ee oe a |

RESPONSE: Admit, however, plaintiff explains that she was accustomed to doing them

the way “we did them when I came from midnights.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 331)

54, Plaintiff drafted a memorandum to Commander Maurice Ford of the 7"

District explaining why she did not notify the dispatcher that she and Adams were “clear”, i.e.
had completed a job assignment. Ex. C, pp. 334-36; (Memorandum to Commander Maurice
Ford attached as Exhibit Q, D198-99).

RESPONSE: Plaintiff admits that she drafted a memorandum to Commander Ford at
Adams’ request. However, plaintiff states in her deposition that Adams was “rushing her
because, like I said, she did her—she had her sessions on a Friday,....and I pulled off because
she—you know, whenever she had somewhere to go, she would rush. And before I knew it, she
was like ‘Hurry up, I’m ready to go home; I’m ready to go home. It was Friday. And I pulled

’

off.” (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 334)

It is important for an officer to notify the dispatcher that she is clear “[b]ecause if
anything comes up on the beat, then we have-you know, we'll be available [for the next call]*.
Ex. C, p. 336.

RESPONSE: Admit, however, shortly after she notified the dispatcher. (P1 LR56.1(b)

u

Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 336)

55. At the end of plaintiff's fourth remedial cycle, Adams wrote in her TCSR that
“PPO still spends an unnecessary amount of time on case reports.” Ex. O, D296.

63


eee Milo Boe ee ee ee a ee

105. Plaintiff admits that she told the EEQC that she never complained about the
alleged harassment until the day when she was discharged. Ex. C, p. 433.

RESPONSE: Deny. Plaintiff does not admit that she told the EEOC that she never
complained about the harassment until the day she was discharged. (P] R56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep.
p. 87) When asked that question, she replied, “I don’t recall.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p.
433-434) On or about October 20, 2000, approximately two weeks after Bray threatened to report
Askew if he touched her again, Bray was called into a meeting with Lieutenant Zapolsky,
Lieutenant Duesworth and Sergeant Judon and given a notice that her performance during her
probationary period was going to be reviewed. ei LRS6.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 390-392; Ex. 9
Judon dep. p. 14; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 23-24; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p. 000111) Bray
inquired what the purpose for the review was. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 392) Lieutenant
Zapolsky told Bray that he did not know and that it was her Field Training Officers who requested
the evaluation. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 392-393, 435-436; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p.
000111) Bray expressed that she did not understand why they had let her get this far in the
process and asked why they would Field Qualify her if they did not think she was a good officer.
(P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1Bray dep. p. 394) Bray then attempted to tell Lieutenant Zapolsky, Sergeant
Judon and Lieutenant Duesworth that Askew had sexually harassed her and that Adams had been
trying to get her to solicit sex. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 24; Ex. 1 Bray
dep. p. 393-394) Bray also tried to tell them that she believed Adams had forged her signature on
some of the Daily Observation Reports she prepared during Bray’s fourth cycle. (P1 LR56.1(b)
Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 324-328, 383-384, 394) at her deposition, Bray identified D306, 308, 282, 284,
286, and 288 Daily Observation Reports which clearly contained forged signatures. (Pl

128



a ie ne oe in nee Bl oon ca le ee A, Pe, Pe)
?
for 10 years at the time, advised Bray to “keep a record of everything, dates and times. . . because
you are still on probation and pretty much [Askew and Adams] can get you fired at any time.”
(P1LRS56.1(b) Ex. 4 Jones dep. p. 6, 16) Askew and Adams, as Bray’s Field Training Officers,
had control of Bray’s job because their evaluations would determine whether or not she would
keep her job. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 72, 77; Ex. 6 Crawley dep. p. 28) In fact, at his
deposition Askew confirmed he had this power over Bray’s employment when he testified that
he gave Bray scores of “4” on her evaluations because “getting twos in her second cycle would
have gotten her terminated.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. Askew dep. p. 90) Further, Eileen Bell,
Assistant Corporation Counsel for the City of Chicago, on or about December 13, 2000, agreed
with investigator Batog of the EEOC during his investigation into Bray’s Charge that Field
Training Officers are in supervisory positions over Probationary Police Officers. (PI LR56.1(b)
Ex. 23 EEOC notes) -
In his report summarizing his conversation with Bell, Batog writes, in part:

Bell and I discussed whether FTO’s are in supervisory positions. Bell and I agreed that
FTO’s are in supervisory positions because of they evaluate PPO’s and make recommendations
on whether PPO’s become PO’s. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 23 EEOC notes)

FTO’s cannot hire PPO’s, Ex. D, | 8.

1, RESPONSE: Deny. FTO’s evaluate PPO’s which affected their employment. (PI
LR56.1(b) Ex. Askew dep. p. 90) Plaintiff felt that FTO’s had control of her job because their
evaluations would determine whether or not she would keep her job. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray
dep. p. 72, 77; Ex. 6 Crawley dep. p. 28) In fact, at his deposition Askew confirmed he had this

power over Bray’s employment when he testified that he gave Bray scores of “4” on her

29



direct supervisor and then retaliated against when she was terminated in violation of Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a){1) and 2000e-3(a), respectively. Ex. A, 1 1,
6-7.

RESPONSE: Admit.

3. This Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter. Ex. A, 1 1, 6-7; Answer, 1
(attached hereto as Exhibit B). Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Ex. A, 1 2; Ex.
B, 92.

RESPONSE: Admit.

4. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C.§ 1391(b)(2). Ex. A, J 2: Ex. B, 42.
I. = PLAINTIFF'S POLICE ACADEMY TRAINING

5. On October 25, 1999, plaintiff was appointed to the position of PPO. PI. Dep.,
pp. 175-76 (Plaintiff's Deposition is attached hereto as Exhibit C).

RESPONSE: Admit.

A PPO can be terminated at any time for any reason, with or without notice. Schenkel
Aff, 9] 2 (attached hereto as Exhibit D); Skahill Aff, 11 3, 5 (attached hereto as Exhibit E); see
Ex. C, p.175.

RESPONSE: Admit with clarification. A PPO can be terminated at any time for any
reason, except for an illegal reason such as in the retaliation for threatening to report their
supervisor for sexual harassment. The probationary period lasts for one year from the date of a

2


ie ie cee ore el i tee ol oe ee ee i,

Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 4; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p. 000107)

This allegedly occurred in the 7" District's interview room on October 4, 2000 with an
i arrestee present. Ex. C, pp. 85-86.

RESPONSE: Admit.

Askew came into the interview room to help plaintiff and Officer Davina Loggins with an
arrest. Ex. C, p. 85.

RESPONSE: Admit.

While Officer Loggins left to make notification, Askew allegedly touched plaintiff's
bullet-proof vest in the vicinity of where her breasts are. Ex. C, p. 85-86.

RESPONSE: Deny. Askew “grabbed” Bray’s chest. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p.
85) She felt the grasp he had on her breast when he grabbed her. (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep.

p. 82, 139-140)

This lasted one second. Ex. C, p. 97.
RESPONSE: Deny. Defendant cites evidence that refer to the instance when her
touched her ankle. Plaintiff's response is not specifically in reference to this incident. (PI

LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 97)

Plaintiff had on four layers of clothes and a bullet-proof vest on top. Ex. C, pp. 137-38.

124



aie saan Reel eee it sem Et an ll ee Bil aon ioe ln Nikon Bite Bice, Til an Et an ian

never reprimanded Bray for this incident. (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 354-355, 356; Ex. 28

Zapolsky Statement; Ex. 20 EEOC notes p. 000185)

64. On October 20, 2000, Lt. Zapolsky wrote of this incident that “the reporting
lieutenant went to an assignment and found PPO Bray's partner searching a prisoner on the street
while PPO Bray sat in the squad car. The reporting lieutenant addressed the circumstances
immediately, and informed PPO Bray of her obligation to exit the vehicle and to be available to
assist her partner if needed.” Ex. D, 1 12; (Lt. Virginia Drozd Affidavit attached hereto as Ex. R

41 7, D202),

RESPONSE: Deny as characterized. On October 19, 2000, Lieutenant Jeff Murphy
requested that Lieutenant Zapolsky was requested to prepare a written evaluation of Bray. (Pl
LR56.1(b) Ex. 28 Zapolsky Statement) In his statement, Zapolsky mentions this “incident”
which occurred five months earlier, but does not give it much significance. (P! LR56.1(b) Ex. 28
Zapolsky Statement) Rather, he states that this was the only incident he had involving Bray and
that since then he has not had sufficient time to “properly and fairly evaluate PPO BRAY” on his
watch and therefore cannot offer an opinion on her performance. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 28 Zapolsky

Statement)

Plaintiff does not know of any other PPO who stayed in their car while their partner was
making an arrest. Ex. C, p. 427.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff admits that she states this at her deposition. However, Zapolsky

never reprimanded Bray for this incident. (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 354-355, 356; Ex. 28

72



it eee oe ae oe ee en en ae

Ex. T.

RESPONSE: Admit that the Review Board Notice states this.

The notice was presented to plaintiff by Lt. Zapolsky, Lt. Robert Deusworth, and Sgt.
Judon. Ex. C, pp. 391-96; Ex. M, pp. 14-15.

RESPONSE: Admit with clarification. On or about October 20, 2000, approximately
two weeks after Bray threatened to report Askew if he touched her again, Bray was called into a
meeting with Lieutenant Zapolsky, Lieutenant Duesworth and Sergeant Judon and given a notice
that her performance during her probationary period was going to be reviewed. (@PILRS56.1(b)
Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 390-392; Ex. 9 Judon dep. p. 14; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints. p. 23-24; Ex.
15 Bray’s Notes p. 000111) Bray inquired what the purpose for the review was. (Pl LR56.1(b)
Ex, 1 Bray dep. p. 392) Lieutenant Zapolsky told Bray that he did not know and that it was her
Field Training Officers who requested the evaluation. (P1LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 392-393,
435-436; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p. 000111) Bray expressed that she did not understand why they
had let her get this far in the process and asked why they would Field Qualify her if they did not
think she was a good officer. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1Bray dep. p. 394) Bray then attempted to tell
Lieutenant Zapolsky, Sergeant Judon and Lieutenant Duesworth that Askew had sexually
harassed her and that Adams had been trying to get her to solicit sex. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 13
Bray’s Answers to Ints. p. 24; Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 393-394) However, Judon cut her off. stating,
“it’s too late for that.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 393-394) Bray also tried to tell them

that she believed Adams had forged her signature on some of the Daily Observation Reports she

83


a cee BE cae Bi aetna oe, Bl ee ie cee Been OE |

Disciplinary Procedures), addendum 2A (Specific Responsibilities) during the course of their
training.
RESPONSE: Deny and Move to Strike. Defendant does not cite to any evidence in the

record as to how, if ever, this was communicated to the plaintiff.

The Chicago Police Department also required all sworn officers to maintain familiarity
with General Orders during their career. Ex. E, J 13, Ex. 7.

RESPONSE: Deny and Move to Strike. Defendant does not cite to any evidence in the
record as to how, if ever, this was communicated to the swom officers and how, if when, the

requirement was fulfilled.

20. The Education and Training Division Rules and Regulations, which were in effect
during 1999 and 2000, read in part as follows:
DISCRIMINATION AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT

The Education and Training Division of the Chicago Police Department is
committed to maintaining a workplace free from all forms of discrimination. All
recruits will be courteous and respectful toward all staff personnel, fellow recruits,
other Department members, and all other persons,

No type of discrimination will be tolerated at the Chicago Police Department
Education and Training Division. This includes, but is not limited to,
discrimination based on color, race, gender, religion, national origin, age,
ancestry, sexual orientation, lifestyle choice, or mental or physical disability.

Any recruit who feels he or she is the victim of discrimination or sexual
harassment by any member of the Chicago Police Department will bring the
matter to the attention of his or her immediate supervisor. Appropriate action will
be taken in all instances and no retaliatory action will be taken against any recruit
who has filed such a complaint in good faith.

19 ,



RESPONSE: Admit in part. Deny in part. Deny that this is the “third alleged incident
of sexual harassment.” Adams made sexually offensive comments on a daily basis. (Pl
LR56.1(b) Ex. 4 Jones dep. p. 20) Admit that this occurred and that Bray believed Adams was
trying to get her to solicit sex in exchange for money. (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 219-220,
222, 382) Admit that on or about late July 2000, Adams revealed to Bray that she earned
additional income as a dominatrix and was into “S & M” (sadism and masochism). (Pl
LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 109, 592; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 9; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes
p. 000122) Adams informed Bray that she was in a club up north for dominatrixes and that she
held dominatrix sessions at her house on Fridays and Saturdays. (P1 LR56.1(6) Ex. 1 Bray dep.
p. 110; Ex. 13 Plaintiffs Answers to Interrogatories p. 9) At his deposition, Askew would not
confirm that Adams was a dominatrix but did testify that it was rumored around the station for
the past couple years that Adams was a dominatrix. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 161-162)

Askew testified that he did know that Adams sold sex toys. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p.
162) Similarly, Jones testified at her deposition that she had heard about four or five years
earlier that Adams was a dominatrix. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 4 Jones dep. p. 17) When Adams
informed Bray she was a dominatrix, she asked Adams what being a dominatrix meant. (Pl
LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 112) Adams went into detail with Bray about how it had to do
with men in power that liked being in bondage or tied up. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 112-
113) Adams told Bray she received money and gifts for her “sessions.” (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 15
Bray’s Notes p. 000122) After revealing she was a dominatrix, Adams constantly talked to Bray
about being a dominatrix and her “sessions” with her “slaves.” (P! LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p.
110, 113, 127, 128-129, 594) Adams told Bray she would make a good dominatrix and could

133



RESPONSE: Deny. Plaintiff states that Adams told her directly the cage was for her

slaves. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 150)

114. Plaintiff claims while training with Adams during her fourth cycle, Adams met a
homeless guy she thought was cute and offered him a ride to a shelter. Ex. C, p. 586. According
to plaintiff, the homeless guy offered to treat them all to breakfast with his last ten dollars, but
plaintiff claims she refused because it is against regulations to accept gifts from citizens. Ex. C,
pp. 586-88. At breakfast, plaintiff claims the homeless man told them he was looking for a place
to stay and Adams began making sexual advances towards him by stating, “I can preach to you in
my bed.” Ex. C, p. 588. Plaintiff alleges she left the table because she was embarrassed. Ex. C,
p. 588. Plaintiff claims Adams then brought the homeless man to her house to call Texas and he
moved in with her. Ex. C, pp. 590-92. Adams allegedly told plaintiff the man eventually left her
house hysterical because he witnessed one of her sado-masochism sessions. Ex. C, pp. 592-93.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff admits that this occurred.

115. Plaintiff also alleges that Adams told plaintiff that she walked “too feminine and
that I was too small, so with me being a small person I should be loud. She was trying to force
me to cuss citizens and be like real rude, and I wouldn't do it. .. . so she told me to change my
walk and even walk with a dip.” Ex.C,p.126.  °”

RESPONSE: Admit this occurred and that Bray responded that she “wasn’t masculine,
and I shouldn’t have to change my walk for a job.” (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 339)
Adams would also urge Bray to use profanity with citizens and to be rude to them. (Pl

139


ee ca Se ln ee ee ee ee ae le ee

heard from “someone” that Bray had to be ordered out of her car to assist her partner on one.
occasion. (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 73, 82; Ex. 3 Adams’s dep. p. 70-72) Therefore,
they felt she was too unsafe to become a police officer. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 73,
82) Askew described this as the “incident that basically launched the whole re-evaluation.” (PI
LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 81) Similarly, Adams testified at her deposition that it was this
“particular incident that concerned [her] the most.” (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 82)
However, neither Askew nor Adams could identify the person who told them about this
“incident.” (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 73, 82; Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 65) Neither Askew
nor Adams could even identify which partner Bray allegedly failed to assist. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 2
Askew dep. p. 73, 82; Ex. 3 Adams dep. 65) This “incident” actually occurred five months
earlier in May 2000, during Bray’s second cycle of training while she was working with Officer

Mike Cleary. (P1LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 347-348, 350-351, 353, 570-571)

Adams wrote in her memorandum that she made her recommendation because plaintiff
had to be ordered out of a vehicle to assist plaintiff's partner and because several POs approached
Adams and told her they would not work with her. Ex. AA, D203.

RESPONSE: Admit, however, both Askew and Adams claimed at their depositions that
they requested Bray be evaluated and recommended her termination specifically because they
heard from “someone” that Bray had to be ordered out of her car to assist her partner on one
occasion. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 73, 82; Ex. 3 Adams’s dep. p. 70-72) Therefore,
they felt she was too unsafe to become a police officer. el LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 73,
82) Askew described this as the “incident that basically launched the whole re-evaluation.” (P1

78


it en at ae ee i i i ane ee a ioe ee Ete, Ot a ee |

RESPONSE: Admit.

! 27. The 7* District, a high crime area, is reputed to be the most violent police district
in the City. Ex. C, pp. 227-28.

RESPONSE: Admit.

Because just about everything happens in the 7 District, a PPO should lear fast. Ex. C,
p. 227.

RESPONSE: Admit with clarification. Plaintiff states in her deposition “you learn fast
because you have some of everything there, from rape, burglary, everything you can think of just

about happens in that district.” (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. i Bray dep. p. 227)

28. Field training in the 7" District is a para-military environment where a PPO takes
orders from her superior. Ex. C, p. 308.

RESPONSE: Admit. Plaintiff agrees with the statement presented by counsel in the
deposition, “the academy and training in the 7" District was a quasi- or semi-military
environment where you take orders from someone, you do what they tell you to do.” (Pl
LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 308) Plaintiff took orders from her supervisors, her FTO’s. (Pl

LRS56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 72, 74, 77; Ex. 6 Crawley dep. p. 28; Ex. 23 EEOC notes)

A. PLAINTIFF'S FIRST CYCLE OF FIELD TRAINING
29. Plaintiffs first FTO was Renee Daniels in April 2000. Ex. C, pp. 241-42.

36



denies that this was the “first incident” of sexual harassment. On a daily basis, Askew would
| make lewd, sexually offensive comments to Bray about women they would see while working

together. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 441-442; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 4; Ex. 15

| Bray’s Notes p. 000107) Askew would say such things as, “look at the tits on that broad,” or
“look at the ass on that woman.” (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 441-442; Ex. 13 Bray’s
Answers to Ints p. 4; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p. 000107) At his deposition, Askew admitted that he
“probably” made such sexually offensive comments and displayed the extent of his bravado by
adding that he probably remarked, “nice rack” as well. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 111-
112) Askew also admitted that while he was Bray’s Field Training Officer, he and Bray would
park outside the Taste Nightclub at 4:00 o’clock in the morning on Saturday nights where there
are “a lot of scantily clad women” and he would “sit there and just kind of ogle.” (Pl LR56.1(b)
Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 112) Askew testified that when he ogled at the women, Bray would make
comments like, “you ought to quit,” or “you already have a girlfriend. What do you need with

them?” (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 113)

Routine patrolling requires and officer to observe and “look for crimes, look for
suspicious people. Do traffic stops, look for traffic violators. Respond to calls, though, mostly.”
Ex. C, p. 66.

RESPONSE: Admit that plaintiff states this in her deposition.

They were in the squad car and Askew drove to 74" and Lowe under a viaduct. Ex. C, p.
65.

108



el i oe OE coe lt on co oe Bl oon Bt oo ioe i Be i, A, |

whatever, and you go see about your neck just to make sure.” (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p.

260)

34. Inher TCSR on plaintiff's first cycle, Daniels failed plaintiff and wrote:
P.P.O. needs improvement in all areas of grading. . . . F.T.O. feels P.P.O. “lacks”
self-confidence, takes “no” initiative, has “no” knowledge of what is occurring,
doesn't “listen”, doesn't comprehend, has “no” knowledge of location, even when
observed driving has to be directed on directions, and operating vehicle . . .
Refuses to utilize beat map. F.T.O. constantly telling P.P.O. to clear from job and
utilizing P.D.T. . .. Recommendation-Additional cycle / training (“remedial”)
needed—All remaining with F.T.O.'s.

Ex. J, D384-85; see Ex. H, pp. 16-19; Ex. G, pp. 29-30, 90.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff only admits that Daniels wrote this in her TCSR.

Plaintiff was miserable training with Daniels because she “had an attitude where
everything she said was right.” Ex. C, pp. 264-66.

RESPONSE: Admit with clarification. Plaintiff was miserable because Daniels was not
supportive and called her stupid which discouraged Bray. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 264-
266) Some of the other officers she worked with had taken their time to explain things to Bray
and to help her with her paperwork. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1Bray dep. p. 264-266) MORE

When plaintiff returned from IOD leave she began a new training cycle. Ex. C, pp. 261-
62.

RESPONSE: Admit.

43



Te en OE a ce ae oe tee EE el ee es oe |

she was on time when she got in her car. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 346) She states, “It
was just the traffic, you know, was heavy and I couldn’t get out of it. I didn’t have a cell phone;
I couldn’t park my car in the side and run to a pay phone.” (Pi LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p.

346)

60. Onamidnight shift, plaintiff and her partner came to assist on a call. Ex. C, pp.
346-47.
RESPONSE: Admit. While on a midnight shift back in May 2000, she and her partner,

Mike Cleary, came to assist a call. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 346)

When they arrived, Lieutenant Edward Zapoisky “was out there with a prisoner who was
already cuffed. . . . I was like, We might as well take the prisoner [who was a big stocky guy]
because Lieutenant Zapolsky doesn’t have a cage and that's not safe. Because if you put
prisoners in the back and they come out of their cuffs and you don’t have a cage, then they can
kind of like, you know, grab you from the back and do anything while you're driving. ... So by
this time, [my partner] jumped out. . .. So he jumped out the car... He goes over to the guy, and
then he starts to do a search. So at the same time, I’m bumping on my door because it was
jammed, and I'm hitting it. By this time, Lieutenant Zapolsky pulls up on the side of me, and he
was like, You get out the car and assist your partner. I said, That’s what I’m trying to do. And
then he just pulled off.” Ex. C, pp. 346-48, 350. ~

RESPONSE: Plaintiff admits she says this in her deposition.

1

68



eee ee

Daniels also wrote that plaintiff had “no” knowledge of her location, including the sector
or beat, despite having the beat maps and a map that breaks down each beat with street names
and numbers. Ex. J, D368.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff admits that she was riot familiar with the area and was bounced
around from beat to beat making it hard to learn exact locations. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep.

p- 248)

Plaintiff states she did not know her location because “each beat consists of so many, you
know, blocks, and it’s like this large area. I didn’t know it because the beat that we were assigned
to, I don’t think I was really familiar with it. And she expected me to right off the bat [to] know
these places . . . I'm like, if I’m not familiar with this area, how am I going to know?” Ex. C, pp.
247-48.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff admits that she was not familiar with the area and was bounced
around from beat to beat making it hard to learn exact locations. (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep.

p. 248)

31. Daniels repeatedly wrote in her DORs and TCSR that “P.P.O. DOESN'T
‘LISTEN / COMPREHEND.” Ex. J, D368, D370, D384.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to the characterization “repeatedly.” Daniels made this
comment only twice and did not provide any explanation. (P1 LRS6.1(b) Ex. 30 Daily

Observation Reports prepared by Daniels signed and dated: April 16, 2000, D368, D370)

39

Bn te


ee ae le ek oe Ee le Boe Eden te i ee,

When plaintiff retumed, she did not fill out a report or any paperwork that her door was
jammed in the squad car. Ex. C, p. 356.

RESPONSE: Admit, however, no one said anything else to Bray about this matter after
Zapolsky pulled away from the car. (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 354-355, 356; Ex. 28
Zapolsky Statement; Ex. 20 EEOC notes p. 000185) At no time did Cleary ever mention it to
Bray. (P1 LRS6.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 347-348, 356, 570-571) Cleary never reprimanded or
counseled Bray for it either. (P1 LR5S6.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 570-571) Cleary did not even cite
this matter in the Daily Observation Reports he prepared for Bray. (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray
dep. p. 570-571; Ex. 36 Daily Observation Reports by Cleary) To the contrary, Cleary gave Bray
“above adequate” scores for the areas of performance he observed during the period she worked
with him, (P! LR56.i(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 569-571; Ex. 36 Daily Observation Reports prepared

by Cleary; Ex. 29 Daily Observation Report Summary)

To plaintiff's knowledge, the car did not need to be repaired. Ex. C, p. 356.
RESPONSE: Plaintiffs admits that “a lot of cars were messed up” and that to her

knowledge the car didn’t need to be repaired. (P1 LR56. 1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 356)

63. After Lt. Zapolsky told plaintiff to get out of the car and assist her partner, he
“pulled off. He kind of hot-headed pulled off. So when we go back to the district, you know, he
didn't say anything to me. Because I was kind of upSet at the way he approached me, you know;
he first should have found out." Ex. C, p.354.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff admits that she states this at her deposition and that Zapolsky

ral



RESPONSE: Admit, however, Askew parked the car and tumed off the engine. (PI

LRS56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 67)

Plaintiff does not recall any advice or training Askew gave her while on routine patrol.
Ex. C, p. 68.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff admits that Askew never stated why they were at the viaduct.

