Hiding in Plain Sight: The sexual harassment law suit
Election 2007 preliminary results update:
By casting their votes, voters in four wards sent one very loud message to the candidates particularly the three incumbents, none of whom managed to win their elections outright. Council members Dom Betro, Art Gage and Steve Adams will all be heading into the final rounds for their respective wards in November.
Could it be that the voters sent the message "anyone but..." to all three of them? Supporters of the incumbents and the media including the Press Enterprise scoffed at that sentiment. However, the people who counted, the voters, did not. Collectively, they sent that message not through their voices or their words, but through their votes. Now will the sitting elected officials who essentially had their egos handed back to them on a plate listen to what people have been telling them the past few months about their concerns? It's time for them to park their egos and start listening and learning from the voters including those who postponed their reinstatement to the dais for at least six more months.
As a result of this very loud message, we'll be seeing a lot of these folks next November for runoffs in at least two to four wards. Some interesting results, but history doesn't tend to favor the candidates who win the preliminary rounds. To avoid a runoff the leading candidate has to cross the 50% line. At the moment, William "Rusty" Bailey who is pulling off an upset in Ward Three which probably has the BASS quartet excited is the closest to being declared a winner. With a possible quintet on the dais with Bailey, the affluent liberal population of Riverside will no doubt celebrate mightily as BASS strengthens its hold on Riverside politics.
In Ward Seven, former elected official Terry Frizzel is kicking some serious butt but mud-slinging Chris McArthur's tactics against his opponents have put him in the lead in Ward Five with Machalka running a distant second, the victim of some of the worst campaign tactics in recent memory. Will Harry Kurani have enough votes collected to join them in a runoff in November if it comes to that?
And the "anyone but Betro" slogan might have been ridiculed in the press but currently, it's swinging at 55% of the vote in Ward One. Does this mean a runoff between Betro and one of his opponents, Michael Gardner? We'll find out after the election results are final but the Press Enterprise has pretty much called it as it sees it here.
Ward One:
Dom Betro: 45%
Michael Gardner: 31.7%:
Letitia Pepper: 19.5%
Derek Thesier: 3.5%
Ward Three:
Rusty Bailey: 48.4%
Art Gage: 44.7%
Peter Olmos: 6.6%.
Ward Five:
Chris McArthur: 40.7%
Donna Doty-Michalka: 29.9%
Harry Karuni: 21.3%
Richard Rodriguez: 5.6%
Ward Seven:
Steve Adams: 34.5%
Terry Frizzel: 25.4%
Roy Saldanha: 19.3%
Art Garcia: 16.1%
Daniel Gressman: 3.9%
In 1996, Sgt. Christine Keers filed a sexual discrimination, harassment and retaliation law suit against the Riverside Police Department and several of its officers.
Nearly 10 years later, another female police officer in that department filed a sexual harassment law suit against the city of Riverside, the police department and four of its current or former employees including former commander, Richard Dana.
Kelsy Metzler stated in her law suit that she had entered into a training academy in 2005 after being hired by the Riverside Police Department.
In June 2005, she said she was sexually harassed by a cadet, Kevin Riberich and complained about it to her supervisor, Kelle Ammerman. But when she asked to receive a copy of the complaint, she stated that Ammerman had told her that she couldn't have one. She tried to check on the status on her complaint and was told it was none of her business.
In July 2005, Metzler's law suit stated, two Riverside Police Department officers, Russ Shubert and Dan Russell approached her and told her that the department was aware that she had filed a sexual harassment complaint and was not pleased about it or her. Her law suit didn't state why these two men had come to tell her this or what capacity they were operating under but neither officer was included in the law suit as a specific defendant.
Metzler then complained to the police department and asked that her complaint be sent to the Office of Civil Rights but stated that the department didn't do that but instead kept it inhouse.
Ammerman, her supervisor and the same employee who had been assigned to investigate her sexual harassment claim then wrote a poor evaluation, falsely stating information about her, Metzler stated in her complaint.
