In summary
Rather than fire him, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation demoted a high-ranking official who allegedly sexually harassed a subordinate.
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation allowed a high-ranking administrator to return to work despite findings of “egregious misconduct” against a subordinate, according to a rare standalone report issued last week by an independent agency that oversees the department’s disciplinary process and internal investigations.
The report marked the first time in three years that the Office of Inspector General called out the state prison system over an individual case. It normally publishes roundups of health care issues, use of force incidents and disciplinary updates.
The inspector general on Oct. 17 issued the so-called sentinel report criticizing the department’s decision to settle a disciplinary case against the administrator despite findings that he should be dismissed over substantiated claims including sexual harassment, racism and intimidation.
He reportedly used crude language when he spoke with a subordinate female manager, made sexual remarks and intimidated her. “He told the manager that he ‘owned’ her because she was still on probation and warned that she had ‘better do what [he said],’” the report said.
The unnamed administrator withdrew his disciplinary appeal to the State Personnel Board after the department settled, suspending him for 11 months and demoting him to correctional officer.
The Office of Inspector General said the department “should not have settled a dismissal case supported by overwhelming evidence.”
“The modern workplace should be a safe environment in which employees can labor without fear of harassment, bigotry, or retaliation,” wrote the Office of Inspector General in its report. “If these decisions were intended to eliminate any future harm or liability to the department through settlement, then the settlement was deeply flawed.”
In his response, Corrections Secretary Jeff Macomber noted that the alleged conduct was egregious, but maintained that the discipline was appropriate.
Macomber referred to the settlement as “progressive discipline” and said it “was one of the harshest penalties (it) has imposed, short of dismissal.”
“The Department’s mission includes rehabilitation of individuals who have committed serious criminal acts in an effort to make them productive members of society,” he wrote. “It is incongruous that the Department would not also seek to rehabilitate employees when it believes it could do so.”