 |
Terminated Upland Police Officer Reinstated
By Saku E. Ethir
LACKIE & DAMMEIER
Police
Officer Lavell Brown was terminated from the Upland Police Department
in early 2005. Brown was terminated after an internal affairs
investigation, that turned into more of a fishing expedition, was
conducted, and resulted in sustained Upland Police Department policy
violations of Sexual Harassment, Conduct Unbecoming an Officer, and
Dishonesty (along with several other catch-all policy sections). The
investigation was initiated by the Department after a female officer
mentioned, to a supervisor, three comments Brown had allegedly made to
her, during a shift, that made her feel uncomfortable. The female
officer told the Department supervisor that she had spoken to Brown, had
advised Brown that the comments were unwelcome, and had asked that Brown
stop. The female officer also told the supervisor that she had handled
the matter by speaking with Brown and that Brown had been receptive to
her, had apologized for making her uncomfortable and had assured her he
would stop. The female officer made it clear to the supervisor that she
did not want the Department to take any additional action regarding the
matter. There was just one problem, the female officer also happened to
be the then Chief’s (Martin Thouvenell’s) daughter-in-law.
During the course of the Department’s investigation almost
every female in the Department (sworn and non-sworn), was interviewed.
In addition, numerous male officers with the Department were
interviewed. As part of the investigation, all of the female employees
were asked if Brown had ever said or done anything to them that was of a
sexual nature and/or inappropriate. Of the approximately forty-five
(45) to fifty-five (55) females interviewed, only two claimed that Brown
had made comments to them that they deemed to be inappropriate for the
workplace. The remaining female witnesses stated that Brown had never
said or done anything to them that was sexual in nature or
inappropriate. At the conclusion of the investigation the Department
found that Brown had violated the Department/City’s sexual harassment
policy, and further found that Brown had made misleading statements
about his conduct during his investigation interrogation. Essentially,
the Department did not like Brown’s recollection of incidents and
statements.
Brown, represented by Lackie & Dammeier, appealed his
termination under the applicable City of Upland and Upland Police
Department Rules and Regulations. The Arbitration was expected to span
at least ten (10) days, as it was anticipated that a total of
approximately thirty-five (35) witnesses would be testifying. Day one
began with opening statements and concluded with several City/Department
witnesses testifying. Two of the City/Department’s witnesses to testify
were the two witnesses interviewed who claimed Brown had made
inappropriate comments to them. On cross-examination both of those
witnesses also testified that comments of a sexual nature, which could
be deemed by some to be inappropriate, were commonplace at the
Department by officers and sometimes supervisors. In fact, almost every
one of the Departments witnesses, both female and male, who took the
stand, on cross-examination, testified that comments of a sexual nature
around the Department were common and were sometimes made by
supervisors.
Day two was more of the same, but could not have gotten any
better by the end of the day. The last Department/City witness for the
day, on cross-examination, testified that one of the witnesses in the
Department’s investigation, who claimed to have been offended by a
comment made by Brown, kept a jar/container on the dispatch console and
would tell male officers that the jar was to collect money for her
breast enlargement fund, and would ask them if they wanted to donate
money to the fund. The same witness also testified under cross
examination that he had heard comments of a sexual nature being made by
officers around the Department and further stated that he had also heard
supervisors make similar comments. When asked to identify the
supervisors by name the witness identified former Upland Chief of Police
Martin Thouvenell. The witness then repeated a comment he stated he had
heard Chief Thouvenell make in reference to a female cadet. Although
the comment bears repeating, it must be censored here due to its
vulgarity. The Department/City was expected to put on at least two more
of its witness that day; however, the City represented to the Arbitrator
that one of the witnesses had gone home sick, and the other was
unavailable, and requested to conclude early.
Day three
of Arbitration never happened. The new Police Chief, after being
brought up to speed on the case, revaluated the decision and offered to
reinstate Brown to his position of police officer with the City of
Upland. Brown accepted and has since been reinstated to his position of
police officer with the Upland Police Department, and is once again
doing what he loves. This was a clear example, and unfortunately, an
all to common occurrence, of a Department/City rushing to label
something sexual harassment when it just is not there. This was a very
difficult time and process for Brown, who thanks his family and LDF for
their constant support. |
