Sentinel Case No. 24-01

Amarik K. Singh Inspector General OIG OFFICE of the Neil Robertson Chief Deputy INSPECTOR GENERAL Inspector General Independent Prison Oversight OIG № 24–01 SENTINE L CASE OCTOBER 17, 2024 The Department Entered Into a Settlement Agreement Allowing a Correctional Administrator to Return to Work Despite Strong Evidence the Administrator Engaged in Serious Misconduct, Including Sexual Harassment, Racism, and Intimidation The Office of the Inspector General (the OIG) is The Department Determined That the responsible for, among other things, monitoring Correctional Administrator Made Multiple the California Department of Corrections and Sexist and Racist Comments to Subordinates Rehabilitation’s (the department) staff complaint and Attempted to Intimidate Them Even After process, internal investigations, and employee the Department Reassigned Him disciplinary process. Under California Penal Code sections 6126 and 6133, the OIG reports annually The modern workplace should be a safe on the staff complaint process and semiannually environment in which employees can labor on its monitoring of internal investigations and the without fear of harassment, bigotry, or retaliation. employee disciplinary process. However, in some Unfortunately, this was not the case for a situation cases, when there are compelling reasons, the OIG that prevailed within a particular area of the may issue a Sentinel Case when it has determined department. An administrator’s subordinates that the department’s handling of a case was found little if any respite from his disturbing unusually poor and involved serious errors, even behavior. Between April 2022 and April 2023, after the department had an opportunity to address this administrator held a chief position in a the harm. specialized unit within the department, where he directly supervised a manager, who was serving This Sentinel Case, № 24–01, involves a correctional a probationary period. During this time, the administrator (administrator) who allegedly made administrator engaged in a pattern of egregious multiple derogatory and obscene comments and harassment. The administrator directed many engaged in behaviors that violated the department’s inappropriate comments toward the manager.1 Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and sexual He also directed inappropriate comments toward harassment policies. The administrator also a Staff Services Analyst. The administrator made attempted to solicit information that concerned some of the comments using his State-issued EEO complaints filed against him and intimidated mobile phone and did so outside normal business a manager whom he supervised after the manager’s hours. The misconduct included sexual harassment colleague had reported the administrator’s alleged and racism and, perhaps worst of all, the misconduct. The hiring authority dismissed the administrator attempted to intimidate the manager administrator. However, the department then into silence. entered into a settlement agreement with the administrator demoting him to a correctional The administrator made numerous abhorrent sexual officer position and suspending him for 11 months comments to the manager while he supervised without sufficient justification. her and even after he no longer supervised her. 1. The following description of the administrator’s misconduct includes a summary of allegations the department sustained or alleged in the dismissal actions served on the administrator. Page 1 of 6 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh Inspector General OIG OFFICE of the Neil Robertson INSPECTOR GENERAL Inspe C c h to ie r f G D e e n p e u r t a y l Independent Prison Oversight OIG № 24–01 SENTINEL CASE OCTOBER 17, 2024 For example, on one occasion, the administrator colleague requested that the State of California’s commented that he was able to see the manager’s Office of Civil Rights open an EEO case. However, underwear through her pants. On another occasion, on February 24, 2023, the manager requested that he called the manager on her personal phone and the complaint be withdrawn. Therefore, no action told her to save the phone number he was calling was taken at that time. In fact, on May 1, 2023, from in the event that he asked her for a photograph the administrator was assigned out of class as of her vagina, reminding her that he could fail her the acting chief of another unit. Nevertheless, on probation. On yet another occasion, he sent the harassment continued. On May 24, 2023, the her a text message and told her to save the phone administrator called the manager and told her number under “Daddy.” At one point, he made a he was “not [her] boss anymore” and that if she reference to his penis by telling the manager that “thought it was bad before,” his behavior toward he was “peeing” and that because his physician had her would intensify because he was “not in [her] told him that he “can’t lift heavy things,” he would chain of command.” He also told her to tell her require her assistance next time. boyfriend to “hurry up and come so that she could come,” meaning to have an orgasm. One night at 8:00 p.m., the administrator again called the manager on her personal phone. The The administrator’s inappropriate behavior was manager had been traveling in a vehicle with a not directed at only the manager. According female friend, who could also hear the comments. to the Office of Internal Affairs’ investigative The administrator stated that he had been drinking report, the administrator had also made a joke and questioned why the manager was working on a to a Staff Services Analyst implying that her Friday night. He told the manager that he “owned” former workplace had a sexually explicit name. her because she was still on probation and warned On another occasion, he asked this analyst to lift that she had “better do