According to the law suit, Metzler graduated 21st out of 70 cadets in her academy class and passed all of her tests to become a police officer. However, when she reported to work at the Riverside Police Department for her first day onduty, she was led into a room with an Internal Affairs Division representative where she was told that she had been terminated from her employment. When she asked for a reason, the defendants said they didn't like her and didn't have to give her one.
She was then given a "clear your name" opportunity but because she was not told the reason for her termination, felt she couldn't defend herself or refute any allegations.
When she tried to apply for jobs in other law enforcement agencies in Southern California, she would pass the initial stages of the process until the background check was conducted and the Riverside Police Department was contacted by prospective employers. Then the agency would refuse to hire, a behavior Metzler's attorney referred to as "blackballing".
Metzler then filed a complaint with the State Fair Employment and Housing Board but withdrew it when she decided to file a law suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court with her attorney, Mary Ann P. Gallagher. That law suit was filed in November 2006 and later transferred to Riverside County Superior Court.
She also sued the defendants for defamation of character for statements that she alleged they had made. The statements listed in the law suit were that she was not fit or qualified to be a police officer and that she had slept with her instructors at the academy. What's interesting about this is that if these statements were made and reflected the truth, were these instructors then placed under investigation for conduct unbecoming of their positions in the academy. Are any of them also now unemployed? Or instead is this another case of "boys will be boys" and women have to pay the consequences for behavior that men who are their superiors participated in?
Perhaps it's still left to the female cadet to carry that burden alone having to leave an environment and a profession that is still male-dominated while it's indeed business as usual for her male counterparts even if they engaged in misconduct. Perhaps the boys club is still in place and figuratively speaking, still has a sign posted in its midst reading "He-man Women Haters' Club".
These questions only apply if these statements were actually made and represented accurately what had actually taken place between Metzler and her instructors.
If those statements were indeed made by these defendants and weren't the truth, then shame on their tactics for keeping another woman out of a profession that still doesn't appear to really want them around. When Keers had been subjected to sexual harassment years earlier by officers in the same department, she also was subjected to statements that she was having sex with other officers including her supervisors. How much have things really changed in the last 10 years and one consent decree later?
Speaking of which, the stipulated judgment imposed by former State Attorney General Bill Lockyer was in place when the incidents related in Metzler's law suit took place.
Is this law suit itself surprising? Not really. Other similar law suits have been filed by female cadets who have complained about sexual harassment in police academies across the country and have discovered that they are the ones who will be punished for it. What would be news is if law suits like this one were no longer filed and that women had truly integrated into the profession of law enforcement beginning at its entry level and at its police academies.
But the Riverside Police Department like most others still has a ways to go until it has enough women in its ranks to even meet the national average of 14% let alone until its numbers are truly representative of the communities it serves. In 2006, it hired a sizable group of women and lost all of them within six weeks, either in the academy or during the pre-academy training program which is sponsored by the department for its new hires before they start their basic training. Like most law enforcement agencies, the Riverside Police Department has a difficult time holding on to the ones it's got.
And the department has explained in many different ways how the reasons for this difficulty hinge on the women themselves and provided a variety of reasons why they believe this to be true. What it hasn't done yet is to admit that perhaps some of the problems exist inside its own operations. Maybe the city's risk management division discourages that kind of candor but if the department wanted to truly address its problems with retaining women, there are many resources available that it could turn to for assistance beginning with the communities in Riverside.
But when the issue of creating retention programs for both female and male officers was brought up last October, the department did not respond but Councilman Steve Adams, a former Riverside Police Department, did.
Adams said that retention programs were "remedial training for those who don't cut it". These and other comments he made were applauded by every White male officer in the audience. But perhaps Adams is just a bit sensitive. His brother, Ron Adams, was also a Riverside Police Department officer and was one of the defendants named in Keers' law suit.
To embrace change, the department has to admit that it has and definitely has had problems getting its own employees to accept women in their ranks. What kind of furor would that cause?
