Central City makes a promotion--Part B.

Palmer, Steven C. ; Weyant, Lee ; McNary, George W. 等

CASE DESCRIPTION

The primary subject matter of this case concerns the alleged discriminatory employment practices within a governmental agency. Secondary issues examined include the development and application of affirmative action plans affecting several protected classes and management policies to insure equal employment opportunity. The case has a difficulty level of four, appropriate for upper level undergraduate and graduate students. The case is designed to be taught in three class hours and is expected to require three hours of outside preparation by students.

CASE SYNOPSIS

Are Affirmative Action Plans meaningful guidelines to employment decisions? Or, are these plans merely an exercise in satisfying legislative directives? What is an equal opportunity employment environment? The Central City Police Department faces these questions concerning their recent employment practices. More specifically, what is the department's justification for not promoting the individual with the second highest score on the promotion test? How can an employee with excellent performance evaluations and a clean discipline record not be promoted? Could it be that the individual was a woman? Does the work environment penalize women? Finally, are supervisors and employees appropriately trained and supervised regarding employment discrimination issues?

This case explores the integration of women into a predominately white male work environment. For example, the organization as a whole (i.e., city government) has developed affirmative action plans for over a decade. Only in the last several years has the branch level (i.e., police department) developed separate goals addressing their specific operation. Branch managerial decisions over the years did not eliminate discriminatory practices. In fact, branch management faced separate lawsuits from African American and then Hispanic employees over employment discrimination issues based on race. Now, branch management faces the integration of an additional protected class within the workforce. Will they follow their previous managerial behavior?

[NOTE: This case is a fictionalized version of a real-life situation. Names and other potentially identifying information have been changed to protect identities. The applicable fact situation is true to the real case.]

CENTRAL CITY MAKES A PROMOTION--PART B

Mary Jones joined the Central City Police Department almost seven years ago. After successfully completing the training academy, she was assigned to the Field Bureau. The Field Bureau is comprised of the uniformed officers in cruisers patrolling the city. In the past six-plus years, in addition to the Field Bureau, she has also been a car accident investigator (1 year) and in the public affair unit (1 year). Officer Jones is currently assigned to the Field Bureau on the day shift in the 1st Precinct. She just returned to duty after being on maternity leave for the birth of her first child.

Jones is a married, white female in her early-thirties. She graduated summa cum laude from State University nine years ago with a bachelor degree in Criminal Justice. Eight years ago she was initially hired by Central City as a jailor. She applied to be a police officer with the city about a year later and was hired. Eighteen months ago Jones married a college professor and lives in Central City with her husband and newborn son.

CITY BACKGROUND

Central City has approximately 500,000 people. Women make up almost 55% of the adult population of Central City. Almost 84% of the population is Caucasian, 13% Black/African American, 1% Asian/Pacific Islander, 1/2% Native American and the remaining 1 1/2% identified in another classification. People of Hispanic origin comprise just over 3% of the population, with half of them identifying their race as Caucasian.

The Central City Police Department, like most other police departments, follows a paramilitary structure utilizing a chain of command. The department is headed by the chief of police. Collectively officers at the rank of sergeant or above are referred to as command officers; with officers holding the rank of captain or above called senior command officers. The term sworn officers refers to police officers who have been certified by the state as law enforcement officers, regardless of rank. The current breakdown of sworn officers by rank and gender are:

The city only hires from outside the department at the ranks of police officer and chief. All promotions except to chief are closed, meaning that only current sworn officers on the Central City Police Department are eligible. The selection of chief may be done in an open (outsiders and insiders) or closed (insiders only) process at the discretion of the mayor.

Because all police officers, no matter their rank, are covered by civil service, the city has established a merit system for selection. To be considered for promotion a person must have held an appropriate rank on the Central City Police Department for a specified length of time prior to the application deadline. Promotional eligibility lists, once established, are valid for two years. When a vacancy at a particular rank occurs, individuals from the list are selected and further steps are taken to fill the vacancy, including an interview with the chief.

Central City's Human Resource Department is responsible for the testing process and establishing the eligibility lists. The city uses a rule of three, which means that for one opening the top three names on the eligibility list will be referred for consideration. If there is more than one opening in a rank, then the number of names referred will be double the number of vacancies to be filled. In the past the Human Resource Department has modified this process in a couple of different ways to take into account consent decrees and the affirmative action plan. They have either dropped the last name on the list and included the top name of the next highest scoring applicant of the protected class in which there is an underutilization or they have simply added one or two names to the list for underutilization purposes. The chief may, under law, promote any person whose name appears on the promotional eligibility list.

About a decade after Title VII was extended to apply to municipal governments, the city changed its police ranks. Prior to then there were two entry level ranks, policeman and policewoman. Policewomen were limited in the duties that they could perform. Policewomen were not allowed to be assigned to the Field Bureau (cruiser duty). The policy was not changed until a female applicant threatened a lawsuit if she was not hired at the same rank and with the same duties as males being hired. The first women officer was promoted to sergeant six years ago. The first female lieutenant has been at that rank for less than a year. There has never been a female to hold, or even qualified to apply for, a rank higher than lieutenant.

The city must follow state and federal laws regarding employment discrimination. The city charter, municipal ordinances and union contract also prohibit employment discrimination.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

As a recipient of significant federal funds, the city has had a voluntary affirmative action plan in place for at least eleven years. In that time period, the city has approved three plans and a fourth is under consideration. The plans covered all of the departments within city government. In regard to the goals contained in the plans, only in the current and proposed plans has the police department had separate goals apart from to other city departments. The city does not have a good record in voluntarily meeting its police department goals for African-Americans, Hispanics or women. In the affirmative action plan created eleven years ago, the city admitted to discriminating against women in police department employment practices.