what [he said].” While still up her shirt to show him a tattoo. He also texted on the phone, the manager stated that she was her that he needed someone loyal, a “ride or die,” trying to park the vehicle, but that the parking and asked whether she wanted a “ride to the top,” spaces were too tight. The administrator made implying that he would reward her loyalty with moaning sounds and responded, “I bet that’s what career advancement. He also asked, “Do you know your boyfriend says” in a crude reference to sexual who I am?” and asked her for her “soul.” Another relations. On other occasions, the administrator employee reported that the administrator had made racial comments about the manager’s played music with explicit lyrics that referred to boyfriend, including telling her that she “loves “pimps” and “hoes” and that he referred to himself Black guys.” He told her he saw a “homeless Black as the manager’s “dad” or “daddy.” Moreover, the guy” and asked whether that was her “boyfriend.” administrator loudly referred to noncustody staff The administrator also referred to the manager’s as “worthless,” which he did not deny when later boyfriend as a “thug” and a “deadbeat.” In questioned by the Office of Internal Affairs. March 2023, the manager told the administrator Finally, on May 26, 2023, the department advised that she was suffering from a kidney stone. The the administrator that he could no longer remain administrator responded that the manager should in his new position as the acting chief of the advise her boyfriend to stop “being so dirty so he unit to which he had been reassigned because of doesn’t give [her] all kinds of nasty bladder and “allegations from staff about his language,” and kidney infections.” he would be reassigned again. Thereafter, the Over dinner one night, the manager confided in a administrator began to solicit information about colleague and the colleague’s husband, and related the cause of his reassignment. He called a captain that her administrator had been harassing her. The and asked whether anyone was “acting weird.” He Page 2 of 6 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh Inspector General OIG OFFICE of the Neil Robertson INSPECTOR GENERAL Inspe C c h to ie r f G D e e n p e u r t a y l Independent Prison Oversight OIG № 24–01 SENTINEL CASE OCTOBER 17, 2024 also continued to contact the manager. At first, he alcohol, failed to complete the recovery program, apologized for offending her, but in subsequent or engaged in similar harassment or retaliation calls and texts, he informed her that he knew many behaviors. The department also reserved the right people in the department who were willing to tell to assign the administrator to a specific prison. him, “everything.” He also reminded her that she The OIG disagreed with the settlement. Irrefutable owed her position as a manager to him and asked evidence existed to support the allegations cited whether she lived in a certain city and whether against the administrator, which constituted she drove a certain make and model of car. The egregious misconduct—not specifically for a high- implication was clear. The administrator had ranking administrator, but for any departmental sought information from the captain, and he was employee. The department could have put forth attempting to intimidate the manager to silence her. a variety of evidence—multiple witnesses, text The department investigated the matter, and messages, emails, and memoranda—to support the the administrator claimed he did not remember allegations. Moreover, the department’s decision almost the entirety of his inappropriate behavior to settle the matter undermined the department’s and blamed it on excessive alcohol consumption. zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual harassment The hiring authority reviewed the investigation, and even suggested the administrator’s behavior sustained the above-described allegations, and was tolerable enough for the department to determined dismissal was the appropriate penalty. continue to employ him as a peace officer. The department attorneys and the OIG agreed If these decisions were intended to eliminate unequivocally. However, the administrator appealed any future harm or liability to the department his dismissal to the State Personnel Board. through the settlement, then the settlement was deeply flawed. First, it is dangerous to assume that The Department Should Not Have Settled a a manager who engaged in sexual harassment, Dismissal Case Supported by Overwhelming racism, and intimidation could be trusted to work Evidence Against a Correctional Administrator in a prison environment as a peace officer where Accused of Serious Misconduct That Included disrespectful remarks could easily lead to violence. Sexual Harassment, Racism, and Intimidation By demoting the administrator to the position of After a prehearing settlement conference to officer, the department had perhaps, unwittingly, discuss a possible settlement, the department implied twin conceptualizations of the problem: entered into a settlement agreement with the Although the risk the administrator might have administrator through which the administrator again directed this type of adverse behavior toward agreed to withdraw his appeal. In exchange, the subordinates remained unacceptable, the risk that department agreed to demote the administrator to he might now direct this same type of behavior the position of correctional officer and suspend him toward fellow officers, as well as medical staff and for 11 months. The administrator agreed to not have incarcerated people, was somehow acceptable. In any measurable amount of alcohol in his system effect, the settlement exposed staff and incarcerated while on duty, to submit to alcohol testing, and people to a person with a demonstrated history of to participate in an alcohol dependence