I remember hearing the story in the community about the Riverside Police Department field training officer who when asked why a female partner was no longer with him, said that she had been fired for being "too slow". He then espoused a bit on his feelings about women in the profession and said he didn't like them, they could never be as good as male officers and they shouldn't be allowed on the force. Au contraire, it's field training officers like this one who need to change their attitudes about women in the profession and that need to be told that behavior like that is unacceptable in this city's police department. But is this belief system unique in a training program where the vast majority of the officers assigned to train new hires and show them the ropes are male?
This law suit only presents one side of the story, but it raises some interesting and troubling issues. It also raises some questions and some of them have to do with the implementation of the sexual harassment policies used by both the police academy and the Riverside Police Department.
Metzler's law suit stated that her complaint was handled by her direct supervisor in the academy. Was that appropriate? Was it professional practice to have the person assigned to investigate the complaint also complete a professional evaluation of the complainant? Wouldn't it had made more sense to have an independent outside party at the academy conduct the investigation?
According to most harassment policies, the complainant is able to access a copy of the complaint as well as be able to be provided with updates on the investigation. In this case, Metzler apparently was denied under both provisions. In fact, if it's true that Ammerman told her it was none of her business, that should have been her first sign that the academy had circled its wagons around themselves against her and that the retaliation had begun.
Why Metzler was approached by the Riverside Police Department officers who according to her account, were unhappy with her filing a sexual harassment complaint is unknown. Did they work at the academy and hear about it on the grapevine? Was that their way of notifying her through some form of official capacity that the department had been contacted about her complaint? Why did they think the complaint was any business of theirs or that it mattered or not that they were upset about it? Their personal or professional opinions of the situation are irrelevant or at least they should be.
If it's true that Metzler graduated in the top third of her academy class and had graduated, why was she fired by the police department on her first day of work? Was it based solely on the evaluation given by Ammerman, who had also been entrusted to investigate her sexual harassment complaint? Did the police department seek out other information to help them make an informed decision on the status of Metzler?
Since Metzler technically may have been a probational officer, the department has the right to fire her without listing a cause. However, how then can an officer refute allegations as a means of "clearing their names" if they don't even know what those allegations are? If it's true that the officers told her it was because they didn't like her, then what actually was included in the reasons provided to other law enforcement agencies?
And it would be very troubling indeed if there were officers, whether they were the defendants or not, who told an officer they were being fired because they didn't like him or her in the presence of a representative from the department's Internal Affairs Division. If that were true, then what would that say about the integrity of that division?
Was it true that other women had been sexually harassed by the same male cadet? Did their silence on the issue make the difference in terms of them being able to enter into careers in law enforcement or not? Did Metzler's refusal to be silent about how she said she was treated end her own career in the profession before it even began?
Those are some questions just to start with, aimed both in the direction of the training academy and the Riverside Police Department.
Actions have been taken in other cities regarding what was called rampant sexual harassment at police academies including a letter written by the Women's Justice Center to the head of the Santa Rosa Junior College's own academy in 2001. Not surprisingly that letter also stated that the working environment at Santa Rosa's Police Department which hired many of the cadets graduating from the academy was also horrible and hostile to women especially women of color.
(excerpt)
As we understand it, the situation at the academy last year is that there was a male cadet in the year 2000 evening police academy who was sexually harassing females in the class for months until the women left around midterm. The sexual harassment at times escalated to criminal sexual offenses and criminal threats. A number of the cadets, female and male, reported and confirmed the ongoing harassment to the evening Academy Director Peter Hardy. Instead of acting on the evidence presented to him, Director Hardy allowed the harassment to continue even as female cadets were leaving the class one after the other.
In May 2000, just before midterm of the one year evening academy, there were a total of 25 cadets in the class. There were 8 females (2 of whom were minority race females) and there were 17 males. The primary victim of the harassment was a minority race female.
