thomas- december 30,2010 complaint of continued discrimination,retaliation/plus 5 attachments

8/6/2019 THOMAS- December 30,2010 Complaint of continued Discrimination,Retaliation/Plus 5 attachments

1/25

Police DepartmentCity of Greensboro

December 30, 2010

TO: City Manager Rashad Young (Through Channels)FROM: Officer D.V. Thomas, Support Bureau, Operational Support Division, LegalSupport

SUBJECT: Complaint of Continued Retaliation, Discrimination,Harassment, Unfair Treatment and Hostile WorkEnvironment By Assistant Chief Anita Holder, & CaptainD a n n y Ingram, To Include AllowingSergeant D.J. DavisTo Investigate Me As A Result OF An Unlawful Order,Because A Complaint Was Filed On My Behalf By A .Citizen (EAP Counselor), Without My Knowledge , WithoutSergeant Davis Giving Me Proper Written Notification Of ASpecific Violation, And Allowing Sergeant Davis To InvestigateHimself

, I J \ N ~ s ' / _ 0 1 1C \ W M ( m a g e , ~ s O ~ \ O O

In accordance with Greensboro Police Department Directive 1.5.25 Forwarding Correspondence,please ensure that this document is received by City Manager Rashad Young. The Directivestates, "An employee receiving a written communication from a subordinate directed to a highercommand shall endorse it, indicating approval, disapproval, or acknowledgement, and forwardwithin a reasonable period of time."

_City_J>()_ljcyJI-S JI:_mIJ_loyeessistance .Progr~m,Organizational Rules Section 5.1states:Tll~......cEmployeeAssistartceFrogtam(EAPjisesserttiallyaself.:refettalptbgtamoutKupernsbtSmayrecommend. An employee is encouraged to personally contact the EAP counselor or anycommunity agency for confidential counseling, referral or treatment.On September 13, 2010, October 8, 2010, October 22, 2010, and December 14, 2010, Iconstructed complaint and appeal documents addressed to City Manager, Mr. Rashad Young,These documents contain allegations against a number of individuals. As I relay the most currentallegations against Assistant Chief Holder and Captain Ingram, I will refer to previouscomplaint/appeal documents. However, I will not recite all information in the previouslysubmitted complaint/appeal documents. The previously aforementioned documents andrecordings, in their entirety should still be reviewed, which will fully explain all thediscriminatory, retaliatory, intimidating, unfair treatment that has been enacted upon me.

1


2/25

2

On November 12, 2010, Sergeant D.l Davis mailed a document to my home, while I was outsick, under a physician's care. On October 22,2010, Mr. Young, you apparently received a copyof a complaint authored by me entitled, "Complaint Of Continued Discrimination, Retaliation,Intimidation, Harassment, Hostile Work Environment, Threats, Threats of UnwarrantedDisciplinary Action, To Include Recorded Conversations In Which Sergeant DJ. DavisAcknowledges, As If Proper, SergeEUltDavis' Investigation Of My Complaint Against SergeantDavis, Sergeant Davis' Supervisor (Lieutenant G.A. Hunt) And Others."Sergeant Davis' November 12, 2010 document is entitled, "Response To Complaint OfContinued Discrimination, Retaliation, Intimidation, Harassment, Hostile Work Environment,Threats, Threats of Unwarranted Disciplinary Action, To Include Recorded Conversations InWhich Sergeant D.J. Davis Acknowledges, As If Proper, Sergeant Davis' Investigation Of MyComplaint Against Sergeant Davis, Sergeant Davis' Supervisor (Lieutenant G.A. Hunt) AndOthers." Mr. Young, there is no error in my recitation of the titles of my complaint and SergeantDavis' document.Sergeant Davis' document is from Sergeant Davis, addressed to me and signed by Sergeant

. .. .. Davl~;- .A copy-or Setgeaht Davis' response to me is attached to this complaint. Iw 1 l1 w riteSergeant Davis' document in italics and respond in normal print. It should be noted that myresponses nor this complaint depict all discrimination, intimidation, retaliation, unfair treatmentand hostility that I have and am currently enduring. Only portions of the mistreatment against meare referred to, however, previous document and recordings provide all information, SergeantDavis' document (in italics) and my responses are as follows:Officer Thomas, after analyzing the allegations inyour complaint dated October 22, 2010 to CityManager Mr. Rashad Young and in accordance with D.D. 3.9.4, Lfind that you did not presentany evidence which would substantiate and/or qualify any actions taken toward you asdiscriminatory, retaliatory, intimidating, hostile and/or unwarranted disciplinary actions takenagainst you. Officer Thomas' Response: Mr. Young, Sergeant Davis investigates himself, for asecond time (October 14, 2010 was the first time)! This is discriminatory in that no officer isallowed to investigate complaints against themselves, Other officers that file complaints againstmembers are afforded an investigator to properly investigate all of their allegations. Theindividuals that arq cQ1ppl~Pl~4~gfl.in~tdo not __!lyestigate__hemsel ves. Sergeant Davis cannot

.pwpeTly-in'lesligatemy-vclubet22,2010{;Ulllplaint, ueulll~tJ tlien.,futallegaLiUllsagainstSergeant Davis in the document. In Sergeant Davis' document, what specific actions takentowards me don't substantiate my claims of unfair treatment? Only in my case is my Sergeantinvestigating allegations of discrimination, retaliation, intimidation and a hostile workenvironment. On October 11, 2010, Sergeant Davis responded to an appeal/complaint I made tothe City Manager's Office. In the October 11, 2010 recorded conversation between SergeantDavis and me, please note the following, but not all inclusive, harassing, intimidating, retaliatoryand hostile statements (and time in the recording) made by Sergeant Davis. Sergeant Davisstated, "I am giving you a direct order, as of today, you shall not file anything unless it goesthrough me (14:50)." Mr. Young, this is a discriminatory, unlawful and harassing order. No otheremployee is ordered to only file complaints through their immediate supervisor (only), especiallyif the complaint is against the supervisor. I can actually file a complaint with any supervisor thathas the authority to take or put into action, corrective measures. Sergeant Davis stated, "Bottom


3/25

3

line, don't file anymore grievances or complaints unless they come through me (17:55). If youdo, be prepared to get some discipline. Disciplinary action will follow (18: 15). You have goneand filed this grievance against me. Ihought we were better than that. Deborah, you reallydisappointed me (20:00). As far as harassment on me, you need to come to me, and we need todiscuss the matters at hand, before you go further. There is no way around that, and if you do,you will suffer disciplinary action, period. If you are gonna file some kind of complaint onSergeant Davis, without giving me an opportunity to sit down and discuss it and come to somekind of resolution. But you are filing something on me. You are filing something on me and youdidn't give me an opportunity to address it. And you will give me an opportunity to address it.You will informally contact me and I will get back to you. I'll tell you what, use that otheralternative and I'm tellin' you what's gonna happen. That's all I am sayin' (00:42). I amdisappointed in you. Iam seriously disappointed in you. After all Ihave tried to do to help youOfficer Thomas, you go back and stab me in the back. You did. After all Ihave done, after allIhave done, tried to help you, called you when you were suspended, you know what OfficerThomas, Ieally thought that you and Icould work together, get past this thing. Officer Thomaswe have nothing else to discuss. Iam disappointed in you, just like you are disappointed in me. Iwas your biggest advocate. I was your biggest advocate. You don't understand, I was kinda at..oddswith SergeantHeard, Yeslwas, lwas your biggest advocate. Then you tum around and filethis crap on me. Im disappointed in you (29:05). You know, Iun gonna cut off my recordel'and tell you something in private, and Ieally would like for you.... Naw, Iin't gonna cut it off.Idon't want to see anything happen to you, period. We cannot continue to file thesegrievances and complaints. You can't do it. Especially in the manner that you are filing themin . We can sit down and discuss stuff. Deborah, Deborah this is not a democracy. You work here.You work here. And if you don't like it, you don't like it (32:44)." Mr. Young, this is a smallexample of Sergeant Davis' discriminatory, retaliatory, intimidating and harassing treatment ofme.F urth erm ore, yo u state o n p age tw elve (12) o f th is d ocumen t, "Mr. You ng , I b elie ve th e re sp on seto my appea l/c omp la in t is c le ar con tin ued d is crim inatio n, h ar as sm en t, h ostile wor k env ir onmen ta nd u nfair treatm en t of m e by S erg ean t D avis. T his trea tm ent, acco rd in g to S erg ean t D avis, is a tyo ur d irection . I h um bly requ est a w ritten resp on se from yo u to m y ap pea Z/complaint do cum ents.(September 13 , 20 10 , O ctob er 8 , 2010, and October 22 , 2 01 0) co nfirm ing S erg ean t D avis'v_e}'p_qL_C!Q!!J1J1_Ll_1)_t(q(i9_fJregaJ,_dingo ur d ec isio n." Officer Thomas' Response: Anytime f lU