(PI LRS6.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 67-68)

Askew allegedly stated that “when he was a teenager, he used to come to this lot to have
sex, and that other officers would come there while on duty. And he then made the comment that
one day I might end up back there.” Ex. C, p. 65.

RESPONSE: Admit.

Plaintiff does not recall if Askew told her anything else. Ex. C, p. 67.

RESPONSE: Admit.

Plaintiff's response was, “I don’t do things like that.” Ex. C, p. 65, 68.

RESPONSE: Admit.

94. Plaintiff alleges the second incident of sexual harassment with Askew occurred
during her second cycle while at 74" and Damen. Ex. C, pp. 68-69.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff admits Askew took her to this secluded area. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1

109



Fats cate oe coe Bek an Mi coon et ee Bi on Si ca ees Bi oes it a, We tee Mee |

Adams allegedly handed an RC Cola card with a man’s name on it to plaintiff. Ex. C, pp. 91,
106. Adams allegedly responded that plaintiff “should go out and sleep with him for money.”
Ex. C, pp. 91-92, see 106. Plaintiff stated she was not interested in dating anyone at the time.
Ex. C, pp. 91, 106.

RESPONSE: Admit in part. Deny in part. Admit this occurred. Deny that this was the
“first incident.” Adams made sexually offensive comments on a daily basis. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex.

4 Jones dep. p. 20)

108. The second alleged incident of sexual harassment involving Adams occurred in
July 2000 while they were on call at 75" and Vincennes at a hardware store during plaintiffs
fourth cycle. Ex. C, pp. 107, 109, When Adams came out of the store, plaintiff was talking to an
older guy. Ex. C, p. 107. Adams allegedly asked him, “Are you still giving applications? And
he’s like, Yeah, I'm still giving applications. And then she was like, Well, she wants an
application. And I told her, I said, No, I don’t, like that. And he told me, Well, I'm not looking
for anybody to-I'm not looking for you to be my woman, I’m just looking for you for
convenience, and he was telling me he pays well." Ex. C, pp. 107-08. Plaintiff “told him no.
And when I-when I told her no, that I don’t do thirigs like that, that's when she tells me, You're
so stupid, you're just like my daughter; you need a sugar daddy.” Ex. C, p. 108, Adams allegedly
told plaintiff that “men like that, they don’t like to fuck, they like to suck. She was telling me,
That's all you have to do is get drunk. And I told her, I don’t do that; I said, That’s disgusting.”

i

Ex. C, pp. 108-09.

131



p. 291.

RESPONSE: Admit.

Plaintiff worked the day shift from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Ex. C, pp. 291-92.

RESPONSE: Admit.

40. Plaintiff began her third training cycle with FTO Kevin Scott. Ex. C, p. 292.
She worked briefly with him. Ex. C, p. 292.

RESPONSE: Admit.

Scott stated to plaintiff that she needed to work on her confidence. Ex. C, pp. 434, 565.
RESPONSE: Admit with clarification. Askew said in his deposition that he approached
Scott before he started working with her that “Bray lacked confidence and the one thing he was

basically going to have to work on was her confidence.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 47)

His DORs also commented on plaintiff's need to work on her confidence. Ex. C, p. 434;
(Scott's DORs are attached hereto as Exhibit N , D322, D292, D290).

RESPONSE: Admit with clarification. Scott’s DORs repeatedly state that Bray “accepts
constructive criticism and is eager to work and perform well.” (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 20 Daily
Observation Reports prepared by Scott, 000279, 000281, 000283, 000285, 000287)
Furthermore, Scott’s Daily Observation Report dated June 1, 2000 states “confidence in ability
improving.” (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 37 Daily Observation Reports prepared by Scott, 000287)

49



ee ee oe ee Bie BO ie Bl ee El oe oe cee ee)

76.  Arecruit's performance can be reviewed until the end of his or her probationary
period in order to obtain as much information about the recruit's performance to make the most
informed decision.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff only admits that the Affidavit states this.

There have been Review Board's in the past that have been convened shortly before a
recruit’s probationary period ends. Ex. R, 7 4.
RESPONSE: Deny. The defendant has presented no evidence that there have Review

Board’s in the past that have been convened shortly before a recruit probationary period ends.

77. The Review Board that evaluated Pamela Bray's performance consisted of
Lieutenant Michael Mealer, Sergeant Gertrude West, Sergeant Teresa Williams, Field Training
Officer (“FTO”) Kathy Purvis, and FTO Robert Tapia. As is general practice, this Review Board
met at the Chicago Police Academy. Ex. R, | 6.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff only admits that the Affidavit states this.

78. The Review Board examined DORs and TCSRs on Bray’s performance during her
probationary period; a Final Summary Report; requests from Bray and an FTO for Bray to
undergo a fourth remedial training cycle; a counseling session report regarding Bray's fourth
remedial training cycle that reminds Bray that unsatisfactory performance could lead to her
termination; a Remedial Summary Report; memoranda from two FTO’s; Lt. Edward Zapolsky's

memorandum on Bray’s failure to exit her vehicle and assist her partner; and two SPARs. In the

91



aoe BE aoe so oo BE ise, Bh coe nt i ae ee ee te |

employer may be held liable for the conduct of another committing sexual harassment, and 7)
identifying the remedies available to victims of sexual harassment. Ex. E, 1 6-16, Ex. 3.
RESPONSE: Admit in part. Deny in part. Plaintiff admits the sexual harassment lesson
plan states this, However, plaintiff denies that she received it. As plaintiff states in her
deposition, she does not ever recall seeing the document. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 191-

93)

16. | The Rules and Regulations of the CPD, which were in effect during 1999 and
2000, require swom members to, among other things, “[k]now and conform to the Department's
Policy, Rules, Regulations, Orders, Procedures, and Directives.” In addition, the Rules and
Regulations expressly prohibit “[fJailure to report to the Department any violation of Rules and
Regulations or any other improper conduct which is contrary to the policy, orders or directives of
the Department.” General and Special Orders are distributed to all CPD personnel, including
PPO’s. During 1999 and 2000, the Recruit Training Section required recruits, including plaintiff,
to read and become familiar with this document during the course of their training. The CPD
also required all sworn officers to maintain familiarity with this document during their career.

Ex. E, 11 8, Ex. 4.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff admits that the Rules and Regulations state this. However,
plaintiff testified at her deposition that they were told if they did not feel safe within the district,
that the employees could go out of the district [to the EEOC and/or the Illinois Department of
Human Rights] to file a complaint. (P1 LR56.1() Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 189) Plaintiff stated that it
was her understanding that if the sexual harasser was her supervisor she could go to the EEOC.

12



ice ce nei ee en a eB ee oe oe ee |

Deputy chiefs, chiefs, assistant deputy superintendents, and deputy superintendents
follow. Ex. D, 11 3.

RESPONSE: Admit.

The superintendent is at the top of the chain of command. Ex. D, J 3.

RESPONSE: Admit.

9. At the Academy, plaintiff learned that when her partner is arresting or questioning
someone on the street, she is required to exit the vehicle and stand right next to her partner. Ex.
C, pp.225-26.

RESPONSE: Admit.

She is to guard and assist her partner due to safety concerns. Ex. C, pp. 225-26.

RESPONSE: Admit.

10. The general and special orders issued by the CPD applied to plaintiff and she
was required to learn them. Ex. E, 11] 8-15; Ex. C, pp. 188-89, 201-02.

RESPONSE: Admit.

11. Plaintiff failed her tests twice, before passing the third time with help from an

assigned tutor. Ex. D, 1] 12; Ex. C, p. 197.


tt ee ce oon ce Ee El oe Bl oe ee ee a a a

RESPONSE: Admit that the cited document states this, however, Askew states that in
his deposition that because “PPO’s are shy when they first start, it is the job of the veteran police
officer to bring the PPO’s out slowly.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 29) Benny Spurgeon
graduated from the Police Academy at the same time as Bray. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p.
546; Ex. 5 Spurgeon dep. p. 8) Spurgeon testified at his deposition that he also had Askew as a
Field Training Officer and that Askew made the same negative comments about him that he did
about Bray when he was PPO, including a comment that Spurgeon did not like to cuff people.
(PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 5 Spurgeon dep. p. 10, 27) At his deposition, Spurgeon described an incident
wherein Askew became “pissed” at him because he hesitated in cuffing an individual involved in
an aggravated battery. (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 5 Spurgeon dep, p. 12, 27) In fact, Spurgeon telayed
an incident about a domestic situation wherein a young woman hit a man with a bottle, which
was virtually identical to an incident Askew criticized Bray about at his deposition. i

LRS56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep, p. 37-38; Ex. 5 Spurgeon dep. p. 27-28)

In her TCSR, Askew commented that plaintiff “needs to work on prisoner control.” Ex.
K, D348, D354.

RESPONSE: Admit that document states this, however, Askew states that in his
deposition that because “PPO’s are shy when they first start, it is the job of the veteran police

officer to bring the PPO’s out slowly.” (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 29)

37. Also during her second cycle, plaintiff received a Summary Punishment Action
Request (“SPAR”) for failure to “[pJurchase a city vehicle registration [sticker]” (SPARs attached

46



ote ne i oon Ut oon Ei oe

enlisted the help of Adams to assist in his complaint of Bray to the Academy. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex.
3 Adams dep. p. 80-82) Askew and Adams then recommended to the Review Board that Bray be
terminated. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 80; Ex. 27 Askew’s Statement; Ex. 53 Adams’
Statement) Both Askew and Adams claimed at their depositions that they requested Bray be
evaluated and recommended her termination specifically because they heard from “someone”
that Bray had to be ordered out of her car to assist her partner on one occasion. (Pl LR56.1(b)
Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 73, 82; Ex. 3 Adams’s dep. p. 70-72) Therefore, they felt she was too
unsafe to become a police officer, (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 73, 82) Askew described
this as the “incident that basically launched the whole re-evaluation.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 2
Askew dep. p. 81) Similarly, Adams testified at her deposition that it was this “particular
incident that concerned [her] the most.” (Pi LR56.1(b) Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 82) However,
neither Askew nor Adams could identify the person who told them about this “incident.” (Pl
LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 73, 82; Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 65) Neither Askew nor Adams
could even identify which partner Bray allegedly failed to assist. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew
dep. p. 73, 82; Ex. 3 Adams dep. 65) This “incident” actually occurred five months earlier in
May 2000, during Bray’s second cycle of training while she was working with Officer Mike
Cleary. (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 347-348, 350-351, 353, 570-571)
; .

Askew wrote in his memorandum that he made his recommendation because plaintiff had
to be ordered out of her vehicle to assist her partner. Ex. AA, D204.

RESPONSE: Admit, however, both Askew and Adams claimed at their depositions that
they requested Bray be evaluated and recommended her termination specifically because they

77

a Ee Tle Ete: Biden BL en, Oe ae |


—[— he ey ey

that’s like sour grapes.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 406, 409; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p.
000113) Bray trusted Joyce because he was a law student and believed he meant well so she left
the allegations of sexual harassment out of her statement, (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 406,
409) On the morning of October 23, 2000, Joyce re-wrote a statement for Bray. (P1 LR56.1(b)
Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 405, 407) Bray then copied the statement in her own handwriting before she
met with the Review Board. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 405, 407) Bray thought what
Joyce was having her write would save her job. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 408)
Therefore, Bray did not really read the statement Joyce wrote as she was copying it. (Pl
LRS56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 408-409) Joyce then took her statement and escorted her to the

Police Academy. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 405; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p. 000113)

Plaintiff attributed her problems with FTO Daniels to a “personality conflict.” Ex. V,
D508.

RESPONSE: Admit, however, plaintiff continues on to state that “however R/O
continued training with FTO Daniels without letting conflict adversely affect my positive

attitude.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 63 Bray’s Statement to the Review Board)

71. Plaintiff wrote that Askew stopped providing her positive feedback after he spoke
with Daniels. Ex. V, D509. Plaintiff wrote, reporting officer (“RO”) “feels that the personality
conflict between R/O and FTO Daniels inappropriately colorered [sic] FTO Askews [sic]
judgment as to abilities after F.T.O. Askewss [sic] conversation with F.T.O. Daniels, F.T.O.
Askew's attitude towaards [sic] R/O changed.” Ex. V, D509; Ex. H, p. 37.

86



aan ca DOIN eae eee ain nn cone cee cen ee nce ee i, ae We

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION <
PAMELA BRAY, }
) DOCKETED
Plaintiff, } SEP 2 3 2002
v. ) No. 01 C 7770
)
CITY OF CHICAGO, a municipal ) Judge Holderman
corporation, )
)
Defendant. )

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO

DEFENDANTS’ STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS1

L THE PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. The defendant is the City of Chicago (the “City”). Compl., p. 1 (attached hereto

as Exhibit A)?
g&
RESPONSE: Admit. #s
Sz
sf & 7
2. The plaintiff is Pamela D. Bray (the “plaintiff"). Ex. A, p. 1. ge *% ~
$3 <
RESPONSE: Admit. ge SM

3. Plaintiff alleges in her complaint that while employed as a probationary police

officer (“PPO”) for the Chicago Police Department (“CPD”), she was sexually harassed by her

1 Defendant included numerous facts within each numbered paragraph. To avoid confusion, it was
necessary for the plaintiff to separate the paragraphs and address the facts in each sentence.



tt ce Eee Boo Bl one Bite loon Bl oe Be Elie en Ot .  . i

dep. p. 65; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 5; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p. 000106; Ex. 18 EEOC
Questionnaire) This occurred more than three times. (Pl LRS56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 70) He
also commented to Bray that, “I got to get away from you, because if I bump you, you just might
get pregnant.” (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 70) Askew also made a comment to Bray in
August 2000 that she was the “old lady in the shoe, who had so many children she didn’t know
what to do.” (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 121; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p. 000107, 000114)
On another occasion, in July or August 2000, after the 8 a.m. roll-call, Askew told Bray, “you
wouldn’t have so many children if you swallowed.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 54; Ex. 7
Johnson dep. p. 64-65; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 5; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p. 000114; Ex.
18 EEOC Questionnaire) Bray understood his comment to mean that she should have engaged in
fellatio instead of intercourse to avoid having so many children. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 13 Bray’s
Answers to Ints p. 5) Bray responded by telling Askew, “you have a disgusting mouth.” (Pl

LRS56.1(b) Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 5)

Some people laughed. Ex. C, p. 71.

RESPONSE: Deny. Plaintiff states, “some guys laughed.” (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray

dep. p. 70)

Officer Spurgeon was allegedly present during one time. Ex. C, pp. 121-22.

RESPONSE: Admit that Spurgeon was present.

Officer Spurgeon testified that plaintiff did not appear upset by the one comment he heard

113



i a ree ce Bl oe oe BO ee ee ee ee |

Plaintiff alleges Adams did not talk to her after she did not attend the parties. Ex. C, pp.
125, 435.

RESPONSE: Admit.

111. The fourth alleged incident is Adams allegedly telling plaintiff “crazy things about
[how] she liked to wash her dog [while] naked.” Ex. C, pp. 113-14.

RESPONSE: Admit in part. Deny in part. Admit that this occurred. Deny that this was
the “fourth alleged incident.” Adams made sexually offensive comments on a daily basis. (PI

LRS5S6.1(b) Ex. 4 Jones dep. p. 20)

112, The fifth alleged incident of sexual harassment by Adams happened near the end
of July 2000. Ex. C, p. 115. Plaintiff alleges that “we went to pick up on 74” and Ashland her
cage, and present was officer Hebein [and officer Spurgeon].” Ex. C, pp. 115-16. Plaintiff states
she knew it was a cage for bondage because Adams talked about this cage during the cycle. Ex.
C, pp. 120, see 123-24. They went to a storage warehouse where Adams allegedly had a cage for
her sessions built. Ex. C, p. 115, 117. The alleged “cage” did not have any specific
characteristics nor was it distinctive in any way. Ex. C, p. 124. “It was just like-like a storage
box with the openings, slats.” Ex. C, p. 124. Adams allegedly had Officer Hebein and Officer
Spurgeon load the cage into the “paddy wagon” and take it to her house and into her basement.
Ex. C, p. 115. Plaintiff did not go into the basement, she waited in the car. Ex. C, pp. 118-19.
The “cage” was “wooden and it had like four or five’slats in It wasn't assembled . . . So during

136


i I ee, BO one ee ee ee oe Be ee ee oe a ee ee |

It clarifies any possible mistakes about who is and who is not someone's superior. Ex. D,

13.

RESPONSE: Deny and objection, argumentative.

At the first step of the chain are recruits, PPO’s, police officers (“POs”) and Field
Training Officers (“FTO’s"). Ex. D, 4] 3.
RESPONSE: Deny. FTO’s are above PPO’s because they have acquired the ability to

train PPO’s in the field, (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 12-13)

FTO’s have acquired the ability to train PPO’s in the field. Ex. D, 7 3.

RESPONSE: Admit.

Sergeants are the immediate superiors of PPO’s and POs, including FTO’s. Ex. D, {| 3.
RESPONSE: Deny. FTO’s are the immediate supervisors of PPO’s. (PI LR56.1(b) Ex.

1 Bray dep. p. 72, 74, 77; Ex. 6 Crawley dep. p. 28; Ex. EEOC Notes p. 000354)

Above sergeants are lieutenants, and above lieutenants are captains. Ex. D, 1 3.

RESPONSE: Admit.

Commanders outrank captains. Ex. D, {| 3.

RESPONSE: Admit.



sete aie ee oe ne ioe i ee le oe oe ee |

(Benny Spurgeon's Deposition is attached hereto as Exhibit BB, pp. 24-26).

RESPONSE: Deny. Each time Askew made a derogatory comment about her fertility,
Bray felt awkward, uncomfortable, humiliated, embarrassed, and degraded. (P1 LRS56.1(b) Ex. 1
Bray dep. p. 71, 271; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 5) However, she did not say anything
because she feared losing her job. (P1 LR56.1() Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 71; Ex. 4 Jones dep. p. 26;

Ex, 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 4)

Plaintiff said nothing to Askew about these alleged comments. Ex. C, p. 71.

RESPONSE: Each time Askew made a derogatory comment about her fertility, Bray felt
awkward, uncomfortable, humiliated, embarrassed, and degraded. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep.
p. 71, 271; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 5) However, she did not say anything because she
feared losing her job. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 71; Ex. 4 Jones dep. p. 26; Ex. 13 Bray’s
Answers to Ints p. 4) Jones, who was a police officer with the City of Chicago for 10 years at the
time, advised Bray to “keep a record of everything, dates and times. . . because you are still on
probation and pretty much [Askew and Adams] can get you fired at any time.” (Pl LR56.1(b)

Ex. 4 Jones dep. p. 6, 16)

97. The fourth alleged incident of sexual harassment by Askew involved “sending
messages on the PDT [personal data computer in the car] asking” plaintiff and her children to the
movies. Ex. C, p. 78. Askew only asked plaintiff to come with her children to the movies. Ex.

C, pp. 78-80. Plaintiff always responded, “No.” Ex. C, pp. 79-80. Plaintiff does not know if

114


47 Review Board Decision) As the result, on or about October 20, 2000, Bray was taken off the
street and restricted to desk duty. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 396-397; Ex. 15 Bray’s
Notes p. 000111) Less than two weeks after she threatened to report Askew, on or about October
23, 2000, Bray was notified of her termination effective October 24, 2000. (PI! LR56.1(b) Ex. 1

Bray dep. p. 214; Ex. 25 Def’s Position Statement p. 2)

FTO’s cannot discipline PPO’s. Ex. D, | 8.

RESPONSE: Deny. FTO’s evaluate PPO’s which can lead to disciplinary action. (Pl
LR56.1(b) Ex. Askew dep. p. 90) Plaintiff felt that FTO’s had control of her job because their
evaluations would determine whether or not she would keep her job. (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray
dep. p. 72, 77; Ex. 6 Crawley dep. p. 28) In fact, at his deposition Askew confirmed he had this
power over Bray’s employment when he testified that he gave Bray scores of “4” on her
evaluations because “getting twos in her second cycle would have gotten her terminated.” (Pl
LR56.1(b) Ex. Askew dep. p. 90) Askew in particular made it clear to Bray at the time she
started training with him on her second cycle that he was her supervisor and had control over her
employment. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. R, 77) in fact, Eileen Bell, Assistant
Corporation Counsel for the City of Chicago, agreed with Investigator Batog of the EEOC during
his investigation into Bray’s Charge that Field Training Officers are in supervisory positions over
Probationary Police Officers. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 23 EEOC notes p. 000354) After Bray
threatened to report him, Askew contacted the Police Academy and requested that they evaluate
Bray’s performance and recommended to the Review Board that her employment be terminated.
(P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 80; Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 72-73; Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 80-82; Ex.

34°



80. After a Review Board reviews a particular recruit’s performance, the Review
Board makes a recommendation to the Assistant Deputy Superintendent (‘ADS’) of the
Education and Training Division regarding the recruit. Ex. R, | 9. The recommendations range
from a request for further academic and/or field training, counseling, termination, or no further
action. Ex. R, 79. .

RESPONSE: Deny. Defendant does not cite evidence in the record to support these

assertions.

81.  Atthe conclusion of its proceedings, the Review Board examining Pamela Bray's
performance unanimously recommended that she be separated from the CPD based on her
conduct which revealed the following: 1) she was unable to adequately perform police duties; 2)
she was unwilling to assist and back up her partner when elements of danger and stress exist; 3)
and she failed to follow safety procedures, Some of plaintiff's unsafe conduct included failing to
handcuff prisoners until ordered to do so and sitting in the squad car while her partner was
effecting an arrest. Ex. R, 1 10.

RESPONSE: Deny. The Review Board based its decision to terminate Bray on
inaccurate and misleading gossip intentionally provided to it by Askew and Adams. (PI
LR56.1(b) Ex. 47 Review Board Decision) Bray scored well on her Daily Observation Reports.
(P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 29 Daily Observation Reports Summary) In fact, in a daring attempt to justify
his retaliatiatory actions, Askew claimed at his deposition he lied on Bray’s evaluations and gave

her better scores so she would not be terminated. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 89, 133) At

93



ete ce ee Oe ie ee ee ee a i ee ee |

LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 402-403, 408; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p. 00111-0001 12) Joyce
emphasized to Bray, “Just don’t write anything negative about him [Askew], put good things
about him in your report.” (P1 LR56.i(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 403; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p.
000112) Bray confided in Joyce about the sexual haradsment. (P! LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p.
406; Ex. 21 EEOC notes p. 000186) Joyce advised Bray, “Don’t speak of anything, because
that’s like sour grapes,” (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 406, 409; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p.
000113) Bray trusted Joyce because he was a law student and believed he meant well so she left
the allegations of sexual harassment out of her statement. (P! LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 406,
409) On the moming of October 23, 2000, Joyce re-wrote a statement for Bray. (Pl LRS56.1(b)
Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 405, 407) Bray then copied the statement in her own handwriting before she
met with the Review Board. (P! LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 405, 407) Bray thought what
Joyce was having her write would save her job. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 408)
Therefore, Bray did not really read the statement Joyce wrote as she was copying it. (P1
LRS56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 408-409) Joyce then took'her statement and escorted her to the
Police Academy. (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 405; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p. 000113)
Plaintiff also submitted statements to the Review Board about her performance from POs on her
behalf. Ex. C, pp. 409-10. Further, when Bray attempted to tell Lieutenant Zapolsky, Sergeant
Judon and Lieutenant Duesworth that Askew had sexually harassed her and that Adams had been
trying to get her to solicit sex. Judon cut her off. stating, “it’s too late for that.” (P1 LR56.1(b)

Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 24; Ex. 1 Bray dep: p. 393-394)

None of these statements were from FTO’s or mentioned any alleged sexual harassment.

{

88


i I cei TE sane BI ini I oni BE ini, BE ie ee, eee ide a Be OO |

1. Sexual harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances,
including but not limited to the following:

a The victim, ag well as the offender, may be of either
or the same sex.

b. The offender may be the victim's supervisor, an
agent of the employer, a supervisor in another area,
aco-worker, of a non-employee,

c. The victim does not have to be the person harassed
but could be anyone affected by the offensive

conduct.

2. Sexual harassment covers a broad range of conduct, that
typically falis into one of two general categories of
harassment: :

4
a A demand for sexual favors as a condition to
receiving or keeping an employment benefit (“Quid
pro quo harassment").
b. The everyday working environment is so rampant

with sexual, verbal, or physical abuses that it creates
an intimidating or hostile working environment
(‘Hostile environment harassment”).

D. Reporting and Investigating Sexual Harassment

1. A Department member who alleges that a sexual
harassment incident has taken place, will:

a Report the incident to their immediate supervisor,
by notifying the supervisor orally of the incident, no
later than 180 days following the alleged incident.
If the immediate supervisor is the alleged offender,
the member will notify a supervisor one rank above
that of the accused member.

b. Provide as many details of the alleged conduct as
possible (dates, names of offenders and witnesses,
etc.).

16



cate Mil ceen Mik com Mil one Hil oame Hl ann in i ante can, toe te Mae Mn a Mtn |

RESPONSE: Admit.