At graduation time in December, 2000, there were a total of 18 graduating students, only 3 of whom were females and 15 of whom were males. 5 of the females had been lost to the class including the 2 minority females. One of the 2 males who left the program was also a victim of sexual harassment by the perpetrator cadet. This male victim had also reported the harassment to Hardy, and then later tried to report to Hardy again when the perpetrator cadet retaliated against him for reporting in the first place. According to this cadet, when he tried to tell Hardy about the retaliation, Hardy said he didn't want to hear it. The other male who was lost to the class was one of the three minority males.
The perpetrator cadet was graduated with Deputy Hardy's full knowledge of his offenses, as confirmed, witnessed, and reported to him by a number of cadets. From the statements made to us by a number of the cadets, Director Hardy was well within his rights and obligation to have terminated the perpetrator cadet and saved the other cadets' careers.
A woman who became a police officer for the Detroit Police Department described the emotional and sexual harassment she received as a result beginning when she entered into the training academy.
(excerpt)
Gomez-Preston became a good cop, a tough cop - she was one of the first female officers assigned to work the streets - and for five glorious years she was a member in good standing of the Detroit police-force family. But then her "family" turned on her. And before long her living nightmare began.
In 1984, Cheryl Gomez-Preston filed a lawsuit against the Detroit Police Department for sexual harassment: She now describes the experience she went through as emotional rape. In April 1987, a jury initially awarded her $675,000, delivering one of the largest sexual-harassment verdicts in favor of a law-enforcement officer up to that time. After all the legal procedures are exhausted, she hopes to receive at least $500,000.
Former Portland Police Bureau Chief Penny Harrington gave a speech to the United States Commission on Civil Rights in 1996 about problems in the Los Angeles Police Department involving sexism and sexual harassment, problems which are reflected in most law enforcement agencies in this country. No one works and has worked harder for female officers' rights and access to equal opportunities than Harrington.
More information on how to handle sexual harassment in law enforcement from the National Center for Women and Policing, an organization founded by Harrington. It sounds good on paper but is the reality instead that if you dare file a complaint against sexual harassment that you're basically throwing away any future career you may have as a police officer?
(Excerpt)
Even before Copley, a decision by city officials sealed police use-of-force records. The result: Here in Los Angeles — where police abuse sparked two riots in a generation but the LAPD at least struck impressive gains for openness — the public no longer has the right to know the names of officers who beat or fire at a suspect.
Pressure from police unions compelled Romero to delete the portion of her bill that would have restored access to many of those records. Now the officers' lobbyists are throwing their weight around to block the restoration of open hearings. To hear them talk, you would think the Legislature is entertaining some sweeping and unprecedented violation of privacy. But the bill would simply undo, partly, the giant backward step into darkness the state took last year.
The Times also wrote about the State Senate's passage of a similar bill.
By casting their votes, voters in four wards sent one very loud message to the candidates particularly the three incumbents, none of whom managed to win their elections outright. Council members Dom Betro, Art Gage and Steve Adams will all be heading into the final rounds for their respective wards in November.
Could it be that the voters sent the message "anyone but..." to all three of them? Supporters of the incumbents and the media including the Press Enterprise scoffed at that sentiment. However, the people who counted, the voters, did not. Collectively, they sent that message not through their voices or their words, but through their votes. Now will the sitting elected officials who essentially had their egos handed back to them on a plate listen to what people have been telling them the past few months about their concerns? It's time for them to park their egos and start listening and learning from the voters including those who postponed their reinstatement to the dais for at least six more months.
As a result of this very loud message, we'll be seeing a lot of these folks next November for runoffs in at least two to four wards. Some interesting results, but history doesn't tend to favor the candidates who win the preliminary rounds. To avoid a runoff the leading candidate has to cross the 50% line. At the moment, William "Rusty" Bailey who is pulling off an upset in Ward Three which probably has the BASS quartet excited is the closest to being declared a winner. With a possible quintet on the dais with Bailey, the affluent liberal population of Riverside will no doubt celebrate mightily as BASS strengthens its hold on Riverside politics.
