Tag Archives: discrimination

Nov 12 2013
4 Comments
General

Why Tempe PD’s officer sex scandal could mean trouble for ASUPD.

Everyone in the country right now is talking about the former undercover Tempe PD detective who slept with the drug dealer she was supposed to be investigating. This is pretty scandalous, even by Arizona’s standards!

Needless to say, we weren’t surprised when this story made national news on a major media syndicate, Fox News. They discussed the topic at length, and a prior law enforcement officer “consultant” for the show said the department investigating the complaint should also be assessing the detective’s TRAINING and SUPERVISION in addition to alleged offenses.

All of us in law enforcement know that when something major occurs  in a department (excluding ASU) quite often the supervisors/trainers are also held liable because of their negligence or nonfeasance in supervision/training. How many times has a supervisor at ASUPD been written up for negligence in training or supervision?

We’re willing to bet virtually none, because almost all supervisors and FTO Sergeants (current and past) would have been fired already. In case you weren’t aware, AS supervisors or FTO supervisors, your job description ALSO includes either supervising or training (sometimes both). Additionally, your SUPERVISORS also have SUPERVISORS. That means when stuff really hits the fan, someone in a position of authority should look to see who was managing the person that messed up as well as THEIR supervisor.

Adequate training also plays a key role in the liability game too. All of us at ASUPD know the hard work Sergeant T put into building a LEGITIMATE, liability free FTO program. He knew how a failure for officers to be properly trained could cause a huge legal issue for ASUPD, so he utilized a previously established and legally sound FTO program. After being destroyed by both Sergeant Pam Osborne and Sergeant Fuchtman, what remains of the FTO program is nothing like the one Sergeant T implemented; it remains now as one of ASUPD’s greatest liabilities.

At this point, ASUPD doesn’t even require a major incident in order for someone to peel back the layers of liability and find out who hasn’t been doing their jobs; it only takes a FOIA request and half a brain. In addition to the aforementioned issues, ASUPD should be aware of the fact that the nation’s focus right now is on the major scandal transpiring in Tempe, AZ. It wouldn’t take a whole lot of work to throw some of ASUPD’s issues into the mix too.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Nov 08 2013
4 Comments
General

Editiorial: What ASUPD should learn about bullying from Miami Dolphins’ Jonathan Martin.

After the overwhelming response we received from our post on bullying in the workplace (titled, “The Bully at Work: how many apply to you current/former ASUPD employees?), we decided to follow it up with secondary post regarding workplace bullying, inspired by the Miami Dolphins’ offensive tackle Jonathan Martin.

As some of you may be aware, very recently Martin, a 24-year old rookie, quit the Miami Dolphins and checked himself into a South Florida hospital for treatment for emotional distress. According to the article, “the specific treatment of Martin’s emotional condition was not disclosed, but sources say it was related to his belief that he had been targeted during a sustained level of harassment from teammates, including suspended guard Richie Incognito”

Martin’s attorney stated that the issue is Martin’s treatment by his teammates. Martin endured harassment that went far beyond the traditional locker room hazing; he attempted to befriend the same teammates who subjected him to the abuse with the hope that doing so would end the harassment. This is a textbook reaction of victims of bullying.

So what does this have to do with ASUPD?

According to Drs. Ruth and Gary Namie (Authors of the book The Bully at Work),

Bullying in the workplace can have significant mental and physical impacts.What makes it psychological is bullying’s impact on the person’s mental health and sense of well-being. The personalized, focused nature of the assault destabilizes and disassembles the target’s identity, ego strength, and ability to rebound from the assaults. The longer the exposure to stressors like bullying, the more severe the psychological impact. When stress goes unabated, it compromises both a target’s physical and mental health. :

Physical health problems from stress include:

  • Cardiovascular Problems: Hypertension (60%) to Strokes, Heart Attacks
  •  Adverse Neurological Changes: Neurotransmitter Disruption, Hippocampus Shrinkage
  • Immunological Impairment: More frequent infections of greater severity
  • Fibromyalgia (21%), Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (33%)

Some physical indications of the above stress might include:

  • Nausea
  • Tremors of the Lips, Hands, Etc.
  •  Feeling Uncoordinated
  • Chills
  • Profuse Sweating
  • Rapid Heartbeat/Breathing
  • Elevated Blood Pressure
  • Chest Pain
  • Uncontrollable Crying
  •  Headaches

Psychological-Emotional Injuries

  • Debilitating Anxiety (80%)
  •  Panic Attacks (52%)
  • Clinical Depression: new to person or exacerbated condition previously controlled (49%)
  • Post-traumatic Stress (PTSD) from deliberate human-inflicted abuse (30%)
  • Shame (the desired result of humiliating tactics by the bully) – sense of deserving a bad fate
  • Guilt (for having “allowed” the bully to control you)
  • Overwhelming sense of Injustice (Equity – the unfairness of targeting you who works so hard; Procedural – the inadequacy of the employer’s response to your complaint)

(Note: All of these ailments caused by stress could explain a large surge in the usage of sick/vacation time currently transpiring)

Even more shocking? In the WBI 2012-D Study, 29% of bullied targets considered suicide and 16% had a plan. According to Police Chief Magazine, Various sources report 300 completed police suicides annually; other sources report that a law enforcement officer (LEO) is more likely to die by suicide than by homicide. Why? One reason cited is that one factor may be conflict with the police administration; more specifically, some officers may choose suicide to escape from an intolerable or unbearable situation.