... . . ". ".., 1.. ~ "".', _" .,_.~1._,, ,., , _ _ . _ ---- ,- _-1.- ~ - -- .- J- -. -. -- , . _ _n -. 1 , ~ __ __I _~_ ." , , ,. .1 .".1~".J.~ _, ._ .~_ ~ ,T _ !.J . _ L = _ -0 ~ ' - ' 0 _.j __'1- _. _+! 1 _ ___ _.1_empioyee HltS-L;UIIlpHl1ULS- -Ul ll1SL;UUllilaUUll, ierauauun, nu.uruuuuvn ianu a l lV. :JtLlv wVi !'>. environment, against their supervisor, it is obvious intimidation and harassment for thecomplained upon supervisor to investigate the said allegations. Thus, investigate themselves.I do needfor you to clarify for me whether you considered your m emorandum to M r. Young to bea "grievance" or an "appeal of discipline. "If this is a complaint, you should have adhered toD.D. 7.1 and 7.2. If you have a grievance, you should have followed D.D .3.9.2. If this is anA ppeal of D isciplinary A ction you should have adhered to D .D . 7.3.10, A ppeal of D isciplinaryAction. Officer Thomas' Response: M r. Young, my documents are exactly what they state in thesubject title. The October 22, 2010 document is a complaint of misconduct that if substantiated,would amount to a violation of Federal Law. I attempted to have Sergeant Davis endorse (signfor receipt) and forward the October 22, 2010, complaint. Sergeant Davis violated GreensboroPolice Department Directive 1.5.25, and refused.


4/25

4

Officer Thomas, you were reinstated back tofull duty status and disciplinary action was imposedon September 3, 2010. You filed you Complaint/Appeal to the City Manager on September 13,2010. In doing so, you failed to meet the deadline as required by D.D. 7.3.10, Appeal ofDisciplinary Action. You should have given written notification to me by memorandum no laterthan five (5 ) business days after you received your discipline, Instead, you chose to take yourcomplaint/appeal directly to the City Manager's Office on September 13, 2010 which would havebeen six (6 ) business days after your Disciplinary Action was imposed, which was not proper, Inaddition, the document was improperly titled and possibly could have led to some confusionregarding your intended remedy. Instead, the document should have been titled, "DisciplinaryAction.Appeal, " not Complaint/Appeal. Had you adhered to D.D. 7.3.10, I certainly would haveforwarded that notification through my chain of command, along with any administrativeinvestigations to the Internal Affairs section. Internal Affairs would then have notified you andadvised you that you had five (5 ) business days to prepare and submit aformal written appeal inmemorandum form, stating specific groundsfor the appeal as mentioned below. Officer Thomas)Response: Mr. Young, because Sergeant Davis cannot answer my appeal/complaints (the level ofdiscipline,' discrimination and violation of my due process was outside his realm of authority),SergeanrDavisrand others are+attempting to find a technicality to avoid answering myallegations. To properly answer my appeal/complaints would mean implicating high rankingGPD administrators for city policy and departmental violations. My appeal/complaint hadallegations of discrimination, retaliation, harassment and hostile work environment. Thus,regardless of whether it was five (5) days or six (6) days, you would have to conduct aninvestigation. In addition, whether the discipline was changed or not, you would have to conductan investigation. Also, on Friday, September 3, 2010, I was served with discipline, September 4,2010 was a Saturday, September 5, 2010 was a Sunday and September 6, 2010, was a CityHoliday (Labor Day). My first business day was Tuesday September 7, 2010, second businessday was Wednesday September 8, 2010, third business day Thursday September 9, 2010, fourthbusiness day Friday, September 10, 2010, and fifth business day Monday September 13, 2010.The subject title contained Appeal of Unwarranted Disciplinary Action. The body of thedocument was clear. In addition, I am a subordinate. If I truly submitted documentation that wasconfusing, I am sure that I would have been notified prior to two (2) months passing.

"_" , }n f\_ugust of 20 1O,_I\V~sS_llsp~,ncledithout pay, andrecommended for termination, by Interim0L_~ _.c,;c,D __TT_._,rJ~ .......,..L..L_ T __- A . , , . . . , . _-I. __-~.C',~.r.\T.\ .1.,(\.... O--i"r..- _ TTo . _ -1fT" '\ , _ ._n "_1, _..,. ..1_._1 __7-=1.1_ ~_~___ . , . . . _ _ . , _ . 1 .'CU..lCl lJ,1\:..."'01ULL;J. 111 fiUgU:-il tJl-LV1V, VIlllJCl IV1.lJ.-n.Uj


5/25

5

Discriminated against me by allowing me to be disciplined, but not giving Officer Royaldiscipline. Discriminated against me and violated my due process by not allowing me adepartmental hearing, which I opted for. Chief Miller already acknowledged I was

mistreated by bringing me back to work. The depth of the mistreatment (by members ofmy chain of command) could not be determined because Idid not have an opportunity toexpose it in a departmental hearing. No other officers have been suspended andrecommended for termination, opted for a hearing, not afforded a hearing, and thenreinstated with discipline.

Discriminated against me by not holding those accountable for the obvious mistreatment(departmental violations) against me that led to Chief Miller reinstating me. Discriminated against me by meeting with Officer Royal and discussing Officer Royal's

suspension and recommendation for termination and not meeting with me. When Chief Miller discriminated against me (not affording me a hearing) and denied medue process, Chief Miller altered the appeal process. Other employees who have had disciplinary hearings, and appealed the discipline,appealed it directly to the City Manager's Office. Chief Miller allows me to participate in the Employee Improvement Plan, despite the fact. that Iwas reinstated without a hearing.