In Ward Seven, former elected official Terry Frizzel is kicking some serious butt but mud-slinging Chris McArthur's tactics against his opponents have put him in the lead in Ward Five with Machalka running a distant second, the victim of some of the worst campaign tactics in recent memory. Will Harry Kurani have enough votes collected to join them in a runoff in November if it comes to that?
And the "anyone but Betro" slogan might have been ridiculed in the press but currently, it's swinging at 55% of the vote in Ward One. Does this mean a runoff between Betro and one of his opponents, Michael Gardner? We'll find out after the election results are final but the Press Enterprise has pretty much called it as it sees it here.
Ward One:
Dom Betro: 45%
Michael Gardner: 31.7%:
Letitia Pepper: 19.5%
Derek Thesier: 3.5%
Ward Three:
Rusty Bailey: 48.4%
Art Gage: 44.7%
Peter Olmos: 6.6%.
Ward Five:
Chris McArthur: 40.7%
Donna Doty-Michalka: 29.9%
Harry Karuni: 21.3%
Richard Rodriguez: 5.6%
Ward Seven:
Steve Adams: 34.5%
Terry Frizzel: 25.4%
Roy Saldanha: 19.3%
Art Garcia: 16.1%
Daniel Gressman: 3.9%
In 1996, Sgt. Christine Keers filed a sexual discrimination, harassment and retaliation law suit against the Riverside Police Department and several of its officers.
Nearly 10 years later, another female police officer in that department filed a sexual harassment law suit against the city of Riverside, the police department and four of its current or former employees including former commander, Richard Dana.
Kelsy Metzler stated in her law suit that she had entered into a training academy in 2005 after being hired by the Riverside Police Department.
In June 2005, she said she was sexually harassed by a cadet, Kevin Riberich and complained about it to her supervisor, Kelle Ammerman. But when she asked to receive a copy of the complaint, she stated that Ammerman had told her that she couldn't have one. She tried to check on the status on her complaint and was told it was none of her business.
In July 2005, Metzler's law suit stated, two Riverside Police Department officers, Russ Shubert and Dan Russell approached her and told her that the department was aware that she had filed a sexual harassment complaint and was not pleased about it or her. Her law suit didn't state why these two men had come to tell her this or what capacity they were operating under but neither officer was included in the law suit as a specific defendant.
Metzler then complained to the police department and asked that her complaint be sent to the Office of Civil Rights but stated that the department didn't do that but instead kept it inhouse.
Ammerman, her supervisor and the same employee who had been assigned to investigate her sexual harassment claim then wrote a poor evaluation, falsely stating information about her, Metzler stated in her complaint.
According to the law suit, Metzler graduated 21st out of 70 cadets in her academy class and passed all of her tests to become a police officer. However, when she reported to work at the Riverside Police Department for her first day onduty, she was led into a room with an Internal Affairs Division representative where she was told that she had been terminated from her employment. When she asked for a reason, the defendants said they didn't like her and didn't have to give her one.
She was then given a "clear your name" opportunity but because she was not told the reason for her termination, felt she couldn't defend herself or refute any allegations.
When she tried to apply for jobs in other law enforcement agencies in Southern California, she would pass the initial stages of the process until the background check was conducted and the Riverside Police Department was contacted by prospective employers. Then the agency would refuse to hire, a behavior Metzler's attorney referred to as "blackballing".
Metzler then filed a complaint with the State Fair Employment and Housing Board but withdrew it when she decided to file a law suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court with her attorney, Mary Ann P. Gallagher. That law suit was filed in November 2006 and later transferred to Riverside County Superior Court.
She also sued the defendants for defamation of character for statements that she alleged they had made. The statements listed in the law suit were that she was not fit or qualified to be a police officer and that she had slept with her instructors at the academy. What's interesting about this is that if these statements were made and reflected the truth, were these instructors then placed under investigation for conduct unbecoming of their positions in the academy. Are any of them also now unemployed? Or instead is this another case of "boys will be boys" and women have to pay the consequences for behavior that men who are their superiors participated in?
