INVESTIGATION REPORT: Lucas County Canine Care & Control (LC4)

FROM: Ms. Birdena Martin, Employee Relations Manager, County Personnel

Department (CPD)
Ms. Keisha Taylor, Employee Relations Specialist/Personnel Officer
(PO) II, CPD

THROUGH: Mr. Trent Burner, Director, CPD

REPORT DATE: Thursday, September 12, 2024

RE: Ms. Mehgan Yunker, Canine Care Technician & Social Media Footage
of Alleged Mishandling of Dogs
*********************************************************************************************

Interviewed Parties:

• Mrs. Kelly Sears, Director, Lucas County Canine Care & Control (LC4), Monday, August 19,
2024, at 8:45 AM, interviewed by Mr. Trent Burner, Director, Ms. Birdena Martin, Employee
Relations Manager, and Ms. Keisha Taylor, Employee Relations Specialist
• Ms. Kaity Ardner, Shelter Manager, LC4, Monday, August 19, 2024, at 9:20 AM, interviewed
by Ms. Martin and Ms. Taylor
• Ms. Mehgan Yunker, Canine Care Technician, LC4, Respondent, Monday, August 19, 2024,
at 12:30 PM, via Teams, interviewed by Ms. Martin and Ms. Taylor
o Union Representative: Mr. Darrel Phillips, Union Chair
o Union Representative: Mr. Jay Barman, Union Steward
• Mr. Stephen Heaven, CEO, Toledo Humane Society, Monday, August 19, 2024, at 1:45 PM,
interviewed by Ms. Martin and Ms. Taylor
• Mrs. Kelly Sears, Director, LC4, Wednesday, August 21, 2024, at 3:00 PM, interviewed again
by Director Burner, Ms. Martin, and Ms. Taylor
• Ms. Anna Revill, Canine Behavior & Enrichment Coordinator, Friday, August 23, 2024, at
10:45 AM, interviewed by Ms. Martin and Ms. Taylor
o Union Representative: Mr. Barman, Union Steward
• Ms. Mehgan Yunker, Canine Care Technician, LC4, Respondent, Friday, August 23, 2024, at
11:05 AM, interviewed again by Ms. Martin and Ms. Taylor
o Union Representative: Mr. Jay Barman, Union Steward
• Ms. Sarah Elms, Communications Director, Administration, Monday, August 26, 2024, at
2:49 PM, via Teams

Exhibits:

Exhibit 1: Public Records Request on July 11, 2024

Exhibit 2: Release of Video Footage to Community Member
Exhibit 3: Director Sears Initial Email to CPD
Exhibit 4: Video #1 (Audio File: “Dog Shoved, Smacked, and Muzzle Grabbed”)
Exhibit 5: Video #2 (Audio File: “Rough Handling of Shrimp”)
Exhibit 6: Video #3 (Audio File: “Hitting Dog Cage and Spraying Dog”)
Exhibit 7: Video #4 (Audio File: “Additional Dogs Sprayed”)
Exhibit 8: Video #5 (Audio File: “Another Dog Sprayed”)
Exhibit 9: QR Code – Report Dog Behavior
Exhibit 10: Canine Care Technician (Kennel) Position Description, Training, and Work Rules
Exhibit 11: Submitted Social Media (Facebook) Threatening Messages to Ms. Yunker provided by
Ms. Revill
Exhibit 12: Submitted Social Media (Facebook) Threatening Messages to Ms. Yunker provided by
Ms. Yunker
Exhibit 13: Ms. Yunker’s written statement & complete Incident Report
Exhibit 14: “Fear Free Shelter” Training Materials & Ms. Yunker – Certificate of Completion (“Fear
Free Shelter” Program Core Modules)
Exhibit 15: Ohio Revised Code – Prohibitions concerning companion care
Exhibit 16: Lucas County Work Order #7854386 – No Hot Water, dated June 10, 2024

Introduction:

On July 11, 2024, Ms. Sarah Elms, Communications Director received an email from Ms. Sherrie
Littin, Community Member:

