INVESTIGATIVE REPORT REGARDING ALLEGATIONS BROUGHT FORTH

BY OFFICERS RACHEL MANGUM, CASEY WALSH, AND

TONY TJ WATTS AGAINST THE CITY OF OCALA POLICE CHIEF
KENNETH G. GRAHAM

BY:

ROBERT E. LARKIN, III

MARK L. BONFANTI
ALLEN, NORTON & BLUE, P.A.
906 NORTH MONROE STREET
TALLAHASSEE, FL 32303

DATED: JANUARY 13, 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

BASIS FOR THE INVESTIGATION

II.

NATURE OF THE INVESTIGATION

III.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

IV.

RELEVANT LAWS, POLICIES, AND DIRECTIVES

V.

INVESTIGATION BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE

12

VI.

WITNESS LIST

14

VII.

EXHIBIT LIST

15

VIII. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

15

IX.

GRIEVANTS ALLEGATIONS AND TESTIMONY

21

A. OFFICER CASEY WALSH

B. OFFICER RACHEL MANGUM
C. OFFICER TONY TJ WATTS

21
26
31

X.

DETERMINATION

34

XI.

RECOMMENDATION

35

I.

BASIS FOR THE INVESTIGATION

The Mayor and City Councils President requested and approved this investigation. Pursuant
to their request, and the City Charter, the investigating attorneys conducted the inquiry, and the
results are set forth herein.
II.

NATURE OF THE INVESTIGATION

To examine whether Chief Graham:

1. Subjected Police Officer Rachel Mangum to sexual harassment and/or retaliation;
2. Subjected Police Officer Casey Walsh to sexual harassment and/or retaliation;
3. Subjected Police Officer Tony J. TJ Watts to racial discrimination, hostile treatment,
and/or retaliation;
4. Violated any laws, Department rules, regulations, operating procedures and/or
guidelines.
III.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On September 15, 2016, Police Officers Rachel Mangum, Casey Walsh, and Tony J. TJ
Watts (collectively referred to as the Grievants) filed a Formal Grievance (grievance) through
their attorney, Bobi J. Frank, against the Chief of Ocala Police Department, Kenneth G. Graham.
Specifically, Officers Mangum and Walsh allege that they suffered from unwelcome sexual
advances and unwelcome verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature and retaliation at the hands
of Chief Graham. Officer Watts alleges that Chief Graham subjected him to racially discriminatory
behavior, hostile treatment, and retaliation. This investigation did not reveal any evidence
supporting the aforementioned claims.
Officers Mangum and Walsh also allege that Chief Graham had an affair with a subordinate
employee, and that this affair is prompting retaliatory conduct. (Mangum, Tr. 96-97).
Notwithstanding the fact that this allegation is wholly unrelated to the grievance, there is absolutely
no evidence that any illicit behavior occurred. Both Chief Graham and the subordinate employee
steadfastly deny these unsupported and meritless allegations.
3

Under normal circumstances, and pursuant to Department Directive 3.04, any complaints of
harassment should immediately be reported to a Departmental member assigned to one of the
following positions; their supervisor, the Director of Support Services, the City Human Resources
Director, the Captain of Professional Standards, Deputy Chief, or the Office of the Chief of Police.
If warranted, an Internal Affairs investigation will be conducted and to the extent possible, as
permitted by law, the investigation will remain confidential.
In this case, the Grievants attorney filed the grievance with Mayor Kent Guinn,
Councilman/President James Hilty Sr., Councilman/President Pro-Tem Brent Malever,
Councilman Jay Musleh, Councilman Matthew Wardell, Councilwoman Mary Sue Rich, Deputy
Chief Rodney Smith, and Internal Affairs Captain Lou Biondi. Although the Grievants did not
follow Departmental procedure, and inexplicably delayed filing their grievance by nearly four
months, Mayor Guinn and the City prompted this investigation to determine whether the grievance
has merit, and if necessary, take prompt and remedial corrective action.
Typically, the Departments Internal Affairs unit handles grievance investigations, however
due to the grievances public nature, and seriousness of the allegations, the City referred this
investigation to outside legal counsel. Although this law firm has other business dealings with the
City, undersigned counsel has no prior relationship with the Chief, nor have they discussed this
matter with other members of the firm. The firms business relationship with the City did not
impact this investigation or its outcome.
As outlined below, this report directly addresses the complaints set forth in the grievance and
outlines relevant City and/or Department policies and procedures, witness testimony, and
documentary evidence. In addition to the Grievants and Chief Graham, thirty-seven (37) other

witnesses were interviewed. These witnesses include Mayor Kenneth Guinn, the Deputy Chief of
Police, several Department administrators, and many of the Grievants coworkers.
The majority of witnesses praised Chief Graham for his leadership of the Department, and
noted his open-door policy and effort to create a sense of inclusion throughout the Departments
ranks. (i.e., Clark, Tr. 13-14). Most notably, Chief Graham led the Department during a difficult
time period surrounding Officer Jared Forsyths April 6, 2015 accidental shooting death. Officer
Forsyths death took an emotional toll, to a varying degree, on all Department personnel. Some
officers believed they had a right to grieve more than other individuals, and unfortunately, this
tragedy caused a rift to develop between officers. The group experiencing the most difficulty with
Officer Forsyths passing includes the Grievants, as well as Officers Diesso and Sams. These
individuals worked with Officer Forsyth in varying capacities, and all were negatively impacted
by his untimely passing. Although Officer Forsyths death does not validate any of the actions
taken by the complaining officers, or directly correspond to any specific allegation, the events
occurring immediately thereafter, and the impact on the Department as a whole, provides relevant
background information and sets the Departments tone during the year preceding prior to the
grievances filing.
Officer Mangum and Walshs allegations of sexual harassment against Chief Graham stem
from a May, 2016 trip to Washington, DC in which members of the Department traveled to a
memorial ceremony to honor fallen police officers, including Officer Forsyth. Officers Mangum
and Walsh allege that Chief Graham made abusive and hostile comments during the trip. However,
this investigation does not sustain Officers Mangum and Walshs claims of unlawful sexual
harassment against Chief Graham.