recovery sexual harassment. The term of the settlement that program. The administrator also agreed that he placed the administrator in a prison environment would refrain from acting as a mentor to other is equally troubling. Although the prison the departmental employees and would participate department ultimately selected was one in which in harassment, discrimination, and retaliation officers wear body-worn cameras, which would training. The department reserved the right to presumably document and, therefore, deter any dismiss the administrator if he tested positive for future misconduct, much of the administrator’s Page 3 of 6 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh Inspector General OIG OFFICE of the Neil Robertson INSPECTOR GENERAL Inspe C c h to ie r f G D e e n p e u r t a y l Independent Prison Oversight OIG № 24–01 SENTINEL CASE OCTOBER 17, 2024 Key Reasons Why the Department Should Not Have Entered Into a Settlement With the Administrator THE TERMS • Are unlikely to prevent misconduct from continuing. THE DECISION • Undermines the THE BASIS department’s zero-tolerance • Is a greeting card message that policy for sexual the department failed to either harassment. authenticate or examine for significance. • Poses the risk of the misconduct • Is the erroneous notion that continuing. attorney–client privilege exists between the department and a witness. • Is the unsurprising possibility that the witness might pursue a Source: The Office of the Inspector General. separate legal action. misconduct had occurred after hours using a mobile the department had assigned the administrator as phone. Therefore, the reassignment does nothing an acting chief over a unit. Any employee who has to preclude the administrator from continuing such been promoted to such a position would certainly behavior in his new role as an officer. understand the importance of maintaining the highest ethical standards. Finally, although the In addition, the other settlement terms do not settlement indicates that the administrator would sufficiently shield the department from liability. have been dismissed had he engaged in harassment First, the term requiring the administrator to report again, the department had already dismissed him, to duty without alcohol in his system, to regularly only to then withdraw the dismissal. The settlement be tested for alcohol in his bloodstream, and to does not guarantee that the department would not complete a treatment program ultimately does withdraw a dismissal again, nor does it prevent the not preclude the administrator from continuing administrator from being promoted to a supervisory to consume alcohol, or to harass and intimidate role in the future. people. Again, because much of his misconduct occurred over the phone and while off duty, The Department Failed to Exercise Due nothing in these terms prevents the administrator Diligence Before Settling the Case from contacting employees at the prison and continuing these adverse behaviors, unbeknown Soon after the prehearing settlement conference, to the department. Furthermore, although the the administrator provided the department with a settlement requires the administrator to participate photocopy of what his representative purported to in harassment, discrimination, and retaliation be a greeting card signed by the manager, as well as training, the administrator had already received several other employees. It appeared to be a going such training, and the training clearly did not away card, commonly passed around and exchanged deter him from engaging in serious misconduct. among office mates when a fellow employee leaves, As previously noted in this report, at one point, because the other signatories expressed such Page 4 of 6 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh Inspector General OIG OFFICE of the Neil Robertson INSPECTOR GENERAL Inspe C c h to ie r f G D e e n p e u r t a y l Independent Prison Oversight OIG № 24–01 SENTINEL CASE OCTOBER 17, 2024 sentiments as “good luck” and “I hope you enjoy manager thank the administrator and wish him your new post,” and, “I’m sad that you are leaving.” luck because she was afraid that he would retaliate The greeting card, which had not been previously against her if she did not? Did the manager even mentioned, included a message congratulating the write the message at all or recognize the writing? administrator on his new assignment and thanking Unfortunately, the department did not act on this him for helping to make her a better manager. basic and simple recommendation to examine The greeting card was not dated, and it did not either the significance or the authenticity of the retract, deny, or disprove any of the allegations. message conveyed in the greeting card. As such, nothing conveyed in the greeting card contradicted existing evidence that concerned the The Department Incorrectly Determined administrator’s misconduct. That an Attorney–Client Relationship Existed Between Itself and the Manager One reason the department supported settling the case was that its staff believed the card somehow After the OIG elevated the department’s decision jeopardized the manager’s credibility or indicated to settle the matter, but before the final decision that the manager’s testimony might undermine to settle was made, the department attorney the department’s case against the administrator. advised the OIG that the manager had retained This was speculative because the department counsel and that she sought her counsel’s neither examined the authenticity of the card nor representation at the evidentiary hearing. The considered the manager’s possible motives for department attorney expressed concern that the writing those sentiments, especially given that the presence of the manager’s retained counsel would manager had already shown reluctance to report “destroy” any