You also allege that on October 2 2 , 2010, at approximately 1055 hours, you met with me in theparking lot of the Police/Fire Substation on South Elm Eugene Street in regards to endorsing acorrespondence. You quote Departmental Directive 1.5.25, Forwarding Correspondence, andstate, "An employee receiving a written communication from a subordinate directed to a higherauthority shall endorse it, indicating approval, disapproval, or acknowledgement, and forwardwithin a reasonable period of time. JJ You state that I did not accept nor endorse the document onOctober 2 2 , 2010. This is correct to a degree, however, you failed to elaborate and/or disclosethefull details of our conversation regarding the document.Officer Thomas, as J recall, you approached me in the parking lot of the Police/Fire Substationcarrying papers or documents which 1now assume to be the complaint to the City Manager onOctober 22nd . As you approached me, all you stated was, "sign this. J J 1hen stated, "Sign what,..what-is-this?JJ--~ou.-agaif1stated tome, ...signthis," J.informeq)'ou that Jwas notgoingto.signanythtngwltho-ut j l; ; s i r e c i d { n g i i .Y o u staied something fo the effect of, ;'well you told me to comethrough you and that is what J am doing. J J J then invited you into my office so that1ould readand then sign the document. You informed me that you were not going to come into my office.You then stated, "So are you refusing to sign this? JI J stated, "Yes, I guess 1am. IJ OfficerThomas' Response: Greensboro Police Department Directive 1.5.25 states in part, "An employeereceiving a written communication from a subordinate directed to a higher authority shallendorse it, indicating approval, disapproval, or acknowledgement, and forward within areasonable period of time." Sergeant Davis could only acknowledge the document because therewas an allegation made against Sergeant Davis in the document. Sergeant Davis is in violation,because there is no provision, in the directive, stating that he has to have read the document priorto acknowledging receipt of it. In addition, Sergeant Davis is discriminating against me,requiring that he read and we discuss a forwarding correspondence, before recerving andacknowledging receipt of the correspondence. Sergeant Davis routinely receives and


6/25

6

acknowledges through signature, forwarding correspondences (transfer requests, monthlyreports, request memos, other routine paperwork) from other subordinates, before discussing andsometimes without discussing the documents with the subordinates, In fact, December 14, 2010,I left another complaint in Sergeant Davis' tray, sent Sergeant Davis an e-mail, and SergeantDavis forwarded it Sergeant Davis discriminated against me by requiring that I come into hisoffice and discuss a complaint (work task) while out sick and under a physician's care, SergeantDavis harassed me in that I called him and arranged to meet with Sergeant Davis to turn in thedocument, drove twenty two (22) miles, while out sick, under a physician's care, followedSergeant Davis' unlawful, discriminatory, intimidating instructions (only filing a complaintthrough Sergeant Davis), and Sergeant Davis refused to acknowledge receipt of and forward thedocument. Sergeant Davis knew the document was a complaint (which is why he wanted todiscuss it). Sergeant Davis is required by Greensboro Police Directive and City Policy to receivethe complaint and take appropriate actions. Sergeant Davis discriminated against me by notreceiving my complaint and taking appropriate corrective actions, I requested and expected ofSergeant Davis what should occur in any professional organization .

..OfficerThomaxyouhave noright or authority to demand my signature on something before!have had an opportunity to read the document. Any reasonable person and certainly anysupervisor within this agency would do likewise given the same circumstance. Officer Thomas'Response: Sergeant Davis' logic makes no sense. Any other supervisor would have taken thedocument and signed the document and my copy acknowledging receipt. It is required byGreensboro Police Directive and City Policy, What negative consequence could have befallenSergeant Davis if he had taken the document, acknowledged receipt and forwarded thedocument? Again, December 14, 2010, I left another complaint in Sergeant Davis' tray, sentSergeant Davis an e-mail, and Sergeant Davis forwarded it, without holding any discussion withme. Officers leave documents in supervisors' trays on many occasions for forwarding. Thesupervisors sign and forward the documents without discussing it with the subordinates.Actually, it is unreasonable for a supervisor to deny accepting and acknowledging receipt of aforwarding correspondence, from a subordinate, In fact, Sergeant Davis' cannot give a sensiblereason for not accepting the correspondence other than he did not have a chance to read it. Irequested and expected of Sergeant Davis what should occur in any professional organization.

- - - - . - . - -- : . i) . ~ " " - ~ ~ ' : ' :7 ' ~ : j f - :- , . ~ . :, ) :: C : - - . J . i..~_-1"___" "! 1 " ' : : _ . : ' ~ - _ . , : ' , . , ~ . L . L ~ , ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ : . : . : ~ - ~ " _ ~ - i ~ - ' : ' ~ a _ ' ~: ' _ . ~. . ' ~ _ . ,~~f~"~''' '' ''""A''' _" .!+1 .. . .. .. .. .. .. . , _ ~ 7-~ . . .. . .;1.,. ," __..rl ~Tl-


7/25

7

policy." The reality is that I filed a complaint and NOT a grievance, so I wouldn't followDepartmental Directive 3.9.2. Additionally, Sergeant Davis stated on page one (1) paragraphthree (3) of his own response document, "I do need for you to clarify for me whether youconsidered your memorandum to M r. Young to be a "grievance" or an "appeal of discipline."Why Sergeant Davis is sure of what the document represents later and refers to my document asan Appeal/Complaint. Why does he reference disciplinary appeal procedure if he thought thedocument (September 13,2010) was a grievance? It doesn't matter who received the document.Whether the document contains allegations to be investigated is the primary issue. SergeantDavis' order to me that I can only file a complaint through Sergeant Davis, to include if theallegation is against Sergeant Davis is an unlawful order. I can actually file a complaint with anysupervising member in the Police chain of command. Why would I report to Sergeant Davis thatChief Miller discriminated against me? Why would I report to Sergeant Davis that SergeantDavis discriminated against me?Officer Thomas, it still remains my goal to assist you with bringing resolution to any personalproblems or grievances you may be experiencing as well as ensuring the continued fair andequitable treatment in every endeavor of your employment with the Greensboro Police

=Department.Please lnformmeimmediatelyif I can be of assistance to you in this capacity. Endof Memo. Officer Thomas' Response: Mr. Young, please have Sergeant Davis refrain fromforcing me to discuss my allegations of discrimination, intimidation, retaliation and hostile workenvironment against Sergeant Davis with Sergeant Davis. Please have Sergeant Davisdiscontinue investigating himself.On December 6, 2010, Sergeant Davis summoned me to his office. This was my first day backfrom being out sick, under a physician's care. Sergeant Davis informed me that I was beinginvestigated. Sergeant Davis is required to provide written notification which outlines thespecific allegation against me that-would constitute a violation of departmental directives. I amgoing to write Sergeant Davis' written notification of administrative investigation in italics andrespond. Sergeant Davis' December 6,2010 Notification of Administrative Investigation and myresponses are as follows:The purpose of this memorandum is to notify you that an administrative investigation is beingconducted to determine whether or not you violated D.D. 1.4.5 Obedience To Orders and D.D.

. ~ ~_~._._:n.__.~__"D. .""'.,-_-~~ ~ _ : L~ ~ " ~~i".Ci~,~'~~~, .~Oj i r i : . ; ~_~:: .~i~: : : ' :~~-_~.: :__' :_: :; : ' _ " r i " ~ . . . . _ _ - t -. . . .. . . ~ _ . -: ' . ' , ' (; 1 . , . .. .~"? "" . - - . . ~ - I - n....:_~ I"t .~ n ~ - " L ~ r~~1 n + L. -~.... .-" + ' n..o,CLfl CI h ; " - : ' : ' r \J..:;'.~.1 'UG4 ;:UUf Ut Dtt.; ;jJ-.}. \_),111'-'~1. 1 LLlJUhl;') 1 \._\._,'::'.PV_llOlv4 U\,Jl.:6\.Ji,..UU_t__..rU-V . ro . 1.u' "llJ. "".1V.l.~ ...i.V_'__I. )_L '--J.J.. ...........i.1.UVVL-


8/25

8

with any supervisory authority in the police chain of command. Sergeant Davis' order does notmake sense. For instance, Chief Miller discriminated against me. Why would I file thatcomplaint with Sergeant Davis as opposed to the City Manager's Office?At the time of this writing, I still have not been notified in writing as to the specific allegationagainst me. I am guessing, but from Sergeant Davis' investigative interview with me onDecember 6, 2010, it appears that I am being investigated because a complaint was filed on mybehalf, at the City Manager's Office. In the recorded December 6, 2010 investigative interview,Sergeant Davis states, "I am conducting an investigation on a matter we discussed, and I have toask questions. You are saying to me, you are utilizing your counselors, however, we discussedsomething earlier. I need to get to the bottom of it, I need to figure out how this complaint thatyou wrote got to the City Manager's Office (11 :48)," M r. Young, please note the following:

Sergeant Davis is discriminating against me by investigating me, apparently because acomplaint was filed on my behalf at th e City Manager's Office. A complaint filed, at the City Manager's Office, on my behalf, by a citizen does not andcannot constitute a violation of city or departmental rules. Sergeant Davis is harassing

and intimidating m e by conducting an investigationonsomething that could not be aviolation. Sergeant Davis made me aware of a cover letter attached to the complaint. The letter wasfrom Reverend Nelson Johnson, and would lead a reasonable person to believe that

Reverend Johnson took the document to the City Manager's Office. Sergeant Davis isharassing me in that he could ask Reverend Johnson how the document got to the CityManager's Office.