With the exception of Officer Matthew Sams testimony, and a possible stray remark heard
only by Officers Diesso and Sams, none of the independent witnesses corroborated the sexual
harassment allegations. Instead, witness testimony revealed that all officers were engaging in
social activities to build camaraderie, and relieve grief associated with Officer Forsyths passing.
It is important to note that apart from the Grievants, Officers Sams and Diesso, and Sergeant
Hay 1; no other witnesses corroborated any aspect of the Greivants allegations. Officer Diesso and
Sergeant Hay are also close friends with the Grievants, and socialize with them outside of work.
Officer Sams credibility is in question for several reasons. Officer Sams is romantically
involved with Officer Mangum, and is very close friends with Officers Walsh and Watts.
Additionally, due to unrelated issues, the State Attorney has stated that he will no longer utilize
Officer Sams testimony in prosecutions, unless there is body-camera footage or other witnesses
corroborating his statements. (Exhibit 13; Graham, Tr. 59-61). Officer Sams also attempted to
influence Officer Stinehours testimony. Specifically, Officer Sams repeatedly sent text messages
to Officer Stinehour soliciting a photograph of her with Officer Eades to send to the Grievants
attorney. (Stinehour, Tr. 17-20; Exhibit 12). Both Officer Sams and Watts encouraged Officer
Stinehour to do this so she may be included in the grievance, and therefore, protected.
(Stinehour, Tr. 15-24).
Officer Mangum, Officer Stinehour, and several other officers are also under investigation for
issues related to their timecards. This investigation is currently on hold, but there appears to be a
belief by Officer Sams and Officer Mangum, that the instant allegations will protect her in the
future. (Stinehour, Tr. 20). The instant grievance was filed immediately after the IA investigation
regarding time cards began. Accordingly, there is some evidence corroborating Officer Stinehours
1

Sergeant Hay and Officer Walsh formerly lived in Sergeant Hays residence together. Sergeant
Hay did not attend the Washington, DC trip.
6

testimony that the instant grievance is without merit, and filed as an attempt to stave off
disciplinary action. (Stinehour, Tr. 15-24).
Additionally, photographic evidence directly contradicts assertions that Officers Walsh and
Mangum were harassed or intimidated during the May, 2016 trip to Washington, DC. With respect
to Officer Walsh, she contradicts the allegations set forth in the grievance, as she took a selfie
photograph of her encounter with Chief Graham in a unisex restroom. This photograph and witness
testimony belies any claim that Chief Graham engaged in harassing behavior. Moreover, Officer
Walsh now characterizes this exchange as joking around, despite listing it in the grievance under
abuse of Casey Walsh. Officer Mangum and Officer Walsh are further seen enjoying the rest of
the evening with coworkers after this incident and during what was otherwise a somber and
reflective trip. There are multiple photographs of both officers drinking alcohol, dancing in
nightclubs, singing karaoke, and otherwise socializing. (Exhibit 1A-1H). A number of these
photographs were taken on the night of the alleged harassment, and posted on social media
websites by both Officer Mangum and Officer Walsh. Despite numerous opportunities to do so,
neither individual indicated that anything inappropriate occurred during the entirety of the trip.
Furthermore, there is no evidence corroborating Officer Walshs additional claims of
unwelcome sexual advances or inappropriate comments by Chief Graham related to her sexual
orientation and relationship with her girlfriend outside of the Washington, DC trip. Witness
testimony does not support her claims, and Chief Graham denies these allegations. To the contrary,
Chief Graham alleges that it was Officer Walsh that would make inappropriate remarks about
having a relationship with his daughter or sexual innuendos about taking his wife on a ride along.
(Graham, Tr. 109-110). Importantly, Officer Walsh corresponded with Chief Graham during the

same time period in which she now claims harassment occurred, but at no point in time did she
complain of harassment or misconduct. (Exhibit 11).
There is also no evidence that Chief Graham retaliated against the Grievants for any reason. In
fact, it is nearly impossible for Chief Graham to have done so, as he was unaware that there were
any lingering issues between he and either Officer Mangum or Officer Walsh, any allegations of
misconduct against him, or any rumor of his alleged extra-marital affair, until they filed the instant
grievance. 2 (Graham, Tr. 79-80). Since that time, Chief Graham has not interacted with either
individual and remains on administrative leave.
Officer Watts alleges that Chief Graham subjected him to racial discrimination, however
Officer Watts fails to provide any evidence that such conduct occurred. The alleged conduct does
not rise to a level that could be considered unlawful discrimination. The grievance focuses on the
actions of Officer Watts immediate supervisor, Sergeant Dustin Kuentjes, yet there is no conduct
alleged which constitutes racially discriminatory behavior by either Sergeant Kuentjes or Chief
Graham. Furthermore, there is no specific assertion that Chief Graham acted in any discriminatory
manner, nor is there any indication that he directed others to do so on his behalf. Consequently,
even if Officer Watts grievance is assumed to be truthful as written, there is no evidence
supporting a finding that Officer Watts was subjected to racist or discriminatory treatment.
To the contrary, Chief Graham has an established history of hiring, supporting and promoting
minority employees within the Department, most recently Tara Woods to the rank of Major.
(Graham, Tr. 97, 99). Officer Watts himself was hired by Chief Graham, and Chief Graham

Chief Graham further testified that he was unaware of any rumors regarding an alleged affair
with a subordinate employee until the instant grievance was filed. (Graham, Tr. 19). Consequently,
and based on timing alone, any allegation that the alleged affair resulted in retaliatory action is
unpersuasive.
8

supported an increased starting salary for Officer Watts due to his past law enforcement
experience, despite objections from other Department members. (Graham, Tr. 78).
Notwithstanding the untimely nature of the claims, the Grievants offered no plausible
explanation for their failure to report any of the alleged violations prior to the instant grievance
being filed. Instead, many months passed before the officers came forward, and even then, they
chose to do so in a manner that is inconsistent with Department policy.
For the reasons set forth below, and referenced throughout this Report, the allegations set forth
in the grievance are unsubstantiated.
IV.

RELEVANT LAWS, POLICIES, AND DIRECTIVES

This investigation sought to determine whether Chief Graham subjected the Grievants to
sexual harassment, racial discrimination, or retaliation in violation of Departmental policies, and
any applicable state or federal statutes prohibiting such behavior. As outlined below, the Citys
investigation is pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement and conducted in accordance with
Departmental Directives.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the federal statute which protects individuals against
employment discrimination on the bases of race and color, national origin, sex, and religion.
Discrimination on the basis of sex includes sexual harassment, either quid pro quo harassment or
hostile work environment. Title VII applies to employers with 15 or more employees, and
extends coverage to state and local governments. Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, known as the
Florida Civil Rights Act, is Floridas state law which offers similar protections.
The City and the Florida State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police are parties to a collective
bargaining agreement (CBA) with the most recent term spanning from October 1, 2016 through
September 30, 2019. The CBA contains provisions governing both rules and regulations (Article

10), and prohibiting discrimination (Article 27). Pursuant to the CBA, investigations of employee
harassment complaints are pursuant to Departmental Directives (Article 27.3).
The Department provided copies of all Directives and City policies and procedures at this
investigations outset. All Department employees receive copies and training on the Department
Directives upon hiring, and again periodically during their employment.
Department Directive 3.04, No Harassment Policy, mandates that all employees will be treated
with respect and that the Department will not tolerate harassment of its members. (Exhibit 10).
Harassment is unwelcome conduct which includes, but is not limited to, slurs, jokes, and other
verbal, graphic or physical conduct relating to an individuals race, color, sex, national origin,
citizenship, age, religion, sexual orientation, economic status or disability. These protections
extend to sexual harassment, hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation.
Directive 3.04 defines sexual harassment as any verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature
or with sexual overtones, unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other verbal
or physical conduct of sexual nature when:
1. Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition
of an individuals employment.
2. Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for
employment decisions affecting such individual.
3. Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individuals
work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working
environment.
Examples of sexual harassment include, but are not limited to, lewd or sexually suggestive
comments, off-color language or jokes of a sexual nature, slurs and other verbal, graphic, or
physical conduct relating to an individuals sex or sexual preference, and display of sexually
explicit pictures, etc.