“I am requesting video footage per public records from Lucas County Canine Care and Control. The
date will be July 10, 2024. Times 7am to 6pm. It will be of the kennels that we call "smalls." These
are front dogs that volunteers can walk that are up for adoption. I would please like this asap, due to
the mistreatment of dogs. I'm aware that the request must be made within 72 hours, so time is of
the essence.” {sic} (Exhibit 1)

Director Elms forwarded this request to Director Kelly Sears on July 11, 2024, for further discussion.
Director Elms also noted that she sent an acknowledgment of the receipt of the records request to
Ms. Littin on the same date (Exhibit 1). Due to the extensive amount of footage, Director Elms
explained that fulfilling the public records request took time. The video footage was provided on a
thumb drive, which Ms. Littin picked up on August 9, 2024 (Exhibit 2).

On August 14, 2024, the Lucas County Personnel Department (CPD) was made aware of concerns
about LC4 through Facebook postings regarding alleged dog abuse and cruelty through
conversations with administration. On August 15, 2024, at 2:31 PM, Mr. Trent Burner, Director, CPD
and Ms. Birdena Martin, Employee Relations Manager, CPD received an email from Director Sears:

“Hello Trent and Birdena,

A few staff members came to Kaity and I concerned about Mehgan’s inappropriate actions while
cleaning small adoptions that were posted on Facebook. When we reviewed the video, we were
unable to zoom in and therefore didn’t see much. After reviewing the zoomed in videos, we believe
Mehgan acted inappropriately and needs to be disciplined to the highest extent possible that the
union will allow. When you do an investigation you should speak to Mario Carter, Jay Ball, and Anna
Revill to start. Sarah Elms will be sending over the video footage. Please let me know if you need
anything from me or have any questions.” {sic} (Exhibit #3)

NOTE: Since Mr. Mario Carter and Mr. Jay Ball were neither direct witnesses nor observed in the
video footage, interview statements were not collected from either individual.

P a g e | 2 of 10
* Facebook caption
Mrs. Kelly Sears responses were:

On August 19, 2024, Director Sears was interviewed and asked to review five (5) videos that were
posted on the Lucas County Dogs Deserve Better Facebook page. Director Sears was asked the
following questions for each of the five videos:

*Video #1 Facebook Caption: “Dog Shoved, Smacked, and Muzzle Grabbed” (Exhibit 4)

After reviewing Video #1, Director Sears initially couldn't determine whether Ms. Yunker had
smacked the dog. However, after reviewing the video again, Director Sears concluded that Ms.
Yunker’s actions were inappropriate by smacking the dog and forcibly using her elbow it to keep the
dog inside of the kennel. Director Sears noted that Ms. Yunker’s actions seemed to have no
apparent reason, possibly stemming from frustration on her part. When asked about the level of
discipline, Director Sears pointed out that LC4's work rules clearly state that mishandling dogs is a
terminable offense and she would recommend a written reprimand.

*Video #2 Facebook Caption: “Rough Handling of Shrimp” (Exhibit 5)

After reviewing Video #2, Director Sears observed that the dog may have bitten the back of Ms.
Yunker’s head, prompting Ms. Yunker to push the dog down. When asked, Director Sears stated she
was unsure Ms. Yunker’s response was inappropriate given that she had been bitten. However, she
commented that it appeared Ms. Yunker used excessive force when she “threw the dog down,”
considering it a policy violation. In the second part of the video, Ms. Yunker is seen clapping her
hands in front of the dog. Given Ms. Yunker’s extensive training, Director Sears stated she
recommends a written reprimand discipline level.

*Video #3 Facebook Caption: “Hitting Dog Cage and Spraying Dog” (Exhibit 6)

After reviewing Video #3. Director Sears commented that spraying the dog was the most serious
offense. She explained that hot water is used to clean the cages, making the act of spraying the dog
particularly inappropriate. When asked about what level of discipline she would recommend,
Director Sears stated she would discuss the incident of hitting the cage with the employee and
likely issue a verbal warning. Director Sears reported that she would recommend termination for
the act of spraying the dog.

