Central City makes a promotion--Part C.

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 issue examined is the management policies to insure compliance with equal employment opportunity laws. The case also introduces ethical issues that should be discussed. 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

What is an equal opportunity employment environment? What constitutes illegal retaliation under the 1964 Civil Rights Act? 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 whose name is on top the promotion list at the time the promotion is being made? 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? Was the fact the woman had previously filed a sex discrimination lawsuit a factor in the decision? Does the work environment penalize women or people who stand up for their legal rights? 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. A woman has previously filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against Central City for its discriminatory employment practices regarding women. The city eventually chose to settle the lawsuit rather than go to trial. The settlement is a comprehensive plan to address the issue of sex discrimination. The case picks up several years later when the woman is being considered for promotion. Despite her being the top candidate on the eligibility list at the time, the new police chief decides to pass her over for promotion. There is a new police chief but has the workplace environment changed?

[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 C

"Chief, this is Ben Mason. I need to see you as soon as possible to discuss the latest captain promotion," the voice on the other end of the phone said sternly. Ben Mason was the Chief Deputy City Attorney for Central City. His duties included handling legal affairs for the police department. Mason was talking to the police chief, Sam Adams. As he hung up the phone, Adams grabbed some materials off his desk and headed for Mason's office. Adams knew who this was about--Lt. Mary Jones.

CENTRAL CITY

Central City, with a population of 500,000, is the largest city within a several-hour drive. It has a predominately Caucasian population. Almost 90% of the adult population have a high school education and 30% have a college education. The city has a full-time, popularly-elected mayor who is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the city.

The police chief reports directly to the mayor. Unlike most police chiefs in cities of this size, in Central City the police chief, as well as all other sworn police officers, has civil service protection. The Central City Police Department is organized in a paramilitary structure utilizing a chain of command. The department is headed by the chief of police. Below the chief, highest to lowest rank, are 7 deputy chiefs, 18 captains, 40 lieutenants, 120 sergeants and 554 police officers. Officers at any rank are considered sworn officers. Collectively all officers at the rank of sergeant or above are referred to as command officers; officers with the rank of captain or above are called senior command officers.

The city charter requires a merit process be used for determining hires and promotions. This means that there must be a competitive testing process with a final ranking of applicants based on quantifiable test results. The process is conducted by the Human Resource Department. An eligibility list, ranking the applicants from high to low, for each position is created. For most positions, an eligibility list is valid for two years from the date it is certified by the Human Resource Director.

When there is a vacancy to be filled the Rule of 3 is applied. If there is one vacancy then the top three names from the appropriate eligibility list are referred to the department head for consideration. If there is more than one vacancy to be filled simultaneously, then two names from the top of the list are referred for each position to be filled. The department head may fill the vacancy with anyone whose name is referred.

The promotion process for the rank of police captain is a closed process. This means that only current employees of Central City are eligible. In fact, only current lieutenants who have held the rank of lieutenant for two or more years are eligible to apply. Once the applicants have been screened for eligibility standards, the applicants undergo an assessment center. Their performances are scored by outside assessors trained by the Central City Human Resource Department. The assessors generally hold the rank of captain or higher in a police department of similar or larger size than Central City. Based on their individual scores, the applicants are ranked on an eligibility list from highest score (number 1) to the lowest score.

SAMUEL ADAMS

Adams has only been police chief in Central City for approximately seven months. His policing career started thirty years earlier as a police officer on the Las Vegas Police Department (LVPD). After being with the LVPD for four years Adams was promoted to sergeant. Approximately two years later, he was promoted to lieutenant. While with LVPD, Adams gained a variety of experiences in different areas of policing.

Approximately twenty years ago Adams became police chief in Salem, Massachusetts. He spent thirteen years in Salem before becoming the police chief in Brownsville, Texas. About a year ago, Adams started an extended paid leave as chief of Brownsville. Adams and Brownville parted ways with a confidential agreement under which Adams would be on leave and receive a paycheck for no more than one year or until he accepted a new position.

Six months into the leave period, Sam Adams accepted the chief position in Central City. He and his wife moved to Central City and are becoming engaged in the community. Adams belongs to a local chapter of a national service club. He also sits on various civic committees as a representative of the city.

