THOMAS- September 13,2010 Complaint/Appeal of Discrimination,Retaliate,Intimidation

8/6/2019 THOMAS- September 13,2010 Complaint/Appeal of Discrimination,Retaliate,Intimidation

1/12

Police DepartmentCity of Greensboro

September 13,2010

TO: City Manager, Rashad YoungFROM: Senior Police Officer, D.V. Thomas, Support Bureau, Operational Support

Division, Legal Support SquadSUBJECT: Complaint/Appeal Of Discrimination, Retaliate, Intimidation

Harassment, Unfair Treatment, Hostile Work EnvironmentTo Include Improper Actions by Assistant City Manager--MichaclSpeedUng;U nwarranted .Disciplinary ActionBy Assistant Chief D.K. Crotts, and Failure To InvestigateAllegations Of Discrimination, Retaliation, Intimidation, AndHarassment By Lieutenant G.A.Hunt

Mr. Young, this complaint/appeal is coming directly to you as Mr. Speedling has beenimplicated relating City Policy Violations, within this document.On August 25, 2009, at 11:51am I sent an e-mail to Lieutenant GA. Hunt,CaptainTJ. Phippsand Assistant Chief R.E Rogers with a subject of "DV Thomas 'Concerns." Within thisdocument, I alleged allegations of harassment, unfair treatment, hostile work environment andintimidation on the part of my then supervisor, Sergeant J. Heard. On August 26, 2009, SergeantHeard reassigned me from the Academy at Lincoln to Ben L. Smith High School, without noticeor specific reasoning other than to continue his on-going harassment of me. Sergeant Heard'sdemeanor when making the transfer effective clearly showed his ill intent. Sergeant Heards t i m . i n ~ 6 . n e d : . ~ m e ~ r g . : B e n - , ~ L ~ ~ , - ' ' : , S m i t b : , ~ H i g h - , : S c , h o c [ - : : O f f l : c e r R c u l h ' a c' . v a e - " , p r e s - e r i t c - ~ ? i i t h - - S , e r g e - a n t ~ ~ H e a i ~ ~ l ; : ~ , : . : ' . ~ . ' : ~ ' - . ~ ~Sergeant Heard stated that I was going to be assigned at Ben L . Smith and Officer Roulhac wasgoing to be assigned at the Academy at Lincoln. Sergeant Heard then walked away infrustration, giving no explanation. Lieutenant G.A.Hunt took no action, and did notinvestigate my complaint, after I notified him via e-mail on tbis date that I had beenregrettably reassigned.In this document (e-mail dated August 25, 2009); I informed my chain of command that SergeantHeard had threatened my job. Lieutenant Hunt, discriminatorily and unfairly failed to investigatemy allegations. Lieutenant Hunt's failure to investigate my allegations resulted in my predictionof being accused of insubordination and (nearly (one) 1 year later) of my, employment beingterminated. Please investigate Lieutenant Hunt and find out why he never investigated myallegations, and take appropriate action. In reference to further harassment, please review the e-

1


2/12

mail dated August 12, 2009 that was forwarded at 4:16 pm from me to Lieutenant Hunt andCaptain Phipps.On or about November 16, 2009, I was sustained on an allegation of Departmental Directive1.4.5 Obedience To Orders. I was given a Division Level Reprimand by Captain T.1. Phipps.Please be aware of the following as it relates to discriminatory, retaliatory, intimidating, unfairtreatment, and the above mentioned investigation.On or about November 13, 2009, I filed a job evaluation appeal and forwarded it to LieutenantHunt because Sergeant Heard did not evaluate my work performance but instead Sergeant Heardevaluated my personality. Upon utilizing the appeals process I documented policy violations bySergeant Heard. Lieutenant Hunt took no corrective action. Instead, Lieutenant Hunt had meremain in a hostile working environment and referred me back to Sergeant Heard to againdiscuss the evaluation; this is not proper protocol. Lieutenant Hunt instructed Sergeant Heard tore-word the evaluation to convey the same message. Sergeant Heard never made any changes tothe job evaluation. In fact, he provided me with another copy of the exact same document.

