Faced with budget-cut restrictions and lack of resources, the Los Angeles Police Department (Department) is facing an uphill battle to derail unprecedented jury awards in the war, not against crime, but in an uncharted territory located in their own backyard. Protecting those that protect others by preventing employees from becoming victims of discrimination and retaliation.
Unfortunately, Department managers create leadership barriers that further prevent progress in improving the workplace for their subordinates. To sustain a positive change in the workplace, the Department is searching for viable solutions in dealing with employment issues occurring at all levels of the organization. The Department is looking for basic principles that could be used by influential leaders in eradicating employee’s workplace misconduct. To that end, the Department is examining organization breakdowns to help implement its anti- discrimination and retaliation program.
For a number of reasons, sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuits continue to grow and affect members of the organization and jeopardize financial stability for the city. More importantly, this alarming trend has caused grave concern among elected officials. The concern is whether Department management lacked the basic leadership principles to cause change because, without it, further jury awards will eventually bankrupt the city and negatively impact employee performance in addressing crime issues in the community.
LEADING THROUGH CHANGE
The City of Los Angeles has paid out about $110 million in jury awards and settlements for lawsuits that police officers have brought against the Los Angeles Police Department (Department). The Los Angeles Police Commission’s Inspector General (IG) conducted the audit over a six-year period. As part of the audit, the IG focused on the $31 million paid out in employment liability cases — those involving discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation — and primarily selected those with either a large payout by the city or a high demand by the plaintiff. Those accounted for 27 of the 99 claims that were closed over the six-year period ending in June 2012. The city nearly paid $43 million to litigate the employment liability cases (Bustamante, 2013).
To complicate matters, the Department remains oblivious about the impact these cases have made on the work environment, and what lessons can be learned to avoid similar behavior from re-occurring. The Department does not have a system to identify and analyze why cases are not ending in their favor so Department policies and practices can be adjusted accordingly, and provide guidance to managers in dealing with employment issues. To the contrary, a disturbing fact indicates that out of the 27 cases examined, eight of those cases were for retaliation amounting to $13,2016,611 million in damages. Based on the high number of retaliation cases, two conclusions can be drawn. One, either Department supervisors are intentionally targeting those employees that find the courage to report wrongdoings. Or two, the training received by supervisors and managers do not include key takeaways from court decisions impacting employment issues in the Department. In simple terms, the audit suggested the Department is not reading between the lines (Bustamante, 2013).
Based on the audit conducted by the IG, the latter of the two explanations appeared to be the cause for a leadership paralysis among leaders in the Department. Management’s failure in taking significant steps to address potential acts of discrimination and retaliation continue to create a serious liability for the city. Incompetence continues to grow and create a gap between management and the rank and file of the Department. Loss of confidence has manifested as the driving force responsible for an increase in turnover and absenteeism. Likewise, low morale and productivity are beginning to be a factor in the Department’s ability to reduce crime.
Organizational change is a fact of business life. Law enforcement agencies are no exception. New opportunities, new products, and new innovated initiatives are exciting moments that require significant adjustments in how organizations prevent various forms of sexual harassment and retaliation (Stone, 2009).
To prevent discrimination and retaliation in the Department, existing policies must be examined and fully implemented. In addition, litigated cases resulting in large sum payoffs must be closely analyzed and takeaways applied in resolving similar employment issues. Only then, can valuable information be disseminated to managers and supervisors to prevent future mistakes from occurring. In the corporate world, the definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” In simple terms, employers must read between the lines to understand the real message enabling Department managers to break this vicious cycle.
The scope of the review will consist only of important cases in the area of sexual harassment and retaliation, areas where the Department has incurred the most liability. The analysis will focus on examining current laws against Department policies governing sexual harassment and retaliation; comparing past and current culture of the organization; and lastly, identifying significant implementation breakdowns in enforcing existing sexual harassment and retaliation policy.