MARY JONES

Mary Jones is a married, white female in her late thirties. She graduated summa cum laude from State University sixteen years ago with a bachelor degree in Criminal Justice. Jones worked in retail before being hired by Central City as a jailor. She applied to be a police officer with the city about a year later and was hired. Jones is married to a political science professor and has one child, Andrew.

Mary Jones has been a sworn officer in Central City for approximately fourteen years. After being a police officer for seven years Jones was promoted to sergeant. Three years later she was promoted to lieutenant. During the past fourteen years, Jones has never been officially disciplined for improper actions or violating department policies.

Jones' climb through the ranks has not been smooth. She tested for sergeant when she had seven years experience on the police department. This was the first opportunity for her to apply for promotion. Despite her placing second on the eligibility list, the police chief at the time, George Cline, decided to pass over Jones for promotion. Jones filed an employment discrimination lawsuit and was able to temporarily stop the promotions from occurring. The city agreed to concurrently promote Jones and their original choice, Robert White, to sergeant. Approximately four years later, the parties settled the lawsuit. As one of the settlement provisions, Jones and Patricia Meyer were promoted to lieutenant. Jones was the only female on the then-current lieutenant eligibility list. Meyer had been on a previous lieutenant eligibility list and was passed over for promotion. Meyer had not applied for promotion to lieutenant when the then-current lieutenant list was created.

As a lieutenant, Jones has been assigned to the Field Bureau as a shift supervisor in one of six precincts in the city. Over the course of the past three years, she has been assigned to the two most crime-ridden, inner-city precincts during the busiest shift (evenings: 4:00 p.m.-midnight). It was not until last year that she was assigned to a more suburban precinct during the day shift. Assignment to shift and precinct in the Field Bureau is determined by a bidding process based on seniority.

The lawsuit Jones filed originally concerned only her not being promoted to sergeant. However, within a month of filing the lawsuit, it was amended to a class action lawsuit addressing several concerns of female officers, and Kathy Kelly was added as an additional plaintiff. As the parties were conducting discovery, the city took the depositions of about eight female officers. Each of the female officers related personal experiences of harassment and discrimination. Shortly after taking these depositions the city decided to settle the lawsuit. The settlement document became known throughout the police department and other city offices as the Jones Agreement. The settlement agreement required the city to establish and follow nondiscriminatory processes and established goals related to hiring, promotion, assignment and training.

CURRENT SITUATION

It has been just over four years since Central City settled the original Jones class action lawsuit. The city was still bound by the terms of the settlement agreement and that agreement was regularly impacting police administration's decisions and policies. Whether accurate or not, police administration has a history of blaming the Jones Agreement for policies and decisions that are not well-accepted by rank-and-file officers.

Central City completed the testing process to establish a new police captain eligibility list about five months ago. Approximately twenty lieutenants completed the process. When the eligibility list was certified the top five applicants were:

1. Mike Moore (WM)

2. Gerald Bailey (WM)

3. Bill Wright (WM)

4. Robert White (BM)

5. Mary Jones (WF)

So far, five people have been promoted to captain from the current eligibility list. Mike Moore was promoted to captain shortly after the list was certified. Within the following two months Gerald Bailey and then Bill Wright were promoted to captain. This past week at a joint promotion ceremony, two more vacancies at the rank of captain were filled with the promotions of Robert White and Patricia Meyer. Meyer, a white female, ranked five spots lower than Jones on the eligibility list. With five promotions to captain, no one expects any more captain promotions during the life of the current eligibility list.

Adams and Mason Meet

Adams arrived at Mason's office to discuss the situation. Mason expressed his concern that Jones may talk with her attorney about the failure to promote her. Mason explained that he wanted to be ready to address any issues that may arise. The conversation continued:

MASON: Chief, were there specific reasons that you felt Lt. Jones was not the appropriate person to be promoted?

ADAMS: Absolutely. She is not qualified to be a captain. Lt. Jones lacked trust and confidence in leadership. I question her ability to meet deadlines. Finally, I am concerned about her reactions under stress.

MASON: Can you support these reasons?

