THOMAS- October 22,2010 Complaint of continued Discrimination,Retaliation

8/6/2019 THOMAS- October 22,2010 Complaint of continued Discrimination,Retaliation

1/13

Police DepartmentCity of Greensboro RECE IVED

October 22,2010

O C T 2 2 2 0 1 0C i ~ M a n a g e rs O f f i c e

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

SupportSUBJECT: Complaint Of Continued Discrimination, Retaliation,Intimidation, Harassment, Hostile Work Environment,Threats, Threats Of Unwarranted Disciplinary Action,To

Include Recorded Conversations In Which Sergeant D.J. DavisAcknowledges, As If Proper, Sergeant Davis' Investigation OfMy Complaint Against Sergeant Davis, Sergeant Davis'Supervisor (Lieutenant G.A.Hunt) And OthersInaccordance with Greensboro Police Department Directive 1.5.2.5Forwarding Correspondence,please ensure that this document is received by Greensboro City Manager Rashad Young. TheDirective states, "An employee receiving a written communication from a subordinate directedto a higher command shall endorse it, indicating approval, disapproval, or acknowledgement, andforward within a reasonable period of time."Mr. Young, on August 3, 2010, I was suspended without pay and recommended for terminationby then Interim Chief D.K. Crotts. I requested a General Board ofInquiry Hearing. On or aboutAugust 10, 2010, prior to having participated in the hearing, I was brought back to work, anddisciplined by being given two (2) Departmental Reprimands. At this point, Mr. Young, I havebeen~isciplinedwitha8uspensiononmyrecord and Two (2) Departmental Reprimands a First-Level Reprimand, a n d a nfvlsionLevelRepfimand. ...I believe that the suspension and discipline was based upon reported acts of discrimination,retaliation, to include an August 2009 e-mail sent by me to supervisory personnel alleging unfairtreatment to include some of the aforementioned subject matter.On September 13, 2010, I submitted an appeal/complaint document to you for the followingreasons:

The discipline imposed upon me is an act of retaliation for reporting acts ofdiscrimination, etc. (To include an open EEOC Complaint).

The disciplinary paperwork given to me by then Interim Chief Crotts states that I have aright to appeal the discipline imposed by Interim Chief Crotts. The disciplinary

1


2/13

2

paperwork does not state that I had a right to file a grievance. Why and how could I file agrievance before exhausting the appeal process?

I was originally suspended and recommended for termination. There has been noreasoning given as to why a hearing was not convened as it related to charges against me.A hearing would have enabled me to properly defend my actions and performance.

I am being discriminated against. Assistant Chief Crotts, Interim at the time of my suspension is named (alleging

misconduct) in my appeal/complaint, as well as Assistant -City Manager MichaelSpeedling.

In the month of August 201 0, Interim Chief Crotts suspended without pay andrecommended for termination or terminated approximately seven (7) police officers. Ofthose seven (7), two (2) were brought back to work by newly appointed Chief KenMiller, without being afforded a departmental General Board of Inquiry hearing. Of thetwo (2) brought back by Chief Miller, I was disciplined, however, to my knowledge, theother officer brought back was not disciplined. If I am COlTectin my information, theother officer was charged with a truthfulness violation.

Because 1 was brought back,and disciplined, I must be given an opportunity to appeal. According to Assistant Chief Crotts (please refer to two (2) YOUTUBE audios ofAssistant Chief Crotts, by placing DK Crotts in the 'search bar), you (Mr. Young) did notwant issues laid in the new Chiefs lap. Because then Interim Chief Crotts was headingthe agency when the approximately seven (7) officers were suspended and or terminated,I am assuming that I may have also been one of the issues that you didn't want laid in thenew Chiefs lap.

My actions as it relates to submitting my complaint/appeal are in accordance with GreensboroPolice Departmental Directive 7.3.10, Appeal of Disciplinary Action and City Policy H-lDisciplinary Action Section 5.3 Employee Appeal Rights.On October 8, 2010, I submitted a complaint document chronicling continued discrimination,harassment, intimidation, and hostile work environment, to include no response to my appeal byyou, Mr. Young. This document also included allegations against members of my chain ofcommand to include Assistant City Manager, Mr. Michael Speedling, and my direct supervisor,