Current Law-Sexual Harassment and Retaliation
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provided that no person shall be deprived of “life, liberty or property,” without due process of the law. This amendment was later applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, which also guarantees to all persons the equal protection of the law. The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was designed to validate and perpetuate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1886. The act guaranteed that all people would have rights equal to those of white citizens (list reference). This clause is the basis for Supreme Court decisions that have helped to dismantle racial segregation, and also the basis for many other decisions rejecting discrimination against people belonging to various groups ( Moran, 2014).
Even though, the Equal Protection Clause applied only to state governments, the Supreme Court held that equal protection requirements also applied to the federal government through the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was considered a historic breakthrough because it was the first major civil rights bill to get through Congress in the 20th Century. However, the new law was badly watered down and had little or no effect on racial discrimination in the United States. It was not until the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that the nation was affected profoundly. For the first time, there was a law that prohibited discrimination in employment and businesses of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (Moran, 2014).
Sexual Harassment
Sexual Harassment is a form of sex discrimination prohibited under state and federal laws. It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include sexual harassment or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, it can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. Both victim and the harasser can be either a woman or a man, and the victim and harasser can be the same sex. The law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing and comments or isolated incidents that are not very serious. However, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment. It is also illegal when it results in an adverse employment decision, such the victim being fired or demoted (Moran ,2014).
Retaliation
The same laws that prohibit different types of discrimination also prohibit retaliation against individuals who oppose unlawful discrimination or participate in an employment discrimination proceeding. In addition to the protections against retaliation that are included in all of the laws enforced by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) also protects individuals from coercion, intimidation, threat, harassment, or interference in their exercise of their own rights or their encouragement of someone else’s exercise of rights granted by the ADA (Moran 2014).
Retaliation occurs when an employer, employment agency, or labor organization takes an adverse action against a covered individual because he or she engaged in a protected activity. Examples of adverse actions include: (1) employment actions such as termination, refusal to hire, and denial of promotion; (2) other actions affecting employment such as threats, unjustified negative evaluations; (3) unjustified negative references, or increased surveillance; and, any other action such as an assault or unfounded civil or criminal charges that are likely to deter reasonable people from pursuing their rights. Adverse actions do not include petty slights and annoyances, such as stray negative comments in an otherwise positive or neutral evaluation, “snubbing” a colleague, or negative comments that are justified by an employee’s poor work performance or history (Moran, 2014).
Department Policy
Department policy found in Volume I of the policy manual clearly prohibits discrimination and retaliation in the workplace, and it is consistent with state and federal law. In addition, the policy delineates in detail the duties and responsibilities of employees, supervisors and managers in implementing and enforcing the policy. The Department also publishes a series of training orders relative to the practical implementation of its anti-discrimination and retaliation policies. The policies go beyond what is required by federal and state laws. Policies were designed to ensure victims of sexual harassment and retaliation that state and federal guidelines would be strictly enforce by Department management (Los Angeles Police Manual, 2005).
Having a comprehensive and enforceable anti-discrimination policy is of paramount importance if the Department wants to assert the “affirmative defense.” This employer’s defense is a set of facts that operates to defeat a claim even if the facts supporting that claim are true. Any employer can raise the affirmative defense provided that the organization exercised reasonable care to guard against and properly address sexually harassing behavior; and that the employer instituted a procedure for filing complaints and where the victimized employee failed to take advantage of it (Moran, 2014).
However, the California Supreme Court has determined that Title VII’s affirmative defense is unavailable under California law. This legal decision sends a clear message to employers that preventing harassment is more important than ever. Therefore, employers should be proactive in implementing appropriate policies and educate supervisors and employees on harassment based on all legally protected categories. The best way to reduce the incidence of harassment in the workforce is to take aggressive, proactive steps to avoid it. Because a single mistake by a manager or supervisor—made without the employer’s knowledge, can create legal liability, such proactive steps to avoid mistakes are even more crucial (Hill vs. City of Los Angeles, 2010).