ADAMS: Of course I can. For example, shortly after I started in Central City I was confronted by Lt. Jones regarding the FBI National Academy. She was under the misunderstanding that she had been approved to attend. She claimed that one of the deputy chiefs because of her lawsuit retaliated against her in getting her authorization canceled. When I denied that, she questioned my veracity. To me this demonstrates a lack of trust and confidence in leadership.

MASON: Has she done anything else to make you question her loyalty?

ADAMS: No.

MASON: Does she have a problem meeting deadlines?

ADAMS: Yes, she does. Recently she was an acting captain. She was given an assignment in that capacity. The assignment was not completed in a timely fashion. She simply walked away from the assignment when the permanent captain arrived.

MASON: Were there any other assignments that she did not complete on time?

ADAMS: No other assignments that I gave to her.

MASON: Did you check with anyone to see if she had a history of being late on assignments?

ADAMS: No.

MASON: The third reason you said was that she was not good under stress. How did you reach that conclusion?

ADAMS: In the chief's interview I asked her a question she could not answer. The next day, I got an email from Lt. Jones outlining her response to the question.

MASON: Chief, do you know of any incidents while Lt. Jones was in the field that she was unable to perform under pressure?

ADAMS: Not really. I just figured if she can't answer a question in a job interview, she is not able to handle the job pressure.

MASON: Did her department personnel file give you any further evidence regarding her lack of trust or loyalty, inability to handle pressure or her tardiness in completing assignments?

ADAMS: To be honest, I have no idea what's in her personnel file. I never looked at it in making my decision that she is not competent to be a captain. I made this decision on my own; based on my own experience with Lt. Jones and without considering the input from any one else.

As the conversation continued, Adams stated that he was aware of the Jones Agreement and that another police officer, Deputy Chief Kathy Kelly, had filed a lawsuit trying to stop his appointment as chief based on the city not following the procedures required under the Jones Agreement. The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction and Central City hired Adams as chief. Kelly later dismissed her lawsuit. He was further briefed about the document and its requirements within his first week on the job.

Adams said that he was bothered by a couple of other circumstances about Jones. First, it bothered him that Jones wanted him to violate the terms of the Jones Agreement in sending her to the National Academy. In his judgment the list for the National Academy had expired. She wanted him to send her based on an expired list. Adams was also troubled because several letters of recommendation were sent to him concerning Lt. Jones. He explained that such letters were not part of the process, and he assumed she, simply being a police officer asking for the letters, pressured the citizens into sending letters to him on her behalf.

Adams and Mason ended their conversation with Mason telling Adams to be prepared for a lawsuit. Mason said that Jones had filed a lawsuit in the past; there was no reason to believe she would not do so again.

Jones Meets with her Attorney

Mary Jones went to visit her attorney, Perry Matlock. Matlock had represented Jones when she filed her lawsuit against Central City nine years earlier. Over the course of time, Jones and Matlock became friends; so he had a good idea about why she wanted to visit.

MATLOCK: Mary, don't tell they are at it again.

JONES: Well, I think we need to talk about a couple of incidents. In particular, the FBI National Academy and passing me over for promotion to captain.

MATLOCK: What is the FBI National Academy?

JONES: It is a police management school taught by the FBI for local law enforcement agencies. It is considered one of the most prestigious police management training programs. In fact, attendees earn graduate-level credit for the classes.

MATLOCK: Do you have to be accepted into the program to go there?

JONES: I think the FBI offers the academy four times a year. Local FBI offices are given the opportunity to nominate state and local law enforcement officers within the area they serve; however, the local does not have the opportunity to nominate people each session. Foreign law enforcement officials are also invited to attend. Our local office tries to rotate so a representative of the Central City police department is nominated every three or four nominations that the local can make.

MATLOCK: If the local FBI office makes the nomination, how does this concern the police department?

JONES: Our local FBI office let's the Central City Police Department nominate its own attendee. Whoever the city nominates gets to attend unless they fail the background check.

Jones went on to explain that she had just returned from a family vacation about seven months ago. There was an urgent message for her from Deputy Chief Ted Morton. When she contacted Morton he told her that she was the top name on the list and he asked her if she was still interested in attending the F.B.I. National Academy. When she said yes, Morton told her that he had been told by Chief Adams that she could attend. Morton also told her that time was running out to make the nomination, so she should contact the local FBI agent in-charge as quickly as possible. Jones told how she quickly did everything she was told to do. The last step was for her to drop off the official nomination form to the chief for his signature. She never heard anything from the chief, until she received an email from Deputy Chief Morton's secretary saying that Chief Adams had rescinded the authority to send her to the F.B.I. National Academy.

