thomas- january 18,2011 appeal of 30-day evaluation and complaint of continued discrimination

8/6/2019 THOMAS- January 18,2011 Appeal of 30-Day Evaluation and complaint of continued Discrimination

1/7

J A N R If } 2 0 1 1

Poli ce Departmen tC ity o f Green sbor o

January 18, 2011

TO: City Manage r, Ra sh ad Young (T hro ugh Channe ls )FROM: Offic er, D .V , T homas , S uppo rt Bu re au , Op era tio na l S uppo rt D iv is io n, L eg al

, ,~upport ,SUBJECT: Appeal of 30-Day Evaluation and Complaint of Continued

-Discrimination, Intunid~tion;' Retaliation~ Harassment andHostile Work Environment

In accordance with Greensbo ro Pol ic e Depa rtmen t D ir ec tiv e 1 .5 .25 FOlwa rd ing Co rre spondence ,p le as e CDSlU 'eha t this docum ent is received by the C hief of Police K en M iller. The Directivesta te s, "A ll emp lo ye e re ceiv in g a w ritte n c ommun ic atio n from a su bo rd in ate d ire cted to a h ig herc omman d sh all e nd orse it, in dic atin g a pp ro va l, d isa pp ro va l, o r a ck nowle dg em en t, a nd fo rw ardwithin areasonable per iod o f time ."Inderstand that th e a pp eal o f a q uarterly e va lu atio n (3D-d ay ev alu atio n) sh ou ld b e su bm itted toth e n ex t h ig he r le ve l s up erv is or fo r a fin al d ec is io n, In forward ing thi s appea l/ compla in t, throughchann els , C apta in D .K . Ingram can respond to the appeal portion as instructed by Green sbor oP olice D epartm ental D irectives. H e can approve or disapprove the requested changes in m yevaluation, arid send the docum ent forw ard. The docum ent needs to be fbrwarderltov City "Manager Rashad You ng b ec au se o f th e co ntin ued d is crim in atio n, in tim id atio n, h ara ssm en t an dh08ti1ec:.vvork"enviwmnentLGontinue,Jo"endure.Serg~ant,Day_is',(;!yaluatiOg~lQQ1@(;!ntis,.plopf._qf_my 'anega tio li.1 ji'a dd ft io il ~Cb ie f M i ll er .f be Depa rtmen t head has discriminated against m e. N ocorrective action has been taken, so it is im perative that Mr. You ng is co ntin uo usly ap prise d o fthi s ongoing s itua tion .It s ho uld b e n ote d th at a n a pp ea l o f d is cip lin ary a ctio n; a nd s ev era l c omp la in ts o f d is crim in atio n,retaliation, harassm ent, intim idation , unfair treatm ent and hostile w ork environm en t, datedS eptem ber 13,2 010, O ctober 8,2010 , O cto ber 22 , 2010, D ecem ber 14,20 10, and D ecem ber 30,2010, have been filed on my behalf. M any of these complaints involve the actions of mysuperv iso r Sergean t DJ. Davis,In ad ditio n, I h av e b ee n informed that if you go to YOUTUBE or Google and put sgt dj dav is inthe search bar, an approxim ately tw enty tw o (22) m inute audio w ith visual aid w i l l b e fo und.T his aud io is of recorded m eetings betw een Sergeant D avis and m e, I have listened to the audiosand they are authentic. Sergeant D avis' harassm ent, discrim ination, intim idation, unfair

1


2/7

treatment and continued placing me in a hostile work environment are clear. Please note thefollowing: . If a proper investigation was conducted regarding al l of my allegations to include thoseon Sergeant Davis, the retaliatory evaluation and rating given to me by Sergeant Davis onJanuary 12, 2010, would not be possible.

Sergeant Davis stated in the aforementioned recording that Iwould not get a thoroughinvestigation of my allegations. How can Sergeant Davis be allowed to complete my 30-day evaluation, when myallegations (to include those against Sergeant Davis) are being investigated by HumanResources? According to Assistant Chief Holder (whom Ialso have allegations against)the Human Resources investigation should be completed by mid-January. Today isJanuary 18, 2011. The evaluation could have been postponed, until a conclusion was.maaeiefatmg t o 'all of myallegatioris, which incliide (allegaHc:m:s}Scl:geffiifDavis'evaluations and investigation of me? The evaluation was not needed, because there wasnever any reason for me to be placed in the Employee Improvement Plan because I- - - - s n o i i i c r u o { h a v e beeujnvestigated, recommendedfor 'termination, suspended, receivedany discipline, or denied a termination hearing, which would have afforded me dueprocess.