How many times have we seen those in the department physically suffering from being bullied? We’ve witnessed a petite female officer lose 10 pounds from stress; we’ve seen several other coworkers suffering from high blood pressure, ulcers, insomnia, migraines REGULARLY due to unnecessary stress from certain members of ASUPD’s “clique”. We’ve also witnessed many good officers quit due to the unnecessary stress which caused the officers’ personal lives to be affected.

Law enforcement is stressful enough. As law enforcement professionals, we should be supporting each other, not constantly seeking ways to destroy each others’ personal and professional lives as some sort of sick trophy. Yes, we’re tough cops, but we’re also human beings first and foremost. If bullying can affect a strong, young (and well-paid!) professional football player to the point of quitting his profession, it can affect ANY of us.

ASUPD has an obligation–from a moral and a legal standpoint–to deal with the bullying problem (caused by a select group of people) it has previously refused even existed. If it continues to fester, what is going to prevent a  situation like Jonathan Martin (or worse!) from happening at ASUPD?

 

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Oct 29 2013
5 Comments
Department morale, General, Staffing issues

“The Bully at Work”; how many of these apply to all you current/former ASUPD employees?

“The Bully at Work” is a pretty informative book by Dr’s Gary and Ruth Namie. In it, they discuss what workplace bullying is, why it occurs, why bullies pick their targets, and how to deal with bullies at work.

To all the current and former ASU Police employees out there, read some of these excerpts and see if they apply to you; for those admin outside of the department, think about how issues like these are affecting employee productivity and retention:

Bullying at Work

  • Bullying at work is repeated, health-harming mistreatment of a person by one or more workers that takes the form of verbal abuse; conduct or behaviors that are threatening, intimidating, or humiliating; sabotage that prevents the work from getting done; or some combination of the three.  Perpetrators are bullies; those on the receiving end are Targets.
  • It is psychological violence – sublethal and nonphysical – a mix of verbal and strategic assaults to prevent the Target from performing work well.
  • The bully puts her or his personal agenda of controlling another human being above the needs of the employing organization.
  • In 62 percent of cases, when employers are made aware of bullying, they escalate the problem for the Target or simply do nothing. 
  • Workplace bullying is a serious threat to:  (18-19)
    • Freedom from fear and trauma
    • Employee health and safety
    • Civil rights in the workplace
    • Dignity at work
    • Personal self-respect
    • Family cohesion and stability
    • Work team morale and productivity
    • Employment practices liability
    • Retention of skilled employees
    • Employer reputation

Understanding Bullies

    • Bullies can be categorized, but individuals who choose to bully can adopt any tactic at any time to accomplish their goal.   [One of these is] The Constant Critic.
      • Operates behind closed doors so that later she or he can deny what was said or done to you.  Extremely negative.  Nitpicker.  Perfectionist.  Whiner.  Complainer.  Faultfinder.  Liar.  Loved by senior management because of his ability to “get those people to produce.”
      • Constant haranguing about the Target’s “incompetence”
      • Demands eye contact when he speaks but deliberately avoids eye contact when the Target speaks
      • Accuses Target of wrongdoing, blames Target for fabricated errors
      • Makes unreasonable demands for work with impossible deadlines, applies disproportionate pressure, expects perfection 
      • Excessively or harshly criticizes Target’s work or abilities 
      • Most bullies work to make themselves well-connected to senior management, executives, or owners.  While Targets focus on prideful work, bullies are busy kissing up to the big bosses. 
      • They have allies – we call them executive sponsors – willing to block punishment for malicious behavior if they are ever exposed.  The big bosses think the bullies can do no wrong.  Targets have a hard time being believed for this reason. 

      Does this sound familiar?!

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Oct 27 2013
2 Comments
General

“Changing ASU for future female officers”

A follow up to the previous post:

Former officer sues

 

Russell says police denied her allegations

 

 by Tim Taylor
published on Thursday, April 29, 2004

The ASU Department of Public Safety has denied accusations of discrimination and sexual retaliation of a former female officer, according to the officer, Jenna Russell, who worked for ASU police at the west and main campuses from October 2002 through September 2003.

ASU police was unable to make any comments on the situation, said Cmdr. John Sutton.