MATLOCK: Mary, do you know why the chief changed his mind?

JONES: From talking with Deputy Chiefs Morton and Kelly, it is my understanding that Deputy Chief Schmidt went ballistic when he heard that I was going to be sent to the F.B.I. National Academy. He supposedly yelled at both Morton and Kelly for suggesting that I be sent. Then Schmidt went to see Chief Adams.

MATLOCK: Did Deputy Chief Schmidt have that much influence?

JONES: Oh yes. Chief Adams was new at the time. Deputy Chief Schmidt was the head of the unofficial good ole boy system. Because Schmidt could make Chief Adams' life much easier, Adams would keep Schmidt happy, especially on matters that really did not matter to Chief Adams.

MATLOCK: Were you given a reason for the change?

JONES: Yes, after I learned that I was not going to be sent to the National Academy I requested a meeting with the Chief.

MATLOCK: Who was present?

JONES: Just the Chief and me. We met in his office. I did not know him, so I tape recorded the conversation. Here is the tape.

MATLOCK: What did the Chief tell you?

JONES: After some small talk, the conversation went to the National Academy. I told him that I heard that Deputy Chief Schmidt had complained that they were sending me to the National Academy. I also told him that Deputy Chief Schmidt did not like me because of the employment discrimination lawsuit that I filed. Further, that he treated me poorly and would not give me any assignments that would be viewed as real police work. He would give me the assignments that no one else wanted.

MATLOCK: How did the Chief respond?

JONES: He told me the reason that I was not sent to the National Academy was that the list had expired.

MATLOCK: Have you seen the list?

JONES: No. But I have been told that the names on the list were alphabetical and that there was no expiration date on the list. There was an order that was distributed seeking people interested in attending the National Academy to apply. That order was written about four years earlier. In the body of the order there was a statement that anyone interested in going to the National Academy over the next three years should apply. The order did not specifically say that the list would expire in three years.

MATLOCK: During this conversation did you raise your voice or call the Chief a liar?

JONES: No, our conversation was always congenial. I did not question the Chief's honesty; rather I questions Deputy Chief Schmidt's motives in bringing this issue forward.

MATLOCK: Is that all that happened in your meeting with the Chief?

JONES: No, after we discussed the National Academy, the Chief continued talking about the police department. He told me that he really did not like the fact that retired sergeant John Salisbury was purchasing video cameras for the cruisers. According to the Chief, these cameras were annoying, and he did not want them in the cruisers. The Chief also made some derogatory comments about Salisbury. Then we said goodbye.

MATLOCK: You mean John Salisbury of the John Salisbury Jr. Memorial Foundation?

JONES: Yes.

About three years earlier, John Salisbury's son, John Jr., a police officer in Central City, was ambushed and killed by drug dealers. The father shortly thereafter retired from the department and started a foundation in his son's honor. The foundation's purpose was to improve safety for law enforcement and fire fighters by purchasing additional equipment. The foundation, among other things, purchased video cameras for Central City police cruisers. Salisbury was an extremely popular public figure with considerable political clout.

The conversation with Matlock then turned to the issue of the captain's promotion. Jones explained that this was the second time that she had tested for promotion to captain. The first time her name was never referred for consideration. In fact only one promotion was made from that list, Isaac Williams. This second time she was fifth on the list. When the fifth promotion was made from the current list, the city promoted Patricia Meyer instead of her.

MATLOCK: What reason were you given for not being promoted?

JONES: No one has given me any reason.

MATLOCK: Was there anything in the promotion process that you think may have negatively impacted you?

JONES: I tested fine. In the chief's interview I was not prepared to answer a question he asked me.

MATLOCK: What question did he ask that you were not prepared to answer?

JONES: He asked me what assignments had Deputy Chief Schmidt given me since the Chief and I had talked in his office about the National Academy incident. I sent an email to the Chief the following day with a list of those assignments.

MATLOCK: Any other questions that you feel you did not answer appropriately?