Plaintiff wrote in a memorandum to the Commander of the 7" District that:

P.P.O. is submitting this report requesting that a fourth cycle be given. P.P.O.

strongly feels that having a fourth cycle would benefit me to help me to

strengthen areas of weakness. Since training with F.T.O. D. Adams, has help

[sic] P.P.O. identify weak areas and is making progress and gaining the needed

confidence to handle situations as they arise. P.P.O. is definite that a 4" cycle

with F.T.O. Adams will continue to help build the foundation and confidence

P.P.O. needs to perform the tasks needed to maintain my duties as a police officer.
Ex. P, D166.

RESPONSE: Admit, however, Adams had not started sexually harassing her yet.
(P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 91, 321-322; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 8; Ex. 19 EEOC

Determination)

49. Adams submitted a memorandum to the Commander of the 7" District
requesting that “PPO Pamela Bray #14176 be given.a fourth cycle.” Ex. P, D165.
Adams wrote that plaintiff could greatly benefit from a fourth cycle, explaining that

PPO has continued to have difficulty in the majority of the rating areas.

This has been documented. PPO has a basic understanding of what is

required of her but is hesitant to make decisions and is timid in her

approach: PPO lacks the self confidence needed to perform the tasks she is

capable of doing.
Ex. P, D165.

RESPONSE: Admit, however, Adams also states in this memorandum that “Through

the majority of her first cycle PPO worked with officers who had just a little over a year on the

58



sexually harassed by Askew or Adams. Ex. C, pp. 428-29,

RESPONSE: Deny. Plaintiff attempted to tell Lieutenant Zapolsky, Sergeant Judon and
Lieutenant Duesworth that Askew had sexually harassed her and that Adams had been trying to
get her to solicit sex. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 24; Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 393-
394) However, Judon cut her off stating, “it’s too late for that.” (P1LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p.

393-394)

90. ADS Schenkel read plaintiff his standard termination statement and gave her a
termination letter in the same manner he has to all individuals for whom he approved
terminations. Ex. W, pp. 14-17; Ex. D, 117; (Plaintiff's Answers to Interrogatories are attached
hereto as Exhibit U, No. 20).

RESPONSE: Deny. There is no evidence in the record that states in what manner he has
given all individuals letters for whom he approved terminations. Furthermore, when she asked
why she was being terminated, Deputy Superintendent Schenkel responded, “I don’t have to give

you a reason.” (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 422; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p. 000115)

Plaintiff received the termination letter. Ex. C, P. 424; (Schenkel's Termination
Procedures and Plaintiff's Termination Letter attached hereto as Exhibit X, D1021).

RESPONSE: Admit, Skahill gave Bray a termination notification. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1
Bray dep. p. 422; Ex. 10 Skahill dep. p. 15) When she asked why she was being terminated,
Deputy Superintendent Schenkel responded, “I don’t have to give you a reason.” (P1 LR56.1(b)
Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 422; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p. 000115) Bray refused to sign the termination

100


aoe en lt coe UE coe Baten Eee i an ll one El ee dee ia ee, Oh |

LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 81) Similarly, Adams testified at her deposition that it was this
“particular incident that concerned [her] the most.” (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 82)
However, neither Askew nor Adams could identify the person who told them about this
“incident.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 73, 82; Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 65) Neither Askew
nor Adams could even identify which partner Bray allegedly failed to assist. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 2
Askew dep. p. 73, 82; Ex. 3 Adams dep. 65) This “incident” actually occurred five months
earlier in May 2000, during Bray’s second cycle of training while she was working with Officer
Mike Cleary, (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 347-348, 350-351, 353, 570-571) In May 2000,
there was an occasion in which Bray was unable to get out of her squad car to assist Cleary
because her car door was jammed. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 347-348, 350-351, 353,
570-571) Lieutenant Zapolsky, who did not know Bray was having trouble getting out of the
car, had pulled along side the car, ordered Bray out of it and then immediately left. (P1
LRS56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 347-348, 351-352, 570; Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 136; Ex. 28 Zapolsky
Statement; Ex. 20 EEOC notes p. 000185) No one said anything else to Bray about this matter
after Zapoisky pulled away from the car. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 354-355, 356; Ex. 28
Zapolsky Statement; Ex. 20 EEOC notes p. 000185) At no time did Cleary ever mention it to
Bray. (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 347-348, 356, 570-571) Cleary never reprimanded or
counseled Bray for it either. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 570-571) Cleary did not even cite
this matter in the Daily Observation Reports he prepared for Bray. (P! LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray
dep. p. 570-571; Ex. 36 Daily Observation Reports) To the contrary, Cleary gave Bray “above
adequate” scores for the areas of performance he observed during the period she worked with
him. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 569-571; Ex. 36 Daily Observation Report; Ex. 29 Daily

79


ct cin BE sence ce ie Bi or eee ees cee ee a, Bh ee, |

In a DOR, Daniels wrote she directed plaintiff to guard a crime scene, while she spoke to

witnesses. Ex. J, D370.
RESPONSE: Deny. Plaintiff believed that Daniels had instructed her to sit in the
vehicle. (P1 LRS6.1(b) Ex. 30 Daily Observation Reports prepared by Daniels signed and dated

April 16, 2000, D370)

Daniels wrote that when she returned, plaintiff was sitting in the vehicle. Ex. J, D370.

l RESPONSE: Admit.

32. Daniels also wrote in this DOR that plaintiff made numerous errors while
conducting a crash investigation and writing the crash report, even though plaintiff claimed she
had prepared several already. Ex. J, D370.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff only admits that the document states this.

33. Near the end of her first training cycle with Daniels, plaintiff was in an accident
while responding to an emergency call. Ex. C, pp. 255-60,

RESPONSE: Admit.

After a suspect hit someone, he attempted to escape in a stolen car and plaintiff was

driving when the call came over the radio. Ex. C, p. 256.

RESPONSE: Admit.
Daniels told plaintiff to turn on the sirens, “and hurry up and go help your fellow

40



ee ee ee ate ie ee De En Oe

dep. p. 333; Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 42-43, 106)

Plaintiff does not remember if she asked for a beat map. Ex. C, p. 300.

RESPONSE: Admit.

43. Adams also commented in a DOR that “PPO has yet to develop an ‘ear’
when driving. She maintains too much of a focus on driving and does not listen to the radio.
She may hear the call numbers, but miss calls / assignments to other cars that we could handle or
that we are near enough to take or assist.” Ex. O, D312.

RESPONSE: Admit however, on or about June 11, 2000, the day the comment was
written on the Daily Observation Report, Adams also gives Bray an average rating of 5. (Pl
LRS56.1(b) Ex. 29 Daily Observation Reports Summiary p. 4; Ex. 38 Daily Observation Reports

prepared by Adams, 000290)

Adams wrote that plaintiff “[d]oes not understand the proper use or appropriate time to
use a certain code [for identifying a crime].” Ex. O, D312.

RESPONSE: Admit, however on June 11, 2000, the day the comment was written ,
Adams also gives Bray an average rating of 5. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 29 Daily Observation Reports

Summary p. 4; Ex. 38 Daily Observation Reports prepared by Adams, 000290)

44. In the same DOR, Adams wrote that plaintiff “has some difficulty controlling
situations through verbal commands. She has a ‘small’ voice.” Ex. O, D312.

52



plaintiff's breasts are, she had on a cotton bra, a cotton T-shirt over her bra, a cotton shirt over
her T-shirt, a uniform shirt over that, and then the bullet-proof vest. Ex. C, pp. 137-38. The
bullet-proof vest was visible. Ex. C, p. 138.

RESPONSE: Admit, however, plaintiff states she felt the grasp he had on her breast
when he grabbed her. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 82, 139-140) Askew did not merely

“touch” Bray “in the vicinity of her breasts,” he “grabbed” her breasts. . (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 1

Bray dep. p. 82)

101. The vest is designed to stop bullets and is made of a dense nylon material. Ex. C,
p. 139; Ex. R, 1 2. Plaintiff describes it “like a metal coverage,” and about an inch thick. Ex. C,
p. 139-40. The bullet-proof vest is made of a thick, stiff, firm material that deadens sensation
beneath it. Ex. R, 7 2; Ex. E, 12. It is body-armor designed to absorb and distribute the force of
contact made by any object that touches it. Ex. E, {| 2. On the two occasions Askew allegedly
touched plaintiff's vest, she “could feel pressure.” Ex. C,'p. 140.

RESPONSE: Admit, however, plaintiff states she felt the grasp he had on her breast

when he grabbed her. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 82, 139-140)

When Askew allegedly touched plaintiff on her bullet-proof vest, it lasted one second.
Ex. C, p. 97.

RESPONSE: Deny. Defendant cites evidence that refers to the instance when he
touched her ankle. Plaintiff’s response is not specifically in reference to this incident. (Pl
LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 97)

122



RESPONSE: Plaintiff admits this, however, she also states that she did not feel that
Adams taught her anything she needed to know to become a good Police Officer. (P1 LR56.1(b)
Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 129) When she was supposed to be field training Bray, Adams frequently left
the district for personal business. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 333; Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 42-

43. 106)

Adams wrote that plaintiff “is not confident when performing. She is unable to make
decisions effectively.” Ex. O, D310.
RESPONSE: Admit, however, Adams states “PPO Bray accepts and seeks constructive

criticism. She wants to do well and welcomes feedback.” (P1 LR5S6.1(b) Ex. 56 Daily

Observation Training Cycle Summary Report)

“Plaintiff needed to become competent in listening to the radio, case report writing,
assertiveness, and taking direction and knowing her location when driving.” Ex. H, pp. 33-35.

RESPONSE: Admit, however, Adams states “PPO Bray accepts and seeks constructive
criticism. She wants to do well and welcomes feedback. A fourth training cycle will provide her
with the time she needs to improve in all areas. She is capable.” (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 36 Daily

Observation Training Cycle Summary Report)

48. Plaintiff requested a fourth training cycle. Ex. C, pp. 310-11; (Plaintiff's and
Adams’ request for a fourth remedial training cycle and Lt. Charles Flynn's counseling session
Teport attached hereto as Exhibit P, D166).

57



— ee eye

CC, 1 2, Ex. 1. Police Agent Denise Draper-Sibley immediately began a thorough investigation
of plaintiff's EEOC charge. Ex. CC, {] 2. She first contacted plaintiff by speaking over the
telephone in an attempt to interview plaintiff. Ex. CC, 7 3.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff only states that the cited document states this, however, it does

not provide evidence of when the investigation commenced or phone calls were made.

Plaintiff did not wish to speak over the telephone and agreed to meet Draper-Sibley for a
formal statement. Ex. CC, 1 3; Ex. C, p. 211.

RESPONSE: Deny. Plaintiff never stated that she did not want to speak over the
telephone, rather she said, “I wanted to first speak to my attorney before I come down and talk to

her.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 211)

Plaintiff did not appear as scheduled or contact Draper-Sibley to reschedule. Ex. CC, 3;
Ex. C, pp. 212-14.

RESPONSE: Admit that Affidavit states this, however plaintiff states in her deposition
that she responded to Draper-Sibley’s notice by telling her that “I wanted to first speak to my
attorney before I come down and talk to her,” plaintiff did not agree to meet her. (P1 LR56.1(b)
Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 211) She received advice from several attomeys not to speak to anyone
regarding her case. (P! LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 211) Bray trusted the attomeys that told her
not to provide a statement because they were attorneys. She was told to “wait and hold out.” (Pl

LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 211)

143


“~ e  y y e y

RESPONSE: Admit, however, on or about June 11, 2000, the day the comments are
written on the Daily Observation Report, Adams also gives Bray an average rating of 5. (Pl
LR56.1(b) Ex. 29 Daily Observation Reports Summary p. 4; Ex. 38 Daily Observations Reports)

She also gave her a “4” for Verbal Communication and checked that she was responding to
training in this area. Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 38 Daily Observations Reports prepared by Adams,

000288)

Adams also wrote that plaintiff “is getting better at initiating activity but should be more
aggressive in this area, She still lacks the self-confidence needed. Hesitates to make decisions
for fear of being wrong.” Ex. O, D312. *

RESPONSE: Admit that document states this, however, Adams also states, “PPO not
only accepts constructive criticism well but requests feedback on performance and self-
critiques.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 38 Daily Observation Reports prepared by Adams, 000290) On or
about June 11, 2000, the day the comments are written on the Daily Observation Report, Adams

also gave Bray an average rating of 5. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 29 Daily Observation Reports

Summary p. 4; Ex. 38 Daily Observation Reports prepared by Adams, 000288)

Adams also wrote that “PPO has tunnel vision and does not see anything outside of what
she has focused on." Ex. O, D313.

RESPONSE: Admit that the document states this, however Adams also states, “PPO not
only accepts constructive criticism well but requests feedback on performance and self-

critiques.” (P1 LRS56,1(b) Ex. 29 Daily Observation Reports prepared by Adams, 000290) On or

53



i ee eins BE ane ne BE i ee i i sO a |

“it’s too late for that.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 393-394) Bray also tried to tell them
that she believed Adams had forged her signature on some of the Daily Observation Reports she
prepared during Bray’s fourth cycle. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 324-328, 383-384, 394)
at her deposition, Bray identified D306, 308, 282, 284, 286, and 288 Daily Observation Reports
which clearly contained forged signatures. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. 324-328; Ex. 41 Daily
Observation Reports D306, 308, 282, 284, and 288) Before the meeting ended, Bray requested
to see her file. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 395) The Lieutenants looked though the file
and noticed that the signatures on the Daily Observation Reports prepared by Adams during
Bray’s fourth cycle did not match Bray’s signature on other documents. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1
Bray dep. p. 395) Bray requested copies of her file for “when she obtained an attorney.” (PI
LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 395) Upon hearing that Bray intended to retain an attorney, Judon

snatched Bray’s file out of her hands. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 4 Bray dep. p. 396-397)

69. The Review Board Notice states that .

An assessment of your performance while on probation has resulted in a
request that a Field Training and Evaluation Review Board review your
performance and make recommendations regarding the continuation of your
employment with the Chicago Police Department.

The Board will review observations made by the Field Training and
Evaluation Officers, Supervisors and others that monitored your performance
while on probation. You will be afforded the opportunity to submit a written
statement to the Board.

During the review process you will be restricted to desk duty. You are not
authorized to represent yourself as a police officer, take police action or carry a
weapon. If the Board review results in a recommendation to terminate your
employment your detail to Patrol Division will be canceled. If the Board review
results in a recommendation for retention you will be restored to full duty.

82

a a = — _ar emma aun oie — ene a



Se i ce aoe ore I te ce cnn Bl cee te oe, en |

course of its proceedings, the Review Board reviewed documentation containing evaluations of
Bray. Ex. R, 97.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff only admits that the Affidavit states this. Plaintiff denies the
characterization of Lt. Zapolsky’s Memorandum. He states in the memo, “The reporting
lieutenant finds that there was been too little time to properly and fairly evaluate PPO BRAY
while assigned to patrol functions on the first watch. The reporting lieutenant therefore has to
remain unsure of PPO BRAY” ability to become a proficient police officer.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex.

28 Zapolsky’s Statement)

79, The Review Board also considered Bray's activity reports after she completed her
fourth remedial cycle of training. The reports indicated low productivity consistent with a lack
of initiative and a lack of confidence in the performance of her police duties. In fact, for Bray's
period of activity from September 14, 2000 through October 18, 2000, Bray worked twenty (20)
days and recorded 1 arrest, 1 recovered vehicle, 8 parking tickets, and 3 Chicago Transit checks.
This is the amount of work an average police officer might complete in one day. Ex. R, J 8.

RESPONSE: Deny. This statement is contradicted by the Review Board’s own report.
(P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 47 Review Board Decision) In that report, the Review Board lists all
documents reviewed. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 47 Review Board Decision) Bray’s activity reports
were not listed. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 47 Review Board Decision) These reports were not
submitted to the EEOC during their investigation or to the plaintiff in response to plaintiff's
Request for Production of Documents. (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 61-62 Defendants’ First and Second
Reponses to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents)

92


a eee ane Et oe Bl eon one ee Bt oe oe ce |

hereto as Exhibit L, D205). Plaintiff explained that she did not purchase a City sticker because
she just purchased a new car for “$17,000, or something like that,” and did not have enough
money to pay for one until she got paid. Ex. C, pp. 288-91; Judon Dep., pp. 8-9 (Judon’s
Deposition is attached as Exhibit M). She received.a one-day suspension, Ex.C, pp.290-1; Ex. L.
RESPONSE: Admit with clarification. Bray stated that when she went to purchase a
City Vehicle Sticker, she was told that she needed a proof of purchase for her vehicle. Bray did
not have her bills of sales at the time. When she found her bill of sales and had the money, she

rectified the situation and purchased the sticker. Cl LRS6.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p, 288-291)

38. | While Askew trained plaintiff, he commented in her DORs on her lack of self
confidence, and wrote in her TCSR that “her career may be dependent upon her gaining self
confidence.” Ex. K, D334, D336, D348, D354. *

RESPONSE: Admit with clarification. In one DOR, Askew states, “PPO Bray is a good
officer needs to be more sure of himself. She has the talent.” (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 35 Daily
Observation Reports prepared by Askew signed and dated: May 5, 2000) Askew states that in
his deposition that because “some PPO’s are shy when they first start. We try to bring them out
slowly.” (Pi LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 29) Askew states in his deposition, “I’ve had
Recruits before who were troubled Recruits and turned out to be excellent Police Officers. @i
LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 30) Askew commented in a DOR that Bray “thas talent.” (D334)

Askew criticized other PPO’s for their lack of self-confidence. (P1LR56.1(b) Ex. 5 Spurgeon
dep. p. 12, 28, 29) Officer Spurgeon states in his deposition that Askew criticized his confidence

and assertiveness and complained that he was soft-spoken. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 5 Spurgeon dep. p.

47



gee ae en oe el ann Bl cae ll ce cee Tl oe de ee te oe i |

make “easy money” as a dominatrix. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 110; Ex. 13 Bray’s
Answers to Ints p. 9; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p, 000122) Adams told Bray that she liked to put her
slaves in cages and that most of her clientele were white guys from the 7" district. (P! LR56.1(b)
Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 110) Adams told Bray that she “liked white guys because they paid well and
black guys was [sic] not into S&M.” (Pi LRS6.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 593). Adams frequently
spoke of a client by the name of “Bob” who spent Fridays with her in “sessions.” (P1 LR56.1(b)
Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 593-594) Adams told Bray that Bob liked bondage and would give her gifts
or money in exchange for intercourse, (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 594; Ex. 13 Bray’s
Answers to Ints p. 10) On occasion, Adams complained to Bray that she was too sore to get out
of the car from being beat the night before in one of her “sessions.” (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray
dep. p. 322, 593-594; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 10) Adams urged Bray to become a
dominatrix because the additional income would help support her five children. (P1 LR56.1(b)
Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 114; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 9-10; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p. 000122)
Adams also suggested Bray just “sleep with men for money.” (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p.
114; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 9-10) Bray repeatedly told Adams that she was not
interested. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 114) Adams and Bray would actually get into
verbal arguments over Adams’ insistence that Bray sleep with men for money. (PI LR56.1(b)
Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 333; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 12; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p. 000122)
Bray testified at her deposition that, “the more that she tried to convince me to sleep with men
[for money], the meaner she got.” (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 323; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers
to Ints p. 12) Adams’s consistent urging that Bray have sex with men for money caused Bray
stress at work. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 474-475)

134


i a ee oe oe i oe ee Ee ee ee ee |

Answers to Ints p. 7) Bray was left alone without knowing the proper procedures. (P1 LR56.1(b)
Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 88-90; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 7) Consequently, court had to be

continued. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 97-98)

Askew tapped her on the leg to indicate it was time to be briefed by the State's Attorney.
Ex. G, pp. 137-39.

RESPONSE: Deny. Askew “got an instant attitude” and abruptly left the courtroom
while court was in session. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 97, 145; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to
Ints p. 7) Bray was left alone without knowing the proper procedures. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray
dep. p. 88-90; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 7) Consequently, court had to be continued. (PI
LRS56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 97-98) Askew retumed to the courtroom approximately 30
minutes later. (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 98; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 7) Bray
and Askew then left together. (P! LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 98) While riding down in the
elevator, Askew asked Bray, “What is your waist size, a 2 or 232” (PI LR56,1(b) Ex. 1 Bray
dep. p. 98; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 7) Bray responded, “none of your business.” (PI

LRS56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 99; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 7)

98. Then as they were leaving the courthouse, plaintiff alleges Askew jumped into the
same revolving-door partition “and grabbed my waist and started like giving me a bear hug.” Ex.
C, p. 99; Ex. U, No. 3(1)(h). This lasted a “couple of seconds.” Ex. C, p. 101. She said nothing
else to him. Ex. C, p. 101. There was a crowd going in and coming out of the courthouse. Ex. C,
pp. 99-100. When they were coming out of the door, plaintiff claims she told him to stop. Ex. C,

118°


ee Mie ie ee Ee Doe

Askew never threatened to give plaintiff a poor DOR or TCSR. Ex. C, p. 435.

RESPONSE: Admit that plaintiff states this in her deposition, however Officer Gloria
Jones, an officer with the City of Chicago since 1990, testified at her deposition that Bray
complained to her that Askew and Adams were “always threatening her job.” (P1 LR5S6.1(b) Ex.

4 Jones dep. 6, 23-24)

He never threatened to get plaintiff in trouble after her training cycles. Ex. C, p. 435. He
never threatened her job. Ex. C, p. 435.

RESPONSE: Admit that plaintiff states this in her deposition, however Officer Gloria
Jones, an officer with the City of Chicago since 1990, testified at her deposition that Bray
complained to her that Askew and Adams were “always threatening her job.” (Pl LRS56.1(b) Ex.
4 Jones dep. 6, 23-24)

Askew never physically threatened or intimidated plaintiff. Ex. C, pp. 621-22,

RESPONSE: Admit that plaintiff was not physically threatened or intimidated.
However, Askew did threaten her in other ways. For example, Askew would threaten her job, as
Officer Gloria Jones, an officer with the City of Chicago since 1990, testified at her deposition
that Bray told her she was “scared” to report the sexual harassment by Askew and Adams
because, “They were always telling her, you know, “{ have got your job in my hand, I can fire

you just like that. It only takes...a pen.” (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 4 Jones dep. p. 26, 36)

127 ©


oe ee es i a se coe ne, i i oe ee Pe ae

RESPONSE: Admit in part. Deny in part. Deny that this was the “second alleged
incident of sexual harassment.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 4 Jones dep. p. 20) Adams made sexually
offensive comments on a daily basis. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 4 Jones dep. p. 20) Admit that this
occurred and that Adams also told her that the guy was interested in her and that he had left the
card with Adams so that Bray could call him. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 91, 105; Ex. 3
Adams dep. p. 85; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 8; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p. 000121) Bray
believed Adams was trying to get her to solicit sex in exchange for money. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1

Bray dep. p. 219-220, 222, 382)

109, The third alleged incident of sexual harassment by Adams is in late July 2000.
Ex. C, pp. 109-10. Adams allegedly told plaintiff in the squad car about her a dominatrix
sessions,” and “she revealed . . . that she was in a club up north that’s called Underground or
something, and it was for people who were involved in dominatrix, and . . . that [plaintiff] would
make a good dominatrix. She started telling [plaintiff] . . . some of the things that she did, like
how she like to put her slaves in cages.” Ex. C, p. 110. No one else was present. Ex. C, p. 111.
Adams allegedly told plaintiff this during a conversation in late July. Ex. C, pp. 110-11.
Plaintiff does not know what her response to this was. Ex. C, p. 112. Plaintiff alleges that is
“when she went into detail of telling me it’s some kind of bondage thing where like men-people
with power who have higher authority like being like in bondage or tied down.” Ex. C, pp. 112-
13. Adams allegedly suggested plaintiff take up the practice because plaintiff “could use the
money because [she] was a single mom of five children and that the extra income would help
[her] out.” Ex. C, p. 114.

132


a ae co ee ee ioe ee ee oe oe ee | |

PPO’s appointment. Ex. D, 2; Ex. E, {] 3; Ex. C, p. 183-84.

RESPONSE: Admit.

6. Plaintiff started at the Chicago Police Academy (the “Academy”) where her job
included learning the duties of a PPO and passing tests. Ex. C, p..178. The Academy's training
program consists of approximately six months of concentrated study which is continuous and full
time. Ex. D, 1 5. Regular attendance at the Academy is required of all trainees. Ex. D, | 5.

RESPONSE: Admit.

7. A PPO is required to be honest at all times. Ex. E, | 19; Ex. C, p. 186. Cheating
is strictly forbidden at the Academy. Ex. E, {| 19. The rules applicable to PPO’s state that “[a]ny
trainee who is unable to live up to the esprit of this requirement is unfit to serve as a member of
the Academy class, [or] as a police officer.” Ex. E, 19, Ex. 1, pp. 18-19.

RESPONSE: Admit. The court should note that the plaintiff has never been accused of

cheating.

8. The Academy, and all of CPD, is subject to the chain of command. Ex. D, 4 3.

RESPONSE: Admit only that the Affidavit states this.

