El Dorado County Grand Jury 2010-2011 Investigation of Gender Bias in the Sheriff’s Office Case Number Gj010-001

A total of 18 gender bias/sexual harassment complaints originating in the Sher- iff’s Office were filed over the last three years. Three were filed in 2008, three filed in 2009 and twelve filed in 2010. Six of the 18 complaints were sustained (found to be true).

Of the six sustained allegations, three individuals did not have records of discipli- nary action related to the complaints in their files in the El Dorado County Human Resources Office. Of the remaining three complaints, one of the accused retired and one was terminated. The third complaint involved multiple accused employ- ees and the final discipline resulted in one termination, a forty-hour suspension, and a Letter of Reprimand.

There are two pending lawsuits filed with the United States District Court against the County of El Dorado, El Dorado County Sheriff’s Department, and individual plaintiffs within the Sheriff’s Department alleging discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.

Operations within the Sheriff’s Department are governed by the following:  El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office Policy Manual  Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with applicable bargaining units  County of El Dorado Policy Prohibiting Discrimination, Harassment and Re- taliation and Reporting and Complaint Procedure  Federal and State regulations outlined by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and enforced by the El Dorado County Human Resources De- partment

El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office Policy 329, “Discriminatory Harassment”, prohibits and defines discrimination, harassment and retaliation.  Section 329.2 states that “Employees . . . found to be participating in any form of employment-based harassment, discrimination or retaliation against any applicant or employee may be subject to disciplinary action up to and includ- ing termination from employment.”  Section 329.4.1 states that for Department Heads, Management and Elected Officials, “Failure to take corrective action when a department head/manager/elected official knew, or should have known, that an employee was being subjected to unlawful discrimination, harassment or retaliation on the job is a violation of this policy and may subject the . . . official to a disci- plinary action up to an including termination or other appropriate sanctions.”  Section 329.4.1 states that “A failure to report conduct that may constitute un- lawful discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation to the Department of Human Resources (Equal Employment Officer) or CAO (Chief Administrative Officer) . . . may result in disciplinary action up to and including termina- tion.”  Section 329.4.3 states that the Human Resources Director and Department shall be responsible for “Scheduling and auditing periodic training of County management and employees in the area of unlawful workplace discrimination, harassment, retaliation including identification of prohibited conduct, proce- dures for reporting the occurrence of such conduct and prohibition against retaliation for complaints.”  Section 329.5.3 states that “if the determination is made that discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation occurred which violates County policy, the Di- rector of Human Resources (Equal Employment Officer) or CAO (Chief Ad- ministrative Officer) shall take and/or recommend prompt and effective reme- dial action commensurate with the severity of the offenses(s), taking into ac- count the principles of progressive discipline as well as the County’s zero tol- erance policy towards unlawful discrimination, harassment and retaliation.”

Forty-two percent (6 of 14) women interviewed by the EDCGJ indicated that they have experienced gender bias at some time during their careers with the EDC Sheriff’s Department. Three women stated they would not recommend employ- ment with the Sheriff’s Department to other women. Two stated that they would recommend the Sheriff’s Department only after they explained the difficult work- ing conditions. Nine said they would recommend the Sheriff’s Department to other women.

In addition to the 18 complaints filed since 2008, the Grand Jury examined three sustained complaints that originated from an allegation in 2007 by three male deputies who reported events where females were subjects of gender bias. The El Dorado County Human Resources Office forwarded the complaint to an outside attorney for review. The attorney recommended that three of the reported inci- dents outlined in the complaint had sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations, specifically stating that one of the comments “was reasonably understood as a

The above referenced individual was promoted to a command position in 2009 and during his probationary period for that promotion, received another Letter of Counseling for an additional sustained complaint involving conduct which re- flects unfavorably upon the Department. Using a Letter of Counseling twice for the same ranked individual does not adhere to section 329.5.3 of the Policy Man- ual “. . . taking into account the principles of progressive discipline. . . .”

The Sheriff’s Office Policy Manual states that discriminatory behavior based on gender, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation is prohibited. There are no writ- ten guidelines for disciplinary action if these policies are violated. When asked if mandatory discipline for violating such policies should be delineated in the Policy Manual to serve as a deterrent, one Sheriff’s Office Commander stated that doing so would take away the discretion of supervisors and managers in assigning pun- ishment.