*Video #4 Facebook Caption: “Additional Dogs Sprayed” (Exhibit 7)

After reviewing Video #4, Director Sears stated that she observed Ms. Yunker spraying towards
another kennel area. When asked, Director Sears stated this action was inappropriate and
reiterated that hot water is used to clean the kennels. Director Sears stated that she recommends
termination for Ms. Yunker, citing that spraying the dogs was inhumane.

*Video #5 Facebook Caption: “Another Dog Sprayed” (Exhibit 8)

After reviewing Video#5, Director Sears stated she observed Ms. Yunker spraying inside another
kennel area. When asked, Director Sears confirmed it was inappropriate and described the act as
inhumane. Director Sears stated that she recommends termination for Ms. Yunker.

P a g e | 3 of 10
* Facebook caption
Follow-Up Responses by Director Sears on August 21, 2024 were:

Director Sears stated that dogs can choose whether or not to bite. In Video #2, the dog had a choice
to leave the cage, whereas the dogs that were sprayed did not have a choice. Because of this, she
considers the spraying more offensive.

Director Sears explained that only volunteers are allowed to walk the small and large adoption
dogs, who are walked more frequently than any other dogs at LC4. She also highlighted that staff
could scan a QR code to quickly record observations about a dog's behavior. Director Sears
reported that Ms. Yunker did not utilize the QR code following the incident with Lullaby (Exhibit 10).

Director Sears mentioned that she recently completed a three-hour course from Maddie’s Training
(for which Dog Fear, Anxiety, and Stress (FAS) & Frustration Scale for Shelters training is a
prerequisite) and intends to implement this training at LC4 soon.

When Director Burner inquired about the appropriate level of discipline for Ms. Yunker, across all
five videos posted on Facebook, Director Sears recommended termination. She described Ms.
Yunker’s actions as inhumane, stating that it is the responsibility of the organization to care for
animals and act in their best interest. Director Sears described Ms. Yunker's behavior as
inappropriate and appalling, specifically referencing her slamming a dog down. She reiterated that
the sprayed dogs were not given a choice. Although LC4 is an older building, Director Sears stated
that this does not justify using spraying for redirection.

When asked, Director Sears identified the following charges for consideration against Ms. Yunker:
unsatisfactory performance, dishonesty, immoral conduct, failure of good behavior, and failure to
follow standard procedures. However, based on the collected interview statements, CPD believes
that Ms. Yunker’s actions primarily align with failure of good behavior.

Ms. Kaity Ardner responses were:

*Video #1 Facebook Caption: “Dog Shoved, Smacked, and Muzzle Grabbed”

Ms. Ardner reported that it appears the dog named, Lullaby was shoved, and Ms. Yunker was
attempting to grab the water bowl from the back area of his kennel, noting that the dog often knocks
over the water because she likes to play with it. From her perspective, Ms. Ardner observed that Ms.
Yunker is seen pushing and smacking the dog, which she deemed inappropriate behavior. She
noted that Ms. Yunker could have grabbed the collar. Ms. Ardner also stated that one of the kennel
worker’s tasks is to keep the water bowl filled. She recommended either a written warning or
suspension for this infraction.

*Video #2 Facebook Caption: “Rough Handling of Shrimp”

Ms. Ardner reported that Shrimp began jumping on Ms. Yunker’s back and biting her hair bun. In
response, Ms. Yunker put Shrimp against the wall, which Ms. Ardner considered excessive,
especially since the dog was already tied to the wall. In the second part of the video, Ms. Ardner
noted that Shrimp was wrapped around Ms. Yunker, reiterating that there was no need to pull the
dog back. She recommended counseling for pulling the dog.

*Video #3 Facebook Caption: “Hitting Dog Cage and Spraying Dog”

Ms. Ardner reported that Ms. Yunker sprayed the dog with hot water, which she deemed

P a g e | 4 of 10
* Facebook caption
inappropriate. She stated that she would issue a verbal warning and monitor Ms. Yunker to ensure
this behavior does not continue.

*Video #4 Facebook Caption: “Additional Dogs Sprayed”

Ms. Ardner confirmed that Ms. Yunker continued to spray the dogs, noting that this behavior is
inappropriate, particularly since the dogs are in a confined space. She stated that if this behavior
continues, she recommends a written warning or suspension.