The chain of command sets forth in rank order to whom each swom officer is
accountable. Ex. D, 7] 3.
RESPONSE: Admit only that the Affidavit states this.

3


Siete ee Ee ee ee ee le le a ee |

stuff, saying I was so fertile, I better not get too close to you because you might get pregnant.”
Ex. C, pp. 269-70, see 473.

RESPONSE: Admit, however, Bray states “it seems like shortly after that [the first couple
of days] that’s when he started like getting my history and asking me a little about myself. And
when I was telling him things like, you know, that I had five children and stuff like that, that’s
when he started with the get away from Bray stuff. ..he started cracking jokes and stuff, saying
that I was so fertile, I better not get too close to you because you might get pregnant.” Ex. C. pp.
269-70, see 473. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 269-270, 473) His remarks became
increasingly more offensive when on another occasion, in July or August 2000, after the 8 a.m.
roll-call, Askew told Bray, “you wouldn’t have so many children if you swallowed.” i
LRS56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 54; Ex. 7 Johnson dep. p. 64-65; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p.
5; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p. 000114; Ex. 18 EEOC Questionnaire) Bray understood his comment
to mean that she should have engaged in fellatio instead of intercourse to avoid having so many
children. (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 5) Bray responded by telling Askew,
“you have a disgusting mouth.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 5) Each time
Askew made a derogatory comment about her fertility, Bray felt awkward, uncomfortable,
humiliated, embarrassed, and degraded. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 71, 271; Ex. 13 Bray’s

Answers to Ints p. 5)

Plaintiff, who has never been married, has five children by three different fathers. Ex. Cc,
pp. 160-63, 453-67.

RESPONSE: Admit, however, plaintiff fails to see how this fact is relevant to this case.

111



partner was starting to search the prisoner, Bray was able to get her door open and to get out and

assist him. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray p. 352)

The door was not jammed when she got into the car. Ex. C, p. 353.

RESPONSE: Admit, however, that was jammed when she tried to exit the vehicle. (Pl
LRS56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 347-49, 351, 353) Plaintiff states that she bumped, hit and pushed
her door to get it open. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 346-353) Everything happened really
fast and by the time her partner was starting to search the prisoner, Bray was able to get her door

open and to get out and assist him. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray p. 352)

“And, see, we have on the side of the car, it's like alot of buttons. And if they’re not lit
up, you can’t see, you know. So I don’t know if my door.was locked from my side; I don’t know.
But I was hitting buttons and trying to hurry up and trying to push out (indicating), trying to
hurry up and get out to assist my partner.” Ex. C, p. 353.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff admits she states this at her deposition.

Plaintiff did not try to get out and exit through the other door. Ex. C, p. 354.

RESPONSE: Admit, however, plaintiff states that she bumped, hit and pushed her door
to get it open. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 346-353) Everything happened really fast and
by the time her partner was starting to search the prisoner, Bray was able to get her door open

and to get out and assist him. (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray p. 352)

70



a DE ee OO oe en ee ee Bi eee i cee Ee: i Oe |

“stood at the car laughing. She was supposed to be involved and she wasn’t. She just stood at

the car.” (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 306)

Plaintiff stated that the offender “had a warrant out for his arrest for-I think it was for
aggravated battery. .. He had broke her ribs, broke her nose, and did a lot of damage to her. He
was standing out there with a can of beer . . . So I was like, Excuse me, sir, and I was calling him.

And then when he saw us, he took out running. I took out running behind him. It was me and
another officer jumped in. I don’t know his name, but he was running too. . . . I was over the
radio, and I was giving my location. I was letting them know that he had just entered a house. . .
and I told them that I'm not familiar with the area, so I'm going to-I'm going back to the car, you
know. .. . And then [Adams] goes over the radio and starts telling me, Well, tell them this and
tell them that. I'm like, First let me, you know, get myself together; this is my first foot chase.
And she was just putting a lot of pressure on me, Hurry up and go do this thing, and go do that.”
Ex. C, pp. 305-07.

RESPONSE: Admit, however, plaintiff states that Adams “stood at the car laughing.
She was supposed to be involved and she wasn’t. She just stood at the car.” (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 1
Bray dep. p. 306) Bray followed procedure and radioed in her exact location. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex.

1 Bray dep. p. 306)

47. Adams failed plaintiff in her third cycle and wrote in the TCSR that “PPO needs
more work . . , to understand the elements of various offenses.” Ex. O, D310, see D332; Ex. G,
pp. 56-57.

56



em Bi ae, Milk coe BL ce Bi tin Et pein Bl ann Pl cen cae i, Wi ae ite Bon Micon Bom

LR56.1(b) Ex. 5 Spurgeon dep. p. 10, 27) At his deposition, Spurgeon described an incident
wherein Askew became “pissed” at him because he hesitated in cuffing an individual involved in
an aggravated battery. (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 5 Spurgeon dep. p. 12, 27) In fact, Spurgeon relayed
an incident about a domestic situation wherein a young woman hit a man with a bottle, which
was Virtually identical to an incident Askew criticized Bray about at his deposition. (Pl
LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 37-38; Ex. 5 Spurgeon dep. p. 27-28) During his probationary
period, Askew criticized Spurgeon’s confidence and assertiveness and complained that he was
too soft-spoken. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 5 Spurgeon dep. p. 12, 28, 29) Spurgeon admitted that he
was reprimanded on one occasion when he was working lock-up for not effectively searching a
criminal who subsequently tried to hang himself with a bandana and a shoestring. (Pl LR56.1(b)
Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 546; Ex. 5 Spurgeon dep. p. 31-32) This incident occurred in July or August
2000, during Spurgeon’s probationary period. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 546; Ex. 5
Spurgeon dep. p. 33, 36) Spurgeon did not get a hearing until March 2002, over a year and one
half later. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 5 Spurgeon dep. p. 33-36) Spurgeon stated at his deposition that it
was typical of the department to take a year to reprimand (or commend) someone. (Pl LR56.1(b)
Ex. 5 Spurgeon dep. p. 36) At one point things got so bad between Askew and Spurgeon, Askew
did not want to work with Spurgeon. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 5 Spurgeon dep. p. 26, 37) In fact,
Spurgeon admitted at his deposition that “a lot of guys don’t want to work with me.” (Pl
LR56.1(b) Ex. 5 Spurgeon dep. p. 37) Spurgeon testified that one female officer told him she did
not want to work with him because she did not feel he was safe. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 5 Spurgeon
dep. p. 37) Spurgeon also admitted that another female officer threatened to report him to the
commander because she did not feel he was doing his job and was not being assertive. (Pl

106°



aie ee Ee Be El oe ae ne oon ee ie ee |

evaluations because “getting twos in her second cycle would have gotten her terminated.” (P1
LR56.1(b) Ex. Askew dep. p. 90) Askew in particular made it clear to Bray at the time she
started training with him on her second cycle that he was her supervisor and had control over her
employment. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep, p. 72, 77) In fact, Eileen Bell, Assistant
Corporation Counsel for the City of Chicago, agreed with Investigator Batog of the EEOC during
his investigation into Bray’s Charge that Field Training Officers are in supervisory positions over
Probationary Police Officers because their evaluations determined whether PPO’s became PO’s.
(PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 23 EEOC notes p. 000354) In his report summarizing his conversation with

Bell, Batog writes, in part:

Bell and I discussed whether FTO’s are in supervisory positions. Bell and I
agreed that FTO’s are in supervisory positions because of they evaluate PPO’s
and make recommendations on whether PPO’s become PO’s. (PI LR56.1(b) Ex.
23 EEOC notes)

FTO’s cannot promote PPO’s. Ex. D, ff 8.

RESPONSE: Deny. FTO’s evaluate PPO’s which affected their employment. (PI
LRS56.1(b) Ex. Askew dep. p. 90) Plaintiff felt that FTO’s had control of her job because their
evaluations would determine whether or not she would keep her job. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray
dep. p. 72, 77; Ex. 6 Crawley dep. p. 28) In fact, at his deposition Askew confirmed he had this
power over Bray’s employment when he testified that he gave Bray scores of “4” on her
evaluations because “getting twos in her second cycle would have gotten her terminated.” (P1
LR56.1(b) Ex. Askew dep. p. 90) Askew in particular made it clear to Bray at the time she

started training with him on her second cycle that he was her supervisor and had control over her

30



evaluations.” (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 89, 133) Accordingly, no Observation Report
can be deemed reliable evaluations of plaintiff. Plaintiff admits that the FTO’s are supposed to
receive training. However, the cited record does not establish whether the acting FTO’s Bray
worked with received any training at any time during their carcers. Askew states in his
deposition that all he had to do to become a Field Training Officer was to take an exam that
lasted four hours. (P]1 LR56.1(b) Ex. Askew dep. 12-13) He does not state he received any

training. (P1LR56.1(b) Ex. Askew dep. p. 12-13)

To qualify as an FTO, a PO must pass an exam and then undergo about three weeks of
training, including on sexual harassment. Ex. D,] 7; Ex. G, pp. 12-13, 175-76; see Ex. H, pp.
134-36. _

RESPONSE: Deny. FTO’s are supposed to receive training, however, the cited record
does not establish whether the acting FTO’s Bray worked with received any training at any time
during their careers. Askew states in his deposition that all he had to do to become a Field

Training Officer was to take an exam that lasted four hours. (P1 LR56,1(b) Ex. Askew dep. 12-

13) He does not state he received any training. (P! LR56.1(b) Ex. Askew dep. p. 12-13)

25.  FTO’s are not supervisors of PPO's. Ex. D, 7 8.

RESPONSE: Deny. As her Field Training Officers, Askew and Adams were Bray’s
supervisors. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 72, 74, 77; Ex. 6 Crawley dep. p. 28; Ex. 23
EEOC notes) It was always Bray’s understanding that Field Training Officers could discipline
and terminate probationary police officers. (P! LR56.1(b) Ex, 1 Bray dep. p. 583) Askew in

26



ce ae Bl ee oe Bl erie Bl oon Bl coe El oe ee te ee a |

Bray dep. p. 68)

Plaintiff stated that this is “like a railroad track, a factory; it’s a wooded area. He took me
back there, and he told me that sometimes they find dead-bodies back there.” Ex. C, pp. 68-69.

RESPONSE: Admit.

Then Askew allegedly stated that “two sergeants . .. got caught in the same area
having-performing oral sexual [sic].” Ex. C, p. 69. He allegedly said “it was a joke going
around the district where they were asking that sergeant how he enjoyed his lunch.” Ex. C, p. 69.

Plaintiff states she did not “say anything [in response.] I just shook my head.” Ex. C, p. 69.

RESPONSE: Admit that Askew said this, however even though Bray didn’t say

anything when Askew made such comments she felt humiliated and degraded by Askew’s

comments. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 71; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 4)

95. The first couple of days plaintiff states that Askew was “polite, he cracked a lot of
jokes, he was okay. He would teach me procedures, burglaries and things like that, showed me
how to do alarms, how to ticket companies that alarms-were false alarms, things like that.” Ex.
C, p. 269.

RESPONSE: Admit.

And “when I was telling him things like, you know, that I have five children and stuff like
that, that's when he started with the, Get away from Bray stuff. . . . he started cracking jokes and

110



Fe en ee i ee ee

by Daniels signed and dated April 15, 2000)
Daniels commented in a DOR that plaintiff must learn to write her reports without
assistance, include important details, listen to the victim and proofread her reports. Ex. J, D368.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff admits that Daniels wrote this, however, Daniels only observed
Bray three times during her first cycle. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 30 Daily Observation Reports by

Daniels signed and dated April 16, 2000)

Plaintiff states she would write her reports the way she knew how, but Daniels, “liked
perfect writing; she wanted everything right, you know. And I’m like: Well, that's you... The
way you do yours is the way you do yours, and the way Ido mine is the way I do mine.” Ex. C,
pp. 244-45, see 262-63.

RESPONSE: Admit with clarification. Plaintiff states in her deposition that she adjusted
her writing style for Daniels, but she also realized that when she was on her own she had to be

comfortable with her style of writing as well. (P! LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 245)

30. Daniels wrote in the same DOR that plaintiff did not complete her assignment
sheets before the end of that day's tour and that she did not use the radio properly. Ex. J, D368.

RESPONSE: Admit in part. Deny in part. The DOR actually states that Bray is “not
attentive to the radio.” (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 30 Daily Observation Reports by Daniels signed and

dated April 16, 2000)

38



her car in the 7" District, Askew allegedly commented that Walker, whom plaintiff dated off and
on, was not the marrying type. Ex. C, pp. 101-02, 103. Askew then allegedly said, “Anyway,
you're too young to be thinking about marriage, you should go out and fuck everybody.” Ex. C,
p. 103. Plaintiff “just shook her head and got in [her] car.” Ex. C, p. 104, She said nothing. Ex.
C, p. 104.

RESPONSE: Deny. Plaintiff admits that Askew then asked Bray if she had a boyfriend.
(PILRS6.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 102; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 7; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes
p. 000109) Bray responded “no” and that she was not interested in a relationship. (P1 LR56.1(b)

Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 102; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 7; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p. 000109).
Askew commented that, “You are too young to be thinking like that. You should go out and just
fuck everybody.” (PI LR5.1(b) Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 7; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p.
000109) Bray got in the car and did not respond. Pl LRS56.1(b) Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints
p.7) Once again Bray felt uncomfortable and embarrassed by Askew’s comments. (PI

LR56.1(b) Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 7)

100. The sixth alleged incident of sexual harassment also occurred after Askew was
plaintiff's FTO. Ex. C, p. 80.

RESPONSE: Admit that this occurred after Askew was her FTO. Deny that this was the
“sixth alleged incident.” On a daily basis, Askew would make lewd, sexually offensive
comments to Bray about women they would see while working together. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1

Bray dep. p. 441-442; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 4; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p. 000107)

120



ie ce BO oein Bee at, et oe en ee ee BE |

it was for her dominatrix sessions. Ex. C, p. 127. Plaintiff states she would talk to Adams about
motherhood, “about being a black single mom. Sometimes,we talked about college.” Ex. C, p.
129.

RESPONSE: Admit that this occurred.

118. Adams never threatened to give plaintiff poor DORs or TCSRs. Ex. C, p. 435.
She never threatened to get plaintiff in trouble after her training cycles. Ex. C, p. 435. Adams
never physically threatened or intimidated plaintiff. Ex. C, pp. 621-22. Plaintiff never told
Adams that she intimidated her. Ex. H, p. 108. Plaintiff told the EEOC that she never asked
Adams to stop talking about sado-masochism. Ex. C, pp. 432-33. Plaintiff never complained to
Adams that she felt uncomfortable or that she was being sexually harassed in any way. Ex. H, p.
133.

RESPONSE: Deny. In fact, Officer Gloria Jones, an officer with the City of Chicago
since 1990, testified at her deposition that Bray complained to her that Askew and Adams were
“always threatening her job.” (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 4 Jones dep. 6, 23-24) Jones further testified at
her deposition that Bray told her she was “scared” to report the sexual harassment by Askew and
Adams because, “They were always telling her, you know, ‘I have got your job in my hand. I

can fire you just like that. It only takes... apen.” (PI LRS6. 1(b) Ex. 4 Jones dep. p. 26, 36)

VIII. PLAINTIFF CONTACTS THE EEOC AND THE CITY RECEIVES NOTICE OF
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT OF ALLEGED SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND

141


et ee Oe ei oe ee le en ee, a a ae, |

buildings on her beat as one of her duties. Ex. H, pp. 52-53.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff only admits that Adams states this is a requirement at her

deposition. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 52-53)

53. Adams wrote in another DOR that “PPO cannot remember to notify O[ffice of]
E[mergency] C[ommunications dispatcher] when making a stop.” Ex. O, D276.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff admits the cite document states this.

Adams wrote in another DOR that “PPO Bray is overcautious when engaging in
emergency driving which means we are amongst the last to arrive to in progress assignments.”
Ex. O, D278.

RESPONSE: Admit, however, Adams rates Bray a “4” and “Responding to Training”
for “Vehicle Operations” on or about June 11, 2000 on the day of that specific observation
report. (P]1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 41 Daily Observation Reports prepared by Adams, 000318)

Further, Adams commented that the “daily watch assignment log is filled out twice with
numerous mistakes” and a “To-From report [was] not completed properly.” Ex. O, D278.

RESPONSE: Admit, however, Adams rates Bray a “4” and “Responding to Training”
for “Written Communication” on the day of that specific observation report. (PI LR56.1(b) Ex.

41 Daily Observation Reports prepared by Adams, 000318)

Plaintiff stated that “everybody would do their logs differently, the assignment logs

differently, so me and [Adams] kind of had conflict." Ex. C, p. 331.

62



a ee ee i ee ie oe Doe ee oe Oe |

Askew went with plaintiff and another PPO to court at her request “to, you know, show
me how to do the court procedures because I wasn’t familiar with court.” Ex. C, p. 93, see 102-
03. While court was in session and while they were sitting, Askew allegedly touched plaintiff's
leg near her ankle and her ankle through her sock. Ex. C, pp. 93-94, 142-146. This lasted one
second. Ex, C, pp. 94, 97. Plaintiff had her legs crossed and was wearing pants. Ex. C, p. 144,
Askew did not say anything to plaintiff before or after he allegedly touched the bottom of her leg
and ankle, Ex. C, p. 94, Plaintiff claims she told Askew to stop. Ex. C, pp. 94-95. Askew
allegedly got up shortly thereafter and left the court room. Ex. C., pp. 97-98, 145. Askew tapped
her on the leg to indicate it was time to be briefed by the State's Attorney. Ex. G, pp. 137-39.

RESPONSE: Deny. Plaintiff admits that on or about September 19, 2000, Bray was
required to appear at the Cook County District Court at 26" and California to testify as a witness
toa felony. (PI LR56.1(b) Ex, 1 Bray dep. p. 93; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 6; Ex. 15
Bray’s Notes p. 000109) Bray was not familiar with the standard procedures in testifying, so she
asked Askew to accompany her to the courtroom since he was her Field Training Officer at the
time of the incident. (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 93, 102; Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 135; Ex. 13
Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 6-7; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p. 000109) While court was in session,
Askew grabbed Bray’s leg and rubbed her ankle. el LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 94-95, 144-
145; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 7; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p. 000109) Bray quickly pulled her
leg away from Askew and whispered for him to stop. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 94-95;
Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 7) Askew then “got an instant attitude” and abruptly left the
courtroom while court was in session. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 97, 145; Ex. 13 Bray’s

117


Observation Report Summary) Neither Askew or Adams were present when this incident
occurred. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 81; Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 64-65) Neither Askew or
Adams even bothered to ask Bray about this rumored incident. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 3 Adams dep.
p. 126) Despite the fact the “incident” was not a concern of anyone’s at the time it occurred in
May 2000, Askew alleges that mere rumor of it in October 2000 — coincidentally right after Bray
threatened to report him for sexual harassment — was sufficient to cause Askew to seek Bray’s
termination. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p, 80; Ex. 27 Askew’s Statement; Ex. 15 Bray’s
Notes p. 000110; Ex. 20 EEOC). Ironically, Adams testified at her deposition that she does not
generally believe the rumors she hears around the station: (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 3 Adams dep. p.
130) Adams further testified at her deposition that if she hears a rumor which is important
enough to her, she will “go find out” by going “to the source”. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 3 Adams dep.
p. 130) However, Adams never spoke to Bray about the alleged incident she claims she heard
gossiped around the station. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 73) In fact, after Bray’s fourth
cycle, Adams never spoke to anyone about Bray’s performance. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 3 Adams
dep. p. 67-70) Adams also testified at her deposition that in her 17 years as a police officer, this
was the first time Adams felt it was necessary to come forward about another officer. (Pl

LR56.1(b) Ex. 3 Adams dep. 72-73)

VI. THE FIELD TRAINING AND EVALUATION REVIEW BOARD REVIEWS
PLAINTIFF'S PERFORMANCE AND PLAINTIFF'S TERMINATION
67. Maurice Ford, Commander of the 7" District, requested a Field Training and

80 vt



aie A sae ak aan ca ee ie een aos i ne, een ne ee, NE on, Be

FTO’s cannot demote PPO’s. Ex. D, ff 8.

RESPONSE: Deny. FTO’s evaluate PPO’s, which can lead to disciplinary action. (Pl
LRS5S6.1(b) Ex. Askew dep. p. 90) Plaintiff felt that FTO’s had control of her job because their
evaluations would determine whether or not she would keep her job. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray
dep. p. 72, 77; Ex. 6 Crawley dep. p. 28) In fact, at his deposition Askew confirmed he had this
power over Bray’s employment when he testified that he gave Bray scores of “4” on her
evaluations because “getting twos in her second cycle would have gotten her terminated.” (Pl
LRS56.1(b) Ex. Askew dep. p. 90) Askew in particular made it clear to Bray at the time she
started training with him on her second cycle that he was her supervisor and had control over her
employment. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 72,77) In fact, Eileen Bell, Assistant
Corporation Counsel for the City of Chicago, agreed with Investigator Batog of the EEOC during
his investigation into Bray’s Charge that Field Training Officers are in supervisory positions over
Probationary Police Officers. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 23 EEOC notes p. 000354) After Bray
threatened to report him, Askew contacted the Police Academy and requested that they evaluate
Bray’s performance and recommended to the Review Board that her employment be terminated.
(PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 80; Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 72-73; Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 80-82; Ex.
27 Askew’s letter) Askew along with Adams presented the Review Board with inaccurate and
malicious “rumors” they allegedly heard from unidentified individuals about Bray’s performance
in an effort to secure her termination. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. f Bray dep. p. 80, 347-348, 350-351,
353, 569-571; Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 72-73; Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 80-82; Ex. 27 Askew’s letter; Ex.
47 Review Board Decision) As the result, on or about October 20, 2000, Bray was taken off the
street and restricted to desk duty. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 396-397; Ex. 15 Bray’s

32



does not list nor attach Bray’s statement nor the statements of the officers submitted by Bray. (Pl

LR56.1(b) Ex. 26 City’s Amended Position Statement)

87. ADS Schenkel decided plaintiff should be terminated primarily because of her
unsafe actions, including her unwillingness or inability to back up her partner and perform duties
to which she was assigned. Ex. W, p. 12; Ex. D, 171 9-15.

RESPONSE: Deny. ADS Schenkle decided plaintiff should be terminated based on the
false and misleading gossip provided to him by Askew and Adams. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 47
Review Board Decision) Schenkle did not review Bray’s Statement or the statements she
submitted from the other police officers. (Def LR56.1(a) Ex. D Schenkle’s Affidavit) In his
Affidavit, Schenkle simply claims that he received the documents in addition to the initial packet

he received from the Review Board. (Def LR56.1(a) Ex. D Schenkle’s Affidavit)

88. The Review Board's recommendation was unanimously approved by Commander
of the Education and Training Division, Samuel T. Christian, and ADS Schenkel. Ex. R, J 12,
Ex. 2, D65.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff admits the documents state this. Plaintiff also admits that ADS
Schenkle and Samuel T. Christian approved plaintiff's termination based on the false and
misleading gossip provided to them by Askew and Adams. (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 47 Review Board

Decision)

89. On October 24, 2000, in accordance with his termination procedures, ADS

98



(P1LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep, p. 190) Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission on or about October 30, 2000. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray

dep. p. 430; Ex. Charge of Discrimination)

17,

General Order 92-1 of the CPD, which was in effect during 1999 and 2000, reads

in part as follows:

m1.

POLICY

The Chicago Police Department is committed to observing, upholding and
enforcing all laws related to individual rights. Department members will
respect and protect each person's human rights and comply with all laws
relating to human rights.

In addition to respect for those human rights prescribed by law,
Department members will treat all persons with the courtesy and dignity
which is inherently due every person as a human being. Department
members will act, speak and conduct themselves in a professional manner,
recognizing their obligation to safeguard life and property, and maintain a
courteous, professional attitude in all contact with the public.

Members will not exhibit any bias or prejudice against an individual or
group because of race, color, gender, age, religion, disability, national
origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, marital status, parental status, military
discharge status, or source of income. Members will not exhibit a
condescending attitude or direct and derogatory terms toward any person
in any manner.

The Chicago Police Department is committed to working with the
communities of the City to serve and protect; to safeguard lives and
property, to guarantee all persons fair and equal treatment under the law;
and to ensure that all persons may enjoy their fundamental rights as human
beings.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff only admits that General Order 92-1 of the CPD states this.

Plaintiff denies that the defendant followed its policies. (P! LR56.1(b) Ex. Bray dep. p. 91, 321-

13

—— oe


ce eee oe eee Bl i El oe Ble Oe

Evaluation Review Board convene to review plaintiff's performance (attached hereto as Exhibit
S, D200); Ex. D, 1] 9; Ex. R, 1 3.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff only admits that Drozd’s Affidavit states this.

68. On October 20, 2000, plaintiff received a Field Training and Evaluation Review
Board Notice that her performance was going to be reviewed, and if it determined her
performance was not sufficient, she would be terminated, Ex. C, pp. 390-96; (Review Board
Notice attached hereto as Exhibit T, D201).