Lieutenant Hunt failed to investigate my initial allegations of intimidation,....disciiminatioii~ hm;a-ssmeriCalld hostile work environment, which is discriminatory T tlitself. In reference to the November 16, 2009 Obedience to Orders allegation, Sergeant Heard

could not and did not substantiate insubordination as it related to this incident. Instead of having the incident re-investigated due to policy violations, Former Chief

Bellamy changed the alleged violation to a violation of Department Directive 1.5.15Reporting and Relief From Du!y. This change of alleged allegation occurred only after Ifiled a grievance.

o Assistant City Manager Michael Speedling has stated that the results of an Officer'sinvestigation was due to "discrimination or incompetence" on the part of ProfessionalStandards (Internal Affairs).

II Professional Standards (Internal Affairs) approved the errant, discriminatory, retaliatoryharassing investigation completed by Sergeant Heard alleging insubordination. On April 20, 2006, Former Chief Bellamy advised me via e-mail that he could not hearmy appeal to disciplinary action, because I had named him in an EEOC Complaint. I.pr9yirt~4_Jhi_~:1!1.fli1t().As_sitill!tQ!tY.M~nager. MichaelpeedFng~ JshouJd 110t1 1 t l y ebeen discriminated or retaliated against for filing the EEOC complaint. The EEOCinvestigation had been completed prior to me being disciplined; therefore FOlmer ChiefBellamy should have been able to hear any appeals filed by me.

e In an memo dated March 18, 2010, in response to my grievance Former Chief Bellamyadvised discriminatorily that the discipline given was based on " ... prior disciplinaryaction taken against Officer Thomas." I contend that this is the 2006 disciplinarymatter in which Chief Bellamy had declined to hear initially and later held a grievancehearing with me concerning the discipline, after I had received the discriminatory e-mailfro him. I received the discipline shortly after the EEOC had finished investigating mycomplaint. The incident in question was not investigated thoroughly and neither should ithave risen to the level of being disciplined for one year.

e In further reference to Chief Bellamy's March 18, 2010 memo, which I included in myprevious grievance addressed to you, he was untruthful, because he indicated that the

2


3/12

3

attorney that represented me that the discipline had been reduced. I contend that Ireceived a Division Level Reprimand and that the discipline has NOT reduced nor hasany investigation been done on obvious policy violations reported by me.

G A check with Professional Standards (Internal Affairs) yielded that the most "discipline"given Of a first violation of 1.4.5 Obedience To Orders was counseling and after Iinformed Chief Bellamy of this in my grievance he maliciously changed theadministrative charge to 1.5.l5 Reporting and Relief From Duty,_Chief Bellamy wasaware that I had an emergency because he was seated in the classroom. He was alsoaware and that departmental allows employees to reschedule training in such instances.Former Chief Bellamy'S ruling is inconsistent with protocol.

Q In-service training is coordinated through the Training Division, where CaptainT.J.Phipps has been assigned as the former Lieutenant Executive Officer; therefore he hasknowledge of all applicable policies in regards to rescheduling training in emergencies.Knowing this, Captain Phipps administered the discipline on me after I had advised him

-------monthsearlier;thatT was-being harassed and intimidated by Sergefu"1tJ. Heard; Captain -T. lPhipps found humor in administering the discipline on me, on or about November16, 2009, although the circumstances did not require any. I contend that Captain Phippsadministering discipline on me under the aforementioned circumstances was pureharassment, discrimination and the intentional affliction of emotional duress.

.. On or about January 17, 2010, Sergeant Heard documented on my second quarter jobevaluation that my filing of a grievance was a weakness. Lieutenant Hunt reviewed andapproved this obvious retaliation and harassment, again no investigation was done.

o On or about April 7, 2010 M r. Speedling responded to a grievance I filed as it related tothe aforementioned the allegation derived from a situation in which I was late because Ihad an emergency, which was a sick child. Sergeant Heard even put this in his report,Former Chief Bellamy in an attempt to discriminatorily charge me with something and

- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - -- . - ~ ( l i s 6 i p l i t i e - - in e : ~ - f 6 : r ~ - s - Q I h e t b j r i g : : c , h a n g e ' d ..the charge to " r t " vi tjlrttit)rf" of Depar tmen ta l D i re .~ ti. vg1.5.15 Reporting and Relief From Duty. Sergeant Heard should have documented mystatements from his covertly recorded interview, in the investigation. In addition SergeantHeard should have submitted the evidentiary recorded interview to the ProfessionalStandards Division (Internal Affairs) which would have allowed me accessibility to it aswell as fair and accurate due process during the appeals/grievance time period. SergeantHeard further acknowledged in his investigation that I had informed the classroominstructor of the emergency. This statement indicates that Sergeant Heard overhead theconversation that transpired between me and the supervisor/classroom instructor and thathe also knew that there was no reason for him to harassingly investigate or recommenddiscipline for me in regards to November 2009 investigation.


4/12

4

o During the interview on or about August 24, 2009, Sergeant Heard asked me repeatedly"Who Do You Work For ... " and ended by stating "You Work For Me",

e To my knowledge Mr. Speedling never ordered any investigations concerning LieutenantHunt or Lieutenant Hunt's failure to investigate my allegations.

II Mr. Speedling stated the following in his document to me on April 7, 2010, "During themeeting conducted on April 1, 2010, you stated you were not currently experiencing anyform of retaliation and felt your supervisor was treating you fairly." However, on orabout May 13, 2010, the City received a letter from Carruthers and Roth, P.A. Attorneysat Law. The letter states inpart, "Of the foregoing, the most pressing issue is ongoingretaliation/harassment/hostile work environment and attempted interference with Ms.Thomas' employment relationship with the City by Sergeant Jonathan Heard."

I question Mr. Speedling's allegation that I felt I was treated fairly and not experiencingany form of retaliation, since I had first submitted an electronic document to youregarding discrimination and retaliation and later prepared and hand-delivered an,eleveru l l ) page document with attaclunents to your office. Mr. Speedling's documentdated April.7~2010 contains a subject "Complaint. about.Discrimination and RetaliationIssues". Therefore, by his own admittance I complained about discrimination andretaliation. During the meeting with Mr. Speedling he informed me that I was not goingto be retaliated against after filing the grievance; however I have been and I believe thatMr. Speedling is aware and that is why he took no corrective action.

II> In Mr. Speedling's April 7, 2010 response to me he copied Ms. Connie Hammond, theDirector of Human Resources, Jamiah Waterman and Former Chief Bellamy. Ms.Hammond is a direct subordinate of Assistant City Manager, M r. Speedling HumanResources should have investigated my allegations of discrimination, harassment,intimidation and hostile work environment and made a determination to provide to Mr.Speedling. An EEOC complaint was filed by me on or about March 30,2010.

I have e-mail correspondence in my possession which confirms the City of Greensboroagreed to enter into a mediation regarding my EEOC charge, allegations to include asuggested resolution. This action is a clear indication by the City that my allegations arevalid,

o I have in my possession, an e-mail correspondence from Attorney Kenneth Keller ofcommunicationts) that had transpired between him and Attorney Jamiah Watermanconcerning that matter.

I was informed in the latter part of July that the City of Greensboro no longer wanted tomediate that matter and shortly after this I was suspended without pay and recommendedfor termination, without justification.

On or about May 12, 2010, I notified of an administrative investigation, on an alleged violationof 1.4.5 Obedience to Orders relating to an incident at 2407 South Holden Road. I was sustainedon this allegation. I was recommended for termination by Sergeant Heard; however, AssistantChief Crotts gave me a Departmental Reprimand after I returned to duty after being suspended.


5/12

5

Please be aware of the following as it relates to discriminatory, retaliatory, intimidating, unfairtreatment, and the above mentioned investigation.

This allegation derives from an evaluation conference I had with Sergeant Heard at BellL. Smith High School on May 7,2010, in my office.

During the conference, Sergeant Heard referred to a comment in which he indicated hadbeen made by a District Court Judge. The comment was detrimental to my evaluation,however, there was no investigation confirming that the comment was actually made oraccurate.