Perhaps it's still left to the female cadet to carry that burden alone having to leave an environment and a profession that is still male-dominated while it's indeed business as usual for her male counterparts even if they engaged in misconduct. Perhaps the boys club is still in place and figuratively speaking, still has a sign posted in its midst reading "He-man Women Haters' Club".
These questions only apply if these statements were actually made and represented accurately what had actually taken place between Metzler and her instructors.
If those statements were indeed made by these defendants and weren't the truth, then shame on their tactics for keeping another woman out of a profession that still doesn't appear to really want them around. When Keers had been subjected to sexual harassment years earlier by officers in the same department, she also was subjected to statements that she was having sex with other officers including her supervisors. How much have things really changed in the last 10 years and one consent decree later?
Speaking of which, the stipulated judgment imposed by former State Attorney General Bill Lockyer was in place when the incidents related in Metzler's law suit took place.
Is this law suit itself surprising? Not really. Other similar law suits have been filed by female cadets who have complained about sexual harassment in police academies across the country and have discovered that they are the ones who will be punished for it. What would be news is if law suits like this one were no longer filed and that women had truly integrated into the profession of law enforcement beginning at its entry level and at its police academies.
But the Riverside Police Department like most others still has a ways to go until it has enough women in its ranks to even meet the national average of 14% let alone until its numbers are truly representative of the communities it serves. In 2006, it hired a sizable group of women and lost all of them within six weeks, either in the academy or during the pre-academy training program which is sponsored by the department for its new hires before they start their basic training. Like most law enforcement agencies, the Riverside Police Department has a difficult time holding on to the ones it's got.
And the department has explained in many different ways how the reasons for this difficulty hinge on the women themselves and provided a variety of reasons why they believe this to be true. What it hasn't done yet is to admit that perhaps some of the problems exist inside its own operations. Maybe the city's risk management division discourages that kind of candor but if the department wanted to truly address its problems with retaining women, there are many resources available that it could turn to for assistance beginning with the communities in Riverside.
But when the issue of creating retention programs for both female and male officers was brought up last October, the department did not respond but Councilman Steve Adams, a former Riverside Police Department, did.
Adams said that retention programs were "remedial training for those who don't cut it". These and other comments he made were applauded by every White male officer in the audience. But perhaps Adams is just a bit sensitive. His brother, Ron Adams, was also a Riverside Police Department officer and was one of the defendants named in Keers' law suit.
To embrace change, the department has to admit that it has and definitely has had problems getting its own employees to accept women in their ranks. What kind of furor would that cause?
I remember hearing the story in the community about the Riverside Police Department field training officer who when asked why a female partner was no longer with him, said that she had been fired for being "too slow". He then espoused a bit on his feelings about women in the profession and said he didn't like them, they could never be as good as male officers and they shouldn't be allowed on the force. Au contraire, it's field training officers like this one who need to change their attitudes about women in the profession and that need to be told that behavior like that is unacceptable in this city's police department. But is this belief system unique in a training program where the vast majority of the officers assigned to train new hires and show them the ropes are male?
This law suit only presents one side of the story, but it raises some interesting and troubling issues. It also raises some questions and some of them have to do with the implementation of the sexual harassment policies used by both the police academy and the Riverside Police Department.
Metzler's law suit stated that her complaint was handled by her direct supervisor in the academy. Was that appropriate? Was it professional practice to have the person assigned to investigate the complaint also complete a professional evaluation of the complainant? Wouldn't it had made more sense to have an independent outside party at the academy conduct the investigation?
According to most harassment policies, the complainant is able to access a copy of the complaint as well as be able to be provided with updates on the investigation. In this case, Metzler apparently was denied under both provisions. In fact, if it's true that Ammerman told her it was none of her business, that should have been her first sign that the academy had circled its wagons around themselves against her and that the retaliation had begun.