RESPONSE: Admit with clarification. On'or about October 20, 2000, approximately
two weeks after Bray threatened to report Askew if he touched her again, Bray was called into a
meeting with Lieutenant Zapolsky, Lieutenant Duesworth and Sergeant Judon and given a notice
that her performance during her probationary period was going to be reviewed. (P1LR56.1(b)
Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 390-392; Ex. 9 Judon dep. p. 14; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints. p. 23-24; Ex.
15 Bray’s Notes p. 000111) Bray inquired what the purpose for the review was. (P1 LR56.1(b)
Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 392) Lieutenant Zapolsky told Bray that he did not know and that it was her
Field Training Officers who requested the evaluation. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 392-393,
435-436; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p. 000111) Bray expressed that she did not understand why they
had let her get this far in the process and asked why they would Field Qualify her if they did not
think she was a good officer. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1Bray dep. p. 394) Bray then attempted to tell
Lieutenant Zapolsky, Sergeant Judon and Lieutenant Duesworth that Askew had sexually
harassed her and that Adams had been trying to get her to solicit sex. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 13
Bray’s Answers to Ints. p. 24; Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 393-394) However, Judon cut her off stating,

81



ie ee ate ee ee ee ee en a en

RESPONSE: Admit.

72. Plaintiff concluded that, “R/O is willing toto [sic] do another cycle in [sic] effort
to improve any deeficiencies [sic] that I may have. I feel that ] have been prejudged by a lot of
officers who never gave me a chance. There has been so many negative rumors oon [sic] my
part. R/O has every intention of improving on any areas needed. R/O is aware of officer's
safety. R/O is requesting additional training and rerespectfully [sic] request [sic] the opportunity
to further prove it to thhe [sic] police dept.” Ex. V, D510.

RESPONSE: Admit.

73. This statement does not mention anyalleged sexual harassment. Ex. C, p. 409;
Ex. V, D508-10.

RESPONSE: Admit, however, Bray wrote a statement delineating all the sexual
harassment she had experienced and had Lieutenant Murphy review it. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray
dep. p. 401, 426) After Murphy read Bray’s initial statement, he instructed her to re-write it. i
LRS56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 426) Murphy told Bray that “this isn’t about the Field Training
Officers, this is about you.” (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 401; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p.
000112) Murphy then recommended that Officer Joyce, who was in school to be an attorney,
help Bray re-write the statement. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex Bray dep. p. 401; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p.
000112) Murphy advised Bray she would “be in good hands” with Joyce. (P! LR56.1(b) Ex. 1
Bray dep. p. 407) Joyce called Bray and recommended that Bray not “say anything bad about
Bruce [Askew] because Bruce [Askew] is going to be the one to help you get your job back.” (PI

87


ae ee ce ee re i oe ce

Plaintiff's alleged harassers both were aware of the CPD's anti-sexual harassment
policies. Askew Dep., pp. 176, 178-82 (Bruce Askew’'s Deposition is attached hereto as Exhibit
G); Adams Dep., pp. 133-36 (Donna Adams’ Deposition is attached hereto as Exhibit H).

RESPONSE: Admit. Although Askew and Adams claimed they were aware of the
policy, they both disregarded it by continually sexually harassing plaintiff. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex.

Bray dep, p. 91, 321-322; Ex. 13 Plaintiff's Answers to Interrogatories p. 3, 8)

The CPD will promptly investigate any alleged sexual harassment, and retaliation against
someone alleging sexual harassment is strictly prohibited. Ex. E, 11 6-16, Ex. 4-10; Ex. C, pp.
199-200, 204-08.

RESPONSE: Deny. On or about October 20, 2001, Bray attempted to report the sexual
harassment she was subjected to by Adams and Askew to Lieutenant Zapolsky, Sergeant Judon
and Lieutenant Duesworth. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 13 Plaintiff's Answers to Interrogatories p. 24;
Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 393-394) However, Judon cut her off stating, “it’s too late for that.” (Pl
LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 393-394) The CPD did not even start investigating Bray’s
allegations until after she was terminated. (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 14 Defendant’s Answers to

Interrogatories p. 8)

This was taught at the academy during 1999 and 2000. Ex. E, 11 6-16, Ex. 4-10; Skahill
Dep., pp. 19-20 (Tina Skahill’s Deposition is attached hereto as Exhibit I).

RESPONSE: Deny and Move to Strike. The cited document does not provide any direct
knowledge as to what was communicated or taught to the plaintiff or anyone else at the Academy

o-



=“ SS ee

states that she deleted this message “really fast because I didn’t want the other officer to see it

because it was embarrassing.” (P1 LR5S6.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 585

Plaintiff did not consider Askew to be her supervisor when he was not her FTO.
Ex. C, pp. 80-81. Askew was no longer her FTO after mid-May 2000, Ex. C, 266-67.

RESPONSE: Deny. Plaintiff feared that Askew would retaliate against her and cause
her to lose her job if she did or said anything. (P1 LRS6.10) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 71; Ex. 4 Jones
dep. p. 26; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 4) On or about October 4, 2000, when Bray finally
had enough of Askew’s sexual harassment and threatened to report Askew to his supervisor if he
touched her again. (PI! LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 87-90, 436; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints
p. 8) In retaliation, then Askew contacted the Police Academy and requested that they evaluate
Bray’s performance and recommended to the Review Board that they terminate her employment.
(PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 80; Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 72-73; Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 80-82; Ex.

27 Askew’s letter)

The fifth incident of alleged sexual harassment happened on September 19, 2000 in
felony court at 26" and Califomia. Ex. C, p. 93.

RESPONSE: Admit in part. Deny in part. Admit this occurred. Deny that this was the
“fifth incident of alleged sexual harassment.” Ona daily basis, Askew would make lewd,
sexually offensive comments to Bray about women they would see while working together. (P1
LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 441-442; Ex, 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 4; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes
p. 000107)

116


atin ce I coon cies Bi cain nee ae eo Eh oo Pi eee Be, ene, |

RESPONSE: Admit.

Plaintiff wrote in the statement she submitted to the Review Board that

The [sic] following report will describe details of my training . . . and provide

insight as to what, if any trtraining [sic] deficiensies [sic] on my behalf may have

resulted.

(Plaintiff's Statement to the Review Board is attached hereto as Exhibit V, D508).

RESPONSE: Plaintiff admits that Bray was allowed to submit a written statement to the
Review Board. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 398) Bray wrote a statement delineating all the
sexual harassment she had experienced and had Lieutenant Murphy review it. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex.
1 Bray dep. p. 401, 426) After Murphy read Bray’s initial statement, he instructed her to re-write
it. (P1LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 426) Murphy told Bray that “this isn’t about the Field
Training Officers, this is about you.” (P! LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 401; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes
p. 000112) Murphy then recommended that Officer Joyce, who was in school to be an attomey,
help Bray re-write the statement. (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 401; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p.
000112) Murphy advised Bray she would “be in good hands” with Joyce. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1
Bray dep. p. 407) Joyce called Bray and recommended that Bray not “say anything bad about
Bruce [Askew] because Bruce [Askew] is going to be the one to help you get your job back.” (Pl
LRS56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 402-403, 408; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p. 000111-000112) Joyce
emphasized to Bray, “Just don’t write anything negative about him [Askew], put good things
about him in your report.” (Pl LR56,1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 403; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p.
000112) Bray confided in Joyce about the sexual harassment. (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p.
406; Ex. 21 EEOC notes p. 000186) Joyce advised Bray, “Don’t speak of anything, because

85°



Plaintiff alleges Askew's comments about her fertility constitute the third incident of
sexual harassment. These comments usually happened in the parking lot with other people
present. Ex. C, pp. 70-71.

RESPONSE: Admit in part. Deny in part. Deny this was the “third incident” of sexual
harassment. On a daily basis, Askew would make lewd, sexually offensive comments to Bray
about women they would see while working together. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 441-442;
Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 4; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p. 000107) Askew would say such
things as, “look at the tits on that broad,” or “look at the ass on that woman”. (P] LR56.1(b) Ex.
1 Bray dep. p. 441-442; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 4; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p. 000107) At
his deposition, Askew admitted that he “probably” made such sexually offensive comments and
displayed the extent of his bravado by adding that he probably remarked, “nice rack” as well. (PI
LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 111-112) Askew also admitted that while he was Bray’s Field
Training Officer, he and Bray would park outside the Taste Nightclub at 4:00 o’clock in the
morning on Saturday nights where there are “a lot of scantily clad women” and he would “sit
there and just kind of ogle.” (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 112) Askew testified that when
he ogled at the women, Bray would make comments like, “you ought to quit,” or “you already
have a girlfriend. What do you need with them?” (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 113)
Admit that Askew would say things like, “You all better get away from Bray because she’s very
fertile; if you get near her, she’ll get pregnant” while she was in a parking lot with a group of
guys. He would also say, “Don’t touch her; she’ll get pregnant.” (Pi LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep.
p. 70, 270, 275, 473; Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 119, 121; Ex. 5 Spurgeon dep. p. 24-25; Ex. 7 Johnson

112


i i ree in ee ce i ie ee oe, i, Mee |

Schenkel. Along with the Review Board's recommendation, Lt. Drozd included all the materials
the Review Board considered during its conference. Ex. R, f 11.

RESPONSE: Admit only that the Affidavit states this.

86. ADS Schenkel received written notice that the Review Board determined
plaintiff's performance was substandard and a package containing the materials the Review
Board examined during its session (Gary W. Schenkel's Deposition is attached hereto as Exhibit
W, pp. 6-7); Ex. R, 11.

RESPONSE: Deny. The Review Board’s Decision was based on false and misleading
gossip provided to it by Askew and Adams. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 47 Review Board Decision)
However, the Board then goes on to rely on the “incident” which Askew claims he heard about in
October 2000 from an unknown individual wherein Bray was ordered out of her car to assist her
partner. (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 47 Review Board Decision) The Board’s decision fails to note,
however, that this “incident” took place five months earlier in May 2000 during Bray’s second
cycle of training — before she was rated “field qualified”. (P| LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 347-
348, 350-351, 353, 570-571) The Board’s decision also fails to note that the reason Bray did not
get out of her car on that occasion in May 2000, was because the door had jammed and not
because she was unwilling to assist her parmer. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 347-348, 350-
351, 353, 570-571) The decision also notes that allegedly “several police officers” in the district
had requested not to be partnered with Bray because they do not feel safe working with her. (P1
LR56.1(b) Ex. 47 Review Board Decision) However, not one of these alleged police officers is

identified. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 47 Review Board Decision) Not one single police officer ever

96



= ES SSS SS See

RESPONSE: Admit, however, Adams continues on in her TCSR to say that “she does

check reports for grammar and spelling.” (Def LR56.1(a) Ex. 0, D296)

Adams wrote that “patrol procedures in general, PPO does OK, in particular crimes in
progress are not her forté.” Ex. O, D296.
RESPONSE: Admit, however, Adams continues on to say “I believe this will improve

over time.” (Def LR56.1(a) Ex. O, D296)

56. Adams also wrote in her remedial TCSR that “Bray uses the radio properly, but
still has problems interviewing the citizens. She needs to work on her communication skills both
verbal as well as body language.” Ex. O, D296.

RESPONSE: Admit, however, Adams continues on to say, “She does understand how
the interaction with the community should work and applies it best when addressing CAPS
related problems. (Def LR56.1(a) Ex. O, D296) Adams gives Bray a “4,” an Acceptable rating
in both “Verbal Communication” and “Community Interaction” on the report for that day. (Pl
LR56.1(b) Ex. 42 Remedial Summary Report, 000169) She also rates her field qualified in those
categories along with every other category. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 42 Remedial Summary Report,
000169)

For example, at a domestic dispute between two large, angry, mentally disturbed brothers
arguing over a woman they were sharing, plaintiff. stood between the men with her hands behind
her back asking them to “please be quiet” without projecting her voice. Ex. H, pp. 26-28.

RESPONSE: Deny. This incident happened previous to the July 24, 2000 Daily

64


51. Plaintiff requested to work with FTO Adams for her remedial cycle. Ex. C, pp.
320-21; Ex. P, D166-67. ‘
RESPONSE: Admit, however, Adams had not started sexually harassing her yet at this

point. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 321-322)

Plaintiff stated that according to procedure, she was supposed “to go out of the district for

a fourth cycle.” Ex. C, p. 320-21; Ex. H, pp. 34-35.

RESPONSE; Admit.

But plaintiff did not want to go outside of the 7" District and requested not to because it
“would have been more stressful . . . to learn that area and that environment.” Ex. C, p. 321.

RESPONSE: Admit. Plaintiff had been bumped around from beat to beat before and she
wanted to remain in the district so she could concentrate on becoming a good police officer. (Pl

LRS6.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 248, 321-322)

Plaintiff's remedial cycle began in June and ended in late July of 2000. Ex. C, p. 320.
RESPONSE: Admit with clarification. Plaintiff's training cycle began specifically in

late June and in ended in mid-July 2000. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 320)

Plaintiff worked days again, from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Ex. C, p. 320.

RESPONSE: Admit.

60



and/or engage in any other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, which
has the purpose or effect of interfering with an individual's work performance, or
creating a hostile work environment.

Racial or sexual harassment will not be tolerated by the Chicago Police
Department Education and Training Division. All trainees are guaranteed
I. protection against racial or sexual harassment.

Whenever a trainee feels that he has been the victim of racial or sexual harassment
H caused by a fellow trainee, an Instructor, a staff member, or any other member of
the Chicago Police Department, he/she will bring the matter to the attention of his
Homeroom Instructor. The Homeroom Instructor will assist the trainee in
initiating a formal investigation, and will immediately bring the matter to the
attention of the Homeroom Supervisor, and the Assistant Deputy Superintendent
of Education and Training. All current Chicago Police Department procedures
related to allegation of this nature will be followed. If the accused is a member of
another department or agency, a thorough investigation will be conducted, but in
lieu of a complaint register number the employing department or agency will be
notified.

No retaliatory action may be taken against any trainee who has filed such a
complaint in good faith. ,

Ex. E, 93, Ex. 1, pp. 19-21.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff only admits that Rule 4 of the CPD Education and Training
Division Basic Recruit Procedural Manual states this. Defendant did not follow or enforce these
policies as evidenced by the continued sexual harassment Bray was subjected to by Askew and

Adams during her employment, (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 91, 321-322; Ex. 13 Plaintiff's

Answers to Interrogatories p. 3, 8; Ex. 4 Jones dep. P- 23-27) )

IV. FIELD TRAINING IN THE SEVENTH DISTRICT, ENGLEWOOD
23. Following training at the Academy, PPO’s are detailed to a police district for field

training. Ex. D, 71 6.

22



I i ee Be oe eon ee, en a

RESPONSE: Admit.

Adams wrote in a DOR and the TCSR that plaintiff is not aware of her location (Adams’
DORs and TCSRs are attached hereto as Exhibit 0, D312, see D332).

RESPONSE: Admit, however Adams also states, “PPO not only accepts constructive
criticism well but requests feedback on performance and self-critiques.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 38
Daily Observation Reports prepared by Adams, 000290) Adams also gives Bray an average
rating of 5 on this particular day these comments were written. (Pl LRS6.1(b) Ex. 29 Daily
Observation Reports Summary p. 4; Ex. 38 Daily Observation Reports prepared by Adams,

000288)

Adams commented that as a result plaintiff “still is unsure of when she should pick up
speed when an emergency call is dispatched.” Ex. O, D312.

RESPONSE: Admit, however Adams alsé states, “PPO not only accepts constructive
criticism well but requests feedback on performance and self-critiques.” (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 38

Daily Observation Reports prepared by Adams, 000290)

Plaintiff stated that “I wasn’t really aware of my location because we did not stay on our
beat. And when you're not staying on your beat, how are you going to know your locations.”
Ex. C, p. 300.

RESPONSE: Admit, however, this was because when she was supposed to be field

training Bray, Adams frequently left the district for personal business. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray

31



= eee oo ee ey

go on to another cycle. P! LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 263, 311-312, 316-320)

Adams wrote that plaintiff “exhibited the most difficulty” in verbal communication. Ex.
O, D331-32. “PPO will not take charge of a situation verbally for fear of offending or getting a
CR#. She's polite. She is not assertive enough. She has stated several times that she ‘doesn’t
want to get in trouble.’” Ex. O, D332; see Ex.C, p. 302.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff admits that Adams wrote this, however, Adams urged her to use
profanity with citizens and to be rude to them (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 126, 297-299)
Adams repeatedly told Bray to “mother fuck people.” Cl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. 303)
Adams explained at her deposition that it is necessary for her to use profanity with citizens “for
understanding.” (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 41-42) Bray felt such actions were
unprofessional, (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 126) |

Adams also wrote that “PPO has had difficulty [in] identifying ways to establish field
contact and is hesitant to approach for the purpose of making field contact. She is not
authoritative enough.” Ex. O, D310. “PPO is .. . hesitant to make traffic stops.” Ex. O, D310.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff only admits that Adains states this in the TCSR.

46. Adams wrote in her TCSR that in a foot chase plaintiff “was slow to start and did
not pursue offender with any speed.” Ex. O, D310.

RESPONSE: Deny. Plaintiff stated that “then when he saw us, he took out running. I
took out running behind him. (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 306) It was me and another
officer jumped in. I don’t know his name, but he was running too.” Plaintiff states that Adams

55



ii ce eee oe oe ee ee

prepared during Bray’s fourth cycle. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. i Bray dep. p. 324-328, 383-384, 394)
at her deposition, Bray identified D306, 308, 282, 284, 286, and 288 Daily Observation Reports
which clearly contained forged signatures. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. 324-328; Ex. 41 Daily
Observation Reports D306, 308, 282, 284, and 288) Before the meeting ended, Bray requested
to see her file. (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p..395) The Lieutenants looked though the file
and noticed that the signatures on the Daily Observation Reports prepared by Adams during
Bray’s fourth cycle did not match Bray’s signature on other documents. (P1 LRS6.1(b) Ex. 1
Bray dep. p. 395) Bray requested copies of her file for “when she obtained an attomey.” (PI
LR56.1(6) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 395) Upon hearing that Bray intended to retain an attorney, Judon

snatched Bray’s file out of her hands. (Pl LRS6.1(6) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 396-397)

70. Plaintiff was then to report for desk duty. Ex. C, p. 397.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff admits that she was placed on desk duty where her duties were
drastically reduced. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 397) The only task she was given was to
file papers. (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 397) While Bray was sitting at the desk, officers
would approach her and ask why she was being terminated. (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p.
398) Bray explained that she was being re-evaluated and asked several officers to prepare
statements on her behalf. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray’s dep. p. 397; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p.

000111)

While on desk duty, plaintiff began drafting a statement for the Review Board. Ex. C, p.

398.

84



ce a cee ce i oe, lee ee Ee a |

129. Because of insufficient evidence and plaintiff's lack of cooperation,
Draper-Sibley’s investigation did not sustain plaintiff's allegations in her EEOC charge or that
she was sexually harassed in Felony court or on her way out through the revolving door at 26"
and California on September 19, 2000. Ex. CC, 1 12. Draper-Sibley memorialized her
investigation in a detailed report. Ex. CC, | 13.

RESPONSE: Deny. Defendant does not cite evidence of this report.

130. Plaintiff contacted the Chicago Defender in about November 2000 to “let people
see what goes on in the district.” Ex. C, p. 216. She hoped that through this article something
could be changed or done. Ex. C, p. 222. Plaintiff told the author of the December 4, 2000
article everything she alleges happened to her. Ex. C, pp. 215-19. The article does not identify
plaintiff's alleged harassers. Ex. C, p. 220; (Chicago Defender article dated December 4, 2000
attached as Exhibit Z). According to plaintiff, the article edited events out that included Adams
and plaintiff “didn’t really focus on Donna because, like I said, . . . I didn’t look at it as a form of
sexual harassment.” Ex. C, p. 218-19, 221-22. The article contains nothing on Askew’s alleged
touching of her bullet-proof vest. Ex. Z.

RESPONSE: Askew testified at his deposition that he first became aware that Bray was
accusing him of sexual harassment when he read a newspaper article published in the Chicago
Defender on December 4, 2000. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 102) However, he also
admitted that he was never identified by name in the newspaper article. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 2
Askew dep. p. 98)The newspaper article refers to a “male field training officer”. (P1 LR56.1(0)

147


— 7 ey

LRS6.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 126, 297-299) Adams repeatedly told Bray to “mother fuck
people”. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 303) Adams explained at her deposition that it is
necessary for her to use profanity with citizens “for understanding.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 3 Adams
dep. p. 41-42) Bray refused to act in such a manner because she felt it was unprofessional. (Pl

LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 126)

Adams told plaintiff she needed to eat to put on some weight to be able to carry all the
equipment and look substantial. Ex. H, pp. 103-04.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff that Adams states this, however, Adams also states that “I used to
be as small as her.” Adams testified that when she started as a police officer she weighed under
90 pounds and is five feet tall. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 103-104) There is no height

or weight requirement to be a police officer in Chicago. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. Adams dep. p. 103)

116. Adams states that she probably told plaintiff that her walk does not convey a
sense that she is “in charge of this situation.” Ex. H, pp. 105-06.
RESPONSE: Deny. Adams actually states that she probably told her that her walk was

“inappropriate.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. Adams dep. p. 105)

Plaintiff also generally alleges that “mainly my whole training with Donna Adams
consisted of looking for furniture for her dominatrix sessions at her house.” Ex. C, p. 119, see
pp. 127-28. Plaintiff alleges in July 2000 during training Adams picked up a chair in an alley
and took it home for her dominatrix sessions. Ex. Cp. 127-28. Plaintiff alleges Adams told her

140


i tee ee, OO eres oe in ie DO in ee ee ee ee Oe

2. The supervisor receiving the complaint of sexual
harassment will:

a. contact the Office of Professional Standards and
obtain a Complaint Register number.

b. submit a written report directly to the Intemal
Affairs Division containing as much information as
possible concerning the allegation.

c. follow the provisions of the General Order entitled
“Complaint and Disciplinary Procedures.”

3. The Office of Professional Standards will promptly submit
a photocopy of the Complaint Against Department member
form (CPD 44.202) to the Office of Legal Affairs.

4. The Internal Affairs Division will investigate all allegations
of sexual harassment against Department members.

5. No provision of this directive shall be so construed as to
prevent any Department member from seeking legal
remedy outside of the Department regarding a complaint of
sexual harassment. ~
RESPONSE: Plaintiff only admits that Addendum 3 (Department Personnel Practices) to
General Order 92-1 states this. Plaintiff denies that the defendant followed its written policies.

(P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 17 Charge of Discrimination [000139]; Ex. 11 Complaint)

During 1999 and 2000, the Recruit Training Section required recruits, including plaintiff,
to read and become familiar with Addendum 3 (Department Personnel Practices) to General
Order 92-1 during the course of their training.

RESPONSE: Deny and Move to Strike. Defendant does not cite to any evidence in the
record as to how or when, if ever, this was communicated to the plaintiff.

‘

17



ee ee ae Bien Bon, toe Toe one Ele ion eee oe Be Be!

THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATES

119. Plaintiff contends that two days after her termination she contacted the EEOC.
Ex. C, p. 430. Plaintiff contacted the EEOC because she wanted them to investigate what
occurred during her probationary period. Ex. C, p. 431. °

RESPONSE: Admit. On or about October 30, 2000, Bray filed a Charge of
Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray

dep. p. 430; Ex. 17 Charge of Discrimination )

She claims she cooperated with the EEOC as best she could and answered their questions
honestly and completely. Ex. C, p. 431.

RESPONSE: Admit.

120. Plaintiff never filed a sexual harassment complaint with the police department's
OPS. Ex. C, p. 210.

RESPONSE: When Bray attempted to tell Lieutenant Zapolsky, Sergeant Judon and
Lieutenant Duesworth that Askew had sexually harassed her and that Adams had been trying to
get her to solicit sex. Judon cut her off stating, “it’s too late for that. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 13 Bray’s

Answers to Ints p. 24; Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 393-394)

121. In November 2000, IAD received from OPS a copy of plaintiff's EEOC charge,
assigned CR number 267043. (Police Agent Draper-Sibley Affidavit is attached hereto as Exhibit

142



job. These officers did not allow PPO Bray to assume any responsibility and due to their lack of
experience were unable to provide adequate training. The first cycle is the most important it

builds the foundation and confidence.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 60 Adams’ 4" Cycle Request Memo)

50. After receiving Adams’ request for a fourth remedial cycle, Lieutenant Charles
Flynn counseled plaintiff about her performance. Ex. P, D167.
RESPONSE: Admit that plaintiff believes that was part of procedure. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex.

1 Bray dep. p. 320)

In his counseling session report, Lt. Flynn wrote in relevant part that

P.O. Adams indicated that, although competent in many areas, P.P.O. Bray
needed to be more assertive and confident before being rated as field qualified.
The Final Summary Report prepared by P.O. Adams indicated that this lack of
assertiveness was present in many aspects of Bray’s job performance: driving,
verbal communication, street stops, and apprehension of criminal offenders. . . .