Sergeant Davis is harassing me in that he could confirm from the City Manager's Staffmember, receiving the document, who brought the document. Sergeant Davis knows howthe document got to the City Manager's Office. In the December 6, 2010, investigativeinterview, Sergeant Davis states, "Did you allow M r. Johnson to take this complaint tothe City Manager's Office, knowingly? So, you did not know that he (Reverend Johnson)was going to take this to the City Manager's Office, Did you knowingly allow M : r.Johnson to take this complaint to the City Manager's Office? (11 :06)"

Sergeant Davis is retaliating against me because a complaint was filed on my behalf by a...citizen at.the City Manager's Office. This complaint has allegations against Sergeant. v - a v i s - , " ."C ,-'.---_-_-_"-.'_----

Although the City encourages the use of the Employee Assistance Program, SergeantDavis harasses and intimidates me by pressuring me to divulge information discussedbetween me and my confidential counselor. No other City employee is penalized forutilizing the EAP. Sergeant Davis is investigating, harassing, and intimidating mebecause of actions an EAP counselor apparently took.

Attached to this memorandum is a copy 0/ (PS-POL-1l8-670), the Employee AdministrativeRights and Responsibilities Form.Upon completion a/this administrative investigation, you will be notified.End of Sergeant Davis' December 6, 2010, Notification of Administrative Investigation.


9/25

9

On December 17,2010, Captain D.K. Ingram summoned me to his office. Captain D.K. Ingramdid not treat me fairly regarding a previous grievance filed by me in December of 2009. In fact,his response to the grievance I filed gave the appearance of impropriety. Captain Ingram is bothSergeant Davis' and my Commanding Officer. I recorded the meeting between Captain Ingramand myself. Captain Ingram informed me that he was seeking to ask me questions to clarify mycomplaint so that he could better understand. Captain Ingram confirmed that he had copies ofSeptember 13, October 8, and October 22, 2010 complaint documents. Captain Ingram statedthat he was only interested in the December 14, 2010 document. During our recorded meeting,Captain Ingram stated, "In bullet number three you state that Sergeant Davis has retaliatedagainst me for filling complaints. He initiated investigations on me because I filed or on mybehalf complaints were filed to the City Manager's Office. My question to you is it is myunderstanding through reviewing that you were given a direct order to if you had any, uh anyinformation/complaints that you were supposed to go through him, and follow directives on that.Somehow, urn, and I am not asking you how, but on October 22nd a document was received inthe City Manager's Office. So, Sergeant Davis was conducting illladministrative investigation onthat fact, as to how that October 22nd document got to the Manager's Office. His administrative

"investigationbegan on December 6th, when youcameback to work. How is that retaliatingagainst you for performing the duties of a supervisor, conducting illl administrative investigation(23 :45)7 Captain Ingram asked, "How do you feel he retaliated against you for utilizing theEmployee Assistance Program? You are being investigated, according to this, because thatdocument ended up in the City Manager's Office. He (Sergeant Davis) is investigating howthat occurred. (27:25)" Mr. Young, please note the following:

Captain Ingram acknowledges that Sergeant Davis did not provide me with properwritten notification identifying a specific allegation against me. Captain Ingram is aware that I cannot be investigated because a complaint ofdiscrimination, retaliation, harassment, and hostile work environment is received by the

City Manager's Office, filed apparently by a citizen or EAP counselor. Captain Ingram is aware that Sergeant Davis gave me an unlawful, discriminatory,harassing, intimidating and unfair order when Sergeant Davis stated that r could only filea complaint through Sergeant Davis even if the complaint was against Sergeant Davis..CapJaiu ..ngramacknowledged that he had copies of my September 13, October 8,illld,. Oct6bef22,2010'appealicdmj51aiiitdocumehts. The recordings Sergeant Davis made tocoincide with those investigations/meetings/interviews would also be made available toCaptain Ingram,

Captain Ingram is aware that Sergeant Davis has investigated Sergeant Davis relating tomy allegations against Sergeant Davis. Captain Ingram reviewed and forwarded Sergeant Davis' discriminatory, retaliatory,

harassing, intimidating, unfair December 6, 2010 investigation of me. Thus, CaptainIngram has condoned and is perpetuating Sergeant Davis' violations. Captain is aware that I delivered the document in question (complaint dated October 22,2010) to Sergeant Davis on October 22, 2010 and that Sergeant Davis refused to accept

the document. Sergeant Davis clearly violated departmental policies and he did notafforded me courtesy when I dealt with him.


10/25

10

Captain Ingram stated he was not investigating me; however, on December 23, 2010, heresponded in written format to my complaint document dated December 14, 2010. Heindicated that Sergeant Davis' derogatory comment to me concerning Sergeant Heard'sinvestigation(s) was shared in confidence. I disagree because it is obvious that thecomment was made because Sergeant Davis knew that I was being disciplined withoutjustification. Sergeant Davis made the comment multiple times while we were on dutyand while he was serving me with documents associated with Sergeant Heard'sinvestigations. Captain Ingram did not have any desire to give me fair and equitabletreatment because he deliberately omitted discussion concerning the majority of myDecember 14; 2010 complaint document.

Sergeant Davis using profanity of "bullsh*t" toward Sergeant Heard's policeinvestigation(s) leads a reasonable person to believe that investigations done on me couldnot have been conducted properly or else the comment would have to malicious gossip.Captain Ingram advised me in writing that Sergeant Davis admitted to making thecomment.

Captain Ingram informed me that he had forwarded Sergeant Davis' completed investigation toAssistant CbiefAtiita:Hblder.On DecemberT", 2010, ASsistant Chief Holder submitted a:memorandum to me, through charmels. The memorandum was entitled, "Delay in AdministrativeInvestigation." I will write Assistant Chief Holder's memo, in italics. I will respond in normalprint. Assistant Chief Holder's memo and my responses are as follows:On December 1 6 , 2010, ] received an administrative investigation submitted through your chainof command outlining your violations of Departmental Directives 1.4.5, Obedience To Ordersand 3.9.2 Procedural Steps. Officer Thomas' Response: It is impossible for me to have violatedan unlawful, discriminatory, intimidating, unfair order. A complaint filed, Oll my behalf,unknown by me, by a citizen or EAP counselor, to the City Manager's Office; cannot and is not aviolation of any departmental rule or City Policy.On December 1 4 , 2010, you alleged in writing that you are being harassed in the workplace byyour current supervisor. That complaint has been forwarded to Human Resources forinvestigation. I anticipate they will have reached a conclusion by mid-January of 2011. Oncetheir investigation is complete ] will review the administrative investigation submitted on.T.":\~,..~"-._1.,._..._. "1_t::' ,,,,~(L1:f)_,, ...,_._...... 1_ " :, . .. _ _l , , ,. _ ,_ . .~_.t-:.:__.''.'' ...._.._ .,.."., ... ,,_ ,,_,_J __ _._~ .1_ ....._T__ n1._!_J" _r n_l~~_ 0A~-~-~ " T'j --- --, .. __ ,, . . ..Df:Ceflluer 1U, ",Vi U una suomu my reCUrfUflf:flUUttUftOl tU tru: \'Atlt::j Uj lUHLe. VJ,U...,C;l J,l1Vlla:'l ..Response: I alleged on October 8, 2010, in writing, that I was being harassed by my currentsupervisor, Sergeant D.1. Davis. Ithas been alleged in writing, on October 22, 2010, that I wasbeing harassed by. Sergeant D.J. Davis, my current supervisor. Assistant Chief Holderdiscriminates against me by not forwarding those complaints to Human Resources. If HumanResources conducted a legitimate investigation, the December 6, 2010 investigation conductedby Sergeant Davis 011 me would be nullified. Why would Assistant Chief Holder makerecommendations to the Chief of Police for alleged violations of Greensboro Police DepartmentDirective 1.4.5 Obedience To Orders and 3.9.2 Procedural Steps. A recommendation to the Chiefof Police could only mean a Departmental Reprimand, Suspension or Termination. A historiccheck of officers charged with these offenses (first offense) would not yield such a high level ofdiscipline. In addition; I have committed no violations. I am being retaliated against for filing