Past Culture
Employers throughout the country struggle to grasp the moral foundation of discrimination and overcome a 50-year mindset that minorities and women were not created equal. Despite the challenges, progress over the past 50 years has been noticeable. Nevertheless, even the election of President Obama, a black president, does not mean that all issues of racial inequality have disappeared. In particular among men-dominated professions like law enforcement agencies across the country—willingness to change is almost impossible. Police organizations do not change easily since they operate in complex, dynamic environments. Law enforcement leaders should not only be required to monitor their organization’s performance, but also required to assess changes in the current culture of the law enforcement profession (Stone, 2009, Pg. 13).
In 1992, the outraged acquittal of the officers that beat Rodney King caused the Department to make significant changes in dealing with racial issues outside the Department. However, little emphasis was placed in resolving racial and gender issues within the organization. Historically, gender integration and the opportunity for women to participate in forming police policy have been strongly resisted in the Department and law enforcement agencies across the country.
Women in policing were not easily accepted by their male peers, in particular their supervisors. Women were viewed with skepticism by their male counterparts despite the fact that women have been performing police work for over one hundred years. Male officers anticipated women failing, and they doubted that women could equal men in performing skills required to be a police officer. Male officers did not see women officers as doing “real” police work and they perpetuated myths about women’s lack of emotional fitness. Lastly, male officers believed that women were better in performing things associated with housework and sexual oriented activities. However, little by little the public is becoming considerably more active and welcoming of their presence in law enforcement. In recent years, acceptance by the public has grown as women police have been seen more frequently on patrol and in uniform. For these reasons, sympathetic jurors continue to support the role that women have earned in the law enforcement profession (Bloch and Anderson, 1974).
Current culture in the Department-Sexual Harassment
In 2009, a Harvard study was conducted about the Department. The study was conducted to measure progress in the organization. One of the issues was how is the culture of the Department changing? Most importantly, has the Department won the public’s trust and confidence while reducing crime and bringing offenders to justice? However, the study did not examine whether the Department had made any progress in dealing with employment issues— like sexual harassment, which was a critical component in sustaining changes in the organization
The study found that the Department was a changed organization in certain areas. On a variety of survey questions, officers signaled their renewed satisfaction on the job, but internal relationships were never explored. The study found that strong leadership and oversight were needed to overcome future obstacles in the organization. However, Police Chief William Bratton left the Department in 2009, leaving in charge the same management team that employees had previously perceived to be part of the old culture that prevented positive change in the Department (Stone, 2009. Pg.76)
Culture is the set of practices, beliefs, and basic assumptions that drive the day-to-day activities of the organization. Behaviors, beliefs, and assumptions operate the organization. If the culture is inconsistent with behaviors required for successful change in the organization, change implementation will substantially be jeopardized, and toxic cultures within the organization will likely develop. The strength and stability of the culture derive from the fact that it is group based and that the individual will hold on to certain basic assumptions in order to ratify his/her membership in the group. It is this process, for example, how the “Good Old Boy” mentality was previously developed in the Department (Schein, 2004). It has been six years since Chief Bratton left the Department, and noticeable signs are rapidly emerging indicating the ‘Good Old Boys Club” mentality is back. It was the “Good Old Boys” attitude that led to the Rampart corruption scandal. And subsequently became responsible for the Department of Justice mandating the Department’s adoption of the Federal Consent
Decree. However, the consent decree is no longer watching over the organization to make ensure old cultures do not threaten the success of the organization. Within six years, the Department has reversed back to the dark ages relative to the treatment of employees, in particular women and sexual harassment. Women no longer feel comfortable using the appropriate channels to report misconduct fearing retaliation. Instead, female police officers show up to public meetings held at the Police Commission despite these meetings were designed to hear public only complaints. Department employees—including women, no longer feel that their complaints will be investigated thoroughly and that appropriate corrective action will be taken. Unfortunately, no study exists to gage current culture in the organization with respect to sexual harassment and retaliation. Therefore, we must turn to litigated cases for information that will better prepare us in accurately assessing the present culture of the organization.