*Video #5 Facebook Caption: “Another Dog Sprayed”

Ms. Ardner stated that Ms. Yunker intentionally sprayed something and did not see soap suds near
the kennel area, adding that this behavior was inappropriate. She recommended another verbal or
written disciplinary action.

Ms. Ardner also mentioned that she would email Ms. Martin and Ms. Taylor the staff training
checklist, which outlines daily learning, but noted that most of the training is hands-on (Exhibit 9).

Ms. Mehgan Yunker responses were:

*Video #1 Facebook Caption: “Dog Shoved, Smacked, and Muzzle Grabbed”

Ms. Yunker’s employment began at LC4 as a Canine Care Technician on February 8, 2023. In review
of Ms. Yunker’s personnel file, there are no current, active disciplines on record. Ms. Yunker stated
that Lullaby, a dog who has spent a significant amount of time in kennels, had something in his
kennel that she was trying to grab. Ms. Yunker said that she weighs approximately 95 pounds and
stands at 4'8". Ms. Yunker stated that when she opened the kennel, Lullaby was trying to get out.
Ms. Yunker stated that she tapped the dog on the rear, not in the face, to redirect him. Ms. Yunker
highlighted that another volunteer confirmed that this has been an ongoing issue, with some dogs
jumping over their heads. Ms. Yunker noted that the top of the kennels sits flush with the top of her
head.

*Video #2 Facebook Caption: “Rough Handling of Shrimp”

Ms. Yunker described this incident where Shrimp, a dog, was taken out of his kennel in which she
used a slip lead to attach to hooks on the wall. Ms. Yunker stated this is the most common method
used by both LC4 workers and volunteers. In attempting to attach the leash to the wall, Shrimp was
acting out and jumped on her back and bit her on the back of the head, pulling her backward with
his teeth embedded in her skull, although his bite did not break her skin. Ms. Yunker reported that
the video shows that after leaving the area, she had to fix her ponytail, adding that she did not file a
formal report against Shrimp. Feeling attacked, Ms. Yunker expressed she put Shrimp to the ground
to protect herself. Ms. Yunker stated in attempting to walk away, she felt the need to look at Shrimp
before leaving the area, feeling the need to ensure her safety after the incident of him jumping on
her back and biting the back of her head.

*Video #3 Facebook Caption: “Hitting Dog Cage and Spraying Dog”

Ms. Yunker confirmed that a dog was sprayed as a redirection method. Ms. Yunker explained while
exhibiting destructive behavior in the kennel, the spray was intended to quickly grab the dog's
attention and stop the behavior. Mr. Jay Barman, Union Steward mentioned that in the yard, workers
sometimes use a spray bottle for similar purposes. Ms. Martin clarified to Mr. Barman that this

P a g e | 5 of 10
* Facebook caption
situation was quite different as the dogs were in a confined space. When asked, Ms. Yunker noted
that there is no formal protocol for this type of redirection for correcting misbehavior for the dogs.

*Video #4 Facebook Caption: “Additional Dogs Sprayed”

Ms. Yunker mentioned again that she used a “quick spritz” as a redirection method. Ms. Yunker
explained that she cleans kennels from left to right, ensuring that the dogs would receive dry
blankets afterward. Ms. Yunker reported all these incidents that occurred during a period when LC4
did not have hot water in the building, lasting a 2–3-week period. Ms. Yunker expressed that she
would never spray dogs with hot water.

*Video #5 Facebook Caption: “Another Dog Sprayed”

Ms. Yunker reiterated the use of a quick, half-second spray, not continuous spraying, was a form of
redirection for the dogs. She noted that in this area, the dogs often become frantic, jumping up and
down, injuring themselves, and even busting their noses. Many dogs had to be relocated to prevent
self-harm. Due to staffing shortages, the dogs in this area do not have the opportunity of getting out
as much as they should. The dogs in this section are generally more than half her size, making it
challenging to manage them.

