An interesting and disgusting article in the 24 July 2000 Federal Employees News Digest (Vol. 49 No. 50) that gives some valuable insight into the federal law enforcement agencies internal behaviors. This particular article refers to the outcome and aftermath of an EEOC sexual discrimination compliant. This information generally does not make its way into the public news arena. Appropriate comments have been highlighted. Apologies to the ladies on the board.
************************************************************
Discipline for crude behavior not retaliatory
Disciplinary actions meted out to five Drug Enforcement Administration agents for creating a sexually hostile environment in their law enforcement training sessions were not retaliatory actions, a federal district court rules, rejecting the agents’ discrimination charges.
The white male agents were transferred and reprimanded when a group of women law enforcement officers, who had attended training sessions led by the agents, complained that they had been subjected to a hostile environment by the instructors’ behavior. Examples of objectionable conduct cited by the women included the instructors:
Using sexual terms to describe law enforcement work, making sexual remarks about female participants, including pictures of nude women with instructional slides, and using derogatory terms when referring to women.
Using derogatory sexual terms when speaking about Attorney General Reno.
Grabbing their genitals and using crude language to describe them.
Boasting that DEA agents get “horny” unless they can “kill people”.
After the original compliant was made in 1995, four of the male agents were transferred and all of them were placed on administrative leave with pay and one agent also received a letter of reprimand. The agents then filed suit under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, charging that they were discriminated against because they were white males and that the agency’s disciplinary decisions represented retaliation for previous discrimination complaints they had filed.
Dismissing the employees’ charges, the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois stresses that “an employer has the right to discipline employees that disgrace it with shameful and, if the women officers’ allegations can be proven, quite possibly illegal conduct.’ According to the court, management’s “exercise of that right is not retaliation.” (Flanagan v. Reno, DC, NDIll., No. 97 C 2083, 06/13/2000)
************************************************************
Skyhawk
************************************************************
Discipline for crude behavior not retaliatory
Disciplinary actions meted out to five Drug Enforcement Administration agents for creating a sexually hostile environment in their law enforcement training sessions were not retaliatory actions, a federal district court rules, rejecting the agents’ discrimination charges.
The white male agents were transferred and reprimanded when a group of women law enforcement officers, who had attended training sessions led by the agents, complained that they had been subjected to a hostile environment by the instructors’ behavior. Examples of objectionable conduct cited by the women included the instructors:
Using sexual terms to describe law enforcement work, making sexual remarks about female participants, including pictures of nude women with instructional slides, and using derogatory terms when referring to women.
Using derogatory sexual terms when speaking about Attorney General Reno.
Grabbing their genitals and using crude language to describe them.
Boasting that DEA agents get “horny” unless they can “kill people”.
After the original compliant was made in 1995, four of the male agents were transferred and all of them were placed on administrative leave with pay and one agent also received a letter of reprimand. The agents then filed suit under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, charging that they were discriminated against because they were white males and that the agency’s disciplinary decisions represented retaliation for previous discrimination complaints they had filed.
Dismissing the employees’ charges, the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois stresses that “an employer has the right to discipline employees that disgrace it with shameful and, if the women officers’ allegations can be proven, quite possibly illegal conduct.’ According to the court, management’s “exercise of that right is not retaliation.” (Flanagan v. Reno, DC, NDIll., No. 97 C 2083, 06/13/2000)
************************************************************
Skyhawk