North Las Vegas City Attorney Sean McGowan said.

"It is a fairly lengthy training program that occurs in the spring," McGowan said. "He won't be a weapon-carrying police officer on patrol until he completes the recertification. He will make the same pay that he would have made if he was employed with the city the past five years."

Austin said he's has no problem going through the course, but is still frustrated that the city had to be forced by an arbitrator's ruling and the threat of a $540 daily fine to take him back.

"The arbitrator had to put a fine on taking me back," Austin said. "Based on their past performance I don't think they would have done anything to get me back if it wasn't on there."

Austin was fired from the force in 1997. The city said Austin's hearing loss left him unable to fulfill his duties as a patrol officer. Austin, who had been with the force since 1971, claimed his hearing loss had existed for more than 15 years, was documented and was never an issue.

Now that he will be back on the force, Austin hopes things will not be difficult for him while the legal battles continue.

"They would fight this for the next 200 years if they could," Austin said.

The city plans to challenge the November ruling by arbitrator T. Zane Reeves, who awarded Austin almost $1 million in back pay and benefits, attorney's fees and taxes.

"That is taxpayer money that is at stake there," McGowan said.

McGowan said the arbitrator made a mistake when he awarded Austin $135,000 in attorney's fees, more than $200,000 in sick, holiday and annual leave and more than $500,000 in back pay, interest and taxes.

"We had an expert who had some of his numbers terribly flawed," McGowan said. "He assumed that the leave time would have accrued and would be unlimited, and that's wrong. There's a city ordinance that says it is capped at a certain level. He flew right past that. I think a judge will understand that."