Regarding Shrimp, Ms. Yunker did not file a report after the incident because, although he was
mouthy and bit her, he did not break the skin. Filing a report would have initiated the euthanasia
process. Ms. Yunker stated she mentioned the incident to Ms. Anna Revill, Canine Behavior &
Enrichment Coordinator, emphasizing that Shrimp tends to be mouthy.

Following the incident and subsequent community “death threats,” Ms. Yunker’s family decided it
was in her best interest to leave town. She stated that she is currently in Tennessee.

Mr. Stephen Heaven responses were:

On August 19, 2024, we contacted Mr. Stephen Heaven, Director of the Toledo Humane Society, as
that agency is responsible for enforcing animal cruelty laws in Ohio, as defined by the Ohio Revised
Code. During the interview, Mr. Heaven was asked to review five videos posted on the Lucas County
Dogs Deserve Better Facebook page. For each of the five videos, Mr. Heaven was asked to
determine if the behavior was appropriate and whether it constituted animal abuse.

*Video #1 Facebook Caption: “Dog Shoved, Smacked, and Muzzle Grabbed”

Mr. Heaven stated that the actions in the video did not constitute animal cruelty. He noted that
while the dog was pushed or slapped back into the cage, the force used was not sufficient to cause
the dog to react, indicating that the behavior was not excessively harsh or abusive.

*Video #2 Facebook Caption: “Rough Handling of Shrimp”

Mr. Heaven stated that the actions in this video did not amount to animal cruelty. However, he
acknowledged that the handling demonstrated by Ms. Yunker was poor and suggested that
retraining might be necessary to improve her handling skills.

*Video #3 Facebook Caption: “Hitting Dog Cage and Spraying Dog”

Mr. Heaven stated that this incident did not constitute animal cruelty, and that the behavior was not
inappropriate. He observed that the actions did not appear to be done with malicious intent, as he
described Ms. Yunker smiling before she quickly sprayed the dog.

P a g e | 6 of 10
* Facebook caption
*Video #4 Facebook Caption: “Additional Dogs Sprayed”
Mr. Heaven stated that the actions in this video were not animal cruelty. However, he mentioned
that he would discuss spraying dogs in their cages with the employee, noting that dogs generally
dislike being wet, especially in confined spaces.

*Video #5 Facebook Caption: “Another Dog Sprayed”

Mr. Heaven concluded that the behavior in this video was neither cruel nor inappropriate. He
emphasized that the employee’s actions did not harm the dog.

Ms. Anna Revill responses were:

Ms. Martin attended LC4 ‘s staff meeting on Thursday, August 22, 2024. During that meeting, Ms.
Martin reported she thought Ms. Revill made the comment, in front of staff “What Mehgan did was
on purpose”. When asked about that specific comment, on the following day, Ms. Revill denied
making that comment and clarified by stating, "I did not say that Mehgan's behavior was on
purpose. I said she [Mehgan] knows she messed up!" She emphasized that she never suggested
Mehgan's actions were on purpose, adding, "She loves dogs; that’s her life!"

When asked if Ms. Yunker reported the incident involving the dog Shrimp, Ms. Revill explained that
she entered the training room and overheard Ms. Yunker discussing with a volunteer how Shrimp
had jumped on her back and bit her bun. Ms. Revill stated that when reporting an issue, it should be
communicated directly to management.

She also shared that she and Ms. Yunker have communicated via text message and stated that Ms.
Yunker has received threatening messages, showing both Ms. Martin and Ms. Taylor the Facebook
screenshots (Exhibit 10). Ms. Revill mentioned she had recommended Ms. Yunker file a police
report and reiterated that Ms. Yunker feels bad about her actions, stating, "For the record, I do not
support what Mehgan did, but I know she feels bad about what she did."

Ms. Mehgan Yunker follow-up responses:

In the presence of Ms. Martin and Ms. Taylor, Mr. Barman contacted Ms. Yunker by phone, on August
23, 2024. Ms. Yunker confirmed that she has received threats from the community, although she is
unsure if they are specifically from volunteers. Due to the overwhelming number of messages—
ranging from 20 to 30—she deactivated her Facebook page. Ms. Yunker stated that she does not
believe she has received any threatening phone calls and has set up her phone to block unknown
callers. She also confirmed that she has not filed a police report. Ms. Yunker reported that her
family was concerned about her safety, and she recently dyed her hair back to its natural color to
avoid being easily identified.