P.P.O. Bray acknowledged her weaknesses and requested that she have a fourth
training cycle. Bray stated that she expected to make significant progress while
being trained by P.O. Adams. Bray stated that her first training cycle was not
particularly helpful, in that she worked with many different officers, making it
difficult to develop rapport with any one trainer and difficult to understand what
was expected of her. However, P.P.O. Bray took responsibility for her continuing
development, and is aware that unsatisfactory performance could lead to her
termination from the department.

Ex. P, D167.

1

RESPONSE: Plaintiff only admits that Flynn’s counseling session report states this.

D. PLAINTIFF'S FOURTH REMEDIAL FIELD TRAINING CYCLE

59 |



ae a ee ee ie oe ee oe ee i ee |

RESPONSE: Admit with clarification. Plaintiff states in her deposition that because the
teachers at the Academy were simply Police Officers taken from the street who had no training
as teachers, things were not taught correctly making it hard to learn the material (Pl LR56.1(b)

Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 195)

She was wamed that if she did not improve on her tests she could no longer attend the
Academy. Ex. D, 7 12; Ex. C, pp. 197-98.

RESPONSE: Admit with clarification. Plaintiff was not being taught the material she
needed to learn to pass the tests and was given an oral warming that her test scores needed to
improve, (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 194-198) Nevertheless, plaintiff did pass her tests
and graduated from the Police Academy in March 2000. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 224,

227)

Plaintiff did not know how to write a ticket when she left the Academy. Ex. C, p. 196.

RESPONSE: Admit with clarification. Plaintiff states that they had teachers that didn’t
even know how to write tickets. (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 196) At one point while she
was at the Academy, a teacher stepped out of the classroom and asked a student to help write the
ticket. (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 196) Furthermore, Askew testified at his deposition that

it was the job of the FTO to teach PPO’s how to write tickets during their training cycles.

While there, she was counseled for tardiness. D1063-64 (attached hereto as Exhibit F).
RESPONSE: Admit with clarification. Plaintiff was counseled for tardiness once on or

6


ae eee oe Bl oe oe Be oe oe ee a. |

performance. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 9 Judon dep. p. 21)

Plaintiff's performance productivity after her fourth cycle was low. Ex. R, 118, Ex. 1,
D1040-45.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff only admits that Drozd’s Affidavit states this.

Adams also learned from several officers who worked with plaintiff that they would not
work with her again. Ex. H, pp. 73-74.
RESPONSE: Deny. At her deposition, Adams could not recall any of these officers’

names. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 3 Adams dep. 74)

66. | Adams and Askew wrote memoranda to the Commander of the 7" District
recommending that plaintiff be separated from the CPD. Ex. G, pp. 91-94; Ex. H, pp. 80-83
(Adams' and Askew’s memoranda are attached hereto as Exhibit AA, D203-04).

RESPONSE: Admit, however on or about October 4, 2000, when they were in the
interviewing room together, Askew grabbed Bray’s breast again, allegedly to check to see if her
bulletproof vest was on. (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 85-86; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints.
p. 8; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p. 000110) Bray was very upset and offended by Askew’s unwelcome
actions and informed Askew that if he ever touched her again, she would go to the supervisor.
(P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 87-90, 436; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints. p. 8; Ex. 15 Bray’s
Notes p. 000110) Askew contacted the Police Academy and requested that they evaluate Bray’s
performance. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 72-73; Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 80-82) Askew

76


employment. (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 72,77) In fact, Eileen Bell, Assistant
Corporation Counsel for the City of Chicago, agreed with Investigator Batog of the EEOC during
his investigation into Bray’s Charge that Field Training Officers are in supervisory positions over
Probationary Police Officers. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 23 EEOC notes p. 000354) In his report

summarizing his conversation with Bell, Batog writes, in part:

Bell and I discussed whether FTO’s-are in supervisory positions, Bell and I
agreed that FTO’s are in supervisory positions because of they evaluate PPO’s
and make recommendations on whether PPO’s become PO’s. (Pl LRS56.1(b) Ex.
23 EEOC notes)
FTO’s cannot transfer PPO’s. Ex.D, 98. ~
RESPONSE: Deny. FTO’s evaluate PPO’s which affected their employment. (Pl
LR56.1(b) Ex. Askew dep. p. 90) Plaintiff felt that FTO’s had control of her job because their
evaluations would determine whether or not she would keep her job. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray
dep. p. 72, 77; Ex. 6 Crawley dep. p. 28) In fact, at his deposition Askew confirmed he had this
power over Bray’s employment when he testified that he gave Bray scores of “4” on her
evaluations because “getting twos in her second cycle would have gotten her terminated.” (Pl
LRS6.1(b) Ex. Askew dep. p. 90) Askew in particular made it clear to Bray at the time she
started training with him on her second cycle that he was her supervisor and had control over her
employment. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 72, Tn In fact, Eileen Bell, Assistant
Corporation Counsel for the City of Chicago, agreed with Investigator Batog of the EEOC during
his investigation into Bray’s Charge that Field Training Officers are in supervisory positions over
Probationary Police Officers. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 23 EEOC notes p. 000354)

31°

“a ey



eden ee i eee BE in a St ini ae nin eee de Ee oe a |
|

further states these were “casual conversations” in the form of “gossip.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 3

Adams dep. p. 64-66)

Adams also heard that plaintiff failed to get out of the vehicle to respond to assignments
and on one occasion to assist her partner. Ex. H, pp. 64-65, 70.

RESPONSE: Deny. Adams does not recall who Bray’s partner was at the time this
incident occurred and who told her the story because she “doesn’t bother to remember their
names.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 64-66, 137-138) She states “the police department
is one big gossip bin” and this story was just something shé heard but doesn’t remember from
who or the exact details pertaining to the story. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 64-66)
Adams considered such stories to be “rumors” and she didn’t generally believe them.” Adams
further testified at her deposition that if she hears a rimor which is important enough to her, she
will “go find out” by going “to the source.” (Pl LRS6. 1(b) Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 130) However,
Adams never spoke to Bray about the alleged incident she claims she heard gossiped around the
station. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 73) (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 130, 136)
plaintiff states that she bumped, hit and pushed her door to get it open. (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray
dep. p. 346-353) Everything happened really fast and by the time her partner was starting to
search the prisoner, Bray was able to get her door open and to get out and assist him. (Pl

LRS56.1(6) Ex. 1 Bray p. 352)

Adams confirmed this with Lt. Zapolsky. Ex. H, p. 136.
RESPONSE: Admit that Adams testified at her deposition that if she hears a rumor

74



a cee i att ae ol te oe Bl one Bl ane Eee ee |

Vv. PLAINTIFF'S PROBATIONARY PERIOD IN THE SEVENTH DISTRICT,
AFTER HER FOURTH REMEDIAL TRAINING CYCLE

58. Following her fourth remedial training cycle, plaintiff began working “with
different officers every day.” Ex. C, p. 341.
RESPONSE: Admit. Plaintiff states every PPO “bounces as part of the learning

process.” (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. Bray dep. p. 341)

Askew stated nobody wanted to work with her asa regular partner. Ex. G, pp. 65-68.
RESPONSE: Deny. When asked to give names of officers that did not want to work

with her, Askew stated, “I couldn’t give names, per say.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 66)

Plaintiff worked day and midnight shifts. Ex. C, pp. 340-42, 366-67.

RESPONSE: Admit.

59. While stationed at police headquarters on 35" street, plaintiff received a SPAR for
tardiness in reporting for duty and failure to notify. Ex. C, pp. 343-46; Ex. L, D206. Plaintiff
stated that “all my electricity went out. So when I woke up, I was running late. I wasn’t able to
call the job. I was on the expressway coming off of 35".” Ex. C, p. 343.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff admits that she was five minutes late. (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray
dep. p. 344) Plaintiff also states that she does not have a cell phone and was stuck in traffic so

she was unable to call in to work. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 345) Plaintiff also states that

67


ee a ci coe ie eB nie cet i nee, de cen Ean |

RESPONSE: Deny. A FTO is supposed to discuss his or her assessment of the PPO’s

performance on a Daily Observation Report and then the PPO and FTO sign the document.
| However, in plaintiff's case, on at least 6 occasions, Adams forged Bray’s signature on the
DOR’s. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 324-328, 383-384, 394; Ex. 41 Daily Observation

Reports D306, 308, 282, 284, and 288)

At the end of each training cycle, the FTO completes a Training Cycle Summary Report
(“TCSR"). Ex. D, {1 6; Ex. C, pp. 239-40,

RESPONSE: Admit.

The DORs contain numerous categories for rating a PPO’s performance numerically, on a
scale of one (1) to seven (7), with one being the worst, four passing, and seven being the best.
Ex. D, 1 6; Ex. C, pp. 232-33.

RESPONSE: Admit with clarification. A “1” actually stands for “Not Acceptable,” a
“4” “Acceptable” and a “7” “Superior Performance.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 30-41 Daily

Observation Reports)

Along with the section in which a PPO is rated numerically, a section for comments on
the PPO’s performance is provided. Ex. D, {| 6; Ex. C, pp. 231-34.

RESPONSE: Admit.

To become Field Qualified (“FQ”), a PPO has to receive at a minimum a four (4) in each
“

24"



ate BO sei Fe ee TO eee i OE dee ce, ete anit cle Be, ee, oa Be |

officers.”

RESPONSE: Deny. Daniels was screaming commands at Bray. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1
Bray dep. p. 256)

So at this time, [plaintiff told her], you know, Renee, . . . The weather is kind of bad, I
don’t think I'm really ready to be in an emergency call where it requires really fast driving. . . .
And she [Daniels] was like, . . . Follow my directions . . . I'm like, I’m not going to go that fast,
you know. I was like, Not-with this my first time, I'm going to go with what I'm comfortable
with.” Ex. C, pp. 256-57.

RESPONSE: Admit with clarification. Bray was not supposed to even be behind the
wheel because at the request of the Commander, PPO’s fresh out of the Academy were not to
operate the vehicles because their inexperience caused accidents. (P] LR5S6.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep.
p. 259)

During this emergency chase, plaintiff stopped at each intersection, looked both ways,
and sounded her horn. Ex. C, p. 257.

RESPONSE: Admit. Plaintiff was trained at the Academy to stop at the intersection,
make sure it’s clear, look both ways, sound the horn and let people know to make sure that
everybody stops. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p, 257) However, Bray was not supposed to
even be behind the wheel because at the request of the Commander, PPO’s fresh out of the
Academy were not to operate the vehicles because their inexperience caused accidents. (Pl

LRS56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 259)

41



ee Oe oe i ee a en ee a ee ee]

52. During plaintiff's fourth cycle, Adams wrote in a DOR that “PPO is still not sure
of where she is. Does not pay attention to the streets.” Ex. O, D304.

RESPONSE: Admit, however, plaintiff states in her deposition that “if she [Adams]
figured that I didn’t know my location, it was because of not staying on the beat like we were
supposed to.” (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 333) “We never stayed in the district because

she used that time for her own personal use. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 333)

It is important for an officer to know her location “[b]ecause we're supposed to know
where we are at all times. If you're trying to get to an emergency situation, you need to know.”
Ex. C, p. 333.

RESPONSE: Admit, however, as plaintiff testified, “I was bounced around a Jot, and a
lot of officers don’t stay on their beat. And if you don’t stay on your beat, how are you going to

know the area. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 248) :

In the same DOR, Adams wrote that "PPO is hesitant to enter aband[on]ed buildings for
the purpose of a premise check.” Ex. O, D304,

RESPONSE: Deny. Adams states in her deposition that “I don’t recall that particular
incident [an occasion where she had Bray search a building by herself]. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 3

Adams dep. p. 52)

An officer on the day shift works alone and is required to do a check on abandoned

61



en iene haan ian te i ae a ee ae ee Ee ee

i particular made it clear to Bray at the time she started training with him on her second cycle that
he was her supervisor and had control over her employment. (P! LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p.

| 72, 77; Ex. 4 Jones dep. p. 16) In fact, Officer Gloria Jones, an officer with the City of Chicago
since 1990, testified at her deposition that Bray complained to her that Askew and Adams were
“always threatening her job.” (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 4 Tones dep. 6, 23-24) Jones further testified at
her deposition that Bray told her she was “scared” to report the sexual harassment by Askew and
Adams because, “They were always telling her, you know, ‘I have got your job in my hand. I
can fire you just like that. It only takes .. . a pen.” .(P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 4 Jones dep. p. 26, 36)
Jones also testified that on or about June or July 2000, she confirmed to Bray that Askew and
Adams did have power over her employment. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 4 Jones dep. p. 7-8, 16, 48-49,
53) Jones, who was a police officer with the City of Chicago for 10 years at the time, advised
Bray to “keep a record of everything, dates and times. . . because you are still on probation and
pretty much [Askew and Adams] can get you fired at any time.” (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 4 Jones dep.
p. 6, 16) Askew and Adams, as Bray’s Field Training Officers, had control of Bray’s job
because their evaluations would determine whether or not she would keep her job. (Pl LR56.1(b)
Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 72, 77; Ex. 6 Crawley dep. p. 28) In fact, at his deposition Askew confirmed
he had this power over Bray’s employment when he testified that he gave Bray scores of “4” on
her evaluations because “getting twos in her second cycle would have gotten her terminated.”
(PI LR56.1(b) Ex. Askew dep. p. 90) Further, Eileen Bell, Assistant Corporation Counsel for the
City of Chicago, on or about December 13, 2000, agieed with investigator Batog of the EEOC
during his investigation into Bray’s Charge that Field Training Officers are in supervisory
positions over Probationary Police Officers. (PI LR56:1(b) Ex. 23 EEOC notes)

27



he

i

BY:

Dated: September 20, 2002
Chicago, Illinois

149

rq =~ =) = ae ee

Respectfully submitted,

LARA A. WALICEK



his deposition Askew claimed that Bray did not actually deserve the rankings that he gave her on

his Daily Observation Reports. (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 90-91)

82. Asis the Review Board’s general practice, the recruit being reviewed and
evaluated, Pamela Bray, was not present when the Review Board convened. She did not speak to
any of its members while it met to discuss her performance. Ex. R, {| 13; Ex. C, p. 410. In fact,
plaintiff did not speak to any of the Review Board members before, during, or after
they met to discuss her performance. Ex. C, pp. 411-12.

RESPONSE: Admit. The Review Board never spoke to Bray nor did their findings
reflect that they reviewed or even received Bray’s statement or the statements prepared by other

officers on her behalf, (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 47 Review Board Decision)

83. Also, as is the Review Board’s general practice, no one besides members of the
Review Board were present while the Review Board reviewed and evaluated Bray’s performance,
while the Review Board reached and summarized its findings, while the Review Board reached
its conclusion, or while the Review Board reached its recommendation that Bray be separated
from the CPD. Ex. R, 7. 14. Askew and Adams were not present when the Review Board
convened. Ex. G, pp. 183-84; Ex. H, pp. 79-80.

RESPONSE: Deny. The defendant has presented no evidence concerning how Review
Boards in the past have been conducted. However, although Askew and Adams were not
present, the Review Board relied on their statements which contained false and misleading
information about Bray’s performance. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 47 Review Board Decision)

94



12, 28, 29)

Plaintiff never voiced her disagreement with Askew about his comments that she needs to
work on her self-confidence. Ex. C, p. 276; Ex. G, p. 26.
RESPONSE: Admit, however, Askew’s sexually offensive conduct and comments caused
Bray stress at work and damaged her self-esteem and self-confidence. (P! LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray

dep. p. 275, 287, 473)

He passed plaintiff with a “D-minus with a red circle around it.” Ex. G, p. 48.
RESPONSE: Deny. PPO’s are not rated with letters, they are rated numerically with a
“1” standing for “Not Acceptable,” a “4” “Acceptable” and a “7” “Superior Performance.” (Pl

LR56.1(b) Ex. 30-41 Daily Observation Reports)

Askew considered her performance subpar because she had problems following direction,
being aggressive, and being confident. Ex. G, pp. 20, 47-48.

RESPONSE: Deny. Askew’s Daily Observation Reports do not signify that her
performance was “subpar.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 29 Daily Observation Report Summary p. 3) He
rated her performance Acceptable and her average rating from her second cycle was a “4,”

Acceptable, (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 29 Daily Observation Report Summary p. 3)

(on PLAINTIFF'S THIRD CYCLE OF FIELD TRAINING
39. Plaintiff's third cycle began in late May and ended in mid-June of 2000. Ex. C,

48



Ex. C, p. 410.

RESPONSE: Admit that Bray submitted statements from four officers she had worked
with. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 409) Bray submitted a statement from Officer Gloria
Jones to the Review Board. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 552-553; Ex. 4 Jones dep. p. 31,
33) At the time she wrote this letter, Jones had been a police officer for at least 10 years. (Pl
LRS56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 605; Ex. 43 Jones Statement) Bray worked with Jones quite a few
times. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 555; Ex. 4 Jones dep. p. 8) Bray was partnered with
Jones from on or about June or July of 2000 through the time Bray was terminated. (Pl
LR56.1(b) Ex. 4 Jones dep. p. 8, 53) As her partner, Jones had many opportunities to observe
Bray and stated at her deposition that Bray was “professional” and “seemed to know what she
was doing.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 4 Jones dep. p. 10) Jones also testified at her deposition that she
was never fearful to work with Bray. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 4 Jones dep. p. 10) In fact, Jones
tequested to work with Bray. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 4 Jones dep. p. 10) Jones went through the
Police Academy with Askew and has been on the police force for the same amount of time as
Askew — since 1990. (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 148; Ex. 4 Jones dep. 22-23) Bray also
submitted a statement from Officer Jenkins to the Review Board. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep.
p. 552-553) Jenkins was the last partner Bray had before she was assigned to desk duty. (PI
LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 555-556) Jenkins told Bray that on the date she was put on desk
duty, on or about October 20, 2000, Lieutenant Murphy and Lieutenant Zapolsky approached
Jenkins and attempted to get him to write a negative statement about Bray. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1
Bray dep. p. 556; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints. p..18) Jenkins told Bray that he refused to write
such a statement because he did not have any problems with her and would continue to work

89



category. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 42 Remedial Summary Report 000169)

57. On July 24, 2000, Adams rated plaintiff at the minimum possible level to become
FQ. Ex. C, pp. 337-38, 340; Ex. H, p. 55, 75.
RESPONSE: Deny. Adams Field Qualified Bray. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 42 Remedial

Summary Report, 00069)

Adams had no further personal interaction with plaintiff after this date, other than to say
“hello” in the hat! if they saw each other. Ex. H, p. 57.

RESPONSE: Admit, however, Adams had invited Bray to a dominatrix party. (Pl
LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 125, 435; Ex. 13 Plaintiffs Answers to Interrogatories p. 10-11)
When Bray did not attend the party, Adams stopped speaking to Bray. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray

dep. p. 124, 435; Ex. 13 Plaintiff's Answers to Interrogatories p. 10-11)

Adams considered plaintiff to be a stupid recruit, meaning plaintiff was “[u]nable to
comprehend, unable to attempt to learn, refuse to learn, refuse to try.” Ex. H, pp. 10-11.

RESPONSE: Deny. Adams states that in her opinion “there were quite a few [stupid
recruits].” Adams states in her Daily Observation Report that Bray “not only accepts
constructive criticism well but requests feedback and selfcritiques.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 38 Daily
Observation Reports, 000290) Furthermore, Adams states in her Remedial Summary Report that
“PPO Bray understands the law and department policies. PPO Bray is personable, gets along
well with her peers and requests constructive criticism.” (Def LR56.1(a) Ex. O, D297)

66"



i a i coe BL cae Bl ani Bio Bi cin Bl ain i ee inn Bl see Bl oes lees Eee Pa

with her. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 556-557; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 18)

Bray also submitted a letter from Officer Kimbrough to the Review Board. (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 1
Bray dep. p. 558-559) Kimbrough has been a police officer for over 20 years. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex.
2 Askew dep. p. 147) At his deposition, Askew stated that Kimbrough was “definitely a good
Officer” and that he valued her opinion. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 147) Bray also
submitted a statement from Officer Davina Loggins to the Review Board. (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 1
Bray dep. p. 560-561) Bray worked with Loggins “quite a few times” after her training cycles
were completed. (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 561) Askew testified at his deposition that

Loggins was “a damned good Police Officer.” el LRS56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 146)

74. On October 20, 2000, Lt. Virginia Drozd was the Chairperson of the Field
Evaluation and Review Board (“Review Board”) corivened at the request of the 7" District
Commander, Maurice D. Ford, to review the performance of recruit Pamela Bray, and make a
recommendation regarding her future in the CPD. Ex. R, ] 3.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff only admits that the Affidavit states this,

75. — A Review Board may be convened to review and evaluate the performance of
recruits throughout their probationary period. An evaluation of the recruit’s performance
includes, but is not limited to, a review of disciplinary records, medical records, field
performance, and academic training. Ex. R, 7] 5.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff only admits that the Affidavit states this.



bt RA conte I cone RO ene etl aon BO ein Boat in et ten i, ee Ei ee, a ee |

RESPONSE: Deny in part. Admit in part. Admit this occurred. Deny that this was the
“eighth incident.” On a daily basis, Askew would make lewd, sexually offensive comments to
Bray about women they would see while working together. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p.

441-442; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 4; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p. 000107)

Askew stated she owed him, but not sexually, because he worked extra hard with
plaintiff. Ex. G, pp. 132-33,143-44,
RESPONSE: Deny. After all the other things Askew had said to her, “she took it to be

sexual. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 88)

Plaintiff claims later that day she “told him, Bruce, if you touch me again, I’m going to go
to the supervisor.” Ex. C, pp. 88-89. No one else was present. Ex. C, p. 89.

RESPONSE: Admit that on or about October 4, 2000, Bray finally had enough of
Askew’s sexual harassment and threatened to report Askew to his supervisor if he touched her

again. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 87-90, 436; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 8)

After plaintiff said this, Askew never touched or made sexual comments to plaintiff. Ex.
C, p. 89-90.

RESPONSE: Admit, however he retaliated against Bray instead. Askew contacted the
Police Academy and requested that they evaluate Bray’s performance and recommended to the
Review Board that they terminate her employment.’ (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 80; Ex. 2
Askew dep. p. 72-73; Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 80-82; Ex. 27 Askew’s letter)

126



a rey eg eee ee ay py ely

LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. 324-328; Ex. 41 Daily Observation Reports D306, 308, 282, 284, and
288) However, Judon cut her off stating, “it’s too late for that.” (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p.
393-394) Moveover, from June 2001 to October 2001, Bray complained to Officer Jones about
Askew and Adams sexually harassing her. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 4, Jones dep. p. 23-27) Jones, a
Police Officer with the Chicago Police Department since 1990 never notified a supervisory
member or prepared a written report regarding Bray’s complaints. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 4 Jones dep.
p. 23-27) Pursuant to General Order 93-3 of the Chicago Police Department (Complaint and
Disciplinary Procedures), addendum 2A (Specific Responsibilities), which was in effect during
1999 and 2000, states in part that “When misconduct is observed or a complaint relative to
misconduct is received by a non-supervisory member, such member will immediately notify a
supervisory member and prepare a written report to his commanding officer containing the
information received, observations, and any action taken.” Had Jones followed defendant’s

policy, a supervisory member would have known about the sexual harassment much earlier.

She also stated to the EEOC that the only officer she complained to was PO Joyce. Ex.
C, p. 433.

RESPONSE: Deny. Plaintiff states that they discussed a lot of stuff and he did not put
down everything word for word. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex.'1 Bray dep. p. 433) Plaintiff states that she
“complained verbally to him [Joyce]” and the other lieutenant and sergeant that was present.”
(P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 433) Officer Gloria Jones, an officer with the City of Chicago
since 1990, testified at her deposition that Bray complainied to her that Askew and Adams were
“always threatening her job.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 4 Jones dep. 6, 23-24) Jones further testified at

129



sa Beri eT nae OO ec cee oe Bae oe ee Se, ee

27 Askew’s letter) Askew along with Adams presented the Review Board with inaccurate and
malicious “rumors” they allegedly heard from unidentified individuals about Bray’s performance
in an effort to secure her termination. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. .1 Bray dep. p. 80, 347-348, 350-351,
353, 569-571; Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 72-73; Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 80-82; Ex. 27 Askew’s letter; Ex.
47 Review Board Decision) As the result, on or about October 20, 2000, Bray was taken off the
street and restricted to desk duty. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 396-397; Ex. 15 Bray’s

Notes p. 000111)

FTO’s make observations and recommendations regarding a PPO’s being FQ and can
make recommendations that a PPO is in need of rernedial training. Ex. D, 7] 8.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff admits that FTO's train PPO’s but denies any implication that
they only train without any supervisory authority or powér.

yf

FTO’s may also recommend a PPO’s performance be reviewed by a Field Training
Evaluation Board. Ex. D. J 8.

RESPONSE: Admit. In fact, Askew and Adams requested that they evaluate Bray’s
performance and recommended to the Review Board that they terminate her employment. (Pl
LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 80; Askew dep. p;. 72-73; Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 80-82; Askew’s

letter [Askew dep. ex. 3])

26. Plaintiff was assigned to the 7" District in Englewood (“7" District"). Ex. C, pp.
225-28.

35


= SS SO ee | ooo

for investigation. Ex. E, |] 6-16, Ex. 4-10; Ex. C, pp. 203, 208.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff only admits that the General Orders state this.