On October 11, 2010, Sergeant D.l. Davis submitted to me a response document, apparentlyresponding to" my appeal, that I addressed and delivered to you. The document was datedOctober 7, 2010. On October II, 2010, Sergeant Davis and I discussed his response documentand other issues in a recorded conversation. Sergeant Davis had knowledge of my October 8,2010 submittal to your office, which he acknowledged and discussed inour recorded meeting.I will discuss some items in Sergeant Davis' response document, dated October 7, 2010, andgiven to me on October 11, 2010. I will not refer to the entire document as the continueddiscrimination, retaliation, harassment, intimidation, unfair treatment and hostile workingenvironment can be easily shown. The following are references to Sergeant Davis' document andmy italicized responses:


3/13

3

(page 1 First Paragraph) I have been directed by Lieutenant G.A. Hunt to inquire into thecomplaints which you have lodged against Sergeant J. Heard, Lieutenant G.A. Hunt, AssistantChief D.K. Crotts, Assistant City Manager Michael Speedling, as well as Captain T.!. Phipps,Assistant Chief A.I-I.Holder and Fonner Police Chief T.R. Bellamy. Officer Thomas' Response:Mr. Young, how can Sergeant Davis fairly and impartially investigate allegations against hisdirect supervisor, a Captain, two (2 ) Bureau Commanders to include his own, and your directsubordinate, Assistant City Manager Michael Speedling (who is not a police employee)? In factin a previous document, I informed you that Sergeant Davis stated Lieutenant Hunt had treatedSergeant Davis unfairly, regarding Sergeant Davis' evaluation.(Page 2 Paragraph 1) You alleged that Lieutenant Hunt never investigated your allegations butoffered no evidence that you made an attempt to talk with your immediate supervisor. Again,Departmental Directive 3.9.2 clearly states you should make every effort to ' resolve any issuesinformally through conferences with your supervisor, then you may take steps to resolve theissues formally. In the event you felt that it would be best not to discuss the problem with yoursupervisor, then it is permissible to take the problem directly to the Commanding Officer of theReso~~()~ M~ll!~g~m~.ntDivision who would have assisted you in resolving the problem orgrievance. Officer Thomas' Response: Mr. Young, the e-mail I submitted in 2009 and subsequentallegations if found true constitute a violation of Federal Law. Upon supervisory personnelreceiving my e-mail.theyhadadutyandresponsibilitytotakeproper.swiftcorrectiveaction.Inaddition, I am not required to discuss a complaint against my supervisor with my supervisor. Iam not sure if Sergeant Davis' continued referral to the department's grievance policy is anattempt to deceive/confuse me; however, he should refer to Departmental Directive 7.1Allegations of Employee Misconduct, and Departmental Directive 7 _ 3.10 Appeal of DisciplinaryAction.(Page 3 last Paragraph) You alleged that on April 7,2010, Mr. Speedling alleged that during ameeting with him on April 1,2010, you stated that you were not currently experiencing any formof retaliation and felt your supervisor was treating you fairly. However, you state that on May13, 2010, the city received a letter from Carruthers and Roth, PA. Attorneys, whom I assumerepresent you. The letter stated you were and continued to be subjected to retaliation,harassment, hostile work environment and attempts were made to interfere with your

. ernploYlTIentreIati()nsllipvvi1:htll~Qity by Sergeant Heard. Officer Thomas' Response: M r.young,please refer to my appeal of discipline to include suspension with a recommendation fortermination. The disciplinary action derived from discriminatory, retaliatory, harassing andunfair investigationis) by Sergeant Heard, for which Sergeant Davis describes in SergeantDavis' own words as "bullsli "t." Will Sergeant Davis deal with Sergeant Heard regardingSergeant Heard's malicious investigations, since Sergeant Davis is officially "investigating" mycomplaint against Sergeant Heard?You further state that you question Mr. Speedling's allegation that you felt you were treatedfairly and you were not experiencing any form of retaliation after you had filed an EEOCComplaint on March 3 .0 , 2 01 0, which would have been prior to your meeting with Mr.Speedling. Officer Thomas, I obviously was not at the meeting; however, if I read this correctlyit appears to me .that you are alleging that Mr. Speedling was untruthful and therefore thisstatement is the one that is most troubling to me since Mr. Speedling himself has already