10

Hostile treatment is analyzed by examining the frequency of the conduct in question, the
severity of the conduct, its effect on the employees work performance, and whether the conduct
is repetitive.
Discrimination is defined as Any difference, distinction, or preference in treatment, access
(e.g., opportunity to be assigned to specialized units), or impact (e.g., effect on organizational
decisions), because of ones gender, race, color, religion, age, disability, pregnancy, marital status,
linguistic preference, sexual orientation, social and family background, ethnic or national origin,
or political beliefs.
All employees are also protected from retaliation. Retaliation requires that the following occur:
1. Employee engages in a legally protected activity, such as filing a complaint of
harassment;
2. There is an adverse employment action; and
3. There is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse
employment action.
In the event an employee believes he or she has been subjected to unlawful harassment, they
are directed to immediately report the situation to the Department, and more specifically,
individuals employed in any of the following positions: their supervisor, the Director of Support
Services, the City Human Resources Director, the Captain of Professional Standards, Deputy
Chief, or the Office of the Chief of Police.
In this case, the Grievants did not follow Department Directive 3.04. Instead, and for reasons
unknown, Officers Mangum and Walsh delayed filing their complaint until nearly four months
after the last incident of alleged sexual harassment. When asked why there was such a significant
delay, the Grievants attorney instructed Officer Mangum to not answer the question. (Mangum,
Tr. 33). Their grievance is also inexplicably combined with that of Officer Watts, despite the fact

11

that his allegations have absolutely nothing to do with Officers Mangum and Walsh. It appears
that the catalyst for the filing was a result of the Grievants attorneys failed attempt to convince
Chief Graham to withhold disciplinary action towards Officer Watts for failing to request a
supervisor at the request of a private citizen. When Chief Graham declined to do so, the Grievants
lawyer filed the grievance the next day and, shortly thereafter, held a press conference to publicly
announce the allegations. It should be noted that Officer Watts has yet to receive disciplinary action
for the event in question, but is expected to receive his reprimand consistent with the treatment of
the other officers involved in the incident following the conclusion of this investigation.
V.

INVESTIGATION BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE

On or about September 15, 2016, attorney Bobi J. Frank filed a formal grievance on behalf of
Police Officers Rachel Mangum, Casey Walsh, and Tony J. TJ Watts. The grievance claimed
that City of Ocala Police Chief Gregory Graham sexually harassed/retaliated against Officers
Mangum and Walsh, and racially discriminated/retaliated against Officer Watts. Attorney Franks
filed the grievance with Mayor Kent Guinn, Councilman/President James Hilty Sr.,
Councilman/President Pro-Tem Brent Malever, Councilman Jay Musleh, Councilman Matthew
Wardell, Councilwoman Mary Sue Rich, Deputy Chief Rodney Smith, and Internal Affairs
Captain Lou Biondi. Contemporaneously with her submission of this grievance Ms. Frank also
held a press conference to publicly disclose the grievance and immediately denounced the
investigatory procedure. 3 Thereafter, the City retained the law firm of Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A.,
and more specifically, attorneys Robert E. Larkin, III, and Mark L. Bonfanti, to fully investigate
the claims.
3

Ms. Franks comments and conduct did not impact this investigation or recommendation,
however it is important to note that during the undersigned attorneys initial telephone
conversation with Ms. Frank, she accused Chief Graham of egregious behavior and numerous
unfounded misdeeds, including murder.
12

The scope of this investigation covered the allegations contained within the grievance, and
required interviews with a number of Department employees to determine whether any misconduct
occurred, and if so, which laws, rules, or regulations were violated. Undersigned counsel
recognizes the importance of balancing the interests of justice with those of the taxpayers whom
ultimately bear the financial burden of this investigation. All efforts were made to conduct
interviews and document reviews in an effective and efficient manner without sacrificing
thoroughness.
Initially, the investigating attorneys took the sworn testimony of each grievant in the presence
of their attorney and a court reporter at Ms. Franks office in Gainesville, Florida. Following
review of their testimony, and at the suggestion of the Grievants attorney and Chief Grahams
attorney, additional witnesses were identified. Each of these individuals were questioned in the
presence of a court reporter. Prior to questioning each witness, the investigating attorney briefed
each individual regarding the general nature of the investigation and answered any preliminary
questions. All employees received assurances that no disciplinary action would result from their
truthful testimony, and the witnesses were apprised of their Garrity Rights and/or executed Garrity
Rights forms acknowledging as such. (Exhibit 14). The employees had the opportunity to be
accompanied during the interview by a union representative or their own legal counsel, however
all employees declined to do so. All witnesses were welcome to provide relevant documentation
for inclusion in the final report. All of the witness interviews took place at City Hall in Ocala,
Florida.
On November 15, 2016, and pursuant to the Florida Police Officers Bill of Rights, Chief
Graham and his attorney, Edward McClellan, received copies of the entire record, including all
investigative materials, including the grievance, possible exhibits, and witness transcripts. Chief

13

Grahams interview took place on December 16, 2016 at his attorneys office in Ocala, Florida. 4
Undersigned counsel extensively questioned Chief Graham regarding the grievance, his
relationship with the Grievants, and attempted to cover all related materials. Chief Graham was
forthcoming and at no time did he refuse to answer any of the questions.
All of the interviews were transcribed and timely submitted to investigating counsels law firm.
The last transcript (Chief Grahams interview) was received on December 30, 2016. 5 None of the
information contained herein, including any findings or conclusions were released prior to this
reports submission. These findings are based upon the witnesses testimony and documentary
evidence.
VI.

WITNESS LIST

Grievants
Rachel Mangum
Casey Walsh
T.J. Watts
Subject of Investigation
Chief Kenneth G. Graham
Witnesses
Cynthia Barnes
John Bienko
Jamie Buchbinder
Justin Caruthers
George Clark
Steven Cuppy
Michael Diesso
Denise Drake
Casey Eades

Charlie Eades
Sandra Fernland
Robin Ford
Sarah Gifford
Brennan Grady
Julian Butch Green
Mayor R. Kent Guinn
Donna Guinn
Cynthia Haile

Chief Grahams interview was initially scheduled to take place on December 9, 2016, however
it was rescheduled at Chief Grahams request due to a personal issue.
5

Chief Grahams executed errata sheet of his interview transcript was received on January 5, 2017.
14

Erica Hay
Dustin Kuentjes
Stephanie McQuaig
Kenneth Mitchell
Patricia Mraz
Boyce Rainey
Anthony Reghetti
Matthew Sams
Angela Scroble
Deputy Chief Rodney Smith
VII.