attorney–client privilege between or make statements that could lead to punishment the department attorney and the manager during for the administrator. For example, the manager the process of preparing her for the evidentiary had told departmental investigators that she was hearing. Furthermore, the department attorney afraid to file a complaint against the administrator claimed that the presence of the manager’s retained because he was well-connected and had family counsel could undermine the department’s case by working in the department. According to the suggesting that the manager may have a financial manager, the administrator had also told her that if incentive in testifying against the administrator. she ever “went against” him, he would “blackball” her so that she could “never get a job” again with The OIG does not believe that the manager’s the department. The manager also requested decision to retain private counsel should have that her complaints be submitted anonymously. affected the department’s decision to settle the It is unsurprising that someone in the manager’s matter. The department does not, and did not, position would wish to maintain the appearance of have an attorney–client relationship with the friendly relations. manager because she is only a witness. Moreover, the department did not indicate that it had Nevertheless, the OIG recommended that the established an attorney–client relationship with the department seek to authenticate and have the manager for the purpose of the evidentiary hearing. manager explain what she had written in the Because the department attorney represented the greeting card before settling the matter. For department in defending its decision to dismiss example, the department could ask the manager the administrator, the department attorney’s client why she wrote the message. Was it because she was the department—not the manager. In fact, harbored no ill will toward the administrator? If the manager was listed as only a witness in the so, did that mean that what she, or her colleague, department’s prehearing settlement conference had previously reported was untrue? Did the statement submitted to the State Personnel Board. Page 5 of 6 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh Inspector General OIG OFFICE of the Neil Robertson INSPECTOR GENERAL Inspe C c h to ie r f G D e e n p e u r t a y l Independent Prison Oversight OIG № 24–01 SENTINEL CASE OCTOBER 17, 2024 In addition, the department failed to support its that he should be dismissed. Having worked at the position that there even was an attorney–client department long enough to reach the high position relationship between the department attorney of an administrator, the dismissed employee had and the manager in the first place, let alone why already received all the training and instruction there should be any concern about jeopardizing to impress upon him that the kind of behavior he it. During the witness-preparation process, the engaged in was unacceptable and intolerable in department attorney should guide the witness the modern workplace. In other words, he knew through the hearing process and encourage the better. And yet the department reinstated him to a witness to testify truthfully. The presence of job at a prison based on flawed reasoning without retained counsel during the witness-preparation exercising even minimal due diligence to determine process would not undermine the department’s the authenticity of the evidence offered by the case because the interests of the department and administrator or its significance. The likelihood the manager are essentially aligned in a disciplinary of recurrence of this unacceptable behavior is hearing. A reasonable person would assume that very high considering his well-established pattern both the department and the manager would seek of sexual misconduct and his repeated attempts accountability for the administrator’s actions. to threaten witnesses to conceal his misdeeds. Furthermore, the manager would be free to discuss This settlement has exposed the department to the witness-preparation process with her retained significant liability not only for these acts but for counsel, regardless of whether the counsel was likely future incidents. present during the process. Finally, the OIG is The OIG recommends that the department avoid unconvinced that the presence of retained counsel settling dismissal cases involving sexual harassment at the evidentiary hearing would prejudice a fact and racist remarks when the evidence to support finder against the department due to potential the dismissal is incontrovertible. We further financial incentives she may have in connection recommend that the department also consider with the outcome of the evidentiary hearing. the evidence, weigh the risks, and conduct due Because it is unsurprising that someone in the diligence before entering into such agreements. manager’s position might pursue a separate legal California’s taxpayers, departmental employees, and action regarding the administrator’s misconduct, the incarcerated population deserve no less. doing so would not likely jeopardize the department’s case. On October 2, 2024, prior to publication, the OIG provided the department with a draft copy of this report and an opportunity to respond with Conclusion proposed corrections, concerns, and feedback. The settlement agreement is completely On October 14, 2024, the department notified the unwarranted considering the gravity of the OIG that it “has reviewed and does not have any misconduct and the harm to the public service. comments to the draft report, however, may release The department had already determined that the a formal response once the final report is issued and administrator’s wrongdoing was egregious enough made public.” OIG Page 6 of 6 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov