Police Dept. Settles Sexism Complaint

The only female sergeant in the University police department received a substantial wage increase as part of the settlement this summer of a sexism complaint she filed with state and city agencies.

In her complaint, filed last year with the Cambridge Human Rights Commission and the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD), Sgt. Kathleen Stanford charged the department and Police Chief Paul E. Johnson with discriminating against her because of her sex. Stanford said Johnson denied her a promotion for years, repeatedly reneged on a promise to increase her pay, and treated her differently than other members of the department.

"Throughout my tenure, it has been generally accepted, understood and the topic of jokes that Chief Johnson has a problem with me as a woman in the Police Department," Stanford wrote. "It is common knowledge that he refers to me in conversation as being a bitch and often regards me with disrespect and contempt."

The Stanford case is the latest in a series of complaints about Johnson's handling of personnel. In interviews last spring, police officers complained about Johnson being out of touch with his unit, and security guards under Johnson's supervision said he has ignored complaints of discrimination.

Johnson, who denied the Stan-ford's charges to investigators, was not in the office yesterday afternoon and did not return a phone call to his home.

Citing a confidentiality agreement, Stanford and attorneys for both the sergeant and the University would not discuss the agreement this week. Police sources said the settlement, finalized this summer with MCAD, is worth close to $10,000 per year. Stan-ford made a little over $40,000 in fiscal year 1991-92.

Documents obtained by The Crimson under the Massachusetts Public Records Act paint a picture of Stanford's frustration as she struggled to be taken seriously by the department's all-male leadership. The documents also suggest that the case may have been going so badly for Harvard that it had to settle.

An investigative report prepared by the Cambridge Human Rights Commission, which was forwarded to MCAD, recommended that the state agency find that there was "probable cause" that Stanford was discriminated against.

"Based on the investigation, a reasonable person could conclude that there is evidence that the chief has some bias against the complainant because she is female, and that that bias has adversely affected her raises," the report says.

The report criticizes Johnson's behavior, quoting anonymous "wit- nesses" as saying that the chief of police is"a very poor manager" and never missed anopportunity "to stick it to [Stanford]."

University Attorney Allan A. Ryan Jr., whohandled the Stanford case for Harvard, sought todownplay the report yesterday, calling it "not afinal adjudication."

"No agency has found that Harvard participatedin discrimination," Ryan said.

Ryan declined to comment on the substance ofthe complaint.

Stanford, Harvard's first female sergeant, isconsidered by many of her colleagues to be one ofthe department's best officers and investigators,but her complaint describes some male officers,including those under her supervision, as beingopenly hostile to her presence there.

Stanford's strongest criticisms are reservedfor Johnson. Her complaint charges that the chiefdeliberately held up her promotion. When Stanfordeventually earned the rank of sergeant, Johnsonlagged in scheduling the traditional luncheon andnever held a ceremony to give Stanford hersergeant's pin.

In addition, Johnson went back on a verbalcommitment to raise her pay by between 20 and 30percent, as the department had done for othernewly minted sergeants. The complaint notes, andsources confirm, that when Lt. John F. Rooney waspromoted from sergeant in 1990, Johnson honored averbal commitment to raise the male lieutenant'spay. Shortly thereafter, a manager in theUniversity's department of human resourcesencouraged Stanford to file a discriminationcomplaint.

"I declined at that time, concerned that adiscrimination suit would shadow my career in whatis primarily a male profession," Stanford wrote."I was also concerned about future monetary anddepartmental repercussions."

Stanford's complaint appears to have beenprompted by the promotion of William McNamara tosergeant in 1991. McNamara, a patrol officer, wasgiven the same salary as the experienced Stanford.

Documents submitted by Stanford to thecommission also cast doubt on the objectivity ofthe promotion process. In interviews with TheCrimson, police sources have called the processarbitrary and full of favoritism. The process isbased on both a written and oral examination.

Throughout the documents, Stanford expressesher frustration with the department and Johnson.

"I have ignored these conditions but as managerI can no longer remain silent," Stanford says inher complaint. "His demeaning and disparagingremarks are not only voiced in the presence of mymanagerial peers but freely spoken among mysubordinates (patrol persons) which obviouslyundermines my position.

University Attorney Allan A. Ryan Jr., whohandled the Stanford case for Harvard, sought todownplay the report yesterday, calling it "not afinal adjudication."

"No agency has found that Harvard participatedin discrimination," Ryan said.

Ryan declined to comment on the substance ofthe complaint.

Stanford, Harvard's first female sergeant, isconsidered by many of her colleagues to be one ofthe department's best officers and investigators,but her complaint describes some male officers,including those under her supervision, as beingopenly hostile to her presence there.

Stanford's strongest criticisms are reservedfor Johnson. Her complaint charges that the chiefdeliberately held up her promotion. When Stanfordeventually earned the rank of sergeant, Johnsonlagged in scheduling the traditional luncheon andnever held a ceremony to give Stanford hersergeant's pin.

In addition, Johnson went back on a verbalcommitment to raise her pay by between 20 and 30percent, as the department had done for othernewly minted sergeants. The complaint notes, andsources confirm, that when Lt. John F. Rooney waspromoted from sergeant in 1990, Johnson honored averbal commitment to raise the male lieutenant'spay. Shortly thereafter, a manager in theUniversity's department of human resourcesencouraged Stanford to file a discriminationcomplaint.

"I declined at that time, concerned that adiscrimination suit would shadow my career in whatis primarily a male profession," Stanford wrote."I was also concerned about future monetary anddepartmental repercussions."

Stanford's complaint appears to have beenprompted by the promotion of William McNamara tosergeant in 1991. McNamara, a patrol officer, wasgiven the same salary as the experienced Stanford.

Documents submitted by Stanford to thecommission also cast doubt on the objectivity ofthe promotion process. In interviews with TheCrimson, police sources have called the processarbitrary and full of favoritism. The process isbased on both a written and oral examination.

Throughout the documents, Stanford expressesher frustration with the department and Johnson.

"I have ignored these conditions but as managerI can no longer remain silent," Stanford says inher complaint. "His demeaning and disparagingremarks are not only voiced in the presence of mymanagerial peers but freely spoken among mysubordinates (patrol persons) which obviouslyundermines my position.