Ashley Stinehour
Stanley Swartout
Corey Taylor
Dustin Todd
Amy Trempler
Daniel Wagner
Roger Wissinger
Major Tara Woods
Brenda Yanik

EXHIBIT LIST

1. Composite Exhibit (Photographs) (A-H)

2. Facebook post and Photograph re: National Police Week 5K.
3. Composite Exhibit; Officer Mangum and Sams Photographs; Washington, DC
4. Composite Exhibit; Various Facebook Photographs
5. Officer Mangum Facebook post; I Support Tony TJ Watts for Police Chief.
6. Verizon phone summary for Greg Graham
7. Memo: Keuntjes report 8/8/16
8. Taylor Memo re: Watts time
9. Memo re: Watts Draft Notice Violation 8/22/16
10. Ocala Police Department Directive; No Harassment Policy
11. Composite Exhibits from Chief Graham Deposition (A-H)
VIII. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In April, 2015, Officer Jared Forsyth was accidentally killed during a training exercise.
Following Officer Forsyths death, a distinct division developed between Department employees
concerning their level of grief. There is a small group of individuals, all close friends, which
includes the Grievants, Officer Sams, and Sergeant Erica Hay, that believe they were most

15

impacted by Officer Forsyths passing. This belief has led to tension amongst Department
employees, in that this group appears to be monopolizing the grief, and in doing so, overstating
their relationship with Officer Forsyth. (Fernland, Tr. 55-56). It is in the wake of this tragedy that
the allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation against Officers Mangum and Walsh are
rooted.
In May, 2016, a number of officers and personnel from the Department traveled to Washington,
DC to take part in the National Law Enforcement Memorial, which included a series of events and
ceremonies honoring Officer Forsyth and other fallen police officers from departments across the
country. Attendees from the City of Ocala included Chief Graham, and Officer Mangum, Walsh,
Caruthers, Diesso, Eades, Fernland, Grady, Hernandez, Howie, Long, McDonald, Ramjit, Sams,
Stanley, Stinehour, Swartout, Todd, Tuck, Uptagraft, and Mayor Guinn, among others. Several
other former Department personnel and family members were also in attendance. Many officers
stayed at one of three hotels located in Crystal City, Arlington, Virginia, while others chose to stay
at other hotels at their own expense.
During the course of the trip, on or about May 14, 2016, the officers enjoyed a day that was
relatively free of formal activities. During that morning, and as evidenced by a photograph, Chief
Graham and Officers Mangum, Walsh, and Sams participated in a 5K road race in honor of Officer
Forsyth. (Exhibit 2). Later that afternoon, Chief Graham requested that the officers tour the United
States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Chief Graham believed the officers free time could be
utilized for an educational opportunity to learn about the role of law enforcement during the
Holocaust. (Graham, Tr. 151-152). Chief Graham had previously visited the museum during an
FBI seminar, and thought his officers might glean something from such a profound experience.
Although all of the officers did not attend this event, Officers Mangum and Walsh did so.

16

Following the self-guided tours, Chief Graham asked the group if they would be interested in
going out for dinner or drinks at one of the many local restaurants. Using her phone, Officer
Mangum located a sports bar called the Laughing Man Tavern, located at 1306 G St NW,
Washington, DC, located approximately 1.5 miles from the museum. Chief Graham arranged for
an Uber to pick up several members of the group, while others arranged for their own
transportation or met up with them later in the evening. Officers Mangum, Walsh, and Sams all
rode with Chief Graham in the Uber.
During the groups time at the Laughing Man, Chief Graham and Officer Walsh crossed paths
while taking a restroom break. Comments and/or jokes were exchanged between the two regarding
the unisex bathrooms, which included both a toilet and a urinal, and the fact that two people could
use the restroom at the same time. Chief Graham testified that Officer Walsh begging to take a
selfie photograph of her standing in front, and simulating the use of, a urinal, while Chief
Graham sat on the toilet behind her, to which Chief Graham relented. (Exhibit 11; Graham, Tr.
156). Officer Walsh voluntarily took this photograph, and there is no indication that Officer Walsh
was offended by this exchange, as she herself took the photograph, which she later shared with
other officers.
Following this interaction, Officer Walsh and Chief Graham remained with the group at the
Laughing Man, until everyone decided to move to a new location. There is no evidence that Officer
Walsh ever reported that evening that she felt harassed or believed that anything Chief Graham
said was inappropriate. According to Officer Walsh, the group spent approximately two hours at
the Laughing Man, ordering drinks, and socializing. Furthermore, Officer Walsh voluntarily
remained with the group the rest of the evening.

17

Many of the officers left the Laughing Man and traveled to OMalleys Pub via the Metro
rail system. OMalleys is located at 2650 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia, which is
a short distance from the officers hotels in Crystal City, Arlington, Virginia. During the Metro
ride, Officers Mangum, Sams, and Walsh took photographs of Chief Graham and others, without
their knowledge or permission. (Exhibit 11; Graham, Tr. 160). There is nothing remarkable about
the photographs, as Chief Graham is seated on the metro engaging in what appears to be casual
conversation with other officers. There is very little explanation as to why the photographs were
taken. Despite Officer Walshs recollection that there might have been inappropriate comments
and/or sexual jokes made on the Metro, she never complained about anyones conduct, nor do any
other witnesses recall such actions occurring.
While at OMalleys, most, if not all, of the officers were drinking alcohol and some
individuals ordered food. Multiple officers came and went from this location as it was an informal
gathering, and due to seating restrictions, everyone could not be seated at one table. (Fernland, Tr.
53-54). Chief Graham was seated between Officer Eades and Officer Walsh for at least a portion
of the evening. 6 At some point in time Chief Graham spoke to Officer Walshs girlfriend during a
conversation she was having on her cell phone. At this time, Chief Grahams photograph was again
taken without his knowledge. (Exhibit 11). The reason for taking his photograph is unclear, as
Chief Graham is seated at a table using Officer Walshs headset and phone. 7

Officer Mangums allegation that Chief Graham forced Sergeant Eades head into his lap multiple
times suggesting oral sex or oral stimulation at any point during the evening was not
corroborated by witness testimony. (Mangum, Tr. 30; Stinehour, Tr. 24). Sergeant Eades also
denies this occurred, and would have been physically impossible given the tight proximity of the
table to those seated. Sergeant Eades testified that if he would have done that, I would have hit
my face on the table. (Eades, Tr. 18). (See also Grady, Tr. 69-70).
7