15. The Academy teaches all PPO’s the CPD's sexual harassment policies and
procedures for filing complaints of sexual harassment.

RESPONSE: Deny. The teachers at the Academy failed to teach the PPO’s the CPD’s
sexual harassment policies but rather simply gave the PPO’s the answers to the tests. (Pl

LRS56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 194-197)

Plaintiff and her classmates received this lesson during their Academy training in 1999
and 2000. ,

RESPONSE: Deny. The teachers at the Academy failed to teach the PPO’s the CPD's
sexual harassment policies but rather simply gave the PPO’s the answers to the tests, (Pl

LRS56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 194-197)

The sexual harassment lesson given to PPO’s in 1999 and 2000 is outlined in the CPD
Education and Training Division Sexual Harassment Lesson Plan, and covers the following: 1)
defining sexual harassment, 2) identifying the types of sexual harassment, 3) identifying the legal
standards delineated in Vinson and Harris by the U.S. Supreme Court, 4) defining who may be a
victim and offender according to Chicago Police Department General Order (“G.O.”) 92-1, 5)
identifying the steps taken by the Chicago Police Department when an allegation of sexual
harassment is made, as explained in G.O. 92-1, 6) identifying the circumstances under which an

1



i ee i cee Bl tin Bl co ee Bl oe ee den Bl oe Ee, |

122. Draper-Sibley sent a certified letter to plaintiff requesting that she contact
Draper-Sibley. Ex. CC, | 4; Ex. C, pp. 210-11, 213, Plaintiff did not contact Draper-Sibley.
Ex. CC, 1 4.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff only states that the cited document states this.

Draper-Sibley again telephoned plaintiff about her CR, and plaintiff refused to discuss
her EEOC charge with Draper-Sibley on the advice of her attorney. Ex. CC, {| 5. Plaintiff did not
identify her attorney. Ex. CC, 1 5; Ex. C, pp.211-13.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff only states that the cited document states this, however, it does
not provide evidence of phone calls made or that Draper-Sibley informed plaintiff that her lack of

cooperation impeded investigation into her EEOC charge.

Plaintiff acknowledged that she understood and indicated she would relay their
conversation to her attorney. Plaintiff never contacted Draper-Sibley after this conversation nor
did her alleged attorney.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff only admits that the cited document states this.

124, Plaintiff did not reveal to Draper-Sibley the specifics of her EEOC charge.
Ex. CC, 7 7. Namely, plaintiff did not reveal who allegedly harassed her, where these events
occurred, or when they occurred. Ex. CC, 9] 7; see Ex. C, p. 220. However, because the EEOC
charge alleges plaintiff's FTO sexually harassed her, Draper-Sibley obtained statements from her
FTO’s. Ex. CC, 1 7. None of the statements supported plaintiff's EEOC charge. Ex. CC, 7.

144


41. Scott wrote in plaintiffs DORs that she had difficulty in providing the proper
content and sequence of events in her written communication and took too much time to do so.
Ex. N, D320, D322, D294, D292, D290,

RESPONSE: Admit with clarification. Scott’s DORs repeatedly state that Bray “accepts
constructive criticism and is eager to perform well.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 37 Daily Observation

Reports prepared by Scott, 0000279, 000281, 000283, 000285, 000287)

Scott also wrote in a DOR that plaintiff “needs to‘develop [an] ‘ear’ for beat assignment
when called [over radio].” Ex. N, D320.
* RESPONSE: Admit, however Scott’s DORs repéatedly state that Bray “accepts
constructive criticism and is eager to perform well.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 37 Daily Observation

Reports prepared by Scott, 000279, 000281, 000283, 000285, 000287)

Scott also wrote in his DORs that plaintiff needs to be aware of her location when driving
on patrol and responding to calls. Ex. N, D294, D292.

RESPONSE: Admit, however, Scott’s DORs repeatedly state that Bray “accepts
constructive criticism and is eager to perform well.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 37 Daily Observation

Reports prepared by Scott, 000279, 000281, 000283 000285, 000287)

42. Because Scott was going to be promoted and Donna Adams did not have a PPO,
she became plaintiff's FTO. Ex. C, pp. 291-92, 294; Ex. H, pp. 15-16; Ex. G, pp. 51-52.

50

[| | oe


= = SSS SSS = oo

at that time.

14. The General Orders set forth that alleged sexual harassment is to be reported to an
immediate supervisor. Ex. E, 1 6-16, Ex. 4-10; Ex. C, pp. 202, 208.

RESPONSE: Deny in part. General Orders provides that sexual harassment is to be
reported to an immediate supervisor. Furthermore, pursuant to Burlington Industries v. Ellerth
118 S.Ct. 2257(1998), a supervisor is vicariously liable for the sexual harassment he commits

upon an employee below him regardless of whether or not the employee complained.

If the immediate supervisor is the alleged harasser, a supervisor one rank above the
accused member is notified. Ex. E, 1 6-16, Ex. 4-10; Ex. C, pp. 202-03.

RESPONSE: Admit that although the General Orders state this, pursuant to Burlington
Industries v. Ellerth 118 S.Ct. 2257(1998), a supervisor is vicariously liable for the sexual
harassment he commits upon an employee below him regardless of whether or not the employee

complains.

In making a report, as much detail of the alleged conduct as possible should be submitted.
Ex. C, p. 203.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff only admits the General Orders state this.

The repost is transmitted to the Office of Professional Standards ("OPS") for assignment
of a Complaint Register (“CR”) number and submitted to the Internal Affairs Division (“IAD*)

10



|

| B. PLAINTIFF'S SECOND CYCLE OF FIELD TRAINING

|

| 35. During plaintiff's second cycle of training, working the midnight shift, her FTO
was Bruce Askew. Ex. C, p. 266-67; Ex. G, pp. 12,:17, 25-26.

RESPONSE: Admit.

This cycle began in late April and ended mid-May 2000. Ex. C, p. 266.

RESPONSE: Admit.

Plaintiff received below acceptable and acceptable ratings during her second cycle (Askew’s
DORs and TCSR attached as Exhibit K, D333-44, D353-362).

RESPONSE: Admit with clarification. Plaintiff as well received above acceptable
ratings during her second cycle and was given a 7 (Superior Performance) in Community
Interaction. (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 29 Daily Observation Report Summary p. 3) Plaintiff received
mostly 4’s and her average for cycle two was acceptable. (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 29 Daily

Observation Report Summary p. 3)

Askew stated she actually deserved lower ratings. Ex. G, pp. 90-91.

RESPONSE: Admit with clarification. Askew testified at his deposition that he did not
honestly prepare Bray’s Daily Observation Reports and consequently did not uphold the CPD’s
honesty policy. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 89-90, 133) He stated that he, in fact, “lied on

these evaluations.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 89-90, 133)

44



i I et el i A i le on SO ee te a a ee |

The bullet-proof vest was visible. Ex. C, p. 139.
RESPONSE: Admit, however, plaintiff states she felt the grasp he had in her breast

when he grabbed her. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 82, 139-140)

Plaintiff did not say anything to Askew. Ex. C, pp. 86-87.

RESPONSE: Admit, however, plaintiff was too upset to say anything. Askew continued
on the make a “comment about when he was in the academy and he said a young lady that he
used to do like that all the time, he used to grab her in the same manner, one day she surprised

him and didn’t have her vest on.” (Pl! LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 86)

When Officer Loggins came in, plaintiff did not tell her what happened. Ex. C, p. 87.
RESPONSE: Admit, however plaintiff was too upset to do anything. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex.

1 Bray dep. p. 87)

103. The eighth incident allegedly happened on October 4, 2000. Ex. C, pp. 85, 87.
Plaintiff was speaking to Officer Tankson about getting a partner and Tankson “was telling me to
write a To/From letter to the lieutenant requesting to work with Davina or, you know, somebody
I felt comfortable with. ... And by this time, she told me-she said, I'll type it. She said, You
don’t have to; I’ll type your letter for request to work with Loggins.” Ex. C, pp. 87-88. Askew
allegedly “was like, Oh, don't do that because we're already spoon feeding her now. And he was
like, She-you already owe me some anyway.” Ex. C, p. 88. Plaintiff “took it to be sexual.” Ex.
C, p. 88.

125



ee i oe eee ee ee Be ce |

RESPONSE: Admit.

Field training typically consists of three (3) cycles, each cycle lasts twenty-eight (28)
days. Ex. D, {| 6; Ex. G, pp. 10-11.; Ex. C, pp. 229-30,

RESPONSE: Admit.

During each cycle, a PPO is assigned an FTO who trains the PPO and observes the PPO's
performance. Ex. D, {| 6; Ex. C, pp. 230-31.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff only admits that during each cycle PPO’s are assigned to work

with veteran officers such as FTO’s. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 10)

After observing the PPO’s performance, the FTO assesses it in a Daily Observation
Report (“DOR”). Ex. D, {1 6; Ex. C, pp. 231-35.

RESPONSE: Admit with clarification. A FTO is supposed to assess a PPO’s
performance on a Daily Observation Report. However, in plaintiff's case, on at least 6
occasions, Adams completed DOR’s after Bray had signed a blank form. (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 1
Bray dep. p. 324-328, 383-384, 394; Ex. 41 Daily Observation Reports D306, 308, 282, 284, and

288)

The FTO then discusses his or her assessment of the PPO's performance and the PPO and
FTO then sign the DOR to verify the PPO read the assessment. Ex. D, 9 6; Ex. C, pp. 231, 234-
35.

23



cei i canine Eanes Bi ani TL nin ae det Benen tien Hees Ee, ae, a, |

The CPD also required all sworn officers to maintain familiarity with General Orders
during their career. Ex. E, 7 12, Ex. 6.

RESPONSE: Deny and Move to Strike. Defendant does not cite to any evidence in the
record as to how this was communicated to the swom officers and how, if ever, the requirement

was fulfilled by them.

19. General Order 93-3 of the Chicago Police Department (Complaint and
Disciplinary Procedures), addendum 2A (Specific Responsibilities), which was in effect during
1999 and 2000, states in part that “When misconduct is observed or a complaint relative to
misconduct is received by 2 non-supervisory member, such member will immediately notify a
supervisory member and prepare a written report to his commanding officer containing the
information received, observations, and any action taken.”

RESPONSE: Plaintiff only admits that General Order 93-3 states this. However, this
alleged policy was not followed by the CPD. From June 2001 to October 2001, Bray
complained to Officer Jones about Askew and Adams sexually harassing her. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex.
4 Jones dep. p. 23-27) Jones, a Police Officer with the Chicago Police Department since 1990
never notified a supervisory member or prepared a written report regarding Bray’s complaints.

(PI LRS56.1(b) Ex. 4 Jones dep. p. 23-27)

During 1999, the Recruit Training Section required recruits, including plaintiff, to read
and become familiar with General Order 93-3 of the Chicago Police Department (Complaint and

18



SSS SS lee ee

about January 24, 2000 because she was stuck behind an accident that occurred under the viaduct

while she was driving to work. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 57 Report of Tardiness)

12. Plaintiff claims she accepted answers to tests and quizzes given by instructors,
including a sexual harassment quiz. Ex. C, pp.191-95, 208.
RESPONSE: Admit in part. Plaintiff states that the teacher gave the answers to the

entire class instead of teaching them the material. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 194-197)

She also claims she would provide money and cigarettes to an Academy instructor in
exchange for answers on quizzes and tests. Ex. C, pp. 194-97.

RESPONSE: Admit with clarification. Plaintiff states that the entire class would pitch in
money and buy cigarettes for one teacher in particular who would then give them the answers

instead of teaching the material. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 194-197)

Plaintiff considered this cheating. Ex. C, pp. 195-96.

RESPONSE: Admit with clarification. Plaintiff admits that she personally considered
this cheating, but denies that she cheated because this was simply the way her classes were
conducted while she is in the Academy. (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 194-197)

Significantly, plaintiff has never been accused of cheating.

Plaintiff did not complain to anyone about this. Ex. C, pp. 195-97.
RESPONSE: Admit with clarification. Plaintiff was accustom to this because it was

7



ain coe TE aoee I cee, an il ene it caoe, cote en tae, Boe Bites Wiens itn Bite’

that course of time, as she was putting it in the car, . . . she told Spurgeon-he asked her what it
was for. And when I spoke to him on the phone, he told me that in-not in so many words, she
told him that she was dominatrix, that she-she kind of let him know but not in so many words
that it was a cage.” Ex. C, pp. 117-18.

RESPONSE: Admit in part. Deny in part. Admit that this occurred. Deny that this was
the “fifth alleged incident.” Adams made sexually offensive comments on a daily basis. (Pl

LR56.1(b) Ex. 4 Jones dep. p. 20)

Officer Spurgeon testified that Adams never told him she was a dominatrix. Ex. BB, pp.
19-20.

RESPONSE: Deny. Plaintiff states that “he told'me that in-not in so many words, she
told him that she was dominatrix, that she-she kind of let him know but not in so many words

that it was a cage.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 117-118)

She “didn’t see [the cage] as good [sic] as Spurgeon and Hebein because they were the
once [sic] that carried it.” Ex. C, p. 124.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff admits she states this at her deposition this, however, she saw the
cage well enough to notice that it was “like a storage box with the openings, slats.” (P1

LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 124)

Plaintiff states Adams told her directly the “cage” was for her slaves. Ex. C, p. 150.
RESPONSE: Admit.

137



te ee oe one Bl ie eB ee ee oe ee a ee ee ee |

Askew invited other officers. Ex. C, p. 79. Askew worked part-time at a movie theater and
invited his co-workers to come because he could get them in for free. Ex. G, pp.61,130-31.
RESPONSE: Deny in part. Admit in part. Deny that this was the “fourth alleged
incident” of sexual harassment. On a daily basis, Askew. would make lewd, sexually offensive
comments to Bray about women they would see while working together. (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 1
Bray dep. p. 441-442; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 4; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p. 000107)
Admit that the Personal Data Computer is located in the patrol car and is able to receive
messages and calls. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 78, 584-585) These messages are not kept
on the computer, but simply flashed across the screen. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 79)
Askew’s messages asked Bray to bring her children to the movie theater where he worked a
second job. (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 78; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 6; Ex. 15
Bray’s Notes p. 000108, 000114) He promised he would treat them to hot dogs, soda, and
popcorn if she did. (P1 LRS6.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 78-79; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 6;
Ex, 15 Bray’s Notes p. 000108, 000114) At the same time Askew would ask Bray out to the
movie theater, he would remind her how many days she had left before her probationary period
was over, (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p. 000108) Askew asked Bray out on
approximately 10 separate occasions. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 80) Bray refused every
offer. (P1 LR5S6.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 79; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 6) Even after she
repeatedly refused his advances, Askew would continue to ask her out. (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray
dep. 80) Askew’s messages on the PDT made Bray feel uncomfortable and embarrassed. (P1
LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 585) Askew also would call Bray “fatso” and “made some kind of
joke about shoving something down my throat.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 585) Plaintiff

115


Zapolsky Statement; Ex. 20 EEOC notes p. 000185) On October 19, 2000, Lieutenant Zapolsky
was requested to prepare a written evaluation of Bray. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 28 Zapolsky
Statement) In his statement, Zapolsky mentions this “incident” which occurred five months
earlier, but does not give it much significance. (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 28 Zapolsky Statement)
Rather, he states that this was the only incident he had involving Bray and that since then he has
not had sufficient time to “properly and fairly evaluate PPO BRAY” on his watch and therefore
cannot offer an opinion on her performance. (P]1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 28 Zapolsky Statement)
plaintiff's car door was jammed. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex.1 Bray dep. p. 347-49, 351) She states that
she bumped, hit and pushed her door to get it open. :(P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 346-353)
Everything happened really fast and by the time her partner was starting to search the prisoner,
Bray was able to get her door open and to get out and assist him, (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray p.

352)

65. After plaintiff's fourth cycle, Sgt. Cassandra Judon had several officers approach
her and request not to work with plaintiff. Ex. M, p. 10.
RESPONSE: Deny. When asked which officers approached her, she stated, “I can’t

recall specific names. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. Judon dep. p. 9)

Adams also had several officers complain to her that plaintiff was lazy, did not know how
to write reports, and that they were afraid to work with plaintiff. Ex. H, pp. 64-66.

RESPONSE: Deny. When asked to provide names of officers that complained, Adams
stated, “I don’t bother to remember their names.” (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 64-66)She

73



= = SS SSS |S eS |S lle

In his report summarizing his conversation with Bell, Batog writes, in part:

| Bell and I discussed whether FTO’s are in supervisory positions. Bell and I agreed that
| FTO’s are in supervisory positions because of they evaluate PPO’s and make recommendations
on whether PPO’s become PO’s. (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 23 EEOC notes)

They are trained Field Training Officers that train PPO’s. Ex. D, {| 8; see Ex. C, pp. 75-
76, 544, Ex. 1, D0017.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff admits that FTO’s train PPO’s but denies any implication that
they only train without any supervisory authority or power. As her Field Training Officers,
Askew and Adams were Bray’s supervisors. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 72, 74, 77; Ex. 6
Crawley dep. p. 28; Ex. 23 EEOC notes) It was always Bray’s understanding that Field Training
Officers could discipline and terminate probationary police officers. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray
dep. p. 583) Askew in particular made it clear to Bray at the time she started training with him
on her second cycle that he was her supervisor and had control over her employment. (Pl
LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 72, 77; Ex. 4 Jones dep. p. 16) In fact, Officer Gloria Jones, an
officer with the City of Chicago since 1990, testified at her deposition that Bray complained to
her that Askew and Adams were “always threatening her job.” (P]1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 4 Jones dep. 6,
23-24) Jones further testified at her deposition that Bray told her she was “scared” to report the
sexual harassment by Askew and Adams because, “They were always telling her, you know, ‘I
have got your job in my hand. I can fire you just like that. It only takes... apen.” (Pl
LR56.1(b) Ex. 4 Jones dep. p. 26, 36) Jones also testified that on or about June or July 2000, she
confirmed to Bray that Askew and Adams did have power over her employment. (PI LR56.1(b)

Ex. 4 Jones dep. p. 7-8, 16, 48-49, 53) Jones, who was a police officer with the City of Chicago

28



i I a oe eee in Bee, cian coe i oe ee ee, |

wn

Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 99, 103) Askew was not the only male Field Training Officer assigned to
Bray. Scott Keith was also Bray’s Field Training Officer on May 25, 28, 30, 31 and June 1,
2000. (PILR56.1(b) Ex, 1 Bray dep. p. 564-565; Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 47; Ex. 29 Daily
Observation Reports) On December 8, 2000, the District Commander asked Askew to prepare a
statement in response to Bray’s sexual harassment allegations. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep.
p. 150)
In his statement, Askew states:
1. This statement is not being given voluntarily, but under duress. Reporting
Officer is only giving this statement at this time because Reporting Officer knows
Reporting Officer could be terminated from employment if Reporting Officer refuses.
This statement is being given at the order of Police Agent Draper-Sibley.
2. This “To-From-Subject” Report should not be considered a verbatim
statement but only a summary regarding the requested information.
R/O [Reporting Officer] was the Field Training Officer for P.P.O. Pamela
Bray during her second cycle. At no time did R/O observe any sexual harassment of
P.P.O. Pamela Bray. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 150; Ex. 27 Askew’s Statement)
No one ever discussed the matter with Askew. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 150, 152,
154-155) No one from Human Resources or Internal Affairs ever contacted Askew regarding
Bray’s sexual harassment allegations. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 103-104)
131. Plaintiff filed her complaint in federal court on October 9, 2001. Ex. A, p.1.

RESPONSE: Admit.

“ 148


=m = SSS SS Se ye eee ee

322; Ex. 13 Plaintiff's Answers to Interrogatories p. 3, 8)

During 1999 and 2000, the Recruit Training Section required recruits, including plaintiff,
to read and become familiar with General Order 92-1 during the course of their training,
RESPONSE: Deny and Move to Strike. Defendant does not cite to any evidence in the

record as to how or when, if ever, this was communicated to the plaintiff.

The CPD also required all sworn officers to maintain familiarity with General Orders
during their career. Ex. E, 9 10, Ex. 5.

RESPONSE: Deny and Move to Strike. Defendant does not cite to any evidence in the
record as to how this was communicated to the officers and when, if ever, the requirement was

fulfilled by the sworn officers.

18. Addendum 3 (Department Personnel Practices) to General Order 92-1, which was
in effect during 1999 and 2000, reads in part as follows:
Vv. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
Equal employment opportunity protects the right of every person to apply
and to be considered for job opportunities regardless of race, color, sex
age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation,
marital status, parental status, or military discharge status.

A. Equal Employment Opportunity Violation Complaints by a
Department Member

1. Complaints by a Department member of violations of equal
employment opportunity may be filed by the affected
member with the Department's Equal Employment

14



cai ae BE ete ce nie Be en El ee Ba aie Ee Bo, |

her. Ex. CC, 7 9.

RESPONSE: Admit that the document states this.

127. Draper-Sibley also made several attempts to obtain a witness report from Officer
Crawley, who either was on medical leave, in the hospital or on furlough. Ex. CC, 7 10. On
May 11, 2001, Draper-Sibley sent an additional request when he retumed to duty, but Officer
Crawley did not respond, Ex. CC, | 10. Draper-Sibley learned soon after that Officer Crawley
resigned on May 14, 2001. Ex. CC, | 10, He never contacted Draper-Sibley. Ex. CC, 11 10.

RESPONSE: Deny. Defendant does not cite document that provides evidence of when

the attempts were made.

128. The article identified an event that allegedly occurred on September
19, 2000 at Felony Court at 26" and California, Ex. CC, 1 11. Draper-Sibley obtained all the
court log sheets she could for that date and reviewed them for officer signatures from the 7”
District. Ex. CC, 1 11. After finding all officers from the 7" District, Draper-Sibley contacted
each to obtain a witness statement about September 19, 2000 and whether any officer observed
any alleged sexual harassment at the courthouse. Ex. CC, J] 11. None of the twenty-plus witness
reports supported plaintiffs allegation of events on September 19, 2000 at Felony Court at 26"
and California. Ex. CC, 7 11.

RESPONSE: Deny. Despite the extensive amount of time Jones spent working with
Bray after her training cycles, no one, including the Chicago Police Department , ever
interviewed Jones regarding Bray. (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 4 Jones dep. p. 33-34)

146


ee nee ied iin he on lo oe le oe a, ee ee

Notes p. 000111) This was a demotion.

FTO’s cannot discharge PPO’s. Ex. D, ¥ 8.

RESPONSE: Deny. FTO’s evaluate PPO’s which can lead to disciplinary action. (PI
LRS56.1(b) Ex. Askew dep. p. 90) Plaintiff felt that FTO’s had control of her job because their
evaluations would determine whether or not she would keep her job, (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray
dep. p. 72, 77; Ex. 6 Crawley dep. p. 28) In fact, at his deposition Askew confirmed he had this
power over Bray’s employment when he testified that he gave Bray scores of “4” on her
evaluations because “getting twos in her second cycle would have gotten her terminated.” (Pl
LRS56.1(b) Ex. Askew dep. p. 90) Askew in particiilar made it clear to Bray at the time she
started training with him on her second cycle that he was her supervisor and had control over her
employment. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 72, 77) In fact, Eileen Bell, Assistant
Corporation Counsel for the City of Chicago, agreed with Investigator Batog of the EEOC during
his investigation into Bray’s Charge that Field Training Officers are in supervisory positions over
Probationary Police Officers. (P1 LRS6.1(b) Ex. 23 EEOC notes p. 000354) After Bray
threatened to report him, Askew contacted the Police Academy and Tequested that they evaluate
Bray’s performance and recommended to the Review Board that her employment be terminated.
(P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 80; Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 72-73; Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 80-82; Ex.
27 Askew’s letter) Askew along with Adams presented the Review Board with inaccurate and
malicious “rumors” they allegedly heard from unidentified individuals about Bray’s performance
in an effort to secure her termination. (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 80, 347-348, 350-351,
353, 569-571; Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 72-73; Ex. 3 ‘Adams dep. p. 80-82; Ex. 27 Askew’s letter; Ex.

33



a aie ini oe oe oe oe oe

supervisor for sexual harassment. Pursuant to Burlington Industries v. Ellerth 118 S.Ct.
2257(1998), a supervisor is vicariously liable for the sexual harassment he commits upon an

employee below him regardless of whether or not the employee complained.

91. . Plaintiff does not allege that any of the members of the Review Board sexually
harassed her or created a sexually hostile environment. Ex. C, p. 412.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff admits that Bruce Askew, one of Bray’s Field Training Officers,
sexually harassed Bray on numerous occasions from on or about May 2000 through the duration
of her employment to on or about October 2000 (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p.
3; Ex. 19 EEOC Determination) Donna Adams, another one of Bray’s Field Training Officers,
sexually harassed Bray from on or about July 2000 through August 2000. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1
Bray dep. p. 91, 321-322; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 8; Ex. 19 EEOC Determination)

sexually harassed her.

Plaintiff has no reason to believe the Review Board knew that Askew or Adams were
allegedly harassing her. Ex. C, p. 425.