Sergeant Davis served a Thirty Day Evaluation on me on January 12, 2010. The document wasdated January 10, 2010. I will write Sergeant Davis' document in italics and respond in normalprint. Sergeant Davis' document and my responses are as follows:The thi rt y day evalua tion p erio d from D ecem ber 10 1 h , 2010 to January 10, 2010 will b e th e th irdand final one. The plan was extended because O fficer Thomas was out of work on sick leavefrom O ctober 20 th, 2010 to D ecem ber 6 th, 2010.D uring this thirty day evaluation period, O fficer T hom as w orked the jail assignm ent w ith noissues or problems as it relates to the performance of her daily duttes.rOfficerThamas 'has'avoided having any type of dialogue with her Sergeant; if she does communicate w ith a

superviso ll :JJheJJasc ,choserhto=commUll ica te .with.CorporaLLaboard ., .Q( f1cerThoma . ..has.cbosen.ihis-,;( j ' i i iewifhout'tYeing-direCfed b y her Sergeant or Corporal to do so: Officer Thomas'Response: I report to work at 0800 hOUTSuntil 1700 hams Monday - Friday. I am currentlyassigned to work at the Guilford County Jail. Due to having this assignment, I have very littlecontact or communication with any police employees. Therefore, the only means of contact Ihave with Sergeant Davis would be either telephonically, e-mail, or via police radio. SergeantDavis has stated that there are no issues with my performance. There has been no reason for meto contact him or any other supervisor without first needing assistance.Sergeant Davis has no examples showing that I have avoided any type of dialogue with him.Why am I being evaluated on his assumption? In addition, Corporal Laboard is a supervisor andthe first level in the chain of command, Sergeant Davis cannot show how his assumed lack ofcommunication between Sergeant Davis and me has affected my work performance'.

2


3/7

O fficer Thom as did author two com plaints on D ecem ber 14'h and 30th , 2010, she adhered toDepar tmen ta l D i re ctiv e 3.9; Section 3.9.2 Procedural. The filing of her com plaints w as not ap ro blem h ow ever; O fficer T homa s clea rly m ad e th rea ts to wa rd s h er S up erviso r. S he sta ted th atin the com plaint that if th e h ara ssm en t, re ta lia tio n, d isc rim in atio n, in tim id atio n a nd h os tiletrea tm en t o f her con tin ued , sh e w ou ld co nsid er ta kin g a SOC o rd er o ut o n h er su perviso r. I h averead the elements for a 50C order and in no way does this statute apply to a Supervisor,Subord ina te rela ti onsh ip . Officer Thomas' Response: Why am I being evaluated on the fact thatIauthored two complaints? This is clear retaliation. Also, Idid not adhere to DepartmentalDirective 3.9.2, which is a grievance procedure. I filed a complaint of misconduct, which arecovered under Departmental Directive 7.1. I followed Sergeant Davis' orders and submitted thecomplaints to him through channels because of the discriminatory, threatening, intimidatingharassing, unfair, hostile treatment and instructions he gave me. Please go to Google orYOUTUBE and put sgtdjdavis in the search bar to hear and read further evidence. A SOC can... a pp ly to a supervisor subordinate relationship. Ifit could-not-then a competent judge would nothave allowed me to move forward with my assertion. Instead of dismissing my allegations, thecompetent .judgeullowed me to move forward (if I chose to) and present my case for a