JONES: No the rest of the questions were the type I was expecting and was prepared to answer. I think I did well on those questions. I really wanted this promotion so I spent considerable time preparing for the test and the interview. In fact, when it was time to make the fifth promotion off the list, I even asked some people to write letters of recommendation to the Chief because he was new to the department.

MATLOCK: Who did you ask to write letters?

JONES: For the most part, I asked a group of people who had already sent unsolicited letters to the department over the years praising my work. I had an on-going working relationship with these people. They had on their own volition written a letter about me to the former chief, so I simply asked them if they would be willing to write one to the new chief. I also asked Bill McDouglas to write a letter. Bill was a former Deputy Chief in Central City who left the department four months after Chief Adams came. Bill became the chief of a department about two hours away. I had worked several years within Bill's chain of command. If anyone knew my capabilities it was Bill. Since he was no longer part of the Central City department, I asked him to write the new chief on my behalf.

Jones relayed some conversations that she had had with some senior command officers. Both Deputy Chiefs Jane Bauer and Kathy Kelly told her, after she was passed over for promotion, that Chief Adams intended to make an affirmative action promotion on the third opportunity. There had never been a female police captain in Central City, so he wanted to address the underutilization. Jones was also told that Lt. Meyer had told Deputy Chief Bauer that she did not want the promotion under the circumstances. So the Chief promoted Bill Wright whose name was at the top of the list at the time.

Only four weeks earlier Lt. Wright had been put in charge of the Homicide Unit. The Chief transferred the lieutenant who was heading Homicide to another assignment without any explanation. When this assignment was made, the senior command already knew that a captain promotion was to be made within a month to replace retiring Captain Carl Belt and that Wright's name was on the top of the list. Wright also made last-minute plans for an out-of-town vacation over the period of time that the promotion was expected to be made. Kathy Kelly told Jones that Wright had been told that he was to be passed over for an affirmative action promotion, and that he was given his choice of assignment in exchange for not being promoted.

Jones was made acting captain upon Belt's retirement. She remained in that capacity for almost six weeks. When Wright returned from his vacation, Wright took over Belt's former precinct. Jones went back to her duties as a shift supervisor in the precinct.

According to Kathy Kelly, when Meyers was promoted above Jones, no one asked Meyer about being promoted. The announcement was made by the Chief before Meyer knew she was being promoted. Kelly also told Jones that she was not told about the meeting the Chief had with the deputy chiefs to discuss the promotion. She learned about the meeting and the decision after the fact.

As the meeting concluded, Jones and Matlock decided that another employment discrimination lawsuit should be filed. So Matlock prepared the appropriate documents and filed the case.

The Lawsuit

Within six weeks of the promotion of Meyer to captain, Matlock was taking Adams' deposition. This proved to be a very frustrating activity for Matlock, as Chief Adams was evasive and responded to Matlock's questions more than 100 times that he could not recall or a similar response. Although Adams testified as to the importance of the Jones Agreement, he could not recall any specific provisions of the document. Adams' testimony as to his reasons for not promoting Jones was similar to what he said in the initial interview with Mason.

After Adams testified about the letters of recommendation that Jones' supporters had sent, the following exchange took place:

MATLOCK: Chief, when you applied for the Central City chief's position, do you recall your application?

ADAMS: Vaguely, yes.

MATLOCK: Do you recall the application process?

ADAMS: Yes.

MATLOCK: Did the application process ask for the candidates to submit letters of recommendation?

ADAMS: Not that I recall.

MATLOCK: Did you submit any letters of recommendation?

ADAMS: I think there was a letter attached to my resume from my current employer as well as a member of the private community.

MATLOCK: Letters of recommendation that you attached to your application?

ADAMS: General letters, yes.

MATLOCK: That you asked those people to write?

ADAMS: Could I go back and finish what I was saying?

MATLOCK: Go ahead.

ADAMS: I did not ask anyone to write a letter touting Sam Adams for chief of police in Central City. I had two generic letters that were part of my resume from my current employer and the head of the police academy that I submitted with every resume as a matter of routine.

MATLOCK: And those letters spoke well of you and were letters of recommendation in a general nature, correct?

ADAMS: As my abilities as police chief, that's correct.

