TERMINATED
UPLAND POLICE OFFICER REINSTATED
By
Saku E. Ethir
LACKIE & DAMMEIER
Police
Officer Lavell Brown was terminated from the Upland Police Department in
early 2005. Brown was
terminated after an internal affairs investigation, that turned into
more of a fishing expedition, was conducted, and resulted in sustained
Upland Police Department policy violations of sexual harassment, conduct
unbecoming an officer, and dishonesty (along with several other
catch-all policy sections). The
investigation was initiated by the department after a female officer
mentioned, to a supervisor, three comments Brown had allegedly made to
her, during a shift, that made her feel uncomfortable.
The female officer told the department supervisor that she had
spoken to Brown, had advised Brown that the comments were unwelcome, and
had asked that Brown stop. The
female officer also told the supervisor that she had handled the matter
by speaking with Brown and that Brown had been receptive to her, had
apologized for making her uncomfortable and had assured her he would
stop. The female officer
made it clear to the supervisor that she did not want the department to
take any additional action regarding the matter.
There was just one problem, the female officer also happened to
be the then Chief’s (Martin Thouvenell’s) daughter-in-law.
During
the course of the department’s investigation, almost every female in
the department (sworn and non-sworn), was interviewed.
In addition, numerous male officers with the department were
interviewed. As part of the
investigation, all of the female employees were asked if Brown had ever
said or done anything to them that was of a sexual nature and/or
inappropriate. Of the approximately 45-to-55 females interviewed, only two
claimed that Brown had made comments to them that they deemed to be
inappropriate for the workplace. The
remaining female witnesses stated that Brown had never said or done
anything to them that was sexual in nature or inappropriate. At the conclusion of the investigation, the department found
that Brown had violated the department/city’s sexual harassment
policy, and further found that Brown had made misleading statements
about his conduct during his investigation interrogation.
Essentially, the department did not like Brown’s recollection
of incidents and statements.
Brown,
represented by Lackie & Dammeier, appealed his termination under the
applicable city of Upland and Upland Police Department Rules and
Regulations. The arbitration was expected to span at least 10 days, as it
was anticipated that a total of approximately 35 witnesses would be
testifying. Day one began
with opening statements and concluded with several city/department
witnesses testifying. Two
of the city/department’s witnesses to testify were the two witnesses
interviewed who claimed Brown had made inappropriate comments to them.
On cross-examination, both of those witnesses also testified that
comments of a sexual nature, which could be deemed by some to be
inappropriate, were commonplace at the department by officers and
sometimes supervisors. In
fact, almost every one of the department’s witnesses, both female and
male, who took the stand, on cross-examination, testified that comments
of a sexual nature around the department were common and were sometimes
made by supervisors.
Day two
was more of the same, but could not have gotten any better by the end of
the day. The last
department/city witness for the day, on cross-examination, testified
that one of the witnesses in the department’s investigation, who
claimed to have been offended by a comment made by Brown, kept a
jar/container on the dispatch console and would tell male officers that
the jar was to collect money for her breast enlargement fund, and would
ask them if they wanted to donate money to the fund.
The same witness also testified under cross examination that he
had heard comments of a sexual nature being made by officers around the
department and further stated that he had also heard supervisors make
similar comments. When
asked to identify the supervisors by name, the witness identified former
Upland Chief of Police Martin Thouvenell.
The witness then repeated a comment he stated he had heard Chief
Thouvenell make in reference to a female cadet.
Although the comment bears repeating, it must be censored here
due to its vulgarity. The
department/city was expected to put on at least two more of its
witnesses that day; however, the city represented to the arbitrator that
one of the witnesses had gone home sick, and the other was unavailable,
and requested to conclude early.
Day
three of arbitration never happened.
The new police chief, after being brought up to speed on the
case, revaluated the decision and offered to reinstate Brown to his
position of police officer with the city of Upland.
Brown accepted and has since been reinstated to his position of
police officer with the Upland Police Department, and is once again
doing police work. This was
a clear example, and unfortunately, an all to common occurrence, of a
department/city rushing to label something sexual harassment when it
just is not there. This was
a very difficult time and process for Brown, who thanks his family and
LDF for their constant support.
LDF Home Page | News
Article Index