. p enuanei if o rder . In"addition,how could thathavebeerialhr~at? TIle reality is, if my allegationswould have been investigated properly by City and Departmental personnel, and Sergeant Davisdealt with appropriately, I would not have had to seek a SOC for relief regarding hisdiscrimination, intimidation, harassment, threatening and hostile treatment of me. This shouldnot be a part of my evaluation. Referring to the SOC on my evaluation seems discriminatory andretaliatory and illegal.D uring the N inety D ay Im provem ent P lan O fficer Thom as continued to behave in a m anner thatis n ot con sistent w ith a p erso n w ho is em plo yed w ith a P ara -M ilita ry O rg an iza tio n, su ch a s th eG re en sbor o Polic e De pa rtme nt. Officer 11lO111as'Response: Sergeant Davis does not indicatewhat the prescribed manner of behavior is in a paramilitary organization such as the GreensboroPolice Department. Where can these manners be located, and what behavior did I engage inthatwas not consistent?O ffic er T homas a uth ore d a nd file d tw o c ompla in ts d irec tly to th e C ity Mana ge r's O ffic e th e firstda te d Oc tober 8! 2 01 0a nq th e seco nd da teqO cto ber2 2, 2 01 0. T he. c om pla in t filed d irectly to" . ~ ' ~ 0 , i } I ~ ' c i i ; - ~ ; ~ J d ; ~ ~ g ~ f : ' ~ : ' " o f f i ; ; ~' " u ~ ; ( ) C [ o f ) e i i l i ; 2GJG--~ai }il~d a j t e , " 6}fi ii:"Th(;i I{di""~vasg i v ; : ; ; , d d ire ct o rd er o n O cto ber 14 , 2010 in w ritin g and in p er son to fu lly u tiliz e a ll s ec tio ns of D .D . 3 .9w he n f ilin g c ompla in ts a nd g riev an ce s. A n a dm in istra tive in vestig atio n h as b een c on du cte d a ndfo rw ard ed th ro ug h ch an nels fo r th e vio la tio ns o f D .D . 3.9.2 P ro ced ura l S tep s a nd o f D .D . 1 .4.5Ob ed ie nce to O rd ers ( In su bo rd in atio n). Officer Thomas' Response: Why is Sergeant Davisreferring to October 8, and October 22, 2010, outside the thirty day evaluation period? Inaddition, the fact that I authored complaints being used as a negative in my evaluation is clearretaliation. As I stated in my earlier uninvestigated complaints, it is an unlawful order forSergeant Davis to require me to file complaints only to Sergeant Davis, especially if thecomplaint is against him. An employee can file a complaint to any supervisory personnel forproper corrective action to be taken. Sergeant Davis implicates himself inhis own writing, Hestates on page one fourth paragraph, "O ffic er T homas a uth ored a nd file d tw o compla in ts d ire ctlyto th e C ity M an ag er's Office th e f irst d ated O cto be r 8, 2010 and the second dated O ctober 22,2010. The com plaint filed directly to the C ity M anager's O ffice on O ctober 22 , 2 01 0 w as file d

3


4/7

4

after O fficer Thom as w as given a direct order on O ctober 14 , 2010 in writin g and in person tofu lly u tilize a ll section s of D .D . 3.9 whe n filin g c omp la in ts a nd g rie vanc es . ss Then on page tw oparagraph one Sergeant Davis states, "T he d ocum en t she attem pted to g ive m e (O cto ber 22 , 2010complaint) to sign was another complaint. O fficer Thomas then took her complaint to herC o nfid en tia l A dviso r ( C ou nse lo r) under tlte RAP (Em ployee Assistance Program). Mr.( Reve ren d) N elso n Jo hn so n. T he comp la in t w as th en d eliv ered to th e City Mana ge r's O ffic e w itha cover letter w ritten by M r. Johnson, by an unknown subject. " Officer Thomas' Response:Sergeant Davis is fully aware that I did not tum the October 22, 2010 complaint in to the CityManager's Office. So I did not violate Sergeant Davis unlawful. discriminatory, retaliatory,harassing, intimidating order. In addition, Sergeant Davis continued to harass me about whodelivered the October 22, 2010 complaint to th e City Manager's Office, when he apparentlyknew all along, because he had a letter, signed by Reverend Johnson. Sergeant Davis isuntruthful in stating that Idelivered my October 22, 2010 complaint to the City Manager'sOffice. The fact that I am-being investigated for that, even if- Lhad delivered thecomplaint, is -clear retaliation, harassment, discrimination, retaliation and a hostile work environment. Mr.Young, why would Sergeant Davis subject me to unfair treatment, by investigating me, and thenJatecadmit~il1 writing that I had attempted to give him the October 22, 2010 complaintdocument?O fficer T homa s ha s also a uth ored a nd filed tw o m ore comp laints da ted D ecem ber 14 , 2010 andD ecem ber 30, 2010. O fficer Thom as did file these com plaints properly by placing them on m yd esk, th ey w ere th en fo rw ard ed th ro ug h ch an nels, a lth ou gh O fficer T homa s h as file d th e la st tw ocomplaints correctly, she has not m ade an effort to address problems with her Supervisorin fo rma lly a s D .D . 3.9 states. Officer Thomas) Response: Sergeant Davis continues to prove myallegations of retaliation, harassment, intimidation, discrimination and hostile work environment,by evaluating me on the fact that Ihave filed complaints. Iam not required address myallegations of Sergeant Davis' misconduct with Sergeant Davis. The audio on Google andYOUTUBE and Sergeant Davis' own response documents to me clearly indicate that he wouldnot find any issues with his own behavior.O fficer T homa s co ntin ued to questio n h er su pervisor's a utho rity a s she d id on 1 1/2 2/10 after a n