Some of the women interviewed expressed a lack of confidence in Internal Affairs to handle a gender bias complaint. Their concerns included a lack of objectivity, as well as the potential for compromised confidentiality that could lead to possible retaliation by co-workers.

Although formal training on rules and regulations regarding Equal Employment Opportunity is given every two years for sergeants and above, no formally sched- uled training takes place for sworn and civilian members in the Sheriff’s Depart- ment.

The El Dorado County Recruitment and Selection section 1000.3.6 lists discipline for acts constituting racial, ethnic or sexual harassment or discrimination as dis- qualifying for applicants of positions within the County. Section 1000.3.4 also requires that applicants must be effective in dealing with people without arousing antagonism. In at least one promotion the EDCGJ reviewed, an applicant who re- ceived a Letter of Counseling for discourteous, disrespectful or discriminatory treatment, was promoted to a command rank two years after he received the disci- pline.

The Grand Jury’s review of two sustained complaints found no verification that the Sheriff was informed about the content of the complaint or took part in disci- plining the guilty individuals.

Although El Dorado County ranks second from the bottom among Shasta, Placer, Amador, Kings, and Madera counties in the number of female deputies with a rank of sergeant or above, the majority of the female deputies did not have any concerns about the process used to promote candidates for sergeant or above. The process involves testing facilitated by an outside consulting company. However, it should be noted as stated in Finding 21, gaining experience to be successful in promoting to sergeant or above is controlled in part by the lateral assignment process. There were four attempts by women to obtain a promotion to sergeant since 2003, and only one woman was successful. Twenty-six men were promoted to sergeant or above during the same time frame.

Sergeant openings in the West Slope area are typically filled by sergeants with higher seniority, leaving the South Lake Tahoe position vacant when they trans- fer. The vacant position is then filled by a newly promoted sergeant with less sen- iority. This practice can discourage potential candidates with families or other re- sponsibilities rooted in the West Slope to seek promotion.

Policy 1001 of the Sheriff’s Office Policy Manual defines the process that is used to select individuals for specialized job assignments. All employees are notified via e-mail of job openings, and applicants are ranked by a panel of supervisors within the Department. If the position has three or more candidates, is full time or involves skill pay, only the top three candidates ranked by the panel are invited to compete in an oral interview. After the interviews are concluded and final ranking is tabulated, the panel’s numerical ranking is forwarded to the Division Com- mander.

Personnel in the Sheriff’s Office provided the following information regarding detective positions:  There is no mandatory rotation of detective positions.  There are currently 20 male and zero female detectives in the EDCSO.  Over the last five years no women were added to the Detective Unit.  In 2008, one female detective left the Investigative Detective Unit because she was promoted to sergeant.  Detectives receive a 5% pay increase and a take home vehicle, making this a coveted position for deputies.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics website, data from a 2003 census (the latest available) showed that the national average for the percentage of sworn female officers in communities between 100,000 and 249,000 is 12.8%. The per-

In testimony, the Sheriff indicated there are no plans to recruit female deputy ap- plicants to bridge the Department’s existing gender gap in sworn positions.

Although there is a written policy that defines the process for selecting candi- dates for lateral assignments, the majority of the six deputies interviewed ex- pressed dissatisfaction with the methods used to select candidates for lateral, spe- cialized work assignments. Concerns include:  The selection process was too subjective since most assignments did not in- volve written testing, relying instead on the ranking of candidates by a se- lected panel.  Not having a chance to appear before the selection panel if they did not re- ceive one of the top rankings.  Not getting any feedback or coaching on how they can improve their chances for being selected in the future.  The low number of openings due to non-rotation of some assignments such as detective.

The Grand Jury finds that lateral assignments such as Detective, Field Training Officer, and River Patrol are a gateway for promotion into the ranks of sergeant or above. In addition, the El Dorado County Grand Jury concludes that the selection process for lateral assignments is subjective and somewhat arbitrary. Without experience gained from lateral assignments a candidate who applies for sergeant or above has a slim chance of succeeding when competing against a can- didate who has detective or other lateral assignment experience. It is not surpris- ing that only one woman achieved the rank of sergeant since female detectives have been almost nonexistent. Having female deputies on the force who have gained experience from lateral assignments also contributes to a more effective and culturally competent law enforcement organization for El Dorado County.