Russell filed a sexual retaliation and discrimination suit against ASU police with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Jan. 26.
In it, Russell reported snide comments about her sexuality, disregard for her authority by a fellow officer and bogus negative reports of her field training. She also said that ASU West denied her a shift transfer when she was having a situation at home.

The EEOC sent Russell a “right to sue” letter on April 19 after deciding not to pursue the case, Russell said. That gives Russell the right to pursue legal action on her own. Russell recently hired Phoenix attorney Jerome Froimson and is continuing with the civil litigation through the courts.

She said that obtaining a job with another police department after taking legal action would be very difficult. “I’m pretty much blackballed after I do this,” she said. “I’m basically kissing my career goodbye.”

Russell resigned last August after she said she received three written reprimands in one day. She referred to those reprimands as “crap.” Her resignation became effective in September 2003.

Russell said ASU DPS’ denial of the accusations is an outright lie.

When the west, east and main campus departments converged in February 2003, she volunteered for what she thought was a two-week orientation. She discovered that she was to complete a 10-week field-training program identical to the one she had done for ASU West.

She completed it in seven weeks. Her scores in both field-training programs were above average, she said.

“I am determined that the truth will prevail, and I am not giving in,” said Russell. “I will make them change the way they treat their female officers in the future.”

https://asuwebdevilarchive.asu.edu/issues/2004/04/29/news/674653?&print=yes

Tagged , , , , , , , ,
Oct 27 2013
2 Comments
General

ASU’s issues with female officers and field training date back to 2004!

Former officer alleges harassment

 

Former female ASU police officer has filed discrimination lawsuit

 

 by Amanda Keim
published on Tuesday, February 24, 2004

Jenna Russell dreamt of becoming a police officer since she was 6. She proved to her father that a woman could attain that goal when she graduated near the top of her police class.

But now that she has come forward with the story of harassment she said she received as a female police officer with ASU police, she knows no police department is likely to hire her again, she said.

Russell resigned from the department in October 2003 after what she alleges was more than a year of harassment and mistreatment. She filed a sexual retaliation and discrimination suit against ASU police with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Jan. 26.

ASU Cmdr. John Sutton said the department had been served with a notification to a claim by the commission.

Russell originally was hired as an officer for ASU West in August 2002 after being a reserve officer in the Goodyear Police Department.

“I chose ASU because I wanted that family atmosphere [in the department],” Russell said.

Russell first faced problems when completing field training at ASU West in October 2002. She said that her field-training officer refused to turn off the Howard Stern radio show in the patrol vehicle after Russell repeatedly told him it made her uncomfortable “as a woman.”

After she complained to her sergeant, the department switched Russell’s field-training officer assignment, she said.

Russell said she completed field training with above-ave- rage reviews.

But she said that after her complaints were made, several officers made “snide comments about sexuality.”

One officer allegedly made several comments about Russell’s sex and disregarded her authority when she was the officer in charge. When she tried to confront him about one particular incident, he began yelling and then left his shift, she said.

“If that had been me, I would have been fired the next day,” Russell said.

Superiors ignored Russell’s complaints about the officer’s behavior, she added.

In December, the three ASU campus police departments began to merge into one department. In February, Russell became the first officer assigned to complete an orientation program at the main campus, she said.

Russell said she was told the orientation program would last two weeks, but when she got to ASU Main, she found she would have to complete the same 10-week field-training program she had successfully finished at ASU West a few months earlier.

This time, she passed the program with above-average reviews in seven weeks.

But Russell’s overall field-training evaluation told a different story.

The evaluation was compiled by a sergeant who based the report on an interview with Russell’s field-training officer and written evaluations, Russell said. It said she “had training issues, was insubordinate, did not get along with others and had an attitude problem,” Russell added.

“I couldn’t believe this entire thing was about me,” she said.

When Russell asked her primary field-training officer about the report, he said the evaluation did not reflect what he had told the sergeant.

Despite these problems with the administration, Russell requested a permanent transfer to ASU Main in June 2003.

“The officers I worked with were great,” Russell said. “I love them.

“You rarely have to deal with [the administration] unless there was an issue,” she said.

Russell withdrew her request shortly after the departments merged on July 1. She needed to stay on the graveyard shift at ASU West to accommodate a situation at home, she said.

But instead, ASU West transferred Russell to a daytime shift in August. Russell tried to retain her night shift, but the request was denied.

Even after explaining her situation to superiors and learning another officer with five years of seniority wanted the day shift, Russell’s request was still denied, she said.

ASU police and ASU General Counsel could not comment on specifics of the case due to commission guidelines.

Russell has not hired a lawyer and does not want financial compensation from ASU at this point, she said.

But giving up her career and bringing to light her story will hopefully start to force the department to evaluate its treatment of women, she said.

“I know I’m not going to change the world, but damn it, I’m going to make a dent,” Russell said.

https://asuwebdevilarchive.asu.edu/issues/2004/02/24/news/616044?&print=yes

Sound familiar?

Tagged , , , , , , , ,
Newer posts →