",_,..~,~lJlgiL!fB~~l}L_[qts: t C J 11}gk~(J f! ,pp( )i nt lt len t w i th Medica l Serv ices"be fore , she , returned back. - ~ - -- i o , ' - " '. ; V 6 i ~ k ~ { ; - i , -:2 / { j6 ) lo :~ " D J ij ic a ; ~ ~t1io~ia;/:.;~ij;iledb }~-sta{ing "can } T c r i cid\ri3e'-;\rl~ic!i p6!i~JT ';_~eG~lli~~~0me to be cleared by city doctors? Is this the standard fo r everyone (example if someone hadpneumonia and was absent for several weeks) City Policy F-6 Family Medical Leave and PoliceDepartment Directive 6.4 Limited Duty require reporting to Medical Service; however I amtaking sick leave and there is no such provision listed." O fficer Thom as w as advised that sheneeded- to be cleared by M edical Services after her supervisor spoke to M rs. M cD ougal atM edical S ervices a nd M rs. M cD ou ga l's a dvice to h er Su pervisor w as th at O fficer T homa s w ou ldhave to be cleared by Medical Services before returning back to work. Officer Thomas'Response: Iimply asked my supervisor a question for clarification and growth as an employeeinunderstanding administrative processes. I completed Sergeant Davis' instructions and went bymedical services. It was apparently a good question as Sergeant Davis was also confused,because he sought advice from Mrs. McDougal. Also notice that neither Sergeant Davis nor Mrs.McDougal referred to any City Policy) so although I successfully completed Sergeant Davis'instructions, Iun still not clear on the requirement. After explaining why Sergeant Davis has put


5/7

5

this information in my evaluation as a negative incident, please have him answer my question, toenhance my growth as a subordinate employee. Also, be advised that Sergeant Davis nevermentioned to me that he had spoken with Mrs, Mcfiougal, while I was out on sick leave.O ffice r T homas a tte mp te d to u tilize ta ctic s in a n effo rt to circ um ve nt D ep artm en ta l D ire ctiv es .On 10122110 I spoke with O fficer Thom as on the phone at the tim e she w as out sick, she advisedm e by p hone that she had som ething to give m e, at the tim e 1was not in the office. As I pulledin to the PVA of 2602 South E lm Eugene Street and exited my vehicle, O jficer Thomasapproached m e with som e docum ents and stated "Sign this." I asked O fficer Thom as "w hat isit?" She sta ted, "S ign this, you to ld m e to go throug h you. " I in vited O fficer Thom as in to myo ffice and she d eclined then stated to m e are you refusing to sig n this. I advisedO fficer T hom asthat I w as not g oing to sign som ething that 1a d n ot h ad a n o pp ortu nity to rea d, O fficer T homa sth en left. T he d ocumen t sh e a ttem pted to g ive m e to sig n w as a no th er comp la in t. O jjicer T homa sthen took: hercom plaint to her conft den tta ludvis o r ( couns elo r ) -under the EAP(EmployrnentA ssista nce P ro gram), M r. (R everen d) N elso n Jo hn so n. T he comp la in t w as th en d elivered to th eC i ty Manage r 's O fficer a lo ng w ith a co ver letter w ritten b y M r. Jo hn so n b y a n u nkn ow n su bject.Ufficer TIi6liias'Respoiise: Sergeant Davis, in his ow n writing has confirmed illy allegation ofSergeant Davis' violation of Departmental Directive 1.5.25 Forwarding Correspondence, whenhe refused to receive, endorse and forward my written correspondence. Sergeant Davis did thisbecause he knew the October 22, 2010 document was a complaint with allegations againstSergeant Davis as well as others. What "tactics" is Sergeant Davis referring to? How are thesetactics detrimental to my work performance? Sergeant Davis, as I have alerted management to inprevious complaints, is retaliating, harassing and intimidating me for utilizing the EmployeeAssistance Program (EAJ)). Please review in part the City's Policy regarding the EAP. It is asfollows: City Policy H-S Employee Assistance Program, Organizational Rules Section 5 .1states: The Employee Assistance Program (EAP) is essentially a self-referral program butsupervisors may recom mend. A n em ployee is encouraged to personally contact the EAl)counselor or any commwlity agency for confidential counseling, referral or treatment.