11/25

11

complaints and complaints being filed on my behalf. Assistant Chief Holder is aware of the samefacts that Captain Ingram is aware of.Mr. Young, you never afforded me due process or a response to my September 13, 2010appeal/complaint of discipline; therefore, any discipline in my file regarding these matters shouldbe discounted. In addition, any recommendations forwarded by Assistant Chief Holder regardingSergeant Davis' December 6, 2010, investigation of me would not rise to the level of beingforwarded to the Chief of Police.I am making you aware of this modification due to the anticipated one-month delay in theprocessing of the administrative investigation.End of Assistant Chief Holder's Memorandum.Mr. Young, please review the following information, Im requesting that you intervene in whatappears to be the practice of Police Administration, to terminate individuals that file complaintsof discrimination.

On or about August 3, 2010, Assistant Chief Holder recommended my termination ofemployment with the Greensboro Police Department. Iwas suspended without pay. Ihave been informed that Assistant Chief Holder violated North Carolina Law bysoliciting Charles Cherry to commit a fraud. After reporting this violation and otherviolations, Mr. Cherry was recommended for termination by Assistant Chief Holder. OnOctober 11,2010 in a recorded meeting with Sergeant Davis, he stated that he wanted totalk about Charles Cherry (17:20). The meeting had nothing to do with M r. Cherry.Sergeant Davis, a subordinate of Assistant Chief Holder's appears to be discriminating,retaliating, intimidating and harassing me for many reasons to include somethingpertaining to Mr. Cherry. An interview with Sergeant Davis to find out why SergeantDavis insisted on discussing M r. Cherry should confirm my allegations. On or about August 4,2010, Interim Chief Dwight Crotts concurred with Assistant ChiefHolder's recommendation for termination. Ihave been informed that Assistant ChiefCrotts is on YOUTUBE (put DK Crotts in the search bar) apparently violating M r ..C herry ' sp erso nne l p riv acy .. .. . .T 6pt edf61 '~ rGenefa rHoa rd6f InquiryHeaiing,

On September 3, 2010, Chief of Police Ken Miller discriminated against me and deniedme due process by reinstating me with discipline, but denying me a hearing. It is obviousthat Assistant Chiefs Anita Holder and Interim Chief Dwight Crotts were errant in theirsuspension of me and recommendation for my termination. Otherwise, Iwould not havebeen reinstated without a hearing. I have been informed that Chief of Police Ken Mil le rhas approximately eleven (11) allegations of discrimination, etc. lodged against him, byfive (5) different individuals. This includes complaints by Mr. Cherry. One complaintalleges that citizens Charles Cherry and Joseph Pryor were targeted for arrest by ChiefMiller.

On September 13, 201 0, I filed an appeal of discipline and a complaint of violations toinclude violations of Federal Law. When Chief Miller denied me a hearing, he took away


12/25

12

my ability to fully expose how I had been mistreated, by Assistant Chiefs Holder andCrotts. On September 14, 2010, Officer M.D. Royal was reinstated by Chief Miller. OfficerRoyal had been suspended and recommended for te rmina t ion , by Interim Chief Crotts.

Officer Royal was afforded a meeting with Chief Miller and was reinstated with nodiscipline. Chief Miller again discriminates against me.

October 8, 2010, I filed a complaint of discrimination, harassment, retaliation,intimidation and hostile work environment. This complaint also made clear allegationsagainst Sergeant D.J . Davis. Sergeant Davis investigated himself and began to threaten and retaliate against merelating to filing complaints. On October 11,2010, Sergeant Davis conducts a retaliatory investigation of me because Icalled in sick. Sergeant Davis directs me to sign a rights form and investigates me for

going home sick and because he thought I may have filed a complaint after I i nfo rme dhim that Iwas sick. When Iater asked Sergeant Davis for a copy of the rights form andnotification, Sergeant Davis falsely stated that he did not conduct an investigation. The. investigationis recorded, and can be found at the 43 :25 time mark of the October 11,2010 recorded meeting, between Sergeant Davis and me.

Sergeant Davis continued to harass, intimidate and discriminate against me to includeconducting unwarranted investigations, investigating himself and threatening me.Recorded and documented proof is available.

On December 10, 2010 at approximately 0845 Sergeant Davis contacted metelephonically and stated "Deborah did you say that you recorded me when Iwhen IaidSergeant Heard's investigations was "bull crap?" I i nfo rmed Sergeant Davis that he beenmade aware in advance of all recorded sessions. Sergeant Davis made a threateningstatement towards me "Do Ineed to start an investigation on you for recording mewithout notifying me".

Sergeant Davis has clearly displayed a propensity for violence in the workplace. Heinformed me that he choked an individual, while on duty because the individualcalled Sergeant Davis a derogatory name. Sergeant Davis' threats are both personaland job related.

A ll members of my chain of command to include Assistant Chief Holder and Chief. . _~M nlp.f8t 'p , jhinl icHted_felBtlf l t ttodiscr iminH ti()1l_te ta l ia t iOlJ_hil l 'i lSSlf lent . intimidationand.. , ... , .. ,. ,._." ..- ,~-. ,1:"" ,. - " .. ., J ,- ""-'0' --- - --' .- - - '.' ". ) '. .. " 1 . . - ~ - ~ - - _ - - . - - - _ " c " "a hostile work environment. Many of the allegations could lead to serious consequences

to include termination. Members of my chain of command are attempting to terminateme, retaliating against me for filing complaints.

M r. Young, my belief is that the reason Chief Miller denied my hearing and imposedsuch a high level of discipline on me was to utilize Progressive Discipline to terminatemy employment in the future. The future is now. It appears that to protect those highranking officials engaged in discrimination against me, the only recourse is to terminateme.

M r. Young, I am being investigated and according to Assistant Chief Holder's memosustained, because a citizen or EAP counselor apparently filed a complaint, without myknowledge, on my behalf to your office.