" My contention is that there was no constructive reasoning for Sergeant Heard to relay thedetrimental comment to me in tile m anner in which he did. Iurther contend that he wasengaging in provocation, hoping for a negative reaction so that he could later disciplineme for insubordination. Five (5) days later in a document dated May 12, 2010, SergeantHeard unjustifiably recommended that Ibe terminated. On July 23,2010, Chief Bellamy- concurredwithSergeant Heard's recommendation, _whi ch_gave the appearance _hat Thad_two charges of insubordination. Former Chief Bellamy was untruthful because he knewthat he had overturned the first false insubordinate charge in March of 2010. SergeantHeard, Lieutenant Hunt, Former Chief Bellamy, and Assistant Chief Holder had a legalduty to confirm that the information given was accurate, because it resulted in myrecommendation for termination, suspension and later being disciplined.

e On May 7, 2010, during the evaluation conference Sergeant Heard was intimidating andhostile towards me. Sergeant Heard admitted this in his administrative investigation,writing, HIn order to .release tension I stepped away from the office area whileOfficer Thomas remained inher office'.

On the date in question, (May 7, 2010) the Principal of Ben L. Smith High School, Dr.Noah Rogers summoned me by school radio during my evaluation conference, withSergeant Heard.

e I answered Dr. Rogers and attempted to ascertain if Dr. Rogers had an emergency. I wasnotified later that Dr. Rogers wanted to report information relating to a state wantedperson that was possibly on campus. On the date in question, the principal Dr. NoahRogers did in fact have an emergency because a state wanted person is either a dangeredor endangered person. I contend that Sergeant Heard's request in ordering me not toassist the principal in his time of need was not a competent order. Furthermore, SergeantHeard admits in his investigation that he told me to ask the principal if he had anemergency. I commenced to reporting in person to meet the principal as requested bySergeant Heard, and in a raised voice, he ordered me to leave the campus and report tohis office. Serving or discussing the job evaluation did not take precedence overresponding to the emergency and Sergeant Heard interfered with my employment.

o I was a School Resource Officer whose salary was paid by Guilford County.


6/12

6

During the meeting with Sergeant Heard, I suggested that we postpone the meeting until Ifound out Dr. Rogers' needs.8 Sergeant Heard had requested that I access an investigative report. I did access the report as Sergeant Heard requested although there is a discrepancy in thetime in which I accessed it.t) Sergeant Heard used as his justification for a recommendation of termination, a violation

of insubordination which does not exist.41 Sergeant Heard used as his justification for termination that I called in sick on June 25,2009. Actually, prior to calling Sergeant Heard, at Of around 0530 hours, I called the

Watch Operations Center. According to Sergeant Heard, he told me to call CorporalMclronald, and I responded, raising my voice at Sergeant Heard. There was noinvestigation, and I contend that I did not raise my voice to Sergeant Heard. In fact, thecall to Sergeant Heard was a courtesy.

Sergeant Heard uses as justification for termination that Corporal McDonald stated that Idisrespected her approximately one year earlier. In fact, Sergeant Heard's investigationstated partly verbatim, "In the many years that I have worked at Safety Town, I havenever been so disrespected by anyone, But Deborah disrespected me so bad yesterday."There was no investigation conducted. Sergeant Heard never explains what I did that wasdisrespectful to Corporal McDonald. Corporal McDonald never explains what I did to bedisrespectful towards her. In fact, in the proceeding bulleted information, it is ironic that Iwas the only officer to respond to Corporal McDonald's request for assistance, however,neither Corporal McDonald nor Sergeant Heard found the other School ResourceOfficer's non response to Corporal McDonald's request be disrespectful. SergeantHeard states in his own document as it relates to OUl' discussion of this incident,"She continued by commenting that I was harassing her." In addition, SergeantHeard clearly intimidates and harasses the entire squad as it relates to volunteeringfor Safety Town, which is noted in the proceeding bulleted information.