4/13

4

responded to your grievance of retaliation and discrimination on April 7, 2010 and ruled that youdid not produce any evidence on this matter and he considered the matter to be closed. OfficerThomas' Response: Mr. Young, if I informed Mr. Speedling that I had been treated fairly andhad not experienced any retaliation, then why would I need to provide any evidence? I filed anEEOC Complaint on March 30, 2010. Two (2 ) days later, April 1 , 2010, I spoke with Mr.Speedling. If it appears that I am alleging that Mr. Speedling is being untruthful, then why notinvestigate and find out? Sergeant Davis does not have the authority or willingness to investigateMr. Speedling in a non-criminal matter.(page 4 Paragraph 1) After reviewing your claims I cannot substantiate any actions taken withregard to your performance as a police officer that would constitute discriminatory or harassingbehavior. Instead it appears that supervisors have taken corrective actions in an attempt toimprove your job performance. Therefore, your discipline will remain as previously stated.Officer Thomas' Response: Mr. Young, how can Sergeant Davis who can only administerdiscipline to the level of a first level reprimand, rule on a suspension without pay andrecommendation for termination, two (2 ) Departmental Reprimands, that are based onretaliation? Sergeant Heard's malicious discriminatory investigations and anofficer beingbrought back to work after being suspended without pay and recommendation for termination,with no discipline, no hearing and me being brought back to work with discipline and no hearingis clearly discriminatory, but not all inclusive a/the unfair treatment I have been subjected to.End of Excerpt from Sergeant Davis' October 7,2010 Response Memo and my comments.Again, when. Sergeant Davis served me with his response memo, we met :i n his office, onMonday October 11,2010 at approximately 8:00 am. At this time we discussed his response tomy complaint/appeal and his pending response to my October 8, 2010 complaint document. Iwill refer to some but not all key conversation made within Sergeant Davis' and my recordedinterview, that clearly constitute an on-going hostile work environment to include discrimination,retaliation, intimidation, harassment and unfair treatment. Although some of the noted portionsof the conversation may appear redundant, it is actually Sergeant Davis reiterating hisharassment. Key conversation portions are as follows:

.~~rgeal1tDav!sstaJesthath~Teceived my complaint that I took straight to the City' .Manager over the weekend (Friday, October 8,2010). The complaint that Sergeant Daviseludes to actually has allegations against Sergeant Davis. It is improper for SergeantDavis to investigate himself. Sergeant Davis stated that my complaint was sent down tohim because I think that everybody in the chain (of command) is out to get me, andharassing me.

I asked Sergeant Davis if he was going to give me a notification that he was investigatingme. Sergeant Davis stated he would not because he was not investigating me. SergeantDavis did inform me that he had a rights fOIDl,but we would cover that later. SergeantDavis stated he was responding to my complaint, per the City Manager to take care of,"cause he (City Manager) is not going to deal with it any longer."

Sergeant Davis informs me that I am in violation of directives when filing grievances andcomplaints. Mr. Young, how can an employee be in violation of directives for filing a


5/13

5

complaint and an appeal of discipline to the best of their ability and knowledge inaccordance with departmental and city policy?

Sergeant Davis continues to force the grievance policy upon me, never acknowledgingthat I filed an appeal of discipline and complaint of violation of departmental directivesand City Policy by other members.

Sergeant Davis admits approximately four (4) times that Sergeant Davis refers toSergeant Heard's investigation(s) on me as "bullsh"t." Mr. Young, why is Sergeant Davisusing profanity?

Sergeant Davis informs me to not file any other grievances or complaints unless theycome through him. He stated if I do be prepared to get some discipline, and thatdisciplinary action would follow. Sergeant Davis stated that I was violating directives.

Sergeant Davis states that he does not recall stating to me that Sergeant Heard hadpersonal feelings against me. If Sergeant Davis does not recall, this means he could haveinformed me of Sergeant Heard's feelings, which he did.

Sergeant Davis stated that he considered my complaint against him as disrespect, and thatI really disappointed him.

.~.. It was my understanding that Sergeant Davis admitted that he had told me that I had beenmistreated and did not deserve to be fired from my job. Sergeant Davis stated that a statement in my document could be malicious gossip. This

statement is that Mr. Speedling informed Officer Pryor that the results of Officer Pryor'sinvestigation was due to "discrimination or retaliation" on the part of ProfessionalStandards. I was informed that Mr. Speedling informed Officer Pryor of this. InadditionMr. Speedling made a statement to the Yes! Weekly that would support my assertion. Inaddition, according to Sergeant Davis, Sergeant Davis never confirmed from Mr.Speedling whether Mr. Speedling made the comment or not.

I asked Sergeant Davis how could he investigate himself. Sergeant Davis replied,"Because I was directed to. And I will continue doing the same things when I am directedto. You didn't put my name in this one, but I will do one (investigation) on the one thatyou put my name in because guess what, it came from the City Manager. If it comesdown from the City Manager, comes down through my chain, I do what my bossessay .... l told you once, twice three times, anything else needs to corne through me, andwill go up the c?ain ~1Zp~opria~ely:"; - -{ j ci "gcan tD i~ -v - i. s i n f 0 1 1 1 1 6 d 1 1 1 6 that the City Ivfiuiitgl.:a W 1 : I :- ;1 1 U l g u i n g to respond L U myappeal, or my other document (October 8, 2010).