13/25

13

'~. 1

M r. Young, 1 am humbly and sincerely requesting that you do not allow this transgression tocontinue. As the City Manager, I am requesting and counting on you to take the appropriatecorrective action as it relates to all of my allegations, documents and recordings. Your assistanceis greatly ~IfJeciated. ~o}Jde~.~Greensboro Police DepartmentOperational Support Division, Support BureauAttachments:Attachment #1: Sergeant D.l Davis' November 12, 2010 Memo, In Which Sergeant DavisInvestigates HimselfAttachment #2: Sergeant D.J. Davis' December 6, 2010 Notification of AdministrativeInvestigation That Does Not Recite A Specific Act Constituting A Violation,Attachment #3 Two Samples of Administrative Investigation Notification From GreensboroPolice ManuelA.ttacliffienf#4: Assistant Chief Anita Holder's December 17, 2010 Memo, Entitled Delay InAdministrative InvestigationAttachment #5 Captain D.K. Ingram's response December 23,2010


14/25

Greensboro Police DepartmentCity of Greensboro

! l:"

November 12, 2010

TO:FROM:

Officer D . V . Thomas, Operational SUPPOli Division, Legal Support SectionSergeant D. 1. Davis, Operational Support Division, Legal Support Section

SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT OF CONTINUED DISCRIMINATION,RETALIATION, INTIMIDATION,HARASSMENT,IIOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT,THREATS, THREATS OF UNWARRANTED DISCIPLINARY ACTION TO INCLUDERECORDED . CONVERSATIONS IN WHICH SERGEANT D.J. DAVIS. ACKNOWLEDGES, AS IF PROPER, SERGEANT DAVIS'S INVESTIGATION OF MYCOMPLAINT AGAINST SERGEANT DAVIS, SERGEANT DAVIS'S SUPERVISOR(LIEUTENANTG.A. HUNT) AND OTHERS

Officer Thomas, after analyzing the allegations in your complaint dated October 22,2010to City Manager M r. Rashad Young and in accordance with D.D 3.9.4, I find that you didnot present any evidence which would substantiate and/or qualify any actions takentoward you' as discriminatory, retaliatory, intimidating, hostile and/ or unwarranteddisciplinary actions taken against you.Furthermore, you state on page twelve (12) of this document, "Mr. Young, I believe theresponse to my appeal/complaint is clear continued discrimination, harassment, hostilework environment and unfair treatment of me by Sergeant Davis. This treatmentaccording to Sergeant Davis is' at your direction. Ihumbly request a written responsefrom you to my appeal/complaint documents (September 13,2010 and October 8, 2010)and October 22,2010, confirming Sergeant Davis' verbal communication regarding yourdecision. "r a.O l le edCfOTCyo ii ioda r if j t or me whether you consideredyour memorandui :n to Mr,Young to be a "grievance" or an "appeal of discipline". If this is a complaint you shouldhave adhered to D.D. 7.1 and 7.2. If you have a grievance, you should have followed D.D. 3.9.2. If this is an Appeal of Disciplinary Action Taken you should have adhered toD.D. 7.3.10, Appeal of Disciplinary Action.Officer Thomas, you were reinstated back to full duty status and disciplinary action wasimposed on September 3,2010, You filed your Complaint / Appeal to the City Manageron September 13th, 2010. In doing so, you failed to meet the deadline as required by D.D.7.3.10, Appeal of Disciplinary Action. You should have given written notification to meby memorandum no later than five (5) business days after you received Y,qurdiscipline.Instead, you chose to take your complaint! appeal directly to the City Manager's Officeon September 13th , 2010 which would have been six (6) business days after yourDisciplinary Action was imposed which was not proper. In addition, the document was


15/25

7.3.10 APPEAL OFDISCIPLINARY ACTION

Officer D. V . ThomasPage 2

im prope rly titled and po ssib ly c ou ld have le d to som e co nfu sion rega rding yo u r in tendedrem edy . Instead, the docum ent sho u ld have been title d, "D isc ip lin a ry A ctio n A ppe a l",no t Com p la in t! A p pea l. H ad yo u adhe red to D .D . 7 .3 .10 , I ce r ta in ly w ou ld havefo rw arded tha t no tific a tio n throu gh m y cha in o f com mand, a long w ith any adm inistra tiv einv estig a tio ns to the In te rna l A ffa irs sec tion . In te rna l A ffa irs w ou ld then have no tifiedyou and adv ised yo u tha t yo u had fiv e (5) bu siness days to p rep a re and subm it a fo rm a lw ritten appea l in m em o randum fo rm , sta ting the sp e c ific g ro unds o r rea sons fo r theapp ea l a s m entioned be low .

A n em plo yee m ay a ppe al d iscip lin ary a ction . Emplo yees w ill ha ve f iv e (5 ) business daysfrom th e tim e given th e S ta tem ent a /C ha rge s a nd R ep ort of D iscip lin ary A ctio n T aken toin dica te Lnowtitten m em ora nd um to h is D ivision C omman din g O fficer, his in ten tion to

appeal the recommended discipline. This memorandum will be delivered to theem ployee's im mediate supervisor and forw arded through the chain of command to theD ivision Commanding O fficer. Upon receipt of an employee's written notice of ap en din g a pp ea l, the D ivisio n C omma nd ing O fficer will forw ard th e em plo yee's n otice o fa pp ea l a nd th e comp le te d adm in istr ativ e in ve stig atio n to th e In te rnal A ffa ir s S ec tio n.Upon receipt of the employee's notice of appeal and the completed adm inistrativeinvestigation, the Internal A ffairs Section w ill contact the affected employee. Theemp lo ye e w ill b e p ro vid ed fiv e (5 ) bu sin ess d ay s to p rep are a nd su bm it a fo rm al w rittenappeal in m em orandum form , stating the specific grounds or reasons for the appeal.A pp ea ls w ill b e d eliv ere d to th e su pe rv iso r im po sin g d isc ip lin e.T he su pervisor im po sin g th e discip lin e w ill resp on d, in w riting , to th e em plo yee w ith infive (5) b usin ess d ay s a fte r re ce iv in g th e emp lo ye e's fo rm al a pp ea l. If th e app ea l is notresolved by the supervisor im posing discipline, the em ployee m ay subm it the appeal tothenexI ley~ l : lfP" !r yt s9 r_ . __~ f : !c ;h succ_eed ing - -l evel above the superv is or impos{n_g_discipline shall respond -to the appeal w ithin ten working days. - This process may becontinued through the chain of command to the C hief of P o lice except for those m attersthat m ay be appealed to the C ity M anager as governed by City Personnel Policy, H l,Section 3.4 , R ight of Appeal. T he C ity M anager will hav e fin al a uth ority in th os e lim ite dC ity emplo ye e p er sonn el ma tte rs.A ny R ep ort 0/D iscip lina ry A ction T aken or P erso nn el O rd er info rm ing a n em ployee o fd is cip lin e impos ed w ill in clu de th e f ollow ing sta tem en t in its e ntire ty .'"You are advised of your right to appeal this disciplinary action, as provided byDepar tmen ta l D i rect iv e 7.3.10. "t 'Employees may a pp ea l th e d isc ip lin ary a ctio n im po se dThe m em ber w ill have five (5) business days from the tim e given the copy of Report ofD isciplinary Action Taken in which to give notice of appeal to the affected D ivisionC omma nde r. A fter th e em plo yee is co nta cted by Interna l A ffairs to c on firm rece ip t of th e

O ne G overnm ental Plaza. PO Box 3136, Green sbor o, NC 27402-3136 (336) 373-CITY (2489)


16/25

no tice of app eal, th e em plo yee h as five (5 ) business days to submit the ap peal. A ppealsm ust be in w riting, in m em orand um fo rm , an d m ust state the specific ground s o r reaso nsfor the appeal. Appeals will be delivered to the supervisor imposing discipline forforwarding through the chain of com mand The process may continue to the level of theChief of Police, except for those m atters that m ay be appealed to the C ity M anager asg overn ed b y C ity P erso nn el P olicy, H -I, S ectio n 3. 4 , R igh t o f Appeal. IIB usiness d ays are d efined a s M onda y th rou gh Friday, 8:00 a.m . to 5:00 p.m., excludingSatu rd ay , S unda y, a nd re cogn ize d C ity Ho lid ay s.