In an e-mail which I saved, on or about March 1 0, 2 00 9, Corporal McDonald requestedvolunteers to assist her on a Saturday to assist with preparation for Safety Town, to allSchool Resource Officers, through e-mail. On this same day, I responded back toCorporal McDonald and agreed to assist her. No other School Resource Officerresponded.0nJu n e4,2009, Corporal McDonald sent an e-mail to Sergeant I-Ieard whichstated: "DeborElllvolunteered to help quickly. Thought it should be noted in her flle."OnJune 5, 2009, Sergeant Heard sent an e-mail to all other School Resource Officers whichstated, "Please let Corporal McDonald know of your availability by WEDNESDAY,JU NE 10, 2009!1 If there are no volunteers assigned by that day, holiday/vacation timerequested by you will not be looked atfovorablytl

o During my third quarter evaluation meeting, Sergeant Heard recommended that I transfer,because I had supposedly filed a fifty five (55) page document alleging harassment bySergeant Heard. I noted this on the comments in the evaluation which Lieutenant Huntreceived.

Lieutenant Hunt failed to investigate my initial allegations of intimidation,discrimination, harassment and hostile work environment, which is discriminatory initself.


7/12

7

@ Assistant City Manager Michael Speedling has stated that the results of an Officer'sinvestigation was due to "discrimination or incompetence" 011 the part of ProfessionalStandards (Internal Affairs).

III Professional Standards (Internal Affairs) approved the errant, discriminatory, retaliatoryharassing investigation completed by Sergeant Heard alleging insubordination.

@ On or about May 12 , 2010, Sergeant Heard responded to Ben L. Smith High School andsummoned me to the main office, when I arrived he humiliated me by serving the noticeof administrative investigation on me concerning the May 7, 2010 incident. Thistranspired while he was standing directly beside and conversing with the library assistant.

This retaliatory, discriminatory, harassing unfair investigation should have a findingschanged to unfounded. Sergeant Heard did not follow proper protocol nor did he properlydocument the interview, which essentially means that ruling was based solely on hisinterpretation of what had transpired. This denied me any fairness or objectivity concerning dueprocess purposes that Ihould be afforded.On or about May 28, 2010, Sergeant Heard notified me that I was being investigated for analleged violation of Departmental Directive 18.1.2 Reporting For Court. Sergeant Heardsustained the violation against me. Please be aware of the following as it relates todiscriminatory, retaliatory, intimidating, unfair treatment, and the above mentioned investigation.On August 12,2010, Assistant ChiefD.K. Crotts unfounded the allegation against me in regardsto Reporting to Court, which makes the allegation false an d confirms the discrimination,harassment, unfair treatment and intimidation allegations I made against Sergeant Heard.Furthermore, refer to IA File #10-364 because the evidence suggests that several other SchoolResource Officers had committed one of the allegations pertaining to court requirements which Ihad been accused of I doubt of any of them were investigated, disciplined or transferred againsttheir requests. Sergeant Heard intimidated harassed and treated me unfairly as it relates to courtattendance by School Resource Officers. This is confirmed by an August 28, 2009 complaint that.lmfl9y~vi~;~:mgU~Q,~mt~ill::Phjpp~apdLit3ut9narJtG.A. Hunt . Theh:.trassment and intimidation-committed against me by Sergeant Heard was not investigated. To my knowledge theinformation shared reference other subordinates of Sergeant Heard was not investigated.Sergeant Hard was allowed to continue investigating me after I had reported being harassed byhim and it was not investigated. In June 2010, Sergeant Heard initiated an investigation on meeven after I had been transferred under the supervision of another Police Sergeant.

The unfounded/false report regarding Reporting to Court should have drawn AssistantChief Crotts attention to the remaining frivolous, faulty investigations conducted bySergeant heard.

e o On February 18, 2010, Sergeant Heard and I conversed bye-mail regarding the exactscenario in which he disciplined me for on or about July 19, 2010. In the February 18,2010 instance, Sergeant Heard approved my actions.


8/12

8

o Lieutenant Hunt was never held accountable to r the en-ant investigation, or notinvestigating previous allegations I made against Sergeant Heard.

e Assistant City Manager Michael Speedling has stated that the results of an Officer'sinvestigation was due to "discrimination or incompetence" on the part of ProfessionalStandards (Internal Affairs).