I continue to inform Sergeant Davis as in the subject of my document that the September13, 2010 document is an appeal of discipline. I also inform Sergeant Davis that he isreferring to the wrong policy, as my document was not a grievance. Sergeant Davis eitherbecause of attempted deception, incompetence or both continues to state that mydocument is a grievance. I informed Sergeant Davis that I did not think he was using theright policy. Sergeant Davis informed me that it was not for me to understand as towhether he used the right policy or not.

Sergeant Davis again informed me that I needed go through him. I asserted that I hadother alternatives especially because I was not filing a grievance and that if I wasdisciplined that I could not control that. Sergeant Davis .stated, "You will be(discip lined) ."


6/13

6 .

I asked Sergeant Davis to show me in the rules how he would be the one to respond tomy appeal of a departmental reprimand. Sergeant Davis stated, "1 did and 1 did it at theorder of my Lieutenant."

Sergeant Davis asked me about the document I filed on Friday (October 8, 2010).Because allegations against Sergeant Davis were in the document, Informed SergeantDavis that Idid not want to discuss it with him. Sergeant Davis replied, "Guess what youare going to have to discuss it with me, cause it already came down to me and Iwill dowhatever Iave to do with that too."Iinformed Sergeant Davis that the complaint was about him, so why would Iwant todiscuss it with him, and that it was a form of intimidation. Sergeant Davis informed methat it was not intimidation, and that it came from his higher ups that he was notintimidating me.

Sergeant Davis "flips" the interview on me and gives me an employee rights formbeginning an investigation. This investigation is apparently regarding me taking an houroff on Friday October 8, 2010, due to illness. Iay apparently because Sergeant Davis didnot give me a notification form which is procedurally required when an employee isinvestigated. It is also arguably the most important document an employee can be givenduring an investigation as it tells the employee the narrow focus and scope of aninvestigation.

Sergeant Davis had a problem with me because Informed him that Iwas ill, needed toleave and did not feel well enough to continue working. Sergeant Davis harassed mebecause Iiled a complaint document with allegations against him, on the same day Iwent home, ill. Sergeant Davis asked, "When did you file this document (October 8,2010. comp lai n t) ? What time did you go down to the City Manager's Office? That is a questionIneed to ask and Ineed an answer." Iasked Sergeant Davis was he investigating me forbeing sick, because that is what it sounded like. Sergeant Davis again asked, "When didyou file this document?" Istated it was on Friday. Sergeant Davis asked me what timeand was it before or after Icarne in and told him that Iwas sick. Informed SergeantDavis that it was before. Sergeant Davis stated, "Okay, that's all Ineed to know, but youhad time to file this document, but you were so sick, you filed this document."

Sergeant Davis badgered me so much that1sked if he was saying that Iwasn't sick. Iasked Sergeant Davis if he was harassing me (which he was), and if he questioned all.."-'--m,~l;,~'~~.;;.:;;:~~~r~t~~.:+'~':~'~n'!


7/13

7

Sergeant Davis informed me prior to his investigation that my discipline would notchange. I asked Sergeant Davis how could he know that not discipline would changeprior to conducting an investigation. Sergeant Davis replied, "Yep, cause they told me itwasn't. Yep, I did and there is no reason for it to change."

From rny understanding, Sergeant Davis admitted that he referred to Sergeant Heard'sinvestigation(s) as "bullsh*t", but stated I took it out of context.

Sergeant Davis then stated that I put Assistant Chief Rogers in my last complaint.Sergeant Davis stated that they were personal conversations. -

Sergeant Davis stated that he will not choose to have personal conversations with meanymore. Sergeant Davis stated that he will supervise me and treat me professionally andcourteously, but we will not have personal conversations about anything other than workMr. Young, please be informed that I have a husband and two (2) kids and report to workwith the intentions of talking about and producing work.

Sergeant Davis continues to state that there is no evidence \of harassment. Please reviewSergeant Davis' copy of our recorded conversations. I also informed Sergeant Davis thathe did not conduct a legitimate fact finding investigation as he had not conductedinterviews with pertinent individuals relating to my complaint.

Sergeant Davis again informed me not to send anything else to the City Manager's Officeand that he hoped I could articulate it if I did.

Sergeant Davis stated that if I was going to file a complaint against him I had to comeagain, because I did not have any sexual harassment. Sergeant Davis then correctedhimselfand stated any harassment, period. Sergeant Davis stated as far as any harassmenton him (Sergeant Davis), I needed to come to him and we needed to discuss the matters athand before I go any further with it according to departmental directive 3.9.2. SergeantDavis informed me that I would give him an opportunity to address an issue before filingsomething on him.