One of the photographs appears to show Sergeant Eades with a surprised look on her face,
which Officer Mangum suggests supports a claim that Chief Graham made an inappropriate
18

Following this phone call, Officer Walsh instigated the group to play a drinking game called,
Never Have I Ever. Officers Mangum, Walsh, Sams, Diesso, Stinehour, Todd, and Chief
Graham all participated in the game of Never Have I Ever. 8 While most witnesses do not recall
specific statements made during the game, it is undisputed that sexual comments and questions
were posed by multiple individuals, including Officers Mangum and Walsh. These statements
included whether anyone had engaged in sexual acts in or on a patrol car, had multiple sexual
partners in a single day, or engaged in anal sex. Chief Graham admits asking about sleeping with
a coworker, but denies making any other sexually charged statements during the entire evening.
(Graham, Tr. 175-176, 178-179). 9
However, Officer Mangum alleges that Chief Graham pointed in her direction and loudly
stated, I have one for you. Never have I ever had a cock shoved in my ass. Officer Diesso and
Officer Sams corroborate Chief Graham making this statement. Again, Officer Sams testimony
lacks credibility, as he the State Attorney will not even use his independent testimony due to severe
concerns with his character. (Exhibit 13). No other witness recalls such a statement being made by
anyone during the game. (Caruthers, Tr. 12-14; Stinehour, Tr. 8-10; Grady, Tr. 62). Assuming
Chief Graham made the alleged offensive statement, Officer Mangum and her boyfriend, Officer
Sams, admittedly did not complain or otherwise object to Chief Graham or anyone else in
attendance regarding his conduct. Additionally, witness testimony indicates that Officer Sams,
remark during the telephone conversation. (Mangum, Tr. 81-82). However, apart from this
conjecture, there is no evidence to support such a claim.
8

This game involves someone making a statement regarding something they have never done to
the entire group, with the intention that someone else playing has, therefore the individual(s) must
take a sip of their drink.

While this admission is indicative of a lack of judgment, such action does not rise to a level
constituting sexual harassment, nor did anyone indicate they were offended by the alleged
comment.
19

who has been described by Officer Diesso as being very jealous regarding Officer Mangum,
gave no indication that he was offended or angered during the game. (Diesso, Tr. 49). In fact, both
he and Officer Mangum remained at OMalleys and left with the group to continue the evening
at another bar or restaurant.
Following the groups departure from OMalleys, and while on the way to the next location,
Chief Graham, Sergeant Eades, and Officer Howie decided to return to their hotels. Chief Graham
booked an Uber via his phone and the three individuals rode back to the hotel together. Sergeant
Eades was not staying at the same hotel, but her hotel was in close enough proximity that should
could walk to it. Upon their arrival at the hotel, Chief Graham left Officer Howie and Sergeant
Eades in the lobby while he went to his room for the remainder of the evening. He did not see
anyone else until the following day.
Meanwhile, Officers Mangum and Walsh continued their night out with other officers
including Diesso, Fernland, Grady, Hernandez, and Sams. Photographs from that evening show
the officers including Officer Walsh singing karaoke, Officers Mangum and Sams embracing, and
dancing while Officer Sams is making a vulgar motion towards the camera. (Exhibits 1A). There
are also additional photographs of Officer Walsh laying down next to/mocking a homeless person,
and another photograph of Officers Mangum and Walsh sitting together in a shopping cart in the
middle of a crosswalk. There are no time stamps on the photographs, so the exact time remains in
question, but both occurred during the nighttime hours. 10 Neither individual appears upset, angry,
or emotionally distraught in any of the photographs.

10

Officer Walsh testified that the group stayed out until the bars closed around 2:00am. (Walsh,
Tr. 157). Officer Walsh recalls talking to her girlfriend at 3:58am because she was still up. (Id.
At 158).
20

Apart from the foregoing allegations pertaining to Chief Grahams alleged conduct at the
Laughing Man and OMalleys there are no other allegations of inappropriate conduct, during the
entirety of the Washington, DC trip. (Walsh, Tr. 158-159).
IX.

GRIEVANTS ALLEGATIONS AND TESTIMONY

Undersigned counsel interviewed individuals that were identified by the Grievants and their
counsel, Chief Graham, or other witnesses during the investigation. Each individual was
questioned regarding their personal knowledge of Chief Grahams behavior, the Grievants
behavior, any interactions between Chief Graham and the Grievants, and whether they know of
any information or evidence relevant to the investigation.
The majority of the witnesses appeared unbiased and provided candid testimony regarding the
Department, and Chief Grahams interactions with employees. There were varying degrees of
admiration for Chief Graham, ranging from tears of thankfulness to relative indifference. However,
even those that would not consider themselves to be personal friends with Chief Graham never
witnessed him engage in any questionable behavior. To the contrary, they believe Chief Graham
acts as a professional at all times, makes an extra effort to reach out to all employees, and regardless
of rank, creates a sense of inclusiveness amongst Department personnel. Conversely, witness
testimony indicates that the Grievants are disgruntled employees, whose attitudes greatly changed
following the death of Officer Forsyth. Shortly thereafter, the events described herein occurred,
and this grievance followed.
A. OFFICER CASEY WALSH
The Department hired Officer Walsh on August 3, 2009 as a patrol officer. Officer Walsh has
also served as a member of the Departments bicycle unit and on SWAT. Officer Walsh was later
selected to serve as a K-9 officer, another specialized assignment. Chief Graham supported Officer

21

Walsh for each of these specialized assignments, and proudly testified that she was the first female
SWAT officer in the Departments history.
Officer Walsh had a largely positive performance record from 2009 until 2016. However, in
January, 2016, Officer Walsh punched a bar patron in the face while off-duty, and failed to report
the incident in a timely manner. Following an investigation into Officer Walshs actions, Chief
Graham removed her from SWAT, suspended her for thirty (30) hours, and removed her as a
Department instructor until October, 1, 2016. However, Chief Graham permitted Officer Walsh to
remain a K-9 officer. (Walsh, Tr. 9-21). Since that time, Officer Walsh has received minor
disciplinary actions for missing depositions, and violating the Departments tattoo and uniform
policies. (Walsh, Tr. 191-192 and 196-199).
Witnesses testified that Officer Walsh routinely utilizes vulgar language and instigates
inappropriate sexual conversations. She is almost universally described as someone that uses more
profanity than anyone else at the Department and is very open regarding her sexual orientation.
Witnesses also testified that Officer Walsh is a dedicated K-9 officer, and despite her recent
disciplinary issues, is a solid performing police officer.
i.

OFFICER WALSH; RESTROOM INCIDENT

Officer Walsh claims that Chief Graham subjected her to sexual harassment when he made

inappropriate comments in regard to utilizing a unisex restroom at the same time as Officer Walsh.
(Grievance, 1-2). Officer Walsh specifically alleges that Chief Graham made comments about
sexual roles being reversed and inappropriately entered a unisex bathroom with her. Officer
Walshs grievance categorizes this interaction as abuse. (Id.) On the other hand, Chief Graham
testified that Officer Walsh was the instigator, and stating it would be hilarious if the two took
a photograph while together in the restroom. (Graham, Tr. 156).

22

Officer Walshs testimony now contradicts her own allegations, and aligns with Chief
Grahams recollection, as she now claims she was joking around with Chief Graham regarding the
unisex restroom. Officer Walsh also stated they even laughed about it with coworkers when they
returned to the table:
Q:

When you went back to the table, did you tell anyone at the table?

Walsh:

Yes, yes. I told everyone at the table.

Q:

Including the chief?

Walsh:

Yeah. Everyone was there. I mean, I was kind of like, oh, yeah this
conversation just happened and

Q:

What was the response of everybody?

Walsh:

I mean, everybody was like laughing.

Q:

So was it more joking than you were like reporting what happened?

Walsh:

Yeah. It wasnt like a report of I wasnt going to the table saying I

have to tell everyone what just happened. It was kind of like, ha, ha,
this just happened.

(Walsh, Tr. 98-99).

During her interview, and despite being questioned regarding this incident, Officer Walsh
inexplicably failed to produce a photograph that she took using her cell phone. In fact, she denied
having any other photographs of Chief Graham while in Washington, DC other than one on the
metro:
Q:

Is it more than just the duplicate photos shes talking about. It sounds
like you have more pictures than just this one (Metro photo).

Walsh: No, no, no, no. I dont I have like a picture nothing that has him in it.
Q.

Okay. So from the time you left the Holocaust museum until the time
the chief was no longer with the group, you only have this photo?

23

Walsh:

Right.

(Walsh, Tr. 118).

In reality, Officer Walsh had taken another photograph, and more specifically, she took a
photograph of herself and Chief Graham during the restroom incident outlined above. Curiously,
Officer Walsh did not have her attorney produce the photograph until Officer Walshs interview
concluded, and she had left the building. Consequently, Officer Walsh was not questioned
regarding the photographs existence.
The photograph clearly depicts Officer Walsh standing at a urinal while Chief Graham is
sitting on a commode in the background. Both individuals are fully clothed and smiling at the
camera, and neither appear distraught during this apparent gender reversal simulation. (Exhibit
11). Officer Walsh shared this photograph with coworkers later that evening, as Sergeant Sandra
Fernland testified:
Fernland: when we walked in, I had a phone shoved in my face showing me a
picture of Casey and the chief in the bathroom that Casey Walsh took.
Q:

Is it a picture of sort of a selfie where shes smiling, and shes taking it,
and the chief is sitting on the commode fully clothed?

Fernland: Yes.
***
Q:

When she showed it to you, what did she say?

Fernland: Check this out. Isnt this funny? Literally. Check this out. Isnt this
funny?
(Fernland, Tr. 40)
ii.

OFFICER WALSHS ADDITIONAL CLAIMS OF HARASSMENT

Officer Walsh further claims that Chief Graham subjected her to a number of other

inappropriate comments and countless attacks of sexually harassing behavior. Officer Walsh is
24

homosexual and is very open about her sexual orientation. Most, if not all Department personnel
are well aware of her homosexuality. Officer Walshs sexual orientation serves as the basis for her
remaining allegations of sexual harassment.
Four specific incidents are set forth in the grievance as those that stand out in Officer Walshs
memory. (Grievance, 3). The dates of the alleged incidents include February 1, 2016, an
indeterminate date from March, 2016, May 19, 2016, and May 31, 2016. Officer Walsh claims
Chief Graham made a sexually charged comment regarding her girlfriend, commented about
Officer Walsh dating his own daughter, and expressed concerns that Officer Walsh would be
likely to act in an unprofessional way with Mrs. Graham if Chief Graham permitted the two to
do a ride along together. (Grievance, 4). There is no evidence or witness testimony corroborating
Officer Walshs allegations.
Chief Graham denies making any inappropriate remarks to Officer Walsh. To the contrary,
Chief Graham alleges that Officer Walsh made inappropriate remarks regarding his daughter and
wife with respect to going on a ride along. (Graham, Tr. 109-110). He testified that they had a
good working relationship and was surprised to read Officer Walshs claims. Officer Walsh,
however, has not provided any credible evidence regarding her claims of additional harassment
outside of the Washington, DC trip. To the contrary, subsequent to that trip, Officer Walsh
voluntarily subjected herself to Chief Grahams presence, and clearly engaged in behavior that
could be seen as joking or friendly in nature. There is no indication that Officer Walsh was
apprehensive about being around Chief Graham or that she ever complained to anyone regarding
Chief Grahams actions.
Instead, there are multiple text messages to Chief Graham from Officer Walsh in which he
offered assistance to her and others coping with the loss of Officer Forsyth and offered support or

25

his congratulations for her achievements. These exchanges appear to indicate a respectful
professional relationship. (Exhibit 11). Consequently, Officer Walshs own actions undermine her
claims.
B. OFFICER CASEY MANGUM
Chief Graham and the Department hired Officer Mangum on September 9, 2013 as a patrol
officer. Officer Mangum did not have any disciplinary actions taken against her until January,
2016. In January, 2016, Officer Mangum took home a fleet patrol car without permission, and as
a result, Chief Graham issued her a ten (10) hour suspension, and suspended her eligibility to have
take-home car privileges for a period of one year. Since that time, Officer Mangum has received
minor disciplinary actions relating to a seat organizer in her patrol car, a violation of the personal
appearance policy, and excessive use of sick leave.
Witness testimony regarding Officer Mangum is neither overly positive or negative. She is
described as average performing police officer, but is fairly new to the Department, and as a result,
still has a lot to learn. Her demeanor and personality does not raise any issue amongst coworkers,
and she does not seem to conflict with other employees. However, there is a belief that Officer
Mangum is somewhat disgruntled because she is not allowed to work on the same shift as her
boyfriend, Officer Sams 11, and due to a pending investigation regarding the falsification of
timecards.

11

Officers Mangum and Sams were parties to a grievance regarding working the same shift, but
the issue was rendered moot due to a resolution reached through lawful collective bargaining
negotiations. (Graham, Tr. 68-70). Despite the Unions agreement, Officer Mangum maintains that
Chief Graham skirted all protocol and fairness and had a provision written into the Officers new
employment contract. (Grievance, 6). This misconception, and its inclusion in the grievance,
demonstrates Officer Mangum and Bobi Franks failure to understand basic labor law concepts.
26

a. OFFICER MANGUM
OMALLEYS

AND

OFFICER WALSH SEXUAL HARASSMENT; METRO RIDE

TO

Following the group leaving the Laughing Man, they took a metro ride to a second location.
During the metro ride, Officer Walsh alleges that Chief Graham stated, Yeah, I bet Caseys dick
is probably bigger than all of ours. (Walsh, Tr. 106-107). Officer Walsh testified that it is possible
Chief Graham made the comment in reference to their prior antics in the restroom at the Laughing
Man, but she could not specifically recall the circumstances. (Walsh, Tr. 106). This allegation was
not contained in the original grievance, and with the exception of Officer Sams, no other witness
heard Chief Graham making this statement. Officer Walsh admits that, if Chief Graham in fact
made this statement, nobody objected. (Walsh, Tr. 110).
Additionally, several photographs were taken during this metro ride of Chief Graham and other
officers sitting down. (Exhibits 11). There is nothing noteworthy occurring in the photographs,
except that it is clear that Chief Graham and the other individuals in the photographs were unaware
that anyone was taking their picture, despite them looking in the photographers direction, as a
phone was used to take the pictures. (Grady, Tr. 53-54). Chief Graham was not told that his
photograph was being taken, and did not know of the photographs existence until this
investigation. Officer Mangum admits to taking the photograph, and testified she did so because
everyone was acting goofy, not because anything illicit was taking place. (Mangum, Tr. 75).
Moreover, Officer Sams admits to taking photographs of Chief Graham while he is talking on
Walshs cellular phone to her girlfriend. It is exceedingly odd that Officers Mangum and Sams,
would take clandestine photographs of Chief Graham riding on a metro rail or talking on a cell
phone. It is equally strange that these photographs would then be shared through their attorney via
the grievance, which was filed nearly four months later.

27

b. OFFICER MANGUM AND OFFICER WALSH SEXUAL HARASSMENT; NEVER HAVE I EVER
The groups next stop was a bar/restaurant called OMalleys. At this location, Officer Walsh
admittedly suggested that the group of employees play a drinking game called Never have I ever.
This fact undermines the veracity of Officer Walshs harassment claim, as it is not reasonable to
believe that Officer Walsh, if previously offended by Chief Grahams comments to her girlfriend
during the telephone call, would then invite Chief Graham to play a drinking game, which, by
Officer Walshs own admission, typically includes mature content, and more often than not,
devolves into sexual innuendo and includes sexually explicit language. (Walsh, Tr. 125). Pursuant
to Officer Walshs description, the object of the game is to make the other person drink more than
you because theres things that you would know that they have done or have been a part of that
you havent that they would have to drink for. (Walsh, Tr. 125). With respect to sexual comments
being made, and by whom, Officer Walsh testified that:
as far as comments being made that were, you know, like sexually charged, Id
say at one point or another everyone that was in the group had kind of engaged in
that so
(Walsh, Tr. 127).
Despite this broad recollection, Officer Walsh only remembers a non-sexual comment made by
herself, and specific sexual statements made by Chief Graham, but not other fellow officers. No
other witness recalled any such statements made by Chief Graham. She did however remember
someone asking about having sex in patrol cars or having multiple people at the same time or in
the same day. (Walsh, Tr. 130).
Notwithstanding, numerous witnesses have testified to Washs propensity to use vulgar and
profane language. For example, Officer Fernland testified as follows:
Fernland:

I would never be friends with Casey Walsh.

28

Q:

Why is that?

Fernland:

Because shes obnoxious, shes rude, shes unprofessional.

Q:

Okay. Why do you say that?

Fernland:

She says the most inappropriate things. She walks around the
department, and she doesnt care who her audience is, and the louder
she is, the bigger audience she gets, so she tends to be more loud
and vocal, telling Im going to say crude words, okay, and not
necessarily the words I would say in public or strangers, about how
much pussy she eats, how bigger her dick is than other guys. I just
dont associate with that.

Q:

And have you heard her make these statements?

Fernland:

Oh, yes.

Q:

You heard her specifically make the statement, how much bigger
her dick is than other guys?

Fernland:

Yes. She brags about stealing girlfriends from guys. And yes, Ive
heard that as well. These are things I have heard from her mouth.
She walks around, burps really loud, farts, and then laughs. Shes
very disruptive. Shell walk into a briefing, sit down and laugh and
make a joke in the middle of briefing.

(Fernland, Tr. 9-10; see also Buchbinder, Tr. 6-7; Scroble, Tr. 8; Bienko, Tr. 4-5).
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that Walsh was a willing or active participant in this
conduct and not subjectively offended.
Officer Mangum attributes a single stray offensive remark to Chief Graham, and while she
admits other officers also made sexual comments during the game, she could not remember any
precise statements, nor does she allege that anyone elses comments offended her. (Mangum, Tr.
34). Officer Mangum specifically alleges that Chief Graham asked if she has ever had a cock
shoved in her ass. (Grievance, p. 2; Mangum, Tr. 6). Chief Graham denies making any such
comment. (Graham, Tr. 179-180).

29

Officer Mangum testified that when Chief Graham made this alleged remark that she was
disgustingly appalled, mortified, and stood there like in disbelief. (Mangum, Tr. 7). Officers
Walsh, Sams, and Diesso corroborate Officer Mangums allegation. Other witnesses, however,
including Ashely Stinehour, Justin Caruthers, and Brennan Grady do not recall hearing any such
statement. (Stinehour, Tr. 10). Contrary to Officer Mangums statement, Officer Stinehour
testified that nobody said they were offended at any point in time regarding any alleged statements
made by Chief Graham or any other officer. (Caruthers, Tr. 12-14; Grady, Tr. 62; Stinehour, Tr.
10). Officer Stinehour also reiterated the point that all officers had been drinking alcohol for quite
some time at this point in the evening, so nobody would have a perfect memory regarding that
evenings events. (Caruthers, Tr. 12-14; Grady, Tr. 62; Stinehour, Tr. 25).
Following Chief Grahams alleged statement, the game stopped, but nobody, including Officer
Mangum, voiced any objection or otherwise told Chief Graham that this comment was
inappropriate. Regardless of whether Chief Graham made the alleged remark, both Officers
Mangum and Walsh admitted that they willingly participated in the game and even made sexual
comments during the course of the evening. 12
Officers Mangum and Walsh also admit that neither complained of Chief Grahams actions
during the trip (despite the presence of the Mayor and other Department personnel), nor did they
do so until filing this grievance. Contrary to their claims, Officer Dustin Todd testified that Officers

12

Officers Walsh and Mangum allege that, following the game, Chief Graham asked all of the
women at the table, Who has the best tits at the table? (Walsh, Tr. 152; Mangum, Tr. 10). Officer
Mangum further alleges that Chief Graham also stated, Rachel had the best titties at the table.
This comment made her feel awkward and uncomfortable. (Mangum, Tr. 10). The conversation
allegedly morphed into a discussion regarding breast implants. However, Officer Walsh cannot
recall with any specificity the conversation following this remark. (Walsh, Tr. 153-156). Chief
Graham emphatically denies making any such statement. (Graham, Tr. 176).
30