Following a phone conversation with Director Burner on August 23, 2024, he advised that the CPD
recommends Ms. Yunker file a police report. Ms. Martin contacted Ms. Yunker and suggested she
file a police report due to the threatening and harassing calls and messages. Ms. Yunker explained
that of the overwhelming number of threats, she only has access to four messages. Ms. Yunker
stated that she would provide a copy of the messages (Exhibit 11). Ms. Yunker asked about next
steps in the process as she is ready to come home. Ms. Martin explained to Ms. Yunker that the
investigation was still under review and once finalized, she would be notified.

P a g e | 7 of 10
* Facebook caption
Ms. Yunker expressed that she does not feel safe or comfortable reopening her social media
accounts and does not feel compelled to file a police report at this time.

Ms. Yunker also questioned about whether Mr. Barman provided her full statement of her actions
and incident report, "After the dog bit me, I was defending myself." Ms. Martin provided Ms. Yunker
with her email address so Ms. Yunker could forward the information she had sent to Mr. Barman on
August 22, 2024 (Exhibit 12).

Findings:

• Video #1 Facebook Caption: “Dog Shoved, Smacked, and Muzzle Grabbed”

Director Sears and Ms. Ardner both found the handling of the dog was inappropriate.
Similarly, Ms. Ardner observed that the dog was shoved and smacked, suggesting that a less
aggressive approach, like grabbing the collar, could have been used. Both Director Sears
and Ms. Ardner recommended disciplinary action. Ms. Yunker defended her actions, stating
that she tapped the dog on the rear to prevent it from escaping the kennel, emphasizing that
the dog had an ongoing challenge in handling. Mr. Heaven did not consider the actions to be
cruel or excessively harsh, as the force used was not enough to cause the dog to react. In
review of our video observation, it appears that Ms. Yunker did hit the dog on the rear and
pushed him back into his kennel by his snout.

• Video #2 Facebook Caption: “Rough Handling of Shrimp”

The handling of the situation was generally seen as excessive by Director Sears and Ms.
Ardner, warranting at least counseling or a reprimand. Ms. Yunker described the incident as
self-defense, explaining that the dog bit her and she acted to protect herself. She
emphasized that the dog had a history of being "mouthy" and did not file a report to avoid
the dog being euthanized. While Mr. Heaven did not consider Ms. Yunker’s action to be
animal cruelty, he acknowledged that the dog was mishandled. From the video angle, the
camera does not show the dog biting Ms. Yunker, but the video captures the dog, named
Shrimp jumping on her back.

• Video #3 Facebook Caption: “Hitting Dog Cage and Spraying Dog”

Director Sears is advocating for termination due to the hot water usage, while Ms. Ardner
suggested issuing a verbal warning and monitoring. Mr. Heaven did not see the behavior as
animal cruelty. Ms. Yunker explained that she used the spray as a redirection method to
stop the dogs from banging their heads, busting their noses. Although Ms. Yunker claimed
that the water was cold because there was a 2–3-week time span that the building did not
have hot water, this was found later to be untrue.

• Video #4 Facebook Caption: “Additional Dogs Sprayed”

Director Sears viewed it as a severe infraction warranting termination, while Ms. Ardner
reported that if behavior continues, she recommends a written warning or suspension if no
other violations of the same offense occurred. Ms. Yunker clarified that the spray was
intended as a redirection method. Mr. Heaven determined that the behavior did not
constitute animal cruelty but emphasized the need for a discussion with the employee, as
dogs typically dislike being sprayed in confined spaces.

P a g e | 8 of 10
* Facebook caption
 • Video #5 Facebook Caption: “Another Dog Sprayed”
Director Sears and Ms. Ardner both found the spraying of the dog inappropriate, with
Director Sears describing it as inhumane and recommending termination, while Ms. Ardner
suggested either a verbal or written disciplinary action. Ms. Yunker defended her actions,
stating that the spray was brief and intended as a redirection method, noting the
challenging behavior of the dogs in that area. Mr. Heaven concluded that the behavior was
neither cruel nor inappropriate, emphasizing that the employee’s actions did not harm the
dog. From the video review, Ms. Yunker's instances of spraying water appears to involve only
brief, short bursts.