Sergeant Davis and I continued to debate the fact that I was filing an appeal and not agrievance. Sergeant Davis stated, "Okay, I'm telling' you what the City Manager toldme." I asked Sergeant Davis when the City Manager told him this. Sergeant Davis thenretracted the statement and said, "Well, I take that back, it came from my higher ups."

Sergeant Davis made reference to my behavior. I asked for dates and times. SergeantDavis stated, "I don't need to go into that." I challenged Sergeant Davis in that he made

I asked Sergeant Davis that every time an employee makes a complaint, it goes back tothe supervisor named in the complaint. Sergeant Davis replied, "Yeah, that's it."

I stated, "That's the way it works." Sergeant Davis replied, "That's the way it works." I informed Sergeant Davis that I wanted Mr. Young to respond to my appeal. Sergeant

Davis stated, "I'll tell ya what, Mr. Young is not going to respond. Sergeant Davis went on to inform me that he wasn't there when the conversation tookplace between Assistant City Manager, Mr. Michael Speedling and me. Sergeant Davis

stated that either Mr. Speedling or I am not telling the truth. Sergeant Davis stated, "Itmight come to putting you and Mr. Speedling on the box. It might come to that." I thenstated, "On what box or what's the box?" Sergeant Davis stated, "The lie detector, I'msorry. To see who is telling the truth. Cause obviously he saw one thing and you sawanother. "


8/13

8

I then stated, "So this requires a polygraph. Even though I welcome a polygraph. Becausehe (Mr. Speedling) felt the matter was over and I felt like it wasn't, that requires apolygraph?"

Mr. Young, please note that if Sergeant Davis were conducting a legitimate, non-discriminatory, not retaliatory, non-intimidating, fair investigation, why not polygraphMr. Speedling and me to find out the truth. Remember, Sergeant Davis has already stateda number of times that he is doing what his chain has told him. Mr. Speedling for allintensive purposes is in Sergeant Davis' chain. Sergeant Davis does not have theauthority nor desire to polygraph Mr. Speedling, just as it appears Sergeant Davis neverhad a face to face interview with Mr. Speedling regarding this investigation.

M r. Young, please note that I was informed that two (2) officers within the GreensboroPolice Department were recently polygraphed regarding administrative investigations.Based on the polygraph results, these officers were suspended without pay andrecommended for termination. Both employees were charged with truthfulness. Bothemployees were brought back to work and not sustained on truthfulness violations. Infact, I was informed that one of the employees was treated in such an outrageouslymanner during the recorded polygraph, that the employee was brought back to workwithout a General Board of Inquiry hearing or any discipline. This officer was reinstatedby newly appointed Chief Ken Miller.

I asked Sergeant Davis what experience he had investigating discrimination, harassment,etc. Sergeant Davis replied he was Police Sergeant and to trust that he had experience.

I asked Sergeant Davis to reiterate what he said about putting me on the box. SergeantDavis said it is not a threat, but if it continues then we gotta figure out who's telling thetruth and who's not. I asked, "Why don't we do it now? What's wrong with now?"Sergeant Davis stated, "We might, we might. I just gotta make arrangements withwhoever."

Again, Mr. Young, how can Sergeant Davis know if Mr. Speedling has committed aviolation 01' not, if Sergeant Davis is not sure that Mr. Speedling is telling the truth. Sergeant Davis stated this meeting was actually to bring these issues and points out toyou on hopes that you would see that there were some discrepancies. I informed SergeantDavis that there are no discrepancies because you did not provide any dates; times,examples of where there were problems or where you got your information from, ortvhj:.nhp,ili(LhiQinvpdiafltlf'1ti~p.rnp!:lnt D!:lvi", !:lrhri",prl th!:lt r . p flirt nnt J," "TP t(\ rpup",l th",t- -" ' ~- ." -" "" :__' :_' : , =. .~ ~ . .. .. .. .~ -. -. - . . _~ - , .. .- ;,, -: ,., . .. . : ... ' - .. . o _ _ __ .; ._ . ;. ; . .. . _ _ ._ - -- - - . .. . b-___.;,---' '- ~,-~, ~- . --- ~ --~- "--- ..... _._... - -~-. -' ...._ . . .. .- . .. .. .. .. .. .. '" __ w. . ..to me. Sergeant Davis could not give me the discrepancies.