The following question was asked and answered while discussing the meeting that Chief Adams had with Jones regarding the National Academy:

MATLOCK: If Lt. Jones had made accusations that she believed Deputy Chief Schmidt was holding the lawsuit against her, would you have made an investigation into those accusations?

ADAMS: No, I would have considered it just her opinion.

The deposition switched to the chief's interview that was part of the promotion process. The following exchange took place.

MATLOCK: My question is why is she not qualified and competent to be a captain?

ADAMS: In the specific instances I dealt with her she could not recall in a stress situation answers to questions that I asked in one particular interview.

MATLOCK: And what would that be?

ADAMS: In her chief's interview for captain I asked her specifically what were the duties and tasks that Deputy Chief Schmidt had given her in response to her concern that she was not a part of the management team as expressed in an earlier interview. She could not recall any duties that he had assigned to her, no other results thereof.

MATLOCK: Did you ask the other candidates who you interviewed for promotion, for promotion to captain the same question?

ADAMS: No.

MATLOCK: A similar question?

ADAMS: No.

MATLOCK Did you ask any of the other candidates questions that you did not ask Lt. Jones?

ADAMS: I can't recall that there were any. If they were, they were small talk.

Matlock then shifted the focus to Lt. Jones' inability to timely complete assignments. Adams said he gave the assignment to Deputy Chief Schmidt after he had met with a city council member who was concerned about graffiti in the city. Chief Adams could not remember when the assignment was to be completed but he thought it was within a month. It was not until a week or two after the due date that Adams learned that Schmidt had given the assignment to Jones.

Jones leaned over and whispered to Matlock that when she received the assignment from Schmidt as acting captain she gave it to Lt. Wayne Fox to complete. Jones said that Capt. Wright, the permanent precinct captain, had taken over captain duties on the due date. She had a status report memorandum waiting for Wright that day. The graffiti assignment, its due date and status, was the first item in the memo. She also met with Wright early that morning and verbally advised him of the graffiti assignment and its status. According to her, Wright said he would handle the matter.

Then the following question and answer exchange took place between Matlock and Adams:

MATLOCK: Now, at the time that request came down Lt. Jones was the acting captain, correct?

ADAMS: I believe she was.

MATLOCK: When you talked to Deputy Chief Schmidt he told you he assigned it to Lt. Jones, correct?

ADAMS: Right.

MATLOCK: Okay. Later did he tell you anything else about that assignment regarding Lt. Jones?

ADAMS: Only at my request I returned probably two weeks later and asked the status and he indicated that he would either send an e mail or he would check to see because he didn't have any information. He did indicate that there was a due date and I don't recall what it was, that it came back to him the date it was due and it was still not there so I asked him to go look for it and find it and get it. We had to talk to Mr. Lott.

MATLOCK: On the due date was Mary Jones still the acting captain?

ADAMS: I don't know.

MATLOCK: This would be a captain's assignment, correct? The deputy chief would give it to the captain for further action, correct?

ADAMS: In this particular case, the captain is a precinct commander so the deputy chief would assign it to the precinct commander since the action was occurring in that precinct.

MATLOCK: Chief, would it be appropriate, an assignment was given to a person who is in an acting capacity, in their capacity as acting captain and a new captain is assigned, would it be appropriate for the former acting captain to advise the new captain of the assignment, of the due date and of the fact that the input was not there and wait for the direction of that captain?

ADAMS: I don't know what you're talking about. Simplify it for me.

MATLOCK: Do you know what happened at the precinct level with this assignment?

ADAMS: No, I know it didn't get there on time.

MATLOCK: Okay. You didn't make any personal investigation as to what happened with the assignment?

ADAMS: No.

MATLOCK: You assumed that Lt. Jones was at fault?

ADAMS: The detail was assigned to Lt. Jones and when it did not appear on time, it was Lt. Jones's responsibility to get it there so it was not an assumption, it was simply it was not done.

MATLOCK: If Lt. Jones was no longer captain, acting captain of the precinct during that period of time was it still her responsibility or would it be the captain's responsibility if he has knowledge of it?

ADAMS: It would be the responsibility of the individual it was assigned to. MATLOCK: Would a lieutenant have the authority to order another lieutenant to do--to take an action?