Consider the case of former Police Officer Melissa Borck, 45, who suffered sexual harassment via hostile work environment while she was assigned to the Department’s Valley Traffic Division. The harassment began soon after Borck transferred to the Valley Traffic Division—her attorney argued in court papers. A fellow officer pushed her head to his groin and said, “I thought you’d never ask.” Male officers ordered female officers to pick up dry cleaning, lunch, or coffee for them. When Borck became pregnant, male colleagues commented on the size of her breasts and asked if she would breast-feed them, according to court documents.
Borck was also retaliated against for reporting the harassment to Internal Affairs. A federal jury awarded $2.3 million to Officer Borck who also gave birth to a stillborn child because of the stress (Lin, 2009. Latimes.com) Likewise, in the same year, the city paid $2.25 million to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit brought by an officer of the Department assigned to the canine bomb unit. Officer Patricia Fuller alleged in her lawsuit that men in the unit exposed their genitalia, made sexually explicit remarks, and excluded her from training exercises and other opportunities as a form of retaliation (D. Bender v. City of Los Angeles and Kim, 2008, LA times.com).
In total, ten other sexual harassment cases were examined costing the City over $12 million dollars in damages. In most cases, settlements were made and the details were not publicly known. Sexual harassment cases dating back to 2003 suggesting the culture has not changed. In fact, in a highly publicized case, a captain, who was notified of sexual harassment, condoned the unacceptable activity suggesting it was good for morale. Unfortunately, recommendations made by the IG also suggested that this behavior was not isolated but spread through mid-level, and upper management creating a culture that has negatively impacted the implementation of Department policy (Bustamante 2013, pg15).
Current Culture -Retaliation
Court documents indicate that managers were not taking any tangible action to address sexual harassment complaints in the Department. Unfortunately, the action they took were acts of retaliation. Managers, who were subject of the lawsuits, claimed there was no retaliatory intent. However, the Court of Appeals saw it different when re-affirming a retaliation case involving one of the Department’s most publicized and damaging case. The case involved Police Officer Robert Hill, who was awarded 4.2 million for acts of retaliation suffered during his employment with the Department (Hill v. City of Los Angeles, 2008).
In the Hill decision, the court ruled that the Department was liable for retaliation even though the ultimate decision-maker, the deputy chief, who took the adverse employment action, was ignorant that the employee had engaged in a protected activity. The Department became liable when it was established that the deputy chief acted with retaliatory animus, and the cause for taking an adverse employment action was not independently investigated. Ironically, the chain of causation could have been easily broken if the deputy chief had truly taken independent action.
The definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” Instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over, Department managers should take a proactive approach to learning from its mistakes in handling employment issues. What was learned from 37 retaliation lawsuits that cost the city over 27 million in settlement damages? Well, managers have argued that since the majority of the cases were settled, privacy issues prevent them from discussing specific details about the case. Therefore, they are barred from sharing information that could be used to educate other Department managers. On the other hand, employees who have been activists in promoting accountability presented an opposite argument. Employees have argued that much information has been disclosed through the media, investigations, and public channels. Furthermore, the Department created a new elite Workplace Investigation Unit (WIU), specially designed to investigate most workplace misconduct that ultimately ended in litigation. WIU had been proactive in educating Department managers and supervisors in the prevention of costly mistakes made in the area of sexual harassment and retaliation.
What is the real reason for the high payoffs? To find the real answer, I conducted a close review of more than one hundred cases while I was in charge of WIU. My review revealed major failures by Department managers toward the implementation of existing sexual harassment and retaliation policies.
