I read the article differently than most. My take is that the origins of the complaint and investigation stemmed from the chief's decisions on assignments and overtime. The union didn't appreciate him reserving plum overtime duties for him and the other senior officer. Once an investigation is initiated, the investigator has broad latitude to pursue any other misconduct. It is not surprising that instances of bad conduct were voiced by the same people complaining about allocation of assignments and overtime. I am not saying the chief did not say things that were inappropriate, things that should not have been said. However, the standard for creating a hostile work environment is not merely stating uncouth things. The employee has to be part of a legally protected class, such as age, disability, race, religion, sexual orientation. Making crude jokes does not rise to the level of a hostile work environment if some form of discrimination does not occur with it.
I was part of and conducted many Article 15 Investigations while in the National Guard. This type of scenario occurred frequently. (An individual being investigated for one thing, but the findings proving something else.)
Proving a hostile work environment is not easy. In this case, the chief very well may have a cause of action against the town.
|