Sergeant Davis advised me that in a week or two he would respond to my October 8,2010 complaint to Mr. Young. I advised Sergeant Davis that I did not want to come intoSergeant Davis' office for a response and that I would be waiting for the City Manager torespond. Sergeant Davis advised me that he (Mr. Young) was not going to respond. Irequested a document from the City Manager at least stating that he (City Manager) wasnot going to respond. Sergeant Davis denied me the written communication. I requestedSergeant Davis create a written communication advising that the City Manager was notgoing to respond. Sergeant Davis denied me this written communication. Sergeant Davisstated, "No, I am not going to put it inwriting."

I asked Sergeant Davis the time and date in which he spoke to the City Manager and theCity Manager advised Sergeant Davis that he (City Manager) would not provide a writtencommunication denying me a response to my complaint/appeal. Sergeant Davis stated, "I


9/13

9

don't have to speak to him (City Manager). If it comes from my chain, and they tell methat he is not going to respond, then that's what I am telling you." I then stated toSergeant Davis, "I am waiting on a response from the City Manager. Until I getsomething from him stating that he is not going to respond, I am waiting for a response."

Sergeant Davis made a reference to me checking my facial expressions to make sme theyare not offensive. I then asked Sergeant Davis had he gotten any complaints saying myfacial expressions are offensive. Sergeant Davis stated, "No."

I informed Sergeant Davis that I felt disappointed. Sergeant Davis replied, "No, I'mdisappointed in you. After all I've tried to do to help you Officer Thomas. You go backand stab me in the back. You did after all I've done. After all I've done. Tried to helpyou. Called you when you were suspended. You did this to me."

I advised Sergeant Davis that I believed that he attempted to coerce me into sayingsomething that was not in my document. Sergeant Davis replied, "You know OfficerThomas, we don't have to discuss this any longer. You're disappointed, I'm disappointed,and I really thought that me and you could work together, get past this thing and go onabout your business."

e I asked Sergeant Davis, "Get past this thing?" Sergeant Davis replied, "Officer Thomas,we have nothing else to discuss. I am disappointed in you just like you are disappointedinme. I am thoroughly disappointed inyou."

I then replied, "I do my job. Why are you disappointed in me?" Sergeant Davis replied, "Iwas your biggest advocate. You don't understand. Yeah, I was kinda at odds withSergeant Heard ..Yes I was. I was your biggest advocate, and then you turn around andyou file this crap on me. I am disappointed in you."

Sergeant Davis stated, "Officer Thomas when you wrote that stuff about our privateconversations, private conversations. Again, they are not private anymore. I was tryin' torelay some stuff to you, in a manner that I probably should not have, because now theLieutenant knows and I don't know who else knows. And again, when I talked about thelevel 3." I then stated, "Sergeant Davis, I would think that you would address the level 3with Lieutenant Hunt."

Sergeant Davis stated, "The problem was, I was trying' to show you that I wasdisappointed. I was disappointed. Wish I woulda got a level 4, but it wasn't .."

I again asked why Mr. Young was not going to address my appeal/complaint. SergeantDavis leplied,'f:YVt:;ll, IwI81loL"I stated, "That is dbGiLu. . .uatioli, unfairtreatment rightthere. He is not going to respond to may appeal on some discipline. I am entitled to havedue process." Sergeant Davis stated, "Well Officer Thomas, you know what. I am gonnacut my recorder off and I am gonna tell you something inprivate, and I would really likefor you .... Naw, I'm not going to cut it off. I don't want to see anything happen to youperiod. I don't want to see anything happen to you, but you know .... " I then askedSergeant Davis, "Are you contemplating that something is going to happen, cause that iswhat it sounds like." Sergeant Davis replied, "You cannot continue to file thesegrievances/complaints.":Mr. Young, why is Sergeant Davis making a threat?

I asked Sergeant Davis, "I am going to be disciplined for filing a complaint?" SergeantDavis replied, "You can't do it . Especially in the manner you are filing them."

I then stated to Sergeant Davis, "I would like a response from Mr. Young. I would like athorough investigation of all my complaints." Sergeant Davis replied, "Well youprobably are not gonna get it." I asked, "What do you mean probably?" Sergeant Davis


10/13

10

replied, "You're not gonna get a response from Mr. Young." I asked Sergeant Davis,"Will he (Mr. Young) put it in writing?" Sergeant Davis replied, "I am not going togo tohim and ask him. It came down from the chain so I am assuming he is not going torespond."