Why Metzler was approached by the Riverside Police Department officers who according to her account, were unhappy with her filing a sexual harassment complaint is unknown. Did they work at the academy and hear about it on the grapevine? Was that their way of notifying her through some form of official capacity that the department had been contacted about her complaint? Why did they think the complaint was any business of theirs or that it mattered or not that they were upset about it? Their personal or professional opinions of the situation are irrelevant or at least they should be.
If it's true that Metzler graduated in the top third of her academy class and had graduated, why was she fired by the police department on her first day of work? Was it based solely on the evaluation given by Ammerman, who had also been entrusted to investigate her sexual harassment complaint? Did the police department seek out other information to help them make an informed decision on the status of Metzler?
Since Metzler technically may have been a probational officer, the department has the right to fire her without listing a cause. However, how then can an officer refute allegations as a means of "clearing their names" if they don't even know what those allegations are? If it's true that the officers told her it was because they didn't like her, then what actually was included in the reasons provided to other law enforcement agencies?
And it would be very troubling indeed if there were officers, whether they were the defendants or not, who told an officer they were being fired because they didn't like him or her in the presence of a representative from the department's Internal Affairs Division. If that were true, then what would that say about the integrity of that division?
Was it true that other women had been sexually harassed by the same male cadet? Did their silence on the issue make the difference in terms of them being able to enter into careers in law enforcement or not? Did Metzler's refusal to be silent about how she said she was treated end her own career in the profession before it even began?
Those are some questions just to start with, aimed both in the direction of the training academy and the Riverside Police Department.
Actions have been taken in other cities regarding what was called rampant sexual harassment at police academies including a letter written by the Women's Justice Center to the head of the Santa Rosa Junior College's own academy in 2001. Not surprisingly that letter also stated that the working environment at Santa Rosa's Police Department which hired many of the cadets graduating from the academy was also horrible and hostile to women especially women of color.
(excerpt)
As we understand it, the situation at the academy last year is that there was a male cadet in the year 2000 evening police academy who was sexually harassing females in the class for months until the women left around midterm. The sexual harassment at times escalated to criminal sexual offenses and criminal threats. A number of the cadets, female and male, reported and confirmed the ongoing harassment to the evening Academy Director Peter Hardy. Instead of acting on the evidence presented to him, Director Hardy allowed the harassment to continue even as female cadets were leaving the class one after the other.
In May 2000, just before midterm of the one year evening academy, there were a total of 25 cadets in the class. There were 8 females (2 of whom were minority race females) and there were 17 males. The primary victim of the harassment was a minority race female.
At graduation time in December, 2000, there were a total of 18 graduating students, only 3 of whom were females and 15 of whom were males. 5 of the females had been lost to the class including the 2 minority females. One of the 2 males who left the program was also a victim of sexual harassment by the perpetrator cadet. This male victim had also reported the harassment to Hardy, and then later tried to report to Hardy again when the perpetrator cadet retaliated against him for reporting in the first place. According to this cadet, when he tried to tell Hardy about the retaliation, Hardy said he didn't want to hear it. The other male who was lost to the class was one of the three minority males.
The perpetrator cadet was graduated with Deputy Hardy's full knowledge of his offenses, as confirmed, witnessed, and reported to him by a number of cadets. From the statements made to us by a number of the cadets, Director Hardy was well within his rights and obligation to have terminated the perpetrator cadet and saved the other cadets' careers.
A woman who became a police officer for the Detroit Police Department described the emotional and sexual harassment she received as a result beginning when she entered into the training academy.
(excerpt)
Gomez-Preston became a good cop, a tough cop - she was one of the first female officers assigned to work the streets - and for five glorious years she was a member in good standing of the Detroit police-force family. But then her "family" turned on her. And before long her living nightmare began.