On June 16, 2010, Sergeant Heard notified me that he was investigating me for a possibleviolation of Departmental Directives 17.1.3 Evidence Handling and Departmental Directive1.5.23 Submission of Reports. The incidents (evidence handling) allegedly occurred on January26, 2010 (1 count), and February 10, 2010 (1 count). The submission of reports incidentallegedly occurred on or about February 10,2010.

.. In the first evidence handling allegation, Sergeant Heard sustained a violation against me,knowing that he approved my actions in the report approximately months earlier.

Iwas called to the Academy at Smith in relation to a student on campus with a knife. Thestudent had carved his initials on the bathroom wall (student admitted to this). I was not

. . r e q u e s f 6 d t c i f i l e any formal charges. B a s e d on the fact that the student had no priorcriminal history, I referred him to a commonly used community based program. Iconfiscated the knife and had the principal have the student's mother contact me at BenL. Smith High School, which she did. Based on the fact that the student was not charged,Ieturned the knife to the student's mother.

s Ihad discretion in this case, which I utilized. No written laws, departmental rules;regulations or procedures were violated.

e Sergeant Heard approved tbe report #2010-0126-143, which explained my actionstaken in this particular case. In the secondary incident, (February 2010) I took similaraction relating to a student having a knife on campus. ill this particular case, Iwas not onduty during the initial incident. School officials should have, but failed contact lawenforcement immediately for reporting purposes, and to have the knife removed, eventhough these same school officials falsely indicated on an official form, in which Iobserved that law enforcement had been notified. The school officials waited until Ireturned to duty the next day, to report the incident to me. The threat of the student

....... .having the knife.was.on ...Eebruary.I O~2010 (when I was not on duty), notFebruary 11,2 0n rrd id ' m ake'i l i e m i s f u l c e o f : n o f p r e p a i i t i g : a re po rt. A first o f f e n s e ofthe .niistakebfnot submitting a report warrants no more than counseling. The report should have beenprepared and the knife should have removed from the campus on February 10,2010. Thecase report would have been assigned to a defective in the Criminal InvestigationsDivision for follow-up.

e M r. Speedling has been informed that Fonner Chief Bellamy stated to me during agrievance hearing that Sergeant Heard was abusing his authority. M r. Speedling took nocorrective action.

G o Sergeant Loy, Professional Standards Investigator writes, "In this incident a studentbrought a weapon to school. a knife, and Officer Thomas did complete an investigativereport. In that report she states that she returned the knife to the student's mother, verysimilar to how she utilized discretion in the return of the weapon to the parent in theincident that occurred on February 11, 2010. In the January 26, 2010 incident, Sergeant


9/12

9

Heard appears to have approved of Officer Thomas' investigative report. This mayor may not be the case, but should be clarified as to the use of Officer Thomas'discretion and evidence handling procedures for consistency in these matters. As aresult of this sustained violation, coupled with the sustained violation for the January 26,2010 incident, for which her report was approved, a recommendation for termination wasmade." Sergeant Loy should have had proof by the tracking statement provided by methat the report that the report had been approved by Sergeant Heard.e In Sergeant Loy's statement, he acknowledges that I utilized discretion in theaforementioned matters, Sergeant Loy states that clarification is needed relating to mydiscretion. That statement alone clearly relays that my discretion was proper or so closeto proper that he is not clear on the next course of action.

& In Sergeant Loy's assessment to Interim Chief Crotts entitled, "Review of Terminationfor Officer D.V. Thomas," Sergeant Loy should have provided the needed clarification toensure fairness and consistency.

G Lieutenant Hunt failed to investigate my initial allegations of intimidation,discrimination, harassment and hostile work environment, which is discriminatory initself.

lIP AsslstantC1tYManager Michael Speedling has stated that the results of an Officer'sinvestigation was due to "discrimination or incompetence" on the part of ProfessionalStandards (Internal Affairs).

e Professional Standards (Internal Affairs) approved the errant, discriminatory, retaliatoryharassing investigation completed by Sergeant Heard alleging insubordination.