Over the past eleven years the city has never been closer than 60% of its goal concerning female police officers at the entry-level rank. Currently, the city has achieved less than 50% of its goal. There are 60 female sworn officers on the department at this time. The goal is 125 females at the entry-level rank. In regard to minority (Black and Hispanic) entry-level police officers, the city has exceeded its goal for almost eight years.

Only one of twelve recruit classes over the past eleven years had at least 20% female recruits. Five of those recruit classes had less than 10% new women police officers. The remaining six classes were comprised of 10-20% female recruits. For the past eight years the goal for entry-level female officers has been 22.7%. During the time the affirmative action plans have been in effect the hiring and pass rates have been:

Until last year, the goal for women at the rank of sergeant was 22.7% or higher. Last year the city redefined its goals and set the goal for female sergeants at 5.3%. The city made the change because only 5.3% of the officers eligible to test for sergeant were female. The goal for lieutenant was dropped from 20.1% to 2.7% for the same reason. The city dropped all goals for women at the ranks of captain, deputy chief and chief because no women were eligible to test for these ranks at the time the goals were set. The impact of changing the method of determining the goals for minority officers was that the goal for sergeants went from 13.8% to 13.5% and the goal for lieutenant went from 14% to 13%. The changed halved the goal for minorities in the upper ranks.

Ten years ago, a group representing the African American officers sued the city for employment discrimination based on race. The United States Justice Department also filed a lawsuit versus the city for employment discrimination against black officers. Before trial the parties entered into a settlement that was incorporated into a consent decree (court order). Among the settlement terms, the city agreed to set 9.3% as the long-term goal for black officers at each rank.

The Hispanic officers' association sued the city last year and settled out of court in a manner similar to the black police officers' group. The long-term goal set in this consent decree was 3.2% at each rank.

The city police department has not yet been sued for employment discrimination based on sex. There is a complaint on file with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that is under investigation. The complaint was filed by Kathy Kelly regarding promotion practices and hostile work environment. Central City has maintained throughout the investigation that it has done nothing illegal. The EEOC has taken no final action on the complaint.

Central City has not submitted for approval any of the affirmative action plans to the courts that entered the consent decrees. Instead, the city has tried to make sure that the goals stated in the affirmative action plans equaled or exceeded the goals contained in the consent decrees. Further the Personnel Department has given priority to the consent decrees over the affirmative action plan,

Despite having a voluntary affirmative action plan, Central City did little to implement the provisions to attract, keep and promote qualified females and people of color. The city assigned a female police officer and an officer of color to the recruitment team. All pictures used in recruitment would include these officers. The police department recruiting team would set up a table in a couple local grocery stores on weekday mornings and early afternoons to take applications. The city took no action to dispel rumors that the police department was a hostile environment for people of color and women.

The approach used by Central City centered only on the goals for entry-level and promotions. In the testing process the city would advance people of color and women who did not make a cut-off if the Hiring Director believed there were not enough applicants in a particular protected class. Likewise, as described above, the names of people of color would be added to referral lists if there was an underutilization based on a consent decree.

CURRENT SITUATION

Recently, while on maternity leave, Mary Jones learned that she was being passed over for promotion. Despite being number two on the eligibility list, her name was not even referred for promotion consideration to fill one of the two sergeant vacancies. The City decided that it would only consider African-Americans for promotion to the two vacancies. So the city decided to promote two African-American officers, Isaac Williams (#1 on the eligibility list) and Robert White (#19). Believing that she was being discriminated against, Jones visited an attorney the day before the promotions were scheduled to occur.

Jones' attorney, Perry Matlock, filed a lawsuit on her behalf and temporarily stopped the promotion of any person who ranked below Jones on the eligibility list. When a new vacancy at the rank of sergeant arose, the City agreed to promote Jones to that opening. So Jones was promoted at the same time that White was promoted. However, White was given higher seniority than Jones.

In preparing the case, Mason asked Jones about the work environment within the police department. Below is an excerpt of that conversation:

MATLOCK: Off. Jones, how would you characterize the overall treatment that you have received at the police department?

JONES: From the first day it has had its ups and downs. Not all of the officers have treated me and the other women poorly, but there are a significant number of people who do not want women here.

MATLOCK: Mary, you said that some people have treated you poorly. Can you give me an example?

JONES: One day I was dispatched to a car accident call. In the initial phase of my investigation I learned that one of the drivers involved had an outstanding felony warrant. Per procedure I called for back-up. Officer Dan Casey soon arrived. We arrested the driver who was extremely obese. SOP, excuse me, standard operating procedure was to cuff people's hands behind their backs; however, it was not possible because of the suspect's size and inflexibility. So Dan cuffed the suspect with hands in front. We transported the suspect to the police station for processing. Lt. Larry Benson saw the suspect with the hands cuffed in front. At the time I was the only officer with the suspect. Benson, without inquiry and in front of other officers and members of the general public, screamed at me for not cuffing the suspect behind the back. When I tried to tell Benson that Casey had cuffed the prisoner in front because we could not get him cuffed behind the back, Benson ignored me. He just continued to yell.

MATLOCK: Was that the end of the incident?

JONES: No, Benson advised our sergeant, Rick Olson, about the incident. Benson only mentioned my involvement and did not tell Sgt. Olson that Off. Casey was also involved.