• Ms. Ardner provided LC4 Canine Care Technician training materials, including checklists
and the “Fear Free Shelter” documentation, which employees are required to complete. The
“FAS & Frustration Scale for Shelters” specifically focused on defusing stressful situations.
Ms. Yunker completed this training and received a Certificate of Completion on September
20, 2023 (Exhibit 14). Ms. Yunker’s actions were not consistent with the training she
received.

• Upon reviewing the LC4 work rules, Standard Operating Procedures, and the Canine Care
Technician position description, Director Sears believes Ms. Yunker’s actions in the five (5)
Facebook videos were inappropriate and the dogs were mishandled. (Exhibit 10).

• Mr. Heaven referenced documentation from the Ohio Revised Code 959.131 (2) and (12 A –
D1) regarding prohibitions concerning companion animals, as well as Section 1717.01 (B),
which defines humane society responsibilities. Based on his assessment of the five
Facebook videos, Mr. Heaven concluded that Ms. Yunker's behavior did not violate the Ohio
Revised Code provisions mentioned above (Exhibit 15).

• Ms. Yunker clarified that the spray was intended as a redirection method and noted that the
building lacked hot water for 2–3 weeks. However, on June 10, 2024, Maintenance Supervisor
Mr. Brian Kwapich received an email from Ms. Ardner reporting that the water was not getting
hot for cleaning. A technician was dispatched, and the hot water issue was resolved by 1:33
PM the same day. Director Sears emphasized that any hot water issues would have been
reported immediately via a work order, but none were received in July. Mr. Kwapich confirmed
that, while the older building may have delays in heating water in certain areas, hot water was
available on July 10, 2024, when the footage was recorded (Exhibit 16).

Conclusions:

• After Mr. Heaven's review of the videos and Ohio Revised Code 959.131, he concluded that
Ms. Yunker's actions did not meet the legal criteria for animal cruelty. However, he
recommended Ms. Yunker be retrained on proper handling techniques.

• Based on the multiple instances of inappropriate dog handling by Ms. Yunker identified by
Director Sears and Ms. Ardner, in videos #1, #3, #4, and #5, we find actions such as hitting,
spraying, and rough handling were deemed excessive and not in line with the training and
best practices outlined in the “Fear Free Shelter” materials. Ms. Yunker’s defense of her
actions as redirection methods or self-defense is inconsistent with the techniques
recommended in her training, according to management.

P a g e | 9 of 10
* Facebook caption
 • Despite completing “Fear Free Shelter” training, Ms. Yunker did not adhere to the tactics
outlined in the FAS, which could have defused the stressful situations instead of resorting to
physical redirection or spraying.

• The claim regarding the use of cold water as a redirection method due to a lack of hot water
was not substantiated. The maintenance issue was resolved prior to the incident on July 10,
2024, and the delay in heating water in some areas may have contributed to
misunderstandings but does not justify the use of water.

Recommendations:

• Given the totality of the findings, it is recommended that disciplinary action be pursued
against Ms. Yunker, pursuant to the terms of the CBA in the form of a 10-day suspension,
with three (3) days unpaid, and the remaining seven (7) days unpaid held in abeyance.

• Retraining Ms. Yunker on the "Fear Free Shelter" practices, specifically in handling stressed
or aggressive animals, is recommended.

• Regular observation of Ms. Yunker’s performance, particularly when handling difficult dogs,
should be implemented to assess whether her behavior improves and aligns with LC4
protocols.

• LC4 should develop and include the appropriate use of physical redirection methods,
including when and how to intervene with stressed animals within the Standard Operating
Procedures, training, and work rules.

• To foster a more uniform approach to dog handling, a team-wide refresher training on the
“Fear Free Shelter” guidelines should be scheduled, emphasizing alternatives to physical
redirection. This would help reinforce best practices across the shelter.

P a g e | 10 of 10
* Facebook caption