I asked, "Is that concrete?" Sergeant Davis responded, "I ain't got nothing in writing. Ifmy chain gives it to me and tells me to address it, it is pretty much in writing. It isconcrete for me." I replied to Sergeant Davis, "Not for me." Sergeant Davis stated,"That's-another problem we have." I stated, "Because I need a-response." Sergeant Davisstated, "If your chain tells you to do something, that should be it. That should be it." Ireplied, "Sergeant Davis, ifthere are any other alternatives, I would like to use the policyand that's not doing anything wrong, by using policy."

Sergeant Davis stated, "You better go by 3.9.2. That's all I am saying." I replied, "Only3.9.2. There is a bunch of other directives and policy." Sergeant Davis stated, "If you canfind one that addresses grievances and complaints, then do so. It needs to come throughme. I've told you that several times. Itneeds to come through me."

This ends the excerpt from Sergeant Davis' OctolwrU,:4010 recorded Interview with meregarding my September 13, 2010 Appeal Document to City Manager Rashad Young, andmy October 8, 2010 Complaint Document to City Manager Rashad Young.On October 14, 2010, at approximately 4:00pm, Sergeant Davis summoned me to his office.Sergeant Davis met with me to respond to my October 8, 2010 complaint document that I hadsubmitted to City Manager Rashad Young. Itshould be noted that Sergeant Davis was one of the.individuals I made allegations against in the October 8, 2010 document. Sergeant Davisinvestigated and apparently approved of his and his superiors actions. Sergeant Davisinvestigating himself is confirmed by Sergeant Davis in an October 11, 2010 recording and amemo from Sergeant Davis to me dated October 11, 2010. This document was entitled"Response To Complaint Of Continued Discrimination, Harassment, Retaliation, UnfairTreatment To Include No Response From City Manager My. Rashad Young Relating ToSeptember 13,2010 Complaint/Appeal And Meetings With Lieutenant G.A Hunt And SergeantD.J. Davis, Resulting InA Continued Hostile Work Environment."

.........---SYIgY?IltP(lyis~d(lll1!l~I:tt()_on~i_~tc:cl{)fthreewritten paragraphs and a copy and paste ofGreensboro Police Departmental Directive 3.9.1, Grievance Procedures. The written portion ofSergeant Davis' document, in italics, is as follows:After analyzing the allegations in your complaint dated October 8, 2010 to City Manager Mr.Rashad Young and in accordance with D.D. 3.9.4, I find that you did not present any evidencewhich would substantiate and/or qualify any actions taken toward you as discriminatoryharassing, retaliatory, and unfair.Furthermore, you are fully expected to utilize all sections of D.D. 3.9 in regards to the filing ofany future grievances. If you experience any personal problems or have anycomplaints/grieyances you will, according to policy, make every effort to resolve those problemsinformally through conferences with me, your immediate supervisor. -


11/13

11

I have included below Departmental Directive 3.9 for your convenience.Attached Policy a/Greensboro Police Departmental Directive 3.9.1, which is three (3) pages.It is my goal to assist you with bringing resolution to any personal problems or grievances youmay be experiencing as well as ensuring the continued fair and equitable treatment in everyendeavor of your employment with the Greensboro Police Department. Please immediatelyinform me if I (an be of assistance to you in this capacity.End of written response memo from Sergeant Davis to me in which Sergeant DaviscompJeted an investigation on himself at the direction of his chain of command (Accordingto Sergeant Davis).In addition to the October 14, 2010 written response, Sergeant Davis also responded verbally.This response by Sergeant Davis is recorded. I will refer to some but not all key conversationmade within Sergeant Davis' and my recorded interview, that clearly constitute an on-goinghostile work envirorunent to include discrimination, retaliation, intimidation, harassment and U l l - f a u treatmenLAJthough some of the noted portIons of t h e conversation may appearredundant,it is actually Sergeant Davis reiterating his harassment. Key conversation portions are as follows:

Sergeant Davis advised me that he was tasked to respond to my October 8, 2010complaint document to City Manager Mr. Rashad Young. It should be noted thatallegations against Sergeant Davis were made in the October 8, 2010 document.

Sergeant Davis stated) ~~1m gone be quite frank with you, I talked to him, M r. Young on ,Monday or Tuesday, and he advised me that he wasn't gone respond. You asked me thatthe other day and I told you I got it from my chain. I actually talked to him. He advisedme that he wasn't going to respond because there was nothing in there that could besubstantiated as harassment. Again that is why I was tasked to do it." It should be notedthat a written response was requested regardless of what his fmdings were. Sergeant Davis stated, "Quite frankly the other stuff is done. It's over with, it is done." Iasked Sergeant Davis what he meant by over with. I explained to Sergeant Davis that thediscipline I received exceeded his level of authority. The appeal I filed which I have arigl1Jt()y.r~~~t0tp,egityl\.1ana.ger) the person that has the authority to .rescind thediscipline. Sergeant Davis replied, "I t h i n k the only recourse you have that you discussedwith the Lieutenant or somebody is litigation. I talked to the City Manager on Monday orTuesday and he is not going to respond."