In 1984, Cheryl Gomez-Preston filed a lawsuit against the Detroit Police Department for sexual harassment: She now describes the experience she went through as emotional rape. In April 1987, a jury initially awarded her $675,000, delivering one of the largest sexual-harassment verdicts in favor of a law-enforcement officer up to that time. After all the legal procedures are exhausted, she hopes to receive at least $500,000.
Former Portland Police Bureau Chief Penny Harrington gave a speech to the United States Commission on Civil Rights in 1996 about problems in the Los Angeles Police Department involving sexism and sexual harassment, problems which are reflected in most law enforcement agencies in this country. No one works and has worked harder for female officers' rights and access to equal opportunities than Harrington.
More information on how to handle sexual harassment in law enforcement from the National Center for Women and Policing, an organization founded by Harrington. It sounds good on paper but is the reality instead that if you dare file a complaint against sexual harassment that you're basically throwing away any future career you may have as a police officer?
U.S. Airman Elio Carrion was cross-examined by former San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department deputy, Ivory J. Webb during his stint on the stand testifying in Webb's trial on attempted voluntary manslaughter charges, according to the Press Enterprise.
Michael Schwartz questioned Carrion about the events leading up to the shooting.
(excerpt)
Schwartz also zeroed in on Carrion's behavior before the shooting, which contrasted with Carrion's training as a military policeman in dealing with traffic stops.
Schwartz stressed how Carrion got out of the car and argued with Webb in an apparent attempt to defuse the confrontation despite knowing he should have stayed in the Corvette and kept his mouth shut.
"I can't remember what I was thinking," Carrion testified. "In my mind, I was not trying to pose a threat."
Carrion's civil attorney wasn't impressed.
(excerpt)
Outside the courtroom, Carrion's civil suit attorney, Luis Carrillo, said Schwartz is "beating around the bush" if he focuses on his client's memory lapses. Carrillo said Schwartz is badgering and arguing with his client.
"The defense has not chipped away at the fact Elio was ordered to get up," Carrillo said.
More on Carrion's testimony is available at the San Bernardino Sun's Web site and also at the Los Angeles Times.
Announcement from the ACLU Southern California office:
WHAT: CITY COUNCIL VOTE TO ENDORSE SB 1019 RESOLUTION
WHEN: Tuesday, June 5th (between 10am and 12pm)
WHERE: 200 North Spring Street, Room 340, Los Angeles, CA 90012
I will be following up with you via phone. If you have any questions or suggestions, please email or call me at 213-977-5205.
SB 1019 just passed on the Senate floor vote and is moving now to the Assembly which will be an even tougher fight.
SB 1019 would allow local jurisdictions and state agencies to provide greater transparency around police complaints. As we know, an open disciplinary process is a crucial ingredient for community-police trust. We hope we can count on your participation and support!
Thank you,Elvia MezaField ManagerACLU/SC
213-977-5205 - office
213-507-1803 - mobile
The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board stated that the city council should be supported in this effort in the face of what's expected to be a heated battle in the state assembly as the state's law enforcement unions put pressure on elected officials to shut the door on it. They'll probably win this round, but a window has been open at least a little bit and Goliath might be a strong guy, but even he can't shut it again.
(Excerpt)
Even before Copley, a decision by city officials sealed police use-of-force records. The result: Here in Los Angeles — where police abuse sparked two riots in a generation but the LAPD at least struck impressive gains for openness — the public no longer has the right to know the names of officers who beat or fire at a suspect.
Pressure from police unions compelled Romero to delete the portion of her bill that would have restored access to many of those records. Now the officers' lobbyists are throwing their weight around to block the restoration of open hearings. To hear them talk, you would think the Legislature is entertaining some sweeping and unprecedented violation of privacy. But the bill would simply undo, partly, the giant backward step into darkness the state took last year.
The Times also wrote about the State Senate's passage of a similar bill.
Labels: business as usual, culture 101, David and Goliath, officer-involved shootings
posted by Five Before Midnight | 7:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home