Assistant ChiefD.K. Crotts unfounded only one of Sergeant Heard's administrativeinvestigations; this is in regards to Reporting to Court. In this particular investigation SergeantHeard indicated that I had signed an administrative rights and responsibilities form 011May 28,2010. There was no form signed by me on this date, neither did any form exist in theProfessional Standards (Internal Affairs) file until after Ihad filed an appeal and Chief Crotts didnot address this truthfulness issue in his response to my appeal. Assistant Chief Crotts did notmeet with me to discuss any of the appeals. Assistant ChiefD.K. Crotts decreased the level ofdiscipline in regards to the evidence handling administrative investigation in which SergeantH~fir


10/12

10

On or December 22, 2009, while serving as my Bureau Commander Assistant Chief R.E. Rogersreceived a photocopy of an investigation from my internal affairs personnel file without mypermission. Assistant Chief Rogers received this copy from Professional Standards CorporalD.E. Stewart. Assistant Chief Rogers received the photocopy of the document (09-475) just daysbefore he knew that he was going to be transferred to the Criminal Investigations Division. OnSeptember 8, 2009, Sergeant 1. Heard received a photocopy of a portion of my personnel file(2006-203) without my permission. Sergeant Heard received this copy from ProfessionalStandards Division Corporal Milford Harris. Please note that Mr. Speedling stated that the resultsof an officer's investigation was due to "discrimination or incompetence" by ProfessionalStandards. After Sergeant Heard took the photocopy of file without my permission, he createdseveral additional administrative investigations utilizing the same administrative chargeinformation which gave appeared an attempt to create a progressive discipline scenario.

This retaliatory, discrimiuatory, harassing unfair investigation should have a findingschanged to unfounded, except the one (1) first time mistake of not submitting a report. TheDepartmental Directive 1.5.23 Submission of Reports, should be sustained. I should havebeen afforded counseling, in this particular incident. The school officials should have calledthe police department to report the incident and to have the knife removed from thecampus.Mr. Young) it should be noted that this document is a combination of a complaint and appeal. Asthe result of discriminatory, retaliatory, harassing, intimidating and unfair treatment, I have beenassessed two (2) Departmental Reprimands, one (1) Divisional Reprimand and one (1) first level.The discrimination, retaliation, harassment, intimidation and unfair treatment began withLieutenant Hunt not investigating my allegations against Sergeant Heard, one year ago,During the month of August 2010, I was suspended without pay, and recommended fortermination, without justification. It is my belief that upon high ranking City officials reviewingmy case, discrimination, retaliation, harassment and intimidation, became apparent. I furtherquestion whether the suspension and recommendation to be terminated was illegaL SergeantHeard harassed and discriminated against me by aggressively investigated me during the monthsof May, June and July 2010.In addition, a pending EEOC Complaint would expose the fact that Lieutenant Hunt did notinvestigate my allegations against Sergeant Heard originating in August of 2009. The retaliationunfairly placed me on a ninety day (90 day) Action Plan within the Professional StandardsProgram. Upon me filing notices of appeals, Sergeant Heard was allowed to submit