Breakdowns in the Implementation of Existing Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Policies Education Breakdown
In 2001, the Department entered into a consent decree with the Department of Justice in which the Department agreed to discontinue certain practices without admitting to damages or illegality of the action. With the implementation of the consent decree, the Department was forced to move from the dark ages to a total re-organization of the Department. To adhere with the mandates of the consent decree, total transformation was required. The proposed organizational plan included developing a more efficient infrastructure and also creating an entity that was responsible for designing and implementing new ethical standards that met external and internal demands of the Department. Which at that time, the Department was trying to improve its image following negative criticism over the handling of the Rodney King and the Rampart corruption incidents. Professional Standards Bureau (PSB) was formed to address ethical issues occurring within the Department. In 2004, the Department created the Workplace Investigation Unit (WIU) specially designed to address adverse criticism by the IG over the management of dozens of workplace investigations erupting at all levels of the organization.
Over the next six years, WIU personnel spent a considerable amount of time in educating managers and supervisors in taking a proactive approach in preventing workplace misconduct at all levels of the organization. Due to the rise in litigation, sexual harassment and retaliation became the most popular subjects of the education. The message was simple, and Department managers and supervisors were tasked to ensure sexual harassment and retaliation policies were clearly disseminated. Any violations of these policies would not be tolerated. This zero tolerance should have equally applied to supervisors and high-ranking managers in the Department. For a couple of years, WIU personnel imparted education Department-wide using genetic scenarios from closed investigations. This teaching method was developed to better illustrate the devastating consequences of sexual harassment and retaliation in the Department. It was also designed to prevent costly mistakes been repeated where the city incurred significant liability.
It is common knowledge in law enforcement that the best education for police employees, supervisors, and managers is the use of real life scenarios. Police officers deal with solving real- life problems as part of their daily function and responsibilities. Therefore, theorizing prevents officers from fully absorbing the application of current laws relative to workplace misconduct. officers were taught-they would memorize and promptly forget them. However, high-ranking managers were highly critical of using real scenarios. Perhaps because in most of these cases, high-ranking managers were also the ones responsible for questionable decisions made during high profile sexual harassment investigations.
Managers, who were at the center of civil litigation, petitioned the chief of police to change the educational format in regards to sexual harassment training. The managers argued that the education was too real and by revealing managerial mistakes, it would encourage other employees to sue. Therefore, instead of using scenarios derived from Department employment cases, managers recommended online education programs to replace workshops taught by WIU. The chief agreed with the recommendation and classroom training was quickly replaced by 10- minute videos addressing issues that were far detached from real employment issues occurring. Likewise, WIU personnel were drastically reduced, and crucial live education for managers and supervisors was no longer provided.
Communication Breakdown
Communication is the single most effective tool that can make a difference whether or not an organization becomes an effective leader or hinders the implementation of sexual harassment and retaliation policies. In 2008, two Department employees were awarded a combined price tag exceeding five million dollars generated by a single incident (Victoria Kim 2009, LA times, p.1). Likewise, between 2005 and 2007, the Department spent over 20 million dollars paying off lawsuits settlements generated from the failure to manage conflict at a divisional level (C. Casey, personal communications, March 3, 2007).
Between 2005 and 2007, I formed and managed WIU, an investigative section solely dedicated to investigate employee-to-employee conflict between Department employees, supervisors and managers. In reviewing some of the causes of conflicts, we determine that communication played an important role for failure of leaders to effectively communicate their expectations to their subordinates. This lack of communication resulted in employees been confused about where to draw the line and what constitutes sexual harassment.
Communicating the vision and the goals of the Department is not enough. Setting expectations of what leaders expect from his/her subordinates and vise versa at the early stages is a key communication strategy that will pay high dividends in preventing sexual harassment. As an effective leader, he/she must develop a “Credo.” There are inexhaustible uncertainties and prospects for change with the advent of the new millennium. Cogently, it is important to indicate that effective leadership requires a functional working credo that is more appropriate for the years ahead in preventing employment issues. If better communication and empathy skills are necessary for best leadership practices, then an increased focus on a viable working credo must be evident for leaders to take an organization (Kouzes & Posner, 2003, p. 63). A simple Credo like, “treat other people like you would want to be treated in a similar situation,” “treat women with respect and dignity, ” are examples that will communicate the leader’s expectations and close the gaps in the implementation sexual harassment policies that often lead to unacceptable and toxic behavior in an organization.