.. O fficer T homa s h as m ad e it very fru stra tin g a nd a lm ost im po ssib le to su pervise h er-d urin g th isp er io d. O ffic er Thoma s file d a compla in t d ire ctly to th e C ity Mana ge r IS Offic e on 10/08110; this

. , . .. . ,11!JHiq/jrg;.Lh(_J1..~~ery.~r:UJHjj!:,~qh(~tyJlgy):yClhtatian dated! 01111q wh ic h. s ta te d in pa rt, "1met _ .wii]: Djj'iC;l;3rThurrws in ;n y uffi(;/!:iu uri4ly 'discuss w hat w us expected -o f h er. I cxplui;,edioO fficer Th om as that I expect her to rem ain professional and co urteous at a ll tim es as she d ealsw ith th e g en era l p ub lic a nd h er co -w orkers, sh e sh ou ld a dh ere to a ll D ep artm en ta l D irectives,S pecia l O rd ers a nd S ta nd ard O pera tin g P ro ced ures a t a ll tim es.. D urin g th e m eetin g I h ad a skedOf fic er Thomas if she w anted to have a seat, she refused D uring the conversation I observedO fficer T homa s sta nd in g w ith h er a rm s f old ed a cro ss h er u pp er to rso w ith w ha t a pp ea red to b e alook 0/frustration or disgust on her/ace. I asked O fficer T hom as, w hy w as she looking at m e likeshe wanted to bite m y head off. O fficer Thom as m isinterpreted this statem ent as w hat she feltc ou ld b e ha ra ssmen t. 1xplain ed to O fficer T hom as that as a sup ervisor I had an obligation torecognize and ta ke corrective m ea sures w hen 1bserved any type of behavior that may beu nu su al. O ffic er T homas c omp la in ed th at I sh ou ld n ot h av e ma de th e a fo rem en tio ne d sta te men tsw hich w ere based on fa cts of her professional behavior a nd attitud e. I w as then,' according toO ffic er T homas, co ntin uin g to re ta lia te, in tim id ate , tre at h er u nfa irly a nd s ub je ct h er to a h os tilew o rk e nv ir onmen t. Officer Thomas' Response: Sergeant Davis appears to be attempting to


6/7


7/7

End of Sergeant Davis' 30 day evaluation document and my responses.

Explain the next step, if this is the last thirty day evaluation of the Em ploym entIm pro veme nt P lan . W ill I h av e to co ntin ue int he program? Explain why SergeantDavis is n ot re qu ired to g iv e m e su gg este d m eth od s to im pro ve myperf ormance to an accep tab le l eveL Captain Ingram ac kn ow le dg e th at th is ev alu atio n is c le arly a c on tin uatio n o f re ta lia tio n,h aras sm en t, in tim id atio n, u nfa ir tre atm en t a nd a h os tile w ork e nv iro nm en t, an d th e re su lt

o fle gitima te c omp la in ts b ein g file d o n my b eh alf, C aptain Ingram change the rating (of the 3D -day Evaluation) from a Level n to a Level.. ill:Captain Ingranrforwardthe 'doC ttinefitthofO UglicnfufileIs.. , ~ _....- -

A ll of my all ega tions in th is a nd p re vio us c omp la in t/a pp ea l d oc uments in ve stig ate d, a nd... ..~ ~ P P XQp n ~t;}:~().1J(3_c_tiy~/d.i~qipinary ac tions taken,

P le as e e ns ure th at th e fo llow in g o cc urs re la tin g to th is a pp ea l/c omp la in t d oc ument:

Y our prom pt and appropriate actions regarding these and other docum ents I have subm itted isg re atly a ntic ip ate d a nd app re cia te d. T hank you .

~Y~ D,V , T homas , O ffic erOpera tiona l Support Divi sionLegal Process Sect ionAttachments:A ttachment # 1: M emo F rom S erg ean t D av is to O ffice r T homa s e ntitled "O ffic er D.V.TlioDlilS-Thirty Day E va lu atio n, d ated Ja nu ary 1 0,2 01 1, s erv ed Ja nu ary 1 2, 2 01 1.

7

thomas- january 18,2011 appeal of 30-day evaluation and complaint of continued discrimination

Documents