Continuation of Phase One Disciplinary Appeal of Christopher Benitas – March 6, 2026

On March 6, 2026, the Milwaukee Police Department Fire and Police Commission reconvened the phase one hearing for the appeal of former Officer Christopher Benitas against four disciplinary personnel orders (2025-169, 170, 171, 172). The hearing began on March 4, 2026, and resumed after an off-day on March 5. The hearing examiner and two commissioners were present. The city called Benitas adversely and also presented testimony from Human Resources Administrator Pamela Roberts and District One Captain Robert Teal.

Procedural Matters

• The hearing examiner reminded witnesses of the sequestration order issued on March 4 and instructed those watching remotely to cease immediately.
• The record was corrected to reflect that the prior session occurred on Wednesday, March 4, not Thursday, March 5.
• The hearing is scheduled to continue on March 18, 2026 if necessary.

Adverse Examination of Christopher Benitas by City Attorney Catherine Hedley

• Benitas acknowledged he understood the Milwaukee Police Department Code of Conduct (Exhibit E1) and the standard operating procedures, but he questioned whether it is reasonable to expect all members to follow every rule in all circumstances, citing the need to consider individual situations and medical conditions.
• He confirmed he had no direct supervisory relationship with any of the investigating sergeants or Captain Looney and had no outside-work fraternization.
• Benitas stated he was notified in late 2023 that he could no longer call in as on-duty injury (ODI) for absences related to his May 2022 squad-car accident. He believed that order was not proper because his injury was work-related.
• He testified that he suffered a traumatic brain injury (TBI) during the accident and has experienced memory loss, cognitive difficulties, chronic pain, and other symptoms. He sought treatment, including physical therapy, nerve ablations, and inpatient care at The Refuge in Ocklawaha, Florida from March 25 to April 24, 2025.
• Benitas said he applied for FMLA leave on multiple occasions and was repeatedly told his medical documentation was insufficient or that he had not met deadlines. He stated the medical section refused to accept a partial return-to-work plan recommended by his doctor.
• Regarding his March 2024 arrest for domestic battery, Benitas said the criminal charge was dismissed and he did not receive a citation. He maintained his innocence.
• He expressed that the department should have accommodated his TBI with a shift change, reduced hours, or breaks, and that he was denied accommodations that were given to other injured officers.
• Benitas stated he never intended to be disrespectful by not reporting to work; he was following his physicians' advice and believed he was protecting himself and the public.

Cross-Examination by Defense Attorney Ben Hitchcock Cross

• Benitas reiterated that his symptoms (vertigo, double vision, memory loss, etc.) were obvious to supervisors and colleagues after the accident, but the department did not take him to the hospital and later ordered him to work when he was unfit.
• He testified that the city of Milwaukee paid his medical bills from May 2022 through October 2024 by mistake and later denied liability for his workers' compensation claim. He was told the city reserved the right to report him for filing a fraudulent claim.
• Benitas said he was never given a written designation notice approving or denying his FMLA requests, and the HR assistant Nancy Baker had told him his FMLA would be approved, but it was later counted as unexcused.
• He described multiple instances where sergeants came to his home to order him to return to work despite his documented medical restrictions.
• Benitas noted that the union's legal team (McGillis & Weimer) handled his workers' comp case but that the union itself did not provide much assistance for his FMLA and accommodation issues.

Testimony of Pamela Roberts, HR Administrator

• Roberts oversees the medical section, including Sergeant Misty Taylor and HR assistant Nancy Baker, but does not directly administer FMLA on a daily basis.
• She stated that FMLA eligibility and designation notices are issued by the medical section and that the department relies on SOPs and federal regulations.
• Roberts acknowledged that the department uses IME reports, and when an IME doctor provides a recent evaluation, it may supersede earlier medical opinions. However, she could not confirm that a written designation notice was ever provided to Benitas.
• She testified that requests for accommodation are reviewed case-by-case and must be supported by clear medical substantiation. She was unaware of any complaints against Sergeant Taylor from other members.
• Roberts stated that if a member provides a doctor's note requesting a reduced schedule, the department will assess it against the essential functions of the job, but she could not say whether Benitas's request for a phased return (two days, then three days) was reasonable without seeing the full medical context.

Testimony of Captain Robert Teal, District One

• Teal testified that he became aware Benitas claimed a TBI only when Benitas threw a party in late 2023 celebrating an anticipated duty disability retirement. Before that, Teal had no knowledge of the injury.
• He stated he watched the dash-cam video of the May 2022 accident and concluded there was no collision; he believed the vehicle made a hard stop. He saw no visible signs of injury in Benitas's behavior at work.
• Teal acknowledged authoring multiple memoranda initiating internal affairs investigations into Benitas's absences (November 2023, January 2024, April 2025). He said he relied on advice from the medical section, but did not independently verify Benitas's medical condition before writing the memos.
• In the January 15, 2024 memo (Exhibit C5), Teal wrote that Benitas “falsely advised” a sergeant that FMLA was approved, even though the same memo noted Benitas had relayed that Nancy Baker told him it would be approved that day. Teal admitted he did not call Baker to check what she had said.
• Teal stated that on April 22, 2025, he recommended Benitas be considered to have terminated his employment because he had been AWOL for almost a month with no approved leave. He said the decision was his own, after consulting with his inspector and assistant chief.
• Teal confirmed that only the chief of police can impose discipline like demotion, suspension, or termination.

Key Outcomes

• The hearing was recessed to March 18, 2026, for continuation of phase one.
• All witnesses were released from their subpoenas.
• The hearing examiner urged counsel to reduce the number of witnesses if possible.
• After the close of testimony in phase one, the commission will meet in closed session to determine whether any of the four personnel orders (rule violations) are sustained. If violations are found, a phase two hearing on penalty will follow immediately.