Communication Gaps In Generations
Every law enforcement organization has a generational difference either in its workplace or among the communities we serve. Generational differences influence working relationship and standards of normalcy, and expectations in how we treat each other in the workplace. Consider, for example, how each generation responds to authority and views on leadership.
Traditionalists and Boomers (born between 1925-1960) entered the workforce at a time when the structure and hierarchy of most law enforcement organizations were strongly influenced by military thinking. The dominant management model of the time was “command and control.” Employees were expected to follow orders without questioning them even in cases where misconduct was occurring. No action was taken without going through the appropriate channels. Sexual Harassment was an acceptable practice for this generation.
On the other hand, Generation X (Gen X) (born between 1961-1981) are knowledgeable workers who have been influenced by technology as well as by shifts in family and societal trends including divorce, two-income households and gender, racial and ethnic diversity. Given this worldview, their values tend toward individualism and self-reliance. For example, Gen X no longer accepts the notion that sexual harassment is a collateral damage to being a police officer. They are committed to their self-respect and not to the organization Generation Y (born between1982-2002) group is more diverse and globally oriented and more knowledgeable of computers and technology than any preceding generation. This group is a larger demographic than the Baby Boomers and is predicted to have an equally distinct impact on society and the workplace (Managing Generations, personal communications, January 5, 2009).
For the first time in the history of the Department, there are four generations of employees, both sworn and civilians, represented in the workforce. It is the largest demographics since women and members of minority began entering the workforce. Not surprisingly, the implications are profound and present new opportunities and challenges in managing a diverse workplace. Therefore, new comers are constantly watching and do not hesitate to criticize the leader. They are assessing management actions to determine whether the Department standards are equally applied at the higher levels of the organization.
It is the nonverbal communication that matters the most. It plays an important role in relaying positive or negative messages to our subordinates. Keep in mind that 93% percent of a leader’s effectiveness to communicate comes through nonverbal communication. (J.K. Baron, personal communication, February 4, 2009). So, when high-level managers are promoted following their involvement with large payoff employment cases, it sends a clear message that managers are not being held equally accountable.
Accountability Breakdown
The Department today suffers from a crisis of accountability. It is the defining issue for the organization’s performance of our time. Department managers often fall back on the power of their positions and the authority of their assignments, expecting accountability from others rather than engaging it. The first step towards creating a culture of accountability is to define clear results within the organization. It should be clear to all the managers and employees from the bottom to the top ranks that accountability works in both directions. It is not about getting the job done but also how the job was done. Although competition is healthy, it may lead to conflict and isolation of subordinates that could jeopardize teamwork and promote unacceptable practices in getting the job done. For example, promoting unsuitable managers for the sake of achieving crime reduction at all cost.
Between 2008 and 2011, the Department paid over $38 million in internal harassment and discrimination lawsuits. As result, the Department was heavily criticized for a perceived lack of discipline of command staff that played a significant role for large jury awards or costly settlements. Several supervisors were promoted, although they were named as defendants in lawsuits that resulted in six- or seven-figure judgments or settlements according to a review of city and court documents. It was a running joke between attorneys who often predicted who was going to be promoted based on whether the manager was named in a lawsuit.
The costly point was driven home when the city council approved spending $1.1 million to settle a suit filed by an officer who claimed that a Captain made derogatory remarks to him and transferred him to a Skid Row assignment in retaliation for complaining. Captain John Romero, then a lieutenant at LAPD’s Media Relations, was later promoted to captain of Mission Division. Likewise, a white officer, claimed he was passed over for promotions in favor of Latino or female officers at Mission Division in 2006. Commander Jorge Villegas, who was captain of the division at that time and was named in the suit, was later promoted and was recently selected to head LAPD Valley Bureau, which oversees all San Fernando Valley operations. Villegas was subsequently promoted to deputy chief.