MATLOCK: Was any formal disciplinary action taken?

JONES: No, there was no disciplinary action taken. In fact, neither Benson nor Olson even talked to Casey about the incident.

MATLOCK: Excuse me but I am not sure why you think this was improper treatment. You handcuffed the suspect in front instead of behind the back as required by standard operating procedure. A senior officer witnessed you with the prisoner and took action. His management style may need work but how was this mistreatment?

JONES: Let me finish the story. A week or two later, Officer Jose Martinez and I arrested another obese suspect. Our efforts to cuff the suspect behind the back failed; so we cuffed the suspect with hands in front. As we pulled into the garage, I saw Lt. Benson and told Martinez what had happened earlier. Martinez replied, "Don't worry he will not say a thing." Benson saw us getting out of the cruiser with the suspect cuffed in front. Benson said nothing.

MATLOCK: Are there any other incidents you can share with me?

JONES: While I was working for Sgt. Olson there was an incident when a drunk suspect vomited in the back of my cruiser. When I requested permission from Sgt. Olson to have the cruiser cleaned, change cruisers or partner with someone else because of the vomit, Sgt. Olson refused. He advised me to keep using the cruiser for the rest of the shift.

MATLOCK: Was that unusual?

JONES: I am unaware of any other officer ever being required by a command officer to continue to use a vehicle without it being cleaned up by the maintenance shop after a suspect vomited in the car.

MATLOCK: Was there another car available?

JONES: We had spare cars and there were other officers with whom I could have partnered instead of driving my original car.

The conversation between Matlock and Jones continued. Jones told Matlock that Officer Lois Street had told her about a conversation with Lt. Benson. Benson had told Street that he generally did not like female officers but that Street was okay because she had worked for him and proven herself.

Jones then told yet another incident involving Benson. While talking about a new program to assist officers deal with extremely stressful on-duty occurrences which was being instituted by the department, Benson told a group of ten, mostly new officers, "I can tell you the definition of stress--talking with Off. Mary Jones." The only officer present that knew Jones relayed the comment to her. Because Benson was part of the good ole boy network, Jones feared that a complaint through channels would disappear. So she took her concern directly to Chief James McNeal. An investigation was done, and Jones was told that Benson had received a written reprimand. However the department did nothing to correct the misimpression left by Benson with those nine officers that did not know her. Likewise, Benson never apologized in any manner to Jones for the comment.

After Benson was reprimanded in regard to the incident above, according to Jones, he kept appearing on calls involving her, despite his being assigned to a different precinct. She said her own lieutenant, Kevin Knight, and others advised her that Benson was out to get her.

As the conversation continued, Jones related another incident involving Benson. Off. Jones was handling a bar disturbance call. After the fight was stopped, she went to the cruiser to write the report. Off. Jones realized she needed additional information from the manager; so she walked back to the bar. She was not wearing her hat, as technically required by SOP. Benson, who was off duty, saw her and reported her, through the chain of command, for not wearing her hat. She received a counseling form from her sergeant documenting this incident. Off. Jones, before and since this incident, has seen Lt. Benson with groups of male officers who were not wearing their hats. No action was ever taken against those male officers.

Within the past six months according to Jones, Off. James Clayton and she jointly handled a call that required two reports upon conclusion. Each officer wrote and signed one of the reports. Off. Clayton sent his report to the wrong office, so Off. Jones went to get it. Off. Clayton took the report prepared by Jones to Lt. Benson for his approval (signature) as required by SOP. When Benson saw that Jones had written the report, Benson asked Clayton if he had read the report and required Clayton to sign the report also. Neither of these actions was consistent with department practices. When Jones brought Clayton's original report to Benson for approval, Benson signed the report without asking her if she had read it or requiring her to sign it.

Jones then told of another incident that occurred on the same day as the report incident. Officers Jones and Clayton overheard Benson talking with a female civilian employee who had just been hired in the next police recruit class. Benson said, in an inappropriate way, "Your butt is under my control now." Clayton observed to Jones, "I would be suspended or fired if I said something like that." The female civilian employee was offended but afraid to say anything. She had been trying for years to become a police officer. Off. Jones made a formal complaint about both incidents directly with the captain of internal affairs. Nothing was done in response to the complaint.

Matlock continued with Jones:

MATLOCK: It appears that many of your problems deal with Lt. Benson. Are there incidents that you want to share with me that involve other officials at the police department?

JONES: Well, throughout the first seven years of my employment with the Central City Police department, I tried unsuccessfully on numerous occasions to be assigned to the Detective Bureau.

MATLOCK: What is the procedure for assigning officers to the Detective Bureau?

JONES: There is no real selection process to determine who would be assigned to the Detective Bureau. Oh, there is an application and interview that are perfunctory. In the end, the command officers in charge of a unit simply pick who they wanted to work for them.

MATLOCK: Were you ever told why you were not selected for the Detective Bureau?

JONES: I was told that I did not have enough time in cruisers for appointment to the Detective Bureau.

MATLOCK: Was there a specific rule regarding how much time you needed working a cruiser before you could be appointed to a detective position?

JONES: No, the rules simply say that an officer must be on the police force for a minimum of two years before being assigned to the Detective Bureau. When I was told that I did not have enough time, I had been on the force for more than two years. However, male officers with equal or less time in cruisers than me were being assigned to the Detective Bureau.

MATLOCK: Was there a problem with your experience?

