A Sherwood police officer will be back on the job Thursday, after she was fired by the chief of police.

The Sherwood Civil Service Commission voted unanimously Wednesday to overturn Chief Kel Nicholson's decision to terminate Detective Beverly Hughes on July 24.

"I'm glad to come back to it," she said.  "Hopefully it will get better now that justice has prevailed."

Hughes has maintained that she did nothing wrong and was repeatedly the victim of discrimination while she was battling breast cancer.  However, she says she missed working and "the victim's face when I told them I solved the case."

"I'll give it 100 percent like I've always done," she said.  "I can still work for Chief Nicholson.  I hope he has learned from this as much as I have."

Nicholson maintained that Hughes was fired for insubordination for refusing to answer a question in a polygraph exam that was part of an internal affairs investigation.  Hughes said she was questioning the relevancy of the question, which was if she lied during the internal affairs investigation.

However, Nicholson conceded she did not technically refuse, under questioning by Hughes' attorney Robert Newcomb.

"She did not refuse to answer the question, the polygraph examiner chose not to ask the question, is that correct?" Newcomb asked.

"Correct," Nicholson affirmed.

Nicholson also said he chose to fire her because he said by not doing so could set a bad precedent for other officers and could potentially negatively affect future internal investigations.

"It would, in fact, be establishing the Beverly Rule," he said.

The internal investigation started after Hughes reported an incident between her and Sergeant Jerry Bradford.  Hughes said Bradford requested that she join him outside the department building and once she did, he related in graphic detail a sexually explicit dream he had about her.  She said Bradford later repeated the dream with her and her boyfriend present.

Bradford was suspended for seven days for the incident and is still eligible to be promoted to lieutenant.  He testified during the hearing he didn't remember exactly what he said.

Newcomb maintains that Hughes' punishment is evidence of a double standard in the department.  He points to the punishment of two other officers as prime examples.

In July 2006, Officer Darin Furhman was suspended for 30 days without pay for violating standards of conduct.  He was accused of having sexual contact in his patrol car.  A woman admitted to performing oral sex on him in his patrol car, according to an investigation conducted by Lt. Cheryl Williams.

Also in 2006, Officer Richard Harper was also suspended for 30 days without pay for engaging in sexual activity while in uniform and on duty.  The chief wrote that what Harper was guilty of is a disgrace to the department.

Both are still employed with the department.

Hughes testified Wednesday she was told she was a finagler and tried to get out of work.  She said when the polygraph exam was administered, she was taking multiple medications, including chemotherapy and was exhausted.  She said she was told by Captain Scott McFarland she had to take the exam or she'd be terminated.

The commission would not allow testimony from Hughes about the details of the discrimination she suffered while battling cancer.  She returned to work eight days after a double mastectomy and when she lost her hair due to chemotherapy, she was told by the chief that she could not wear head scarves, although he later rescinded that decision.

Hughes has filed a sexual discrimination complaint against the city and a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Hughes will be paid for the time she spent while not at work and she will be reimbursed for her Cobra insurance payments.  Newcomb indicated they may file suit against the city to recoup her attorney's fees and to compensate for Hughes' emotional distress caused by the ordeal.

The chief has the option to appeal the commission's decision.  David Fuqua, the attorney for Chief Nicholson, said he is "disappointed" with the decision and does not agree with it.  He said he did not know if they will appeal.