ADAMS: As acting captain they would, certainly.

MATLOCK: If they're no longer acting captain do they have that authority?

ADAMS: Not in the hierarchy of chain of command, no.

MATLOCK: Within the structure of the Central City Police Department does the lieutenant have the right to order another lieutenant to do anything?

ADAMS: Only in certain circumstances when one lieutenant's in charge of a scene and the other is assisting.

MATLOCK: So if Lt. Jones was no longer acting captain on the due date of that assignment, would she have the authority to order the lieutenant to do anything regarding that assignment?

MASON: Object to the form of the question as compound and assuming--assuming--he doesn't have the foundation to answer whether Capt. Jones could have gotten this done beforehand, he doesn't know what the facts are, he doesn't know what you're asking him and he's not familiar with the circumstances Because you're asking him questions about a circumstance that he doesn't know the facts of, he doesn't know who was acting captain or whether this acting captain could have told the other acting captain who was acting at the time, acting, that Capt. Wright that wasn't there.

MATLOCK: You have no idea of the facts and circumstances, correct?

ADAMS: Facts and circumstances of what?

MATLOCK: Regarding what happened at the end of the period of time in which this assignment was due.

ADAMS All I know is that there was a due date and the report was not there on the due date.

MATLOCK: And you did no personal investigation as to facts or circumstances?

ADAMS: No.

MATLOCK: You never talked to Lt. Jones about that, did you?

ADAMS: No.

MATLOCK: Does Lt. Jones have a history of not timely completing assignments?

ADAMS: I wouldn't know.

MATLOCK: Did you ever investigate whether this was her usual course of conduct or if this was an exception to her usual course of conduct?

ADAMS: No.

MATLOCK: Do you know if Patricia Meyer was ever late for an assignment?

ADAMS: I have no idea. It was not a concern of mine.

At another point Chief Adams testified about another time he saw Lt. Jones in action:

MATLOCK: Okay. Chief, let's--other than the meeting you had with Lt. Jones about seven months ago regarding the F.B.I. National Academy and the interview you had for the captain's promotion, have you had any other personal contact with Lt. Jones?

ADAMS: I saw her at the precinct open house, I believe.

MATLOCK: What was your impression of the open house at the precinct?

ADAMS: The open house went well. I was somewhat concerned that Lt. Jones didn't circulate and network more, that she appeared to pay more attention to the condiments and the refreshments than she did meeting people and talking with people at least while I was there.

MATLOCK: How long were you there?

ADAMS: About a half hour, 45 minutes.

MATLOCK: And during that time about how many people were there?

ADAMS: It would be an estimate but I would say 40 to 60. I'm not sure. It was a fluid crowd in and out.

MATLOCK: Did she network with people at all?

ADAMS: Excuse me?

MATLOCK: Did Lt. Jones network with people at all while you were there?

ADAMS: I observed her pouring beverages for people, offering snacks, that sort of chit chat while myself and Deputy Chief Bauer circulated shaking hands, introducing ourselves, talking to members of neighborhood groups, that sort of thing, listening to issues.

MATLOCK Do you have a reason to believe Lt. Jones doesn't do that on a daily basis when she was lieutenant in that precinct?

ADAMS: I was simply talking about the observable behavior that I observed in that particular instance was inadequate.

MATLOCK: Did that go into your role of deciding she wasn't--in your decision not promote her to captain?

ADAMS: I don't remember when the open house was. If the date was prior to making any captaincies, it would have had an impact certainly on my decision to make the promotion.

MATLOCK: But you don't recall whether it did or not?

ADAMS: That's not what I said. I said if it had happened before the promotions were made, certainly it would have had an impression. If the open house occurred after the promotions were made, it's a moot issue, but I don't remember what date the open house was.

With the taking of the Adams deposition there are plenty of actions that must be contemplated. Matlock has to decide if the case is worth pursuing. Mason must consider the city's position and whether to settle or defend the lawsuit. Meredith Snow, the Director of Human Resources, must review the city's policies and processes to determine what actions, if any, are necessary to correct problems.

Steven C. Palmer, Eastern New Mexico University

Lee Weyant, Kutztown University of Pennsylvania

George W. McNary, Creighton University