JONES: I was told that my work in the public affairs unit was not real police work and thus they would not count it as police experience toward the two years. The public affairs assignment was a sworn officer position. Some of the male officers who were in my recruit class were being assigned to the Detective Bureau.

MATLOCK: Were you ever given other reasons for not being assigned to the Detective Bureau?

JONES: One year I tried for an opening in a personal crimes unit of the Detective Bureau. A command officer told me that I needed to get experience in the property crime units before seeking assignment to the personal crimes units. That time he and other male command officers took male officers with no Detective Bureau experience into the personal crimes units.

MATLOCK: Are these the only experiences you have had regarding the Detective Bureau selection process?

JONES: Another time when I went through the interview process, the interview panel was composed of Lt. Irving Zucker, Lt. Steve Ramm and Capt. Ted Morton. Instead of asking me meaningful questions, it was a session ridiculing me.

MATLOCK: Do you have any other stories about the detective selection process?

JONES: Just a couple months ago I was being interview for the Detective Bureau by Sgt. Patricia Meyers, Sgt. Vincent Bell and Lt. Wayne Fox. Bell asked me who was going to baby sit my child after birth if I got called out at night.

MATLOCK: Did anything else happen to you in the process?

JONES: Not to me. Off. Rita Brown told me about one of her experiences. Rita had tried to get an assignment in a personal crimes squad. Like me, Rita was told that she needed to get experience in a property crime unit. She was able to be assigned to a property crime unit. After getting the experience, Brown again sought assignment to a personal crimes unit. This time she was told that there were no openings. Then when the new assignments were published a male officer without any detective experience was assigned to the personal crimes unit.

MATLOCK: You talked about personal crimes and crimes against property units. Do officers in one unit hold higher rank than in the other?

JONES: Although all detective units are officially the same, in reality some units are seen as more important and prestigious than others.

MATLOCK: Are women assigned to these prestigious squads?

JONES: No woman had ever served as a detective in the areas of homicide, auto theft, vice, narcotics or robbery; these are the squads with the most prestige within the department. Oh, women have been assigned to vice for the purpose of being a prostitution decoy. Women who have been assigned to the Detective Bureau have been in the youth services, sex crimes, burglary, and checks and frauds squads. Burglary is seen as the worst squad in the Detective Bureau.

Matlock inquired of Jones if there were any other incidents which Jones believed indicated different treatment between men and women by the police department. Jones relayed more occurrences.

For example, in the Field Bureau most cruisers have one officer; however sergeants may authorize two-officer cruisers for patrol. The unofficial practice was for sergeants to use seniority as the means for determining two-officer units. For many calls, based on department standard operating procedures, two officers would be dispatched. If there was a two-officer cruiser dispatched, it would be the only cruiser sent; otherwise two one-officer cruisers would be dispatched to handle these calls. Off. Jones and Off. Samantha Miller had been a two-officer car for more than a year, under two different crew sergeants in their precinct. There had been no complaints or incidents concerning them being a two-officer car. When a new sergeant was assigned to their crew, Sgt. Joseph Caniglia, he refused to allow the two female officers to partner in a cruiser. Caniglia did, however, allow male officers with lower seniority to partner in cruisers. In the past in other precincts Caniglia had used seniority in assigning officers to two-officer cars.

The precinct sergeants for all crews and shifts shared office space. Off. Jones told about a time she was in a sergeants' office and noticed derogatory comments about female officers posted in the office. She did not know who posted the comments.

Jones told Matlock that standard operating procedure was for officers, at the beginning of the shift, to radio dispatch to indicate that the cruiser was available for calls. In doing this the officer was to identify themselves as a "1-officer" or "2-officer" car. Several male officers would sign on as a "1-man" or "2-man" car. These male officers were not spoken to, corrected or otherwise told to follow procedure. One day Jones signed on as a "1-woman" car. Although not her supervisor, Lt. Dan King chewed her out and threatened her with disciplinary action if she ever again signed on in that manner. The 1-man or 2-man sign-ins continued long after Jones was told not to use 1woman. Jones remembered that Lt. King for years has used the term 1-man or 2-man car at the beginning of his shifts. Jones knows of no male officers who were either warned or disciplined for saying 1-man or 2-man car.

In another incident Off. Jones told about investigating her first fatal auto accident approximately four years earlier. She went into a nearby home to interview witnesses. It was an extremely hot day and one of the witnesses invited her and the other witnesses into the house to talk about the accident. When Sgt. Matthew Jacobson arrived at the scene, Jones was inside interviewing the witnesses. Jacobson started a false rumor within the department that Jones could not handle a fatal accident and had to go inside a nearby home to sip coffee and avoid the accident. This rumor has been cited recently by a senior command officer, Capt. Dallas Wilson, as why Jones is incompetent. For the record, Jones explained that she does not drink coffee.

Jones pointed out that at the main police building there is a workout room for officers to use. It is equipped with free weights, weight machines, treadmills and similar equipment. The workout room has only one entrance. That entrance is through the men's locker room making it inaccessible to female officers unless the female officer was willing to walk through the men's locker room to access it. Of course if there are men in the locker room, women might not be able access or leave the workout area. Likewise only half of the police locations had shower facilities for women; however, all locations have shower facilities for men. Despite numerous complaints from female officers, the city has done nothing to remedy the situations.

Finally, Off. Jones told the attorney that not everyone within the department treated her or other women poorly. She mentioned two captains, Adam Wayne and Bill McDouglas, who have been very supportive of her. These two captains have been like mentors to her. Both captains had asked Jones to work for them in various capacities. She felt comfortable asking them questions and did not fear being laughed at or becoming the butt of rumors. Jones said that if she asked other command officers questions, a rumor to damage her reputation may be circulated.

