City responds to assistant chief's lawsuit

I missed the city of Greensboro's response about a week ago to Assistant police Chief Ron Rogers' lawsuit, but I thought readers would be interested to know the city's view of the plaintiff's claim that his due process rights were violated and his contention that there was nothing inappropriate about his relationship with a subordinate officer.

Rogers' lawsuit argues, “Recusal was constitutionally required because the city manager made the initial decision of discipline — to suspend the petitioner without pay — and then required the petitioner to appeal the city manager’s decision to the city manager!”

The city responds:

Nothing in the charter, ordinance or personnel manual says the city manager cannot participate personally unless and until the matter is appealed. To the contrary: the process in the manual is merely a mechanism for funneling complaints so that the city manager is not required to address them all at their earliest levels. As referenced above, both the city's charter and its personnel ordinance give the city manager the authority to do so. Indeed, the ultimate responsibility for discipline lies, in all instances, with the city manager, and the Manual for Personnel Administrations makes clear that he will bypass the regular hearing procedure if he believes, as here, that it is in the best interest of the city.

One thing is clear: Young took a special interest in the assistant chief's case. The city concedes, "It is true that the city manager, recognizing the inflammatory nature of the allegations and the high rank of Rogers, the accused, gave this matter his personal attention from the outset."

Rogers disputes an assertion by Young that he testified during his appeals hearing that he had an "inappropriate relationship" with Officer Latania Marrow.

Rogers also contends that he “did not testify about sexual conversations with Officer Marrow that he initiated. His testimony was to the effect that he mentored Officer Marrow — and many other lower-ranking officers — and that Officer Marrow would come to him for advice about how to handle off-duty relationships and how to overcome problems with her husband who was also a police officer.”

The key piece of lawyerese in the matter of sexual conversations seems to be "that he initiated."

The city says quite a bit about the nature of Rogers and Marrow's relationship in its response:

Rogers was disciplined following the investigation of a sexual harassment complaint brought against him by a female subordinate officer [Marrow, who is married to another police officer in the department, as is Rogers.] Pursuant to the city's personnel policies, investigation of the complaint was assigned to two investigators, one from human resources and the other from the legal department. During the course of the investigation, both Rogers and the female officer (among others) were interviewed and cell phone records were reviewed. Rogers admitted that he had participated in numerous text and cell phone communications with the female officer, both while she was on duty and off duty. He admitted that they communicated about things outside of work such as her marital problems and dissatisfaction with her sex life. He admitted that he had called her after he had been drinking alcohol to talk about personal matters and that there were rumors circulating in the department about the two of them. He admitted that he had invited her to the [Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association] tournament in Charlotte and that she had told him that if she came to Charlotte she was not going to "give him any." When asked if he would be comfortable with his wife knowing the content of the communications with the female subordinate officer, Rogers acknowledged that she would not be pleased that he "messed up." Overall, however, Rogers maintained that the conversations between the female officer and himself were welcomed by her and were the communications of two consenting adults. He did not, apparently, take into consideration the disruption to the department that resulted from rumors of their relationships and the subordinate female's subsequent sexual harassment complaint. Even so, Rogers admitted that by virtue of his position as assistant chief, he is held to the highest standards of behavior.

The city manager concluded that the investigation by the human resources and legal departments did not substantiate Marrow's allegation of sexual harassment against Rogers.

I'd be interested to know whether readers' think the details shared by the city indicate Rogers' relationship with a female subordinate officer was inappropriate. I have fairly strong feelings about this, but I'd prefer to let others go first so as to avoid steering the discussion.