Mangum, Walsh, and others in attendance during the night in question had a good time, and told
other officers who had not attended, that they missed out. (Todd, Tr. 14-15).
Following OMalleys, Chief Graham left the group, and some others, including Officers
Mangum, Walsh, and Sams continue to other establishments, including a karaoke bar. Photographs
were provided of the officers drinking, singing, and otherwise enjoying their evening. (Exhibits
1A-1H).
While it is true that alcohol, the passage of time, and normal fading of memories are all factors
which lead to the discrepancies amongst witness testimony, this alleged remark, even if true, does
not rise to the level of sexual harassment. Given the conflicting witness recollections, the failure
of Officers Mangum, Walsh, or Sams to report the incident while in Washington, DC, and the
delay in reporting this matter for nearly four months, the undersigned is unable to substantiate this
allegation. Furthermore, the photographic evidence undermines their claims, and bolsters Chief
Grahams position that all officers were enjoying themselves, and any alleged comments were
welcomed by the Grievants due to their participation in the game.
C. OFFICER TONY TJ WATTS
Officer Watts, whose race is African-American, claims that he has suffered under Chief
Grahams reign of discriminatory terror and the corresponding retaliation. (Grievance, 6).
Chief Graham and the Department hired Officer Watts in November, 2015 as a patrol officer.
Officer Watts is a seasoned law enforcement officer with an established work history and solid
reputation amongst law enforcement agencies. Chief Graham recruited Officer Watts to the
Department, and against the recommendation of other Department personnel, agreed to pay Officer
Watts a higher starting salary to entice him to join the Department. (Graham, Tr. 13-14, 47). Chief

31

Graham has known Officer Watts for approximately ten years, mostly through interactions with
other law enforcement agencies, including the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
Officer Watts grievance describes several events during his employment, three of which focus
on his former sergeant, Dustin Kuentjes, and the last involving statements made during a briefing
by Lt. Angela Scroble. However, each occasion outlined still fails to allege racially discriminatory
behavior, or offer any evidence thereof. Officer Watts also claims there is a black side and a
white side at the Department regarding the distribution of disciplinary actions. All witnesses
refute this claim, and there is no evidence that such a division exists. (Graham, Tr. 98).
Officer Watts contends that his direct supervisor, Sergeant Dustin Kuentjes, has discriminated
against him because of his race by questioning his time/leave records, on one occasion,
reprimanding him for not contacting a supervisor during a call, and following him into a home
where methamphetamine was being processed, thus endangering his life. Officer Watts alleges
that because of Sergeant Kuentjes personal friendship with Chief Graham, the Chief has condoned
Sergeant Kuentjes racism.
Officer Watts has provided several Facebook photographs of Sergeant Kuentjes and Chief
Graham at sporting events or on vacations as support for his claim that Chief Graham is a close
personal friend of Sergeant Kuentjes, thus condoning his racism. However, Chief Graham testified
that his friendship is with Sergeant Kuentjes parents; not Sergeant Kuentjes. (Graham, Tr. 36).
Although Chief Graham considers Sergeant Kuentjes a friend, they do not socialize outside of
work. (Graham, Tr. 39). The photographs depict instances where he and Sergeant Kuentjes
parents were together.
Officer Watts previously voiced his displeasure regarding his interactions with Sergeant
Kuentjes, but race was never brought up. Sergeant Kuentjes is Caucasian, however there are three

32

African-Americans in Officer Watts chain-of-command. On August 8, 2016, Major Tara Woods

(also African-American) offered Officer Watts an optional move to a different District and
supervisor, in response to his complaints, which Officer Watts accepted. Officer Watts now reports
to Sergeant Ronald Malone.
Officer Watts complaint fails to allege or describe a single discriminatory act attributable to
Chief Graham. Officer Watts claims are wholly unsupported and found to be without merit. There
is also no witness testimony supporting his assertion of racial discrimination against Chief
Graham. Officer Watts grievance does not describe any racially discriminatory behavior, or any
other misconduct for that matter, taken by, or directed on behalf of, Chief Graham. Officer Watts
failed to offer any evidence indicating racial animus by any Department employee, including either
Chief Graham or Sergeant Kuentjes, and there was not a single witness that substantiated Officer
Watts allegations of race discrimination. Simply put, there is no merit to Officer Watts
allegations.
Officer Watts has no disciplinary history, however prior to filing this grievance, Chief Graham
informed Officer Watts that he would be receiving a reprimand for failing to call a supervisor upon
the request of a private citizen. That reprimand is consistent with the discipline given to two other
officers involved in the same incident. (Wagner, Tr. 16). As of the filing of this grievance, the
Department has not yet issued Officer Watts the disciplinary reprimand that he was to receive.
Like Officer Mangum and Sams, pending disciplinary matters were stayed until this investigations
conclusion.
Further undermining Officer Watts claims is that he and his attorney met with Chief Graham
in the Chiefs office on two separate occasions, the afternoon of September 8, 2016, and the
evening of September 14, 2016. These meetings concerned Officer Watts reprimand concerning

33

his failure to radio a supervisor at a citizens request, but also included discussions regarding
Officer Watts conflict with Sergeant Kuentjes. (Graham, Tr. 89-90). During both meetings, which
lasted more than a total of two hours in duration, Attorney Frank failed to mention any allegation
race discrimination, unfair treatment, and/or retaliation on the part of any of the Grievants, despite
filing the grievance on September 15, 2016. (Graham, Tr. 84, 90, 95-96). 13 Attorney Frank even
permitted Chief Graham and Officer Watts to have a confidential conversation outside of her
presence. During this conversation, Chief Graham offered to transfer Officer Watts to any location
and supervisor in the Department that he desired, but Officer Watts declined, and said he was fine.
(Graham, Tr. 179-180). These meetings and the Chiefs offer to transfer Officer Watts are
conspicuously absent from Officer Watts grievance.
Officer Watts race did not impact Chief Grahams decision to hire him, his decision to
recommend the higher wage rate, or any other aspect of Officer Watts employment. There is no
evidence supporting a claim of unlawful race discrimination.
X.

DETERMINATION

There is no evidence that Chief Graham sexually harassed and/or retaliated against Officer
Mangum and/or Officer Walsh. Although there is conflicting testimony regarding Chief Grahams
alleged statements at OMalleys, even if accepted as true, the remarks do not rise to the level of
sexual harassment. Likewise, there is no evidence that Chief Graham subjected Officer Watts to
any racial discrimination and/or retaliation.

13

Notably, Attorney Frank also failed to mention any allegation of sexual

harassment/discrimination or retaliation as they pertained to Officers Walsh and Mangum.
34

XI.

RECOMMENDATION

A. The investigation be concluded and the recommendations herein be adopted by the Mayor
and the City Council;
B. Chief Graham be reinstated with all rights and benefits pertaining to his position;
C. The Grievants not be subjected to any unlawful retaliation for reporting these allegations.

35