Matlock asked Jones if she had reported any of the incidents, other than the ones she already noted. Her reply was that she did not make formal complaints for fear of retaliation. She said that the department had a reputation for retaliating against anyone who tried to fight the good ole boys in power.

After telling about her experiences, Off. Jones shared with the attorney that many other female officers had similar experiences. Women on the police department tend to look to each other for support. They tend to talk about their experiences with a few other female officers to see if they have had common experiences or ideas on how to handle a situation. Matlock decided to talk with some of the other women officers.

Off. Mimi Kuebs was the first person to talk with Matlock. Off. Kuebs has been on the Central City Police Department for about five years. Like all new officers, Kuebs was originally assigned to the Field Bureau. After eighteen month in a cruiser, Kuebs was assigned to the Public Affairs Bureau. After nine months in Public Affairs she was temporarily assigned to the recruitment team. When that assignment was completed she returned to Public Affairs for a month before being assigned to Field Bureau again. She has been in the Field Bureau for the past two-and-a-half years. Kuebs told about the following incidents:

MATLOCK: Can you relate any incidents to me that you believe you were discriminated against by the police department?

KUEBS: While I was assigned to Public Affairs I worked with several officers, including Ford Kramer. Kramer regularly made derogatory and sexual remarks concerning women and female police officers. Frequently, these comments were made in front of male command officers. No action was taken by any of these command officers to get Kramer to stop or to discipline him.

MATLOCK: Can you tell me about any other situations?

KUEBS: While in Public Affairs, Off. Brent Bush and I were sent to observe a meeting at which Off. Kramer was going to make a presentation to a local business group. Sgt. Brian James, who was our direct supervisor, was also present. Prior to the meeting Kramer told me an offensive joke in private.

MATLOCK: Do you remember what the joke was?

KUEBS: I don't remember the exact words. But the joke was about playing pocket pool.

MATLOCK: Did you do anything when Kramer told you the joke?

KUEBS: I immediately told him that the joke was offensive to me and improper. But it did no good. Moments later, while making his presentation to 30 local business people and the police officers present, Kramer told the same joke.

MATLOCK: What happened next?

KUEBS: At the conclusion of the meeting, we had three police department t-shirts to give away. We decided to give the T-shirts to the three women who organized the meeting. As Kramer was giving out the t-shirts he looked directly at me and announced to the group, "Now all we have to do is get Mimi over here and we can have a wet t-shirt contest." I was offended and furious.

MATLOCK: Did you report the incident?

KUEBS: Sgt. James was present for both incidents but said nothing to Kramer. Two days later Sgt. James still had not done anything, so I decided to follow the recommendations of the department and talk directly with Off. Kramer. It was the next day before I was able to get Kramer isolated to talk to him. I asked Kramer to accompany me to the lunch room so we could talk privately. Lt. Bill McDouglas, who was not our lieutenant, was working at a back table, so I tried to keep my voice soft. I explained to Kramer that I was offended by his comments and actions at the meeting and not to treat me in that manner again. He responded that two wives had not changed him and that I certainly wasn't going to change him. Kramer also said he had nothing to apologize for and that it was my problem not his. When Kramer left the room, Lt. McDouglas asked me about the situation. I said that I did not want to be accused of going outside the chain of command and that I would rather talk with my sergeant about it.

MATLOCK: Did you talk to your sergeant about it?

KUEBS: Yes. Sgt. James told me that he had planned to say something to Kramer but just had not had the opportunity. I decided to make a formal complaint against Kramer. Later I was told that Kramer was talked to but to my knowledge no formal action was taken on my complaint against Kramer.

Kuebs then told Matlock of the consequences of making a formal report against Kramer. For three months after that incident Kramer would not talk with her, despite the two working together. Kramer would not even tell Kuebs when she received a telephone call or a message. The behavior was obvious to the other officers assigned to the unit, as many of them asked Kuebs what was going on. Kramer treated Kuebs in this manner in front of command officers who did nothing to improve the situation. After the incident with Kramer, Kuebs also was treated differently by officers, as well as command officers, who she did not know well. She was told by friends that she had the reputation as a troublemaker because she filed a complaint against Kramer. This resulted in the cold treatment by others.

Kuebs told Matlock about being on the department's recruitment team. While she was on the recruitment team, Kuebs saw no meaningful effort by the department to recruit qualified women, other than having her and a black female on the team. She said their idea of recruiting qualified women was to set up a recruitment table in the entrance way of local grocery stores for a few hours on a weekday morning or early afternoon.

The officers on the recruitment team were not receiving general department communications during those two months, according to Kuebs. So after the assignment was completed, Kuebs realized that she missed the opportunity to apply for a position in the Detective Bureau. Kuebs' request to apply late was allowed by the department. When she was being interviewed one of the male panel members asked her, "Are you afraid to go back to the streets?" She was then told that she was not qualified to be appointed to the Detective Bureau because she did not have two years experience in cruisers. Kuebs had been with the department for 2 1/2 years by this time. When the assignments were made, Off. Brent Bush was assigned to the Detective Bureau and Kuebs was not. Bush and Kuebs were in the same recruit class. They started in Field Bureau at the same time. They were both transferred to Public Affairs at the same time. They both were still in Public Affairs at the time they were seeking a position in the Detective Bureau.