11/12

11

addendum documents relating to his investigations of me. Lieutenant Hunt concurred withSergeant Heard's changes. I doubt that this is proper protocol.I was reinstated to work without being afforded a departmental hearing. Prior to mysuspension, in a dated July 12, 2010, with a subject of Addendum: Recommendation forDiscipline, Assistant Chief Holder did not find me "detrimental to the department." On orabout August 26, 2010, based on the May 7, 2010 faulty investigation conducted bySergeant Heard, Assistant Chief Holder stated that I was "detrimental to the department."Assistant Chief Holder goes on to state that I have shown a disturbing pattern of behaviorsince 2006. Assistant Chief Holder gives no supporting documentation for such a statement.Assistant Chief Holder appears to be setting the stage for additional adverse actions to betaken against me. This would be through progressive discipline. Assistant Chief Holder'sallegation of me being detriment to the departmental is false.My entire Police Chain of Command, to include Assistant Chief Crotts is implicated inallegations I have made. Assistant City Manager, Mr. Michael Speedling is implicated inallegations 1ave made. The high level of discipline was assessed to me as an attempt toterminate my employment, placing me in a position in which one (1) future mistake could lead totermination.During the fiscal year 2009/2010, Sergeant Heard evaluated my personality; protocol dictatesevaluations should be based on work performance. It appears that Sergeant Heard prepared my2009/2010 Annual Evaluation with information that he alleges, transpired on June 25 th and June29[h of 2009, which indicates this was the previous Fiscal Year, another policy violation.Lieutenant G. A. Hunt reviewed the document and took no corrective action. I was not given afair opportunity in regards to appealing neither my fourth quarter nor Annual Job Evaluationsduring the (5) day time period that is allowed. The job evaluation(s) were served on me without asignature from any supervisor on July 9, 2010 and when it was of inconvenience to me. I wasscheduled to attend job training that was held out of town during the following week. On July 9,2010 , Iwas ordered to provide my signature on the unsigned job evaluations and Iwas told that Iwoul.drecGiveshmedconies-Iater:Whilelwasattending the training I requested a signedcopv. - ," " a " _ ' ' " . - - - - - - . _ C o _ - " . ' " -' _ _ "_ ", ;. . ", "': ',', ,: ,, '. .. . ", " , ',. , "'" -".from Lieutenant Hunt via e-mail, on or about July 13,2010.1 did not receive signed copies of thejob evaluations until July 20, 201 0. Sergeant Heard documented on my Annual Job evaluationthat discipline imposed on or for me ranged from a first level to termination. After doing so,Sergeant Heard documented on my Annual Job Evaluation that I had met expectations and ratedme, at Level three (3). I was allowed to work nearly three (3) months, without being aware thatafter I had recommended for termination by Sergeant Heard. I applied and interviewed for aJuvenile Detective job position. I contend that the malicious, frivolous investigations completedby Sergeant Heard and concurred by Lieutenant Hunt and Assistant Chief Holder, destroyed anyfairness or Objectivity that I should have been afforded for the position. Furthermore, if thesesupervisors truly felt that my termination was justified, then they should have seen the liability inallowing me to continuing to work in my full capacity for nearly three (3) months. The truth of


12/12

12

the matter is , based on the fact that I was not notified of the recommendation for termination andwas allowed to interview for the job opening, exposes the fact that these reported aforementionedinstances are retaliation, harassment, intimidation, discrimination, and conspiracy.These malicious administrative investigations, prepared by Sergeant have caused me to receivediscriminatory treatment, humiliation, unjustified disciplinary action, a suspension and anotherjob transfer. I request all disciplinary actions be removed from my files in relation to any ofSergeant Heard's investigations. I request to be immediately removed from the ProfessionalStandards Program because there is no reason for any supervisor(s) to approve a subordinate'saction and months later investigate and recommend discipline. Please review departmental policyconcerning evidence handling and all other related departmental policy.M r. Young, please make the requested changes as it relates to the disciplinary action takenagainst me, which is a result of discrimination, retaliation, harassment and unfair treatmentresulting in a hostile work environment. In addition, please take all necessary investigative stepsfor thedisciplinaryaction as it relates to my allegations. I would also like to be returned to myposition of School Resource Officer at The Academy at Lincoln. I request to receive fair andequitable treatment in accordance with City and Departmental Policies.In addition, the retaliation against me has prompted me to seek counseling as allowed by CityPolicy H-5, utilizing the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). Please note that because Mr.Speedling is implicated in my complaint, and Mr. Speedling has authority over HumanResources, I cannot confidently utilize the EAP through the City. I have elected to seekcounseling through community resources.Mr. Young, although I am aware that you have met with a police employee, significant to myallegations, relating to litigation settlements, I still trust that I will receive fair and equitabletreatment.I am providing this information to the best of my knowledge and ability.Attachments: March 18,2010 grievance addressed to City Manager Rashad Young

W\/~Senior Police Officer, D.V. ThomasGreensboro Police DepartmentSupport Bureau, Operational Support Division

THOMAS- September 13,2010 Complaint/Appeal of Discrimination,Retaliate,Intimidation

Documents

Transcript of THOMAS- September 13,2010 Complaint/Appeal of Discrimination,Retaliate,Intimidation