Lastly, two motorcycle officers from West Traffic Division filed a lawsuit claiming they received bad performance reviews from Captain Nancy Lauer and were threatened with reassignment for refusing to meet an alleged quota for traffic tickets. A jury awarded the officers $2 million. Lauer was transferred to head the Criminal Gang and Homicide Division, which is considered a prestigious assignment. Ten more officers from West Traffic Division filed similar suits with claims dating back to when Lauer was still in charge (personal communications, R. Jatkowski, November 4, 2011 and C.J. Lim 2011, dailynews.com).
To address accountability issues, the Department hired a risk manager to head off more costly lawsuits by identifying internal problems and training supervisors in conflict management. However, some critics expressed doubts about just how effective a risk manager would be at changing the culture of the Department, where some rank-and- file officers complain that command staff rarely face discipline even if they are on the losing end of a lawsuit. The risk manager was supposed to identify and prevent behaviors that may lead to lawsuits and disgruntled employees. This manager was also tasked to work with the City Attorney’s Office to come up with lessons learned after a lawsuit and change questionable policy. The Department also hoped the risk manager would be able to address concerns of unfair discipline. A year later, the manager left the Department. So far, nothing has been done despite the Inspector General’s most recent report where the Department was highly criticized for lack of accountability. The perception of a double standard has hurt morale and since then this double treatment has lead to more lawsuits. Because of these lawsuits, the Police Commission has severely criticized Police Chief Charlie Beck. Likewise, the rank-and-file of the Department has lost confidence in Chief Beck’s ability to lead.
Most recent comments by the rank-and-file accused Chief Beck of reversing the cultural trend of the Department, and exposing the organization to greater risk by his inconsistent application of accountability. Chief Beck’s selective, situational, and convenient enforcement of the rules has brought such discredit to the disciplinary process that employees no longer have faith or confidence in the fairness of the Department. It is disheartening to the rank-and-file to see managers being promoted or given coveted assignments, despite being found culpable by a jury. Conversely, officers who become the subject of a high profile incident are severely disciplined, or they become pencil pushers in the Department. Officers accused Beck of caring more about his social popularity and refusing to hold all employees equally accountable. Beck’s effort to protect the status quo at all cost has had the most adverse impact on the Department’s ability to handle workplace issues.
CONCLUSION
To actually reduce liability from lawsuits emitting from sexual harassment and retaliation cases, an analysis was conducted of three contributing factors probably responsible for large payoffs during litigation or settlements. The analysis focused on examining current laws against Department policies governing sexual harassment and retaliation; comparing past and current culture of the organization; and lastly, identifying significant implementation breakdowns in enforcing existing sexual harassment and retaliation policy.
A comparison of current sexual harassment and retaliation laws against Department policies revealed no deviations between the two. In fact, Department policies were found to be stricter than federal and state laws governing sexual harassment and retaliation. The Department went above and beyond its duty to ensure Department policies were specifically designed to protect those employees who were the subject of sexual harassment and retaliation.
The review determined the primary factor in the breakdown of the implementation of well-written policies was not that the policies were not implemented, but rather that the implementation was not equally enforced. Employees at the lower ranks of the organization were severely disciplined compared to managers who were named in lawsuits, were at times promoted, despite their share of culpability for high payoffs made by the organization. The lack of accountability by high-level managers reversed back the culture of the Department to the dark-ages where women did not share the same rights afforded to men. It appears that little progress has been made between past and present cultures. Female police officers do not feel comfortable in using Department reporting channels in fear of retaliation. They often attend Police Commission meetings to report acts of sexual harassment and retaliation. Management interferences has also caused education and communication breakdowns. However, the disparate treatment in accountability revealed to be a major factor in the Department’s inability to learn from its mistakes.
To sustain change, leaders must ensure that organizational changes penetrate through at all levels of the Department. Command staff must be committed to holding themselves accountable at the same level of their subordinates. The accountability must be authentic and immediate if Department leaders want to influence positive change in the prevention of sexual harassment and retaliation throughout the organization.