November 15, 2002 |
2002-R-0888 | |
SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMPLAINTS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION | ||
By: John Moran, Associate Analyst | ||
You asked a number of questions regarding sexual harassment complaints that Department of Correction (DOC) employees filed against other DOC employees since Commissioner John Armstrong began his tenure on January 27, 1995. The questions and answers follow.
How many employee sexual harassment complaints have been filed with DOC since Commissioner Armstrong began his tenure and what were the outcomes? How many of these cases did the state Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) have?
There were 112 sexual harassment complaints filed through the department's affirmative action grievance process during this time. (Sexual harassment is a prohibited discriminatory practice under state law. ) Affirmative action staff investigate complaints following state guidelines and the DOC administrative directive on sexual harassment (for more on the department's policy see Office of Legislative Research report 2002-R-0658). The 112 complaints include 10 substantiated sexual harassment cases and 16 others found to be unprofessional behavior. A finding of unprofessional conduct means the individual failed to meet DOC's standard of conduct but the offense was not serious enough to be considered sexual harassment.
Table 1 shows a breakdown of complaint determination.
Table 1: Sexual Harassment Complaints Filed
Within DOC Since January 1995
Total Sexual Harassment Complaints |
Substantiated as Sexual Harassment |
Substantiated as Unprofessional Behavior |
Not Substantiated Following Investigation |
Withdrawn, Informally Resolved, or Addressed in Another Form |
Pending |
112 |
10 |
16 |
51 |
21 |
14 |
CHRO is authorized by statute to investigate complaints it receives alleging discrimination or sexual harassment in work places including state agencies and the private sector. CHRO reports it has received 31 complaints alleging DOC employee sexual harassment against other DOC employees during the seven years from July 1, 1995 to June 30, 2002 (this covers all but five months of Armstrong's tenure).
CHRO's resolution of each of the complaints is shown in Table 2.
Table 2: DOC Sexual Harassment Complaints Filed at CHRO
Year |
Number ofComplaints |
Not Substantiated Following Investigation |
Dismissed After Initial Assessment Review |
Released at Complainant's Request for Another Jurisdiction* |
Withdrawn by Complainant |
Withdrawn with Settlement (Before Investigation Completed) |
Settlement Reached After Complaint Sustained |
Pending |
FY 96 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
||||
FY 97 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
||||
FY 98 |
9 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 | |
FY 99 |
1 |
1 |
||||||
FY 00 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|||||
FY 01 |
6 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 | |||
FY 02 |
5 |
2 |
1 |
2 | ||||
Totals |
31 |
5 |
9 |
7 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
5 |
*Usually released so complainant can file a lawsuit.
CHRO screens each complaint it receives to determine whether it should be (1) approved for a full investigation or (2) dropped if it is determined to be without merit.
Sometimes during an investigation the complainant will ask to be released from the CHRO process to pursue the complaint by other means, usually through a Superior Court civil suit. Complaints may also either be withdrawn by the complainant and no reason given or are withdrawn because a settlement is reached between the two sides.
How were DOC employees with substantiated sexual harassment complaints against them disciplined?
During Commissioner Armstrong's tenure, 46 employees were given some form of discipline for substantiated incidents of what DOC labeled "inappropriate behavior with a sexual component. " The discipline ranges from written reprimand to firing.
The category "inappropriate behavior with a sexual component" includes cases of substantiated sexual harassment and substantiated misconduct or unprofessional behavior. DOC could not immediately separate out sexual harassment cases from this group, but this report will be updated with that information when it is available.
Table 3 shows the discipline handed out by the department administration. Any discipline may be appealed either under union contract rules or the employee appeals processes available to all state workers. Appeal results are not contained in this report.
Department records show more employees disciplined (46) than cases of substantiated harassment (26) because a single substantiated case can involve more than one employee.
Table 3: Discipline for Employees With
Substantiated Complaints Against Them
What is DOC's internal procedure for advising sexual harassment victims? Does the DOC investigator spell out the victim's rights?
DOC sexual harassment policy does not explicitly require department investigators to detail rights and options to the victims. In practice, victims often ask what else they can do or what happens if their complaint fails, and investigators then inform them of their options, which include filing a complaint with CHRO or the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
However, when new employees first come to DOC, they receive and sign off on the affirmative action grievance procedure as part of their employee training. The in-service training program each employee periodically receives covers sexual-harassment prevention training and includes training on employees' rights regarding sexual harassment.
JM: ro