At the time that Kuebs attempted to get appointed to the Detective Bureau there were few female officers in the bureau. Those that were assigned to the Detective Bureau were in juvenile service, sexual assault and burglary. Kuebs said that she was so discouraged that she did not apply for the Detective Bureau again.

Officer Penny Grant, a Native American, was the next woman to talk with Matlock. She has been with the department approximately four years now. Her starting with the department was anything but smooth:

GRANT: A few days before I was contacted by Ginger Wells of the city's Human Resources Department and offered a position in the recruit class, I learned that I was 2-3 months pregnant. I informed Wells that I just learned that I was pregnant. Wells said that she would have to get back with me about the job offer.

MATLOCK: Did Ms. Wells get back to you?

GRANT: About a week later she called me back and said that I had to decide if I wanted to be part of the recruit class or not. I talked with my physician for advice. He advised me that he would need more information about the activities before he could tell me that it was safe to complete all of the class activities. So I contacted the city to get more information.

MATLOCK: What happened next?

GRANT: I met with Ben Mason, Tim Flynn and Archie Hill.

MATLOCK: Who are these people?

GRANT: Ben Mason is the number two attorney in the City's Legal Department. Tim Flynn is the Human Resources Director. I believe that Archie Hill's title is Employment Director. I know that Hill works for the Human Resource Department.

MATLOCK: What can you tell me about the meeting?

GRANT: The meeting was in the Legal Department's conference room in city hall. No one appeared to know how to handle the situation. I asked if I could wait for the next recruit class. I offered to take the physical agility test and another medical examination before that class started. If I failed either, I told them that I would walk away.

MATLOCK: Did they accept your offer?

GRANT: The response from Mason, on behalf of the city, was that I would either be in this recruit class or forfeit my possibility of getting hired off the current eligibility list. I then would have to retest the next time the exam was given and see where I finished. Mason also insisted that if I was to accept a spot in the current class I would be expected, without exception, to do every activity required of the recruits. Mason said that the city would accept no physician restrictions during the training. Flynn added that I would have to sign a waiver relieving the city of any liability if something happened to me or the baby during training. I felt that the three men were trying to intimidate me at this meeting and were pressuring me to forfeit the appointment to the recruit class.

MATLOCK: So what did you do?

GRANT: I really wanted to be a police officer. I was afraid if I didn't accept the appointment to this class, the city would never offer me another opportunity to be on the police force. So, I decided to accept the appointment to the recruit class.

According to Grant, once at the training academy conditions did not improve. During the first month or so when Grant would ask questions regarding safety of an activity, the response was always, "You will be fired if you refuse to do this activity." Grant stopped making the inquiries and simply did each activity. Finally in the third month of the academy, some of Grant's training officers refused to allow her to participate in firearms training, arrest techniques and physical training. These officers feared for the baby's safety. Grant sent a memo to the chief for assistance because she was afraid that she would be flunked out for not completing all of the requirements. The chief, James McNeal, advised her that she would complete the academic portion of the academy. If she was successful, she would be assigned to an inside position until the birth of the child. After that she would be required to complete the remaining physical portions of the training.

While in the academy Grant said she was required to wear the regular recruit uniform complete with gun belt. She was forced to personally purchase four different sizes of pants during that time, until finally she was given permission to wear elastic-wasted pants. She also had to go through considerable efforts to get permission not to wear the gun belt.

Then Sgt. Larry Benson was assigned to the training academy during Grant's training. Benson, until Grant's seventh month of pregnancy, made Grant do push-ups twice daily in what Grant believed was an attempt to get her to quit the department. Benson would constantly be more critical and demanding of her than the other recruits.

Grant told Matlock that many male officers had problems when a female officer would become pregnant.

GRANT: Two years later, I became pregnant again. Things were not much better than during the recruit class.

MATLOCK: What happened?

GRANT: I was pressured to bid an inside job although I still had no medical restrictions that would prevent me from being in Field Bureau. I was told by my sergeant and lieutenant that if I remained in Field Bureau at shift change, I would be forced to quit my job once I could not perform the duties due to medical restrictions. A light duty job, I was told, would not be made available to me. There were always rumors going around that pregnant women would not be given light duty jobs.

MATLOCK: So did you bid an inside job?

GRANT: Yes, because I did not have sufficient vacation and sick leave built up, I was told that I would have to quit or be fired once I could not be in a cruiser. I could not risk that, so I bid an inside job.

MATLOCK: What would happen if an officer broke an arm playing softball?

GRANT: Clearly an officer with a broken arm cannot handle regular duties; so the officer would be placed on light duty. Once the arm healed, the officer would be placed on regular duty. I know of no example of an officer with a broken bone who was not placed on light duty.

Off. Lois Street told Matlock about her attempt to be assigned to the SWAT team. There had not been any female officers on SWAT. To get on SWAT officers make an application and go through a selection process. This process included attending a two-week training session and a physical agility test. Street, whose husband was already part of SWAT, was one of eight officers, and the only female, selected to attend the training session. When the SWAT list was created, she was number 3 on the list. Five of the eight people were selected for the unit. Off. Street was not selected. When she inquired as to why she was not chosen, she was told that Department policy prohibited a husband and wife from serving in the same unit. Off. Street asked to see the policy, but none was produced for her to see. Street was aware of three examples at that time in which husbands and wives were in the same unit. In one instance the husband was the wife's direct supervisor. In a second case, the husband and wife were frequently dispatched to the same radio calls that had a potential for violence.

Off. Street also told of harassment when she was pregnant. Street was told by a deputy chief that the light duty policy for pregnant officers was being reviewed. Instead of allowing officers to perform light duty tasks, once the doctor restricted the activities of the pregnant officer or the department deemed it unsafe for the pregnant officer to be in a cruiser, the pregnant officer was going to be sent home. She could draw sick pay and vacation pay until gone. Then she would have to be on unpaid leave until released to full duties by her doctor. Street knows of two male officers with broken bones that required light duty during this same time frame. Neither of them was told to be prepared to be sent home until their bones healed.

Off. Tammy Nolan told Matlock about the time a city councilman called the watch commander and complained that the police department dispatched a "little girl" to handle a disturbance call. On that particular call two female officers were originally dispatched. A large fight ensued requiring more officers. The city councilman who witnessed part of the incident expressed his concern to the police chief about such a call being handled by two female officers.

Next Off. Betty Kelly talked with Matlock and shared her experiences:

MATLOCK: When did you join the Central City Police Department?

B. KELLY: I was hired about four years after my sister, Kathy Kelly, joined the department. That would have been seven years ago.

MATLOCK: Do you feel that female officers are treated the same as male officers?

B. KELLY: No, I think there is a difference. I was the only woman assigned to the public window at the main police building. My sergeant, Jimmy Baker, required me to give at least 48-hour notice before taking a vacation day. However, the male sworn officers were allowed to call in immediately before the shift began when they wanted to take a vacation day.

MATLOCK: Any other differences in treatment?

B. KELLY: The female civilian workers at the public window and I were required by Sgt. Baker to submit a memorandum explaining why we were late. Again the male personnel working for Sgt. Baker were not required to do the same. My attendance record while at the public window was not different than my male co-workers.

Off. Kelly also spoke of the difficulty she had in being selected for special training and schools. According to her, several other female officers were also frustrated by the selection process. Priority for such training and schools was based on people assigned to or those who anticipated assignment to the specialty units in the area of the training. Since women were not assigned to these units (i.e. homicide, assault, traffic, SWAT, etc.), women were not selected for these schools. All of the people who were selected as anticipating assignment to such units were men.

The final person interviewed by Matlock was Off. Betty Kelly's sister, Kathy Kelly. Lt. Kathy Kelly has been on the department longer than all but three of the female officers. Approximately six years ago she was the second female ever promoted to sergeant. The first female was promoted to sergeant just six months earlier. About eight months ago Kelly became the first female lieutenant on the department.

MATLOCK: Were you promoted to sergeant as a result of the affirmative action policy?

K. KELLY: When the eligibility list from which I was promoted was originally created there had never been a female sergeant. The affirmative action plan indicated that there was an underutilization of approximately 24 females at the rank of sergeant at that time. But Central City did not use the affirmative action plan to promote any females to sergeant. The three females promoted to sergeant off that list were promoted in order as their names appeared on the list despite the affirmative action plan being used to promote black officers to the rank of sergeant off that and previous lists.

MATLOCK: You said that there were black officers promoted off that list by virtue of the affirmative action plan?

K. KELLY: Yes all were males. At the start of the list blacks were underutilized by three sergeants. Also, one female officer on the list was passed over for two white males. She was not promoted before the eligibility list ended. The female officer was never given a reason why she was not promoted.

MATLOCK: Was affirmative action used in regard to your promotion to lieutenant?

K. KELLY: I finished fifth on the current eligibility list. This was the first time I was eligible for promotion to lieutenant. There has never been a female lieutenant on the Central City Police Department. The affirmative action plan indicates that there is an underutilization of two women at the rank of lieutenant based on the latest method of determining underutilization. Under the old method, the city was short approximately 8 women. When the list was first approved, three promotions were made. I was not one of those promotions. A male officer who was ranked below me on the eligibility list was promoted however. When the next promotion was made from the list, my name was not even referred to be considered for promotion. Then another vacancy occurred at lieutenant. My name again was not referred for consideration. This time the names of two black male sergeants were referred. Of the five promotions from the list at that time two had been affirmative action promotions to black sergeants who ranked below me on the eligibility list. Despite never having a female lieutenant, affirmative action was not used in regard to females. Twice, in violation of the Rule of 3, my name was not referred for promotion consideration. About eight months ago, I was promoted to lieutenant. It was the seventh promotion from the eligibility list.

MATLOCK: As the first woman promoted to lieutenant, were you treated the same as new male lieutenants?

K. KELLY: No. Capt. Jake Richards informed me that as a newly promoted lieutenant I would "have to pay my dues in Field Bureau." I was assigned to the midnight shift. The male sergeants promoted to lieutenant around the same time were given other assignments on days or evenings and not "required to pay dues in Field Bureau."

Matlock then asked Lt. Kelly if she ever experienced different treatment than the male officers. Lt. Kelly told the attorney that she has a complaint on file with the EEOC and shared a few other incidents with Matlock that occurred when she was a sergeant.

A blackboard, in the roll call room at the substation at which then-Sgt. Kelly was assigned, was being used to harass female officers. Inappropriate comments were being written by unknown people. Despite Kelly's complaints, the offensive postings continued, so she had the blackboard removed. This action angered Sgt. Ryan Dale, so Dale disposed of a calendar that Sgt. Kelly hung at her desk. This calendar had been a gift to Kelly, and she considered it special. Dale also hung a calendar featuring semi-nude women at the substation in a location that the female officers had to pass by to get to their locker room. Kelly complained to her lieutenant about Dale throwing away her calendar and hanging the calendar with semi-nude women. The lieutenant's response was for then-Sgt. Kelly to forget about the incidents. Nothing was done by the lieutenant or anyone else about these two incidents.