Officer D. V ThomasPage 3

You also allege that on October 22od , 2010, at approximately 1055 hours, you met with.me in the parking lot of the Police/Fire Substation on South Elm Eugene Street in regardsto endorsing a correspondence. You quote Departmental Directive i.5.2S,ForwardingCorrespondence, and state, "An employee receiving a written communication from asubordinate directed to a higher authority shall endorse it, indicating approval,disapproval, or acknowledgement, and forward within a reasonable yeriod of time." Youstate that I did not accept nor endorse the document on October 22n This is correct to adegree, however you failed to elaborate and/or disclose the full details of ourconversation regarding that document.Officer Thomas, as I recall, you approached me in the parking lot of the Police/ FireSubstation carrying papers or documents which I now assume to be the complaint to theCity Manager on October 22 od As you approached me, all you stated was, "sign this". Ithen stated, "Sign what, what is this?" You again stated to me, "sign this .." I informed youthat I was not going to sign anything without first reading it . You stated something to theeffect of, "well you told me to come 'through you and that is what I am doing." I theninvited you into my office so that I could read and then sign the documen t , You informedmethatyouwere notgoing tocome into my office. You then stated, "So are you refusing... . . " t6sighj~sTTstated, ::Yes,lguessiam." .Officer Thomas, you have no right or authority to demand my signature on somethingbefore I have had an opportunity to read the document. Any reasonable person andcertainly any supervisor within this agency would do likewise given the samecircumstance. Secondly, if this was an attempt to have a' conference with me; pleaseunderstand that I do not hold such conferences in the middle of a parking lot. It nowappears that you knew I would not sign the document under those conditions, and onlymade the attempt so that you could report that you had tried to follow policy -, However,in doing so, you once again failed to adhere to D.D. 3.9.2. At the very least you shouldhave then gone to the Conunanding Officer of the Division of Resource Management, orpossibly followed the direction of your own memo which indicated, "To' City ManagerRashad Young (Through Channels)" which meant you would have delivered the

One G overnm en tal P laza, P O Box 3136 , Greensboro, He 27402-3136 (336) 373-C ITY (2489)


17/25

"

Officer D. V Thom asPage 4

document to Lt. G,A Hunt, your division's executive officer as well as actingcommanding officer.Officer Thomas, it still remains my goal to assist you with bringing resolution-to anypersonal problems or grievances you may be experiencing as well as ensuring the.continued fair and equitable treatment in every endeavor of your employment with theGreensboro Police Department. Please inform me inunediately if Ian be of assistance toyou in this capacity.

:l~,bAD~'D, J. Davis, ~rgeantOperational Support BureauLegal Support Section

O ne G overnm ental P laza, PO Box 3136 , Green sbor o, NC 274 02 -3136 (336) 373-C ITY (2489 )


18/25

Greensboro Police DepartmentCity of Greensboro

TO: Officer. D.V. Thomas, Operational Support Division, Legal Process SectionFROM: Sergeant DJ. Davis, Operational Support Division, Legal Process SectionSUBJECT: Notification of Administrative InvestigationThe purpose of this memorandum is to notify you that an administrative investigation is beingcOl!4_u~~t;':4_toetermine whether or not you violated D.D. 1.4.5 Obedience To Orders and D.D.3.9.2 Procedural Steps. -----Attached to this memorandum is a copy of (PS-POL-118:"670) The Employee AdministrativeRights And Responsibilities Form.Upon completion of this administrative investigation, you will be notified.

~ 1 _ l8 ~ ~"8~~'~D.9~Davis,1i'ergeantOperational Support DivisionLegal Process SectionAttachment: (1) Employee Administrative Rights And Responsibilities Form.

One Governmental Plaza, PO Box 3136, Greensboro, NC 27402-3136 (336) 373-CITY (2489)


19/25

I

City ofreensboroFORMAT - NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION

Date:To: Accused EmployeeFrom:SL l b jec!: NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION

The purpose of th is memorandum is to notify you that Em administrativeinvestigation is being conducted to determine if your actions in the incidentoutlined below constituted a violation of Departmental regulations. Attached tothis memorandum is a statement (PS-POL-118-670) which explains your fightsand responsibilities relative to the administrative investigation.Give a brief statement of the incident and state the allegations against theemployee. (1 \ copy or Form PS-POL-118-670 must be attached -to thismemorandum and completed by the employee to assure proper notification ofadmin ist.rative rights and re sportsi bilitic s].

.".9ina.l1.11:e

Routing; Original:Copy:

Accused EmployeeInternal Affairs Section

Attachment

(Note: This document should be submitted for all complaint andadministrative investigations).

- - - ..


20/25

City ofreensboro

'. . '

Date:To: Police Officer F. P. Wise, Patrol Bureau, District V-BFrom : Sergeant J, M. Henry, Patrol Bureau, District V-BSubject: NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION

The p1.HpOSe of this memorandum is to notify you that an administrativeinvestigation is being conducted to determine if your actions in the incidentoutlined below constitute a violation of Departmental regulations. Attached tothis memorandum is a statement (PS-POL-118-670) which explains your rightsand responsibilities relative to the administrative investigation.Mr. M. R. Johnson stated that as a result of a motor vehicle slop on April 1,1994, you placed him under arrest and subsequently removed his wallet, whichcontained an unknown amount of money, from his person. Upon receiving thewallet after his release at the Guilford County Magistrate's Ofrice , Mr. .Johnsonstates the money in his wallet was missing.Upon completion of this administrative investigation, you will be notified of thefindings,

J. IvLHenry. SergeantPatrol BureauDistrict V, Squad BJMH/Attac hrneri t


21/25

P ol ic e D e p ar tm e n tCity o f G r ee ns bo ro

D ecem ber 17 . 2010

TO: Office r D . V . T hom as, through channe lsFROM: Majo r A. L. Holde rSUBJECT: D e la y in a dm in istra tiv e in ve stig atio n

O n D ec em be r 16, 2010 r re ce iv ed an adm inistra tiv e inv estiga tion subm itted through you r cha ino f com mand ou tlin ing you r v io la tions D epa rtm enta l D irec tiv e s 1 .4 .5 , Obedience to O rde rs and3 .9 .2 . P ro ce du ra l Ste ps.On D ecem ber 14 , 2010 you a lleged in w riting tha t you a re be ing ha ra ssed in the w orkp lace byyou r cu rren t sup e rv iso r. T ha t com pla in t has been fo rw arded to H uman Resou rces fo rinv estiga tion . I an tic ip a te they w ill hav e reached a conc lu sion by m id-Janua ry o f20ll. Oncethe ir inv estiga tion is com ple te I w ill rev iew the adm inistra tiv e inv estiga tion subm itted onDec embe r 16, 20] 0 and subm it m y recom menda tions to the Chie f o f Po lic e .r am m aking you aw are o f this m odific a tion due to the an tic ip a ted one -m onth de lay in thep ro ce ssin g o f the a dm in istra tiv e in ve stig atio n.


22/25

A - ~ c h t n t J J f - ' 5Police DepartmentCity of Greensboro

. .

December 23, 20] 0

TO: Officer D. V. ThomasFROM: D. K. Ingram; Commanding Officer, Operational Support Division

SUB,meT: RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT DATED DECEMBER 14,2010RE:COMPLAINT OF CONTINUED RETALIATION, DISCRIMINATION,HARRASSMENT, UNFAIR TREATMENT AND HOSTILE WORKENVIROMENT BY SERGEANT D.l DAVIS, TO INCLUDE SERGEANTDAVIS'S INVESTIGATIONS OF ME BECAUSE A COMPLAINT WASFILED APPARENTLY ON MY BEHALF BY A CONCERNED CITIZEN.