Sergeant Davis stated that "They told me the discipline was going to stand and that theywere not going to respond." I asked is there any reason why. Sergeant Davis stated, "Ihave no idea Officer Thomas."

Sergeant Davis stated, "As far as filing complaints) they need to start with me." Sergeant Davis stated, "I don't know if any of the complaints you have filed were doneproperly." Mr. Young, the proper way to file a complaint is to alert any supervisor that analleged violation has been committed. In addition, my appeal was filed properly to thebest of my knowledge,

Sergeant Davis and I discussed the fact that in an official evaluation document he statedthat I looked at him as in wanted to bite his head off. Sergeant Davis stated he wrote it in


12/13

12

the document because I expressed to him verbally that the comment was harassing. Inaddition, Sergeant Davis appears to actually attempt to defend writing the comment in myevaluative document.

., I asked Sergeant Davis if I would get anything in writing from the City Manager that heis not going to respond to my appeal, for my confirmation. Sergeant Davis replied, "No,he told me that he was not going to respond and if something changed he would let meknow."

Sergeant Davis stated, "This is on the record. I received a phone call that I was on theblog. Really, seriously, do you feel like I have continued harassing you?" I advisedSergeant Davis that I did not want to discuss a complaint with him that he (SergeantDavis) was named in, and that it made me feel very uncomfortable. I informed SergeantDavis that it was intimidating and I preferred not to discuss it. Sergeant Davis stated,"Now that is where we differ. You should and you will and you have to discuss it withme before you go further. Before you go further, you will come in informally and we willtalk about it and we will try to hash it out. If that doesn't work then you come to meformally, and if that doesn't work, you go up the chain."

o Sergeant Davis stated, "1 really took offense to it (allegations against Sergea.llt Davis)cause I didn't see it coming, I didn't see it coming. But, you said it. That's fine."

I asked Sergeant Davis for a copy of the administrative rights form and the notification ofinvestigation memo from October 11,2010. Sergeant Davis began an investigation on mefor utilization of sick time. Sergeant Davis replied, "I didn't do one." I advised SergeantDavis that I thought that was what the rights form I signed on October 11,2010 was for.Sergeant Davis replied, "It was, but I didn't do one." Mr. Young, please be advised thatSergeant Davis began an investigation on me on October 11, 2010. He also had me sign arights form and questioned me as it related to my sick time. Because Sergeant Davis wasnot able to sustain a violation, Sergeant Davis is now stating that he did not conduct aninvestigation. This is continued harassment, and clearly improper actions on the part ofSergeant Davis. The actual investigation of my sick time usage by Sergeant Davis isnoted previously inthis document.

End of recorded verbal response from Sergeant Davis to me in which Sergeant Daviscompleted an investigation on himself at the direction of his chain of command (According: f o - : ~ S - t ~ g c ~ n t - , : D a ' ~ i - s - ; - ~ ~ ' ~ , ~ : - - - - - - _ . , . " - - , - - -. . - , . _ . _ -On October 22, 2010, at approximately 10:55 hours, I met Sergeant Davis in the parking lot atthe PolicelFire Substation on South Elm Eugene Street in regards to endorsing, and forwardingthis correspondence. Although Departmental Directive 1.5.25 Forwarding Correspondenceindicates, "An employee receiving a written communication from a subordinate directed to ahigher authority shall endorse it, indicating approval, disapproval, or acknowledgement, andforward within a reasonable period of time", Sergeant Davis did not accept nor endorse thedocument..Mr. Young, I believe the response to my appeal/complaints is clear continued discrimination,retaliation, harassment, hostile work environment and unfair treatment of me by Sergeant Davis.This treatment according to Sergeant Davis is at your direction. I am humbly requesting a writtenresponse from you to my appeal/complaint documents (September 13, 2010 and October 8,


13/13

13

.,,

2010), and October 22, 1010, confmning Sergeant Davis' verbal communications to me,regarding your decision.Thank: you for any consideration given these matters.\~\jd~OfAcer D. V. Thomas, Support Bureau Operational Support Division

THOMAS- October 22,2010 Complaint of continued Discrimination,Retaliation

Documents

Transcript of THOMAS- October 22,2010 Complaint of continued Discrimination,Retaliation