Because Kelly was one of the few female sergeants, female officers tended to indicate a preference for her crew. Many male officers did not want to work for a woman, so they would indicate other preferences. This resulted in several female officers being assigned to her crew. As indicated above derogatory, offensive and inflammatory anti-female remarks were frequently written on the roll call room's blackboard. Off. Samantha Miller was harassed more than the other female officers; although all were subjected to harassment. The final straw with the blackboard occurred when a very offensive caricature of Off. Miller was drawn on the blackboard. That is when Kelly ordered the board removed.

The removal of the blackboard intensified the harassment of Off. Miller. Off. Miller complained that the male officers on the prior shift, contrary to standard operating procedures, turned the cruiser over to her in a filthy condition. Then-Sgt. Kelly would pass on the complaints to the lieutenant in charge of the prior shift. This only made the filth become progressively worse. One day when Off. Miller went to her cruiser at the beginning of the shift, she found a used condom with an unknown substance inside waiting for her in the cruiser. Another female officer on Sgt. Smith's crew, Patsy Hanover, found a vibrator strategically placed in the trunk of her cruiser one day. Kelly reported these incidents to her lieutenant but no action was taken to determine who left these items in the cruiser or to end the harassment of women.

Kathy Kelly has frequently found anonymous written notes complaining about the inadequacies of female officers or otherwise degrading comments about female officers. One such note read, "FLASH, FLASH, FLASH. A 3rd precinct Central City female officer was assaulted by a male suspect. Luckily, male bar patrons came to her assistance." When Kelly investigated the incident she discovered that the officer was Tammy Nolan. Nolan had been dispatched to a call at a bar without any backup being dispatched. Nolan's lieutenant, Sam Bunker, told Kelly that he had heard the radio call. He told Kelly had it been a male officer dispatched to the call, he would have ordered a backup cruiser be dispatched because bar calls should be two-officer calls. However, because it was a female officer dispatched he did not order backup to be sent. Lt. Bunker indicated that he did not want the women police officers to think that he believed a female officer could not handle her job. Before and since that incident Lt. Bunker has frequently expressed his very negative feelings about women police officers. One such exchange between Bunker and Kelly occurred shortly after Kelly was promoted to lieutenant. Bunker stated that the women hired in the new recruit class were less qualified than the male officers in the class. He continued that the women would have to be more closely supervised than then men. Lt. Bunker was neither involved in the hiring nor the training process regarding the recruit class. He had no first-hand knowledge about the qualifications or abilities of any of the recruits.

Lt. Kelly relayed another incident regarding Lt. Bunker. According to Kelly, Off. Tammy Nolan and Off. Patsy Hanover were just completing an assignment when Sgt. James Helms arrived on the scene. Helms was not in uniform and had no supervisory duties over these officers. In fact one of the female officers did not even know who he was. Sgt. Helms, without identifying himself to the officers, proceeded to yell at the officers about their handling of the call. He arrived at the end of the call and therefore could not have seen the entire situation. Sgt. Helms reported the two female officers for not performing their duties in a correct manner to Lt. Bunker. (Bunker and Helms were close friends.) Bunker proceeded to make every officer present at the scene write a report about what happened. When it was determined that the two female officers handled the call appropriately and that Sgt. Helms was the one who was out-of-line, the reports were destroyed by Lt. Bunker. Bunker neither reported nor disciplined Helms for his improper actions. Helms, like Bunker, had constantly made derogatory remarks about female officers.

Over the past few years some of the comments that Kathy Kelly has heard male command officers say include:

"Why does a woman want to take this job away from a man who has to support his family?"

"Women should work in juvenile or the sexual assault units only."

"Women can't physically handle the job."

"I won't work with a woman partner."

"Women have their place--under men and in the home."

Sgt. Smith told Matlock that all the substations where officers are based in Field Bureau have shower facilities for male officers but only half of these substations have shower facilities for women. Women have been assigned to the Field Bureau for more than ten years.

Approximately six years ago the city changed its light duty policy. The policy no longer guaranteed pregnant officers a light duty assignment. No changes in the policy were made for officers who are under doctor restrictions because of injury or illness.

Recently the Secret Service was conducting a special training session for local law enforcement officers. Sgt. Kelly, knowing that there were still four vacancies for the training, submitted a request to go. She was denied. When she asked why, she was told by her deputy chief that she was denied permission to go because no midnight-shift personnel were going to be sent to the training. When the list of those attending the training was published, a male sergeant who was also working the midnight shift was being sent to the training.

Lt. Kelly was the last female officer Matlock intended to interview at that time. Matlock now needs to finish preparing for the hearing on the preliminary injunction and make some strategic decisions regarding the lawsuit.

Steven C. Palmer, Eastern New Mexico University

Lee Weyant, Kutztown University of Pennsylvania

George W. McNary, Creighton University

Rank Number Males Females

Chief 1 1 0
Deputy Chief 7 7 0
Captain 18 18 0
Lieutenant 40 39 1
Sergeant 120 114 6
Police Officer 554 501 53
Total Sworn Officers 740 680 60

 1st Plan 2nd Plan Current Plan
 %Male %Female %Male %Female %Male %Female

Applicants Hired 3.3 2.4 7.0 6.5 3.4 0.7
Applicants passing 29.0 16.0 17.4 12.5 74.5 47.8
all phases of the
testing process