I am responding to you complaint dated December 14,2010 which was addressed to the Chief ofPolice through channels.In the first paragraph you cite adherence to DD 1.5.25 Forwarding Correspondence and requestthe document be delivered to the Chief of Police. DD 1.5.25 covers documents that are nototherwise covered in the Departmental Directives. This directive is not intended to covergrievances, appeals of discipline or evaluations. The process to file such paperwork isspecifically defined in the directives that cover Grievances DD 3.9, Discipline DD 7.3 andEvaluations 6.5. However a copy of this complaint was forwarded to Chief Miller.On page 6 of your document you identify 8 bulleted issues you request to be addressed. Yourcomments are in italics.Bullet #1 I and apparently on my behalf others have submitted complaint documents datedSeptember 13 , 2010, October 2, 2010, October 22,2010, and this document. These complaintshave uninvestigated allegations against several individuals to include Sgt. Davis.Answer: In reviewing the above mentioned documents and responses to you, the first threecomplaints were not filed in accordance with Departmental Directive 3.9 and were delivered tothe City Manager's office. Each complaint was then forwarded to the police department to beaddressed by your immediate supervisor, Sgt. Davis. Sgt. Davis responded to each one of yourcomplaints as your supervisor. If you were not satisfied with the response, you should haveutilized DD 3.9 to file appeals to the next high level instead of continuing to file complaints withthe City Manager.

One Governmental Plaza, PO Box 3136, Greensboro, NC 27402~3136 (336) 373~CITY (2489)


23/25

Bullet #2recording. S gt. D av is in ve stig ate d h im se lf. T his is c on firm ed b y d oc um en ta tio n a nd

I

December 23,2010Page 2 of4

Answer: Sgt. Davis reviewed the complaints as directed and responded to you. If you werenot satisfied with the response you should have complied with the appeal process to address yourdissatisfacti on.Bullet #3 Sgt. Dav is h as re ta lia te d a ga in st m efo r filin g a c om pla in t. S gt D av is In itia te dinvestig atio ns ag ain st m e b eca use 1file d o r o n m y b eha lf, com pla in ts w ere filed. T his isc on firmed b y documenta tio n and r ecor din g.Answer: In a response (October 14 ) to your complaint dated October 8 , you were given awritten directive to follow DD 3.9 when filing any future grievances. On October 22, 2010, aC_Qmplaintwas_receivecUnthemanager's office that was directed to the City Managerandcontained what appears to be your signature. This complaint did not go through your supervisoror your chain of command. The complaint was sent to your supervisor and he initiated anadministrative investigation to determine if you violated the written directive given in theOctober 14 , response to you. Conducting a legitimate administrative investigation is notretaliation in itself when a possible violation of departmental directives has occurred.Bullet #4 S erg ea ntD av is sta te d th at th e in ve stig atio n(s) fo r w hic h 1 am in th e Emplo ye eIm pro veme nt P ro gram w ere b ullsh *t (sic). This is c on firmed b y r ecor din g.Answer: This is Sgt. Davis' personal opinion that he shared with you in confidence. Hehas admitted to making the statement. The statement in itself could be seen as a supportivestatement for your situation versus a position that supports discrimination, retaliation,harassment, intimidation or fostering a hostile work environment. Sgt. Davis does not solelydetermine a subordinate's participation in the performance improvement program.I ? ~ l l l ~ ~ _ # ? . .8_gt;pc_zyis_retCll iateejaga_instmeforus ing the Employee Ass is tance Program.This is confirmed by documentation and recording. .Answer: You do not detail how he has retaliated against you for your participation in theEAP. When I interviewed you, you stated that he used harsh tones during his interview. A toneof voice in itself does not indicate retaliation.Bullet #6 S gt. D av is reta lia ted a ga in st m e fo r fillin g o r o n m y beh alf com pla in ts w ere filed .S gt. D av is lowe re d m y e va lu atio n. T his is c on firm ed b y d oc um en ta tio n a nd re co rd in g.Answer: In this complaint, you indicate that Sgt. Davis is investigating you for your filingof a complaint against him and determining how the October 22,2010 complaint reached theManager's Office. Sgt. Davis conducted an investigation on you based on a possible violation ofdepartmental directives based on an earlier written directive you were given. As he advised you

One Governmental Plaza, PO Box 3136, Greensboro, NC 27402~3136 (336) 373~CITY (2489)


24/25

December 23, 2010Page 3 of4during the interview, he is trying to determine if you were responsible for the complaint beingfiled in the Manager's Office.The Performance Improvement Plan memo lists specific job duties which you me expected toperform each day at work. In addition to those listed you were directed to "familiarize yourselfwith and adhere to all Departmental Directives, Policies, and Procedures as well as OperationalSupport Division Standard Operating Procedures." During this evaluation period you authored 2complaints that were delivered to the City Manager's Office which is in violation ofDD 3.9.You were given a directive via e-mail to report to medical services for clearance prior toreturning to work on December 6,2010. Your response challenged the validity and authoritythat Sgt. Davis had in requesting you to comply with that request. He was following a directivefrom medical services personnel.This behavior is consistent with why you were given a Departmental Reprimand on September 3,2010 and placed on a performance improvement plan. Observance of this behavior is thejustification that Sgt. Davis used to rate your over all performance at a level 2.Bullet #7 Mu ltip le re co rd in gs a nd S erg ea nt D av is' own d oc um en ta tio n c on firm m y a lle ga tio ns.Answer: Your complaint of December 14,2010 contains a lot of generalized information.When questioned during the interview to clarify your allegations of harassment, intimidation,retaliation and discrimination you stated that it was the way he was speaking to you, aggressivelyand accusatory, that you did not think he spoke to others in that maimer. The he bite your headoff, was unprofessional, was offensive to you and you felt offended by it. You felt it washarassment because he asked questions over and over again. You felt intimidated because of histone and the way he was speaking to you and asking you "didn't you? didn't you?"You stated he did not properly notify you in that he left the reason for investigating you out ofthe n()tificati()ll111cmo, Youareeorrect. He omitted the description of the exact behavior;.l;~we~er h ~ -~over~d it ~erbally Withyou at the beginning of the interview as is apparent on theaudio tape.Bullet #8 1 requ est fa ir an d eq uita ble trea tm en t. 1 r equ est to b e rated at a level th ree onyour eva lua ti on .Answer: You are currently under a 90 day performance improvement plan which hasspecific documented performance measures, yet it includes all dimensions in your annualevaluation. Participation in this plan was recommended and ordered as a part of theDepartmental Reprimand Discipline administered on September 3, 2010. The original dates ofinclusion on the 90 Day Performance Improvement Plan were September 1 ending on December1. During this time you were away from work on sick leave for an extended period of timewhich prevented an observation of work for that 90 day period.

One Governmental Plaza, PO Box 3136, Greensboro, NC 27402-3136 (336) 373-CITY (2489)


25/25

. . . . - - ~ J I " J L - ~ i ~ ~ ~ ' ~ _ . _ .11 \VVlrJj-'lll/v~l : 5 R l R " i l r,CaptamOperati ial Support Division

o I ...., ,

December 24, 2010Page 4 of 4

Ifyou were not satisfied with your 9 0 day performance evaluation you could have filed anappealed with the evaluator and then if not satisfied you could have appealed to the next highersupervisor.Iwant you to be aware that City I-IumanResources has received a copy of each of the fourcomplaints that have been submitted and they will he investigating certain allegations. I cannotadvise the entire scope of their investigation however they should be in contact with you soon.Duringmy interviewwithyou, youasked $cverqltil11e$ whatmy opinion was of the interviewand Ideclined to comment at that time because Ihad not completed the investigation. Iwillshare with you that Idid not hear any verbal behavior that would sustain a complaint against Sgt.Davis. He did ask you a question several times and several different ways and you did notanswer the question in a direct manner. Your responses were argumentative and bordered oninsubordination.As Commanding Officer of the Operational Support Division Iave an obligation to ensure eachdivision employee is treated fairly and with respect. I will be glad to meet with you to discussmy response to your complaint.Isk that if you have complaints or concerns in the future that you comply with departmentalpolicy when raising them .

thomas- december 30,2010 complaint of continued discrimination,retaliation/plus 5 attachments

Documents