RESPONSE: Deny. Plaintiff attempted to tell Lieutenant Zapolsky, Sergeant Judon and
Lieutenant Duesworth that Askew had sexually harassed her and that Adams had been trying to
get her to solicit sex. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 24; Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 393-
394) However, Judon cut her off stating, “it’s too late for that.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p.

393-394)

102


i ae i oe ee es Be oe oe i

RESPONSE: Deny. Defendant does not cite documents that provide evidence of what

the FTOs’ statements said.

125. Without plaintiff's cooperation, the investigation slowed until Draper-Sibley
noticed an article in the Chicago Defender dated December 4, 2000, in which plaintiff provided
an interview to a reporter, Ferman Beckless. Ex. CC, J 8. The article did not contain the names
of the alleged harasser but insinuated that Officer Jerry Crawley had information on plaintiff's
EEOC charge. Ex. CC, 7 8.

RESPONSE: Deny. Askew testified at his deposition that he first became aware that
Bray was accusing him of sexual harassment when he read a newspaper article published in the
Chicago Defender on December 4, 2000. (PI LR5S6.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 102) However, he
also admitted that he was never identified by name in the newspaper article. (P! LR56.1(b) Ex. 2
Askew dep. p. 98) The newspaper article refers to a“‘male field training officer”. (P1 LR56.1(b)
Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 99, 103) Askew was not the only male Field Training Officer assigned to
Bray. Scott Keith was also Bray’s Field Training Officer on May 25, 28, 30, 31 and June 1,
2000. (PILR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 564-565; Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 47; Ex. 29 Daily

Observation Reports)

126. Draper-Sibley contacted Ferman Beckless, who did not identify the alleged
harassers. Ex. CC, | 9. Beckless stated he had notes on the interviews for his article and would
contact Draper-Sibley with the information but he never called her back. Ex. CC, 19. Draper-
Sibley sent a follow-up certified letter for him to contact Draper-Sibley but he did not contact

145


84. The Review Board was convened and reviewed Bray’s progress and performance
in the same manner it does for all recruits whose performance is brought before it. Ex. R, 1 15.
The Review Board summarized its deliberations during that session, reached a conclusion, and
made a recommendation on Pamela Bray’s future with the CPD in the same manner it does for all
recruits whose performance is brought before it, Ex. R, J 16.

RESPONSE: Deny. There is no evidence in the record that the Review Board was
convened and reviewed Bray’s progress and performance in the same manner it does for all
recruits whose performance is brought before it. When PPO Spurgeon was accused of failing to
do his job when he was working lock-up for not efféctively searching a criminal who
subsequently tried to hang himself with a bandana and a shoestring. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray
dep. p. 546; Ex. 5 Spurgeon dep. p. 31-32) This incident occurred in July or August 2000,
during Spurgeon’s probationary period. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 546; Ex. 5 Spurgeon
dep. p. 33, 36) Spurgeon did not get a hearing until March 2002, over a year and one half later.
(P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 5 Spurgeon dep. p. 33-36) Spurgeon stated at his deposition that it was typical
of the department to take a year to reprimand (or commend) someone. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 5

Spurgeon dep. p. 36)

85. Based on its findings, the Review Board unanimously recommended to ADS
Schenkel that plaintiff be separated from the CPD and that she be removed from her present
detailed unit of assignment until a final determination of her status could be made. Lt. Drozd
reported the Review Board’s recommendation in a memorandum dated October 23, 2000 to ADS

95



=S =| SSS SS | ep ee

Opportunity (EEO) Officer, who is assigned to the Office
of Legal Affairs.

2. The EEO Officer acts as a liaison with regulatory agencies,
monitors the process of these complaints / investigations
with any subsequent legal action and reports the outcome of
these investigations to the Superintendent of Police.

VI. SEXUAL HARASSMENT
A. Department Policy

Sexual harassment is a form of discriminatory conduct that
undermines the integrity of the Department. Sexual harassment in
any form will not be tolerated. The Department is committed to
maintaining a workplace free from all forms of sexual harassment,
and allegations of such conduct will be promptly and thoroughly
investigated and resolved.

B. Municipal Code of Chicago

Section “2-160-020-(2): ‘Sexual Harassment’ means any
unwelcomed sexual advances or requests for sexual favors or
conduct of a sexual nature when (1) submission to such conduct is
made with [sic] explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an
individual's employment; or (2) submission to or rejection of such
conduct by an individual is used as the basis for any employment
decisions affecting the individual; or (3) such conduct has the
purpose or effect of substantially interfering with an individual’s
work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive
working environment.”

Section “2-160-040: Sexual Harassment

No employer, employee, agent of an employer, employment
agency or labor organization shall engage in sexual harassment.
An employer shall be liable for sexual harassment by
nonemployees or nonmanagerial and nonsupervisory employees
only if the employer becomes aware of the conduct and fails to
take reasonably corrective measures.”

Cc. General Information

15



sn cate Bilton El ome I oie lt one noe Eitan Elan titan Ee i a a

notification. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 422; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p. 000115)

This was three or four days after she was notified that her performance would be
reviewed and if the board found it insufficient, she would be terminated, Ex. C, p. 424.

RESPONSE: Admit that at this initial notification meeting when she received this
notice, plaintiff attempted to report the sexual harassment she endured from Askew and Adams
Bray then attempted to tell Lieutenant Zapolsky, Sergeant Judon and Lieutenant Duesworth that
Askew had sexually harassed her and that Adams had been trying to get her to solicit sex. (Pl
LRS56.1(b) Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p, 24; Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 393-394) However, Judon cut
her off stating, “it’s too late for that.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 393-394) This meeting
and Bray’s termination occurred also approximately two weeks after Bray threatened to report

Askew if he touched her again. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 390-392; Ex. 9 Judon dep. p.

14, Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 23-24; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p. 000111)

The letter stated plaintiff's termination was in compliance with Rule IX, Section 2 of the
City’s Personnel Rules and Regulations. "Bx. C, pp. 9-105 Ex. X, D1021. Rule IX, Section 2
states a department head may discharge an employee during the probationary period (City of
Chicago Personnel Rules attached hereto as Exhibit y, Rule 9, § 2, p. 20).

RESPONSE: Deny. Bray’s termination was not in compliance with the law. Plaintiff
was terminated based on the false and misleading gossip provided to the Review Board by
Askew and Adams in retaliation for opposing sexual harassment. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 47 Review
Board Decision) It is illegal to terminate an employee in retaliation for threatening to report their

101.


ae ie aa EE oe El oie ae aoe Bl oe Econ a ee, a, Pt

LRS6.1(b) Ex. 5 Spurgeon dep. p. 60) Askew told Bray that he wanted to terminate Spurgeon.
(PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 547) Despite the similarities between Bray and Spurgeon,

Spurgeon was not terminated. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 546; Ex. 5 Spurgeon dep. p. 7)

VI. THE ALLEGED SEXUAL HARASSMENT
A. BRUCE ASKEW
93. Askew never had a romantic interest in plaintiff. Ex. G, p. 159.

RESPONSE: Deny. Plaintiff states that on or about June 2000, Askew began sending
messages to Bray over the “PDT”, Personal Data Computer, asking her out on dates. (PI
LRS56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 78, 584-585; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 6; Ex. 15 Bray’s
Notes p. 000108, 000114; Ex. 18 EEOC Questionnaire) At the same time Askew would ask
Bray out to the movie theater, he would remind her how many days she had left before her
probationary period was over. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 15'Bray’s Notes p. 000108) Askew asked Bray
out on approximately 10 separate occasions. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 80) Bray refused
every offer. (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 79; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 6) Even after
she repeatedly refused his advances, Askew would continue to ask her out. (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 1
Bray dep. 80) Askew’s messages on the PDT madé Bray feel uncomfortable and embarrassed.

(PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 585)

Plaintiff alleges the first incident of sexual harassment with Askew occurred during her
second cycle, while performing routine patrols. Ex. CG pp. 65-66.

RESPONSE: Admit in part. Deny in part. Plaintiff admits that this occurred. Plaintiff

107



oe lt coon Ne Yl em eo ein nen Elem Til ante dicen hee Eile Elon, Mien Sacn, Mlam

Plaintiff states people were around, but does not recall who, except the second time,

Officer Arlene Tankson allegedly was one of the people present. Ex. C, p. 82.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff admits that Arlene Tankson was present the second time. (Pl

LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 82)

At her deposition, plaintiff claimed she told Askew to stop afterwards and he just started

laughing. Ex. C, p. 83.

RESPONSE: Admit.

In her interrogatories, however, plaintiff does not'claim she told Askew to stop; instead,
she wrote that she immediately walked away. Ex. U, No. 3(1)(g).
RESPONSE: Deny. The cited document does not refer to this specific incident that

occurred when her grabbed her breasts.

102. Plaintiff's seventh alleged incident of sexual harassment is when Askew allegedly
touched plaintiff's bullet-proof vest a third time. Ex. C, pp. 84-85.

RESPONSE: Deny. Admit that Askew “grabbed” Bray’s chest. (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 1
Bray dep. p. 85) She felt the grasp he had on her breast when he grabbed her. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex.
1 Bray dep. p. 82, 139-140) Deny that this was the “seventh alleged incident of sexual
harassment.” On a daily basis, Askew would make lewd, sexually offensive comments to Bray
about women they would see while working together. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 441-442;

123 _



61. Plaintiff was driving at the time that her partner exited their vehicle and “ran
over there, and he grabbed the guy and brought him back to the car” to search him. Ex. C, p 351.

RESPONSE: Admit that plaintiff states this at her deposition.

That is when Lt. Zapolsky “pulled up really fast .. . and he was like, You get out the car
and you assist your partner now. And that's when I was like, That's what I’m trying to do, you
know. Because he was just—first he was asking me, you know, Why are you not getting out the
car instead of just coming to me. . . . Everything happened quick. Like when you get an arrestee,
you hurry up and get them in the car before they start to resist.” Ex. C, pp. 351-52.

RESPONSE: Admit that plaintiff states this at her deposition.

Plaintiff is supposed to assist her partner for safety reasons. Ex. C, p. 353.

RESPONSE: Admit, however, plaintiff was trying to assist her partner. (P1 LR56.1(b)
Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 346-353) She states that she bumped, hit and pushed her door to get it open.
(P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 346-353) Everything happened really fast and by the time her
partner was starting to search the prisoner, Bray was able to get her door open and to get out and
assist him. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray p. 352) ’

62. Plaintiff's explanation for failing to immediately assist her partner is that her door
jammed. Ex. C, p. 353.

RESPONSE: Admit that plaintiff's car door was jammed. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray
dep. p. 347-49, 351, 353) She states that she bumped, hit and pushed her door to get it open. (Pl
LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 346-353) Everything happened really fast and by the time her

69



cS ae BE se oe i ten cae ee Pi i oe, ee ee |

which is important enough to her, she will “go find out” by going “to the source.” (Pl LR56.1(b)
Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 130) However, Adams never spoke to Bray about the alleged incident she
claims she heard gossiped around the station. (P! LR56.1(b) Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 73)

Adams instead asked Zapolsky “‘is it true that you had to order her—Bray out of the car and to go
and help her partner.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 137) Lieutenant Zapolsky, who did
not know Bray was having trouble getting out of the car, had pulled along side the car, ordered
Bray out of it and then immediately left. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 347-348, 351-352,
570; Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 136; Ex. 28 Zapolsky Statement; Ex. 20 EEOC notes p. 000185)
Plaintiff states at her deposition that she bumped, hit and pushed her door to get it open. (Pl
LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 346-353) Everything happened really fast and by the time her
partner was starting to search the prisoner, Bray was able to get her door open and to get out and

assist him. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray p. 352)

One officer stated to Sgt. Judon that she searched someone improperly, placing herself
and her partner in danger. Ex. M, p. 10.
RESPONSE: Deny. When questioned further, Sgt. Judon can’t recall which officer told

her this. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 9 Judon dep. p. 10-11)

Sgt. Judon spoke to Lt. Zapolsky because this was the third or fourth person that told her
they did not want to work with plaintiff and that plaintiff's performance had dropped off. Ex. M,
pp. 11-12, 21-24,

RESPONSE: Deny. Judon admits that she has no direct knowledge of plaintiff's

75



ie ate cee oan Bi arin BI eee ine Bl cn seen, cite, es Be OE, |

RESPONSE: Plaintiff only admits that The Education and Training Division Rules and
Regulations state this. However, this policy was not followed or enforced by CPD as evidenced
by the continued sexual harassment Bray was subjected to by Askew and Adams during her
employment. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. Ex. Bray dep. p. 91, 321-322; Ex. 13 Plaintiff's Answers to

Interrogatories p. 3, 8)

During 1999, the Recruit Training Section required recruits, including plaintiff, to read
and become familiar with the Education and Training Division Rules and Regulations during the
course of their training. Ex. E, ] 15, Ex. 9. s

RESPONSE: Deny. Defendant does not cite to any evidence in the record as to how or

when, if ever, this was communicated to the plaintiff.

21. The Chicago Police Department Education and Training Division Basic Recruit
Procedural Manual, which was in effect during 1999 and 2000, begins with the following
“POLICY STATEMENT”:

It is the policy of the Chicago Police Department and the responsibility of the

Assistant Deputy Superintendent of Education and Training and all Education and

Training Division Staff to provide quality training in a fair and equitable manner

to all Trainees, without regard to an individual's race, color, sex, age, religion,

disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual-affectional orientation, marital status,

parental status military discharge status or source of income.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff only admits the document states this.

During 1999 and 2000, the Recruit Training Section required recruits, including plaintiff,

to read and become familiar with the CPD Education and Training Division Basic Recruit

20



oa Nl sone Bilt come i ee, ln Bit at Bl oom, Nil aaa ene Bani ee, Bee, ae, i, Ben |

also believes the Review Board treated her differently than other PPO’s because, “like I say, even
with the whole firing process, it was unheard of. I mean, the whole rushing me down to the
academy, you know, not receiving all my performances, this was-this was all that I was told. No
one explained. No one took out the time to say anything. The whole seven hours, no one-I sat
down there, no one said anything, so I feel that the department is just as guilty.” Ex. C, pp. 425-
26. Plaintiff also believes ADS Schenkel and Lt. Skahill retaliated against her because, “the way
that [my termination] was done and with these officers submitting To / Froms [sic] regarding me,
the way I was terminated, I don't think that it was done correctly.” Ex. C, p. 428. Plaintiff does
not know if ADS Schenkel and Lt. Skahill treated her differently than they treated other PPO’s.
Ex. C, p. 429. They did not. Ex. D, 1 17; Ex. W, pp. 14-18; Ex. I, p. 19.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff admits that she feels she was retaliated against. In the Review
Board’s written decision, although it mentions a couple of minor problems Bray had during her
training cycles, it also notes that during her fourth cycle of training she improved her
performance and was rated “qualified.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 47 Review Board Decision)
However, the Board then goes on to rely on the “incident * which Askew claims he heard about in
October 2000 from an unknown individual wherein Bray was ordered out of her car to assist her
partner. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 47 Review Board Decision) The Board’s decision fails to note,
however, that this “incident” took place five months earlier in May 2000 during Bray’s second
cycle of training — before she was rated “Field Qualified.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 347-
348, 350-351, 353, 570-571) The Board’s decision aiso fails to note that the reason Bray did not
get out of her car on that occasion in May 2000, was because the door had jammed and not
because she was unwilling to assist her partner. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 347-348, 350-

104



category. Ex. D, 7 6; Ex. C, p. 234. t

RESPONSE: Admit.

FQ means a PPO completed his or her training with an FTO. Ex. D, 7 6.
RESPONSE: Admit. Bray was Field Qualified on or about July 24, 2000. (P1
LRS56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 340, 563; Ex. Askew dep. 54, 56; Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 55; Ex. 42

Remedial Summary Report [D295-298])

Regardless of whether a PPO is FQ, she must still successfully complete her probationary
period before becoming a PO. Ex. D, I 6.

RESPONSE: Admit.

24. At times, acting FTO’s are utilized. Ex. D, 1.7.

RESPONSE: Admit.

However, acting FTO’s are not trained as FTO’s, Ex. D, {] 7; Ex. C, pp. 229-31, see 246.
RESPONSE: Deny. Defendant cites a document that does not establish how, if ever,

x

FTO’s receive training.

Because of their training, observations and evaluations of FTO’s are more reliable in the
evaluation of a PPO's performance. Ex. D, 11 7; Ex. C, pp. 378-79.

RESPONSE: Deny. Askew testified at his deposition that he lied on Bray’s Observation
Reports. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 89, 133) He stated that he, in fact, “lied on these

25



= Pe eye yey

about June 11, 2000, the day the comments are written on the Daily Observation Report, Adams
gives Bray an average rating of 5. (P! LR56.1(b) Ex. 29 Daily Observation Reports Summary p.

4; Ex. 38 Daily Observation Report prepared by Adams, 000288)

45. In her TCSR for plaintiff's third cycle, Adams checked in most rating areas that
plaintiff was not responding to training. Ex. O, D331.

RESPONSE: Admit, however, that Adams only did this at Bray’s request so she could
go on to another cycle. Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 263, 311-312, 316-320) When her third
cycle was completed, on or about June 18, 2000, Bray requested a fourth cycle of training
because of everything she endured during her training she felt she needed to learn more. (PI
LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 263, 311-312, 316-320) In fact, in requesting that Bray be given a
fourth training cycle, Adams stated that one of the reasons for the request was because Bray had
worked with “officers who had just a little over a year on the job” who did not allow Bray to
“assume any responsibility, and due to their lack of experience were unable to provide adequate
training.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 37-38) Adams went on to explain that “the first
cycle is the most important. It builds the foundation and confidence” and an officer who does
not receive adequate training during the first cycle will suffer during their second and third

cycles. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 3 Adams dep. p. 38)

Also in the TCSR, Adams wrote that plaintiff “needs more work” in vehicle operation.
Plaintiff “is over cautious when responding to an emergency call.” Ex. O, D331-32.
RESPONSE: Admit, however, that Adams only did this at Bray’s request so she could

54° 1



ie etn ae I se i oe eB ee ee ee ee,

Schenkel notified plaintiff that her employment with the CPD was terminated, effective at the
close of business on October 24, 2000. Ex. W, pp. 13-18, 20, Ex. 1, 000055. Lt. Skahill and
Commander Christian were also present. Ex. C, pp. 421; Ex. W, p. 16; Ex. I, pp. 11-12.
RESPONSE: Admit, Skahill gave Bray a termination notification. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1
Bray dep. p. 422; Ex. 10 Skahill dep. p. 15) When she asked why she was being terminated,
Deputy Superintendent Schenkel responded, “I don’t have to give you a reason.” (PI LR56.1(b)
Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 422; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p. 000115) Bray refused to sign the termination
notification, (P! LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 422; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p. 000115) In the
Review Board’s written decision, although it mentions a couple of minor problems Bray had
during her training cycles, it also notes that during her fourth cycle of training she improved her

performance and was rated “qualified.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 47 Review Board Decision )

Bray did not attempt to report any alleged sexual harassment, alleged inappropriate
behavior, or alleged retaliation during her termination. Ex. D, {] 16; Ex. C, p. 428; Ex. I, pp. 19,
21.

RESPONSE: Admit, however, this was because as plaintiff continues on to state, “I was
not going to because I figured that with the way that they were discharging me was unfair, so,
like I said I did not really trust anybody in the department. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 428)

She had previously tried to report it and been told, it was “too late.” (Pl LR 56.1 Ex. Bray dep.

p. 393-394)

Plaintiff does not believe that ADS Schenkel or Lt. Skahill knew she was allegedly

99


ee ee ee ee

RESPONSE: Admit with clarification. The first actual FTO plaintiff was assigned to
was Daniels. Plaintiff only worked with Daniels for a total of three days. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 30
Daily Observation Reports by Daniels) During her first cycle, she also worked with Officers
Davis, Stewart, DuBose, and Hayne. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 31 Daily Observation Reports prepared
by Davis and Stewart; Ex. 32 Daily Observation Reports prepared by Hayne; Ex. 33 Daily

Observation Reports prepared by Dubose)

Plaintiff worked the 3" watch, which is generally from 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Ex. C, pp.
266-67.

RESPONSE: Admit.

It is a fast watch, meaning it receives a large number of calls to which officers must
respond. Ex. C, p. 267.

RESPONSE: Admit.

After her first day with plaintiff, Daniels rated plaintiff below the minimum acceptable
level and observed that plaintiff was not responding to training (Daniels' DORs and TCSR
attached hereto as Exhibit J, D365-70, D383-85).

RESPONSE: Admit, however, Daniels only observed Bray for a total of three days. (PI
LR56.1(b) Ex. 30 Daily Observation Reports by Daniels) Daniels writes in Bray’s first
Observation Report that “PPO has been assigned to numerous P.O. during her first cycle. Today
is the “first” PPO has been assigned a FTO.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 30 Daily Observation Reports

37


i a DO ee oe cent Oe ee tee ee ie, ee te, cn Pile, es

Someone may have made a joke about these wooden pallets being a cage. Ex. H, pp.
110-111. Adams testified that anybody with common sense would know that was a joke. Ex. H,
p. 110.

RESPONSE: Deny. Plaintiff states that Adams told her directly the cage was for her

slaves. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 150)

Officer Spurgeon does not remember any mention of a cage for sex slaves or jokes about
it. Ex. BB, pp. 19-20. Plaintiff did not believe Adams was joking. Ex. C, p. 150. Adams said
nothing about the cage after it was delivered to her basemient. Ex. C, p. 125.

RESPONSE: Deny. Adams claimed that it was only “a joke” that the item being picked
up and transported by the police vehicle to her home was a cage for people. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 3

Adams dep. p. 110-111)

Adams said nothing about the cage after it was delivered to her basement. Ex. C, p. 125.
RESPONSE: Admit, however, as plaintiff states in her deposition “it was near the end,
so the cycle was almost over. So I don’t even know what happened because she stopped talking

to me shortly after I didn’t show for both her parties.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 125)

113. Adams admits that she brought pallets or skids to her house in a squad roll, but
states they were to store things on because a vent pipe broke in her basement, flooding her floor

with water. Ex. H, p. 94-97.

138


aii I anit BE ate TA na Bi cen dno BE an, El ee Wt ce tee Bons Ee |

|

Procedural Manual during the course of their training. Ex. E, 1 3, Ex. 1, Policy Statement.
RESPONSE: Deny and Move to Strike. Defendant does not cite to any evidence in the

record as to how or when, if ever, this was communicated to the plaintiff.

22. Rule 4 of the CPD Education and Training Division Basic Recruit Procedural
Manual, which was in effect during 1999 and 2000, reads in part as follows:

i 4-2 BIGOTRY - Police professionals are expected to be sensitive to, and

1 exhibit a tolerance for concems, opinions, and backgrounds of others, and to treat
all individuals with respect, dignity, and courtesy regardless of their
circumstances or condition. The use of degrading language or actions with regard
to race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual-affectional orientation, and/or physical
challenge, to address, refer to or otherwise affect any person, or group of people,
directly or indirectly, is prohibited, except in training simulations, or when
necessary in police reports or testimony.

4-5 COMPLAINT PROCEDURE - Trainees will adhere to the chain of
command established by the Assistant Deputy Superintendent of Education and
Training at all times. In matters directly involving a member of the chain of
command, a trainee may request from the next level in the chain of command, and
must be granted, permission to take the matter directly to the next level of the
chain of command. Trainees are encouraged to discuss their Academy
experiences and progress with their Homeroom Instructors, and with their
employing agency's Training Officer.

4-7 RACIAL OR SEXUAL HARASSMENT - Racial or sexual harassment is
a form of discriminatory conduct that undermines the integrity of all involved.
Harassment in any form will not be tolerated. The Academy is committed to
maintaining a facility free from all forms of racial and sexual harassment, and
allegations of such conduct will be promptly and throughly investigated and
resolved.

Trainees will not use epithets or terms that tend to denigrate a particular race or
group, except when necessary in police reports or testimony.

No trainee will make unwelcome sexual advances, request for sexual favors,

21



Observation Report on which Adams gives Bray a “4,” an Acceptable rating in both “Verbal
Communication” and “Community Interaction.” (P! LR56.1(b) Ex. 42 Remedial Summary
Report, 000169) She also rates her field qualified in those categories along with every other

category. (PI LR56.1(b) Ex. 42 Remedial Summary Report, 000169)

Regarding community interaction, Adams commented that in “this area PPO Bray's lack
of communication skills is clearly evident.” Ex. O, D296.

RESPONSE: Admit, however, Adams continues on to say, “She does understand how
the interaction with the community should work and applies it best when addressing CAPS
related problems. (Def LR56.1(a) Ex. O, D296) Adams gives Bray a “4” rating in both “Verbal
Communication” and “Community Interaction” on the report for that day. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 42
Remedial Summary Report, 000169) She also rates her field qualified in those categories along
with every other category. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 42 Remedial Summary Report, 000169)

For example, Adams asked plaintiff to disperse a crowd off a street corner. Ex. H, pp. 29-
30. Plaintiff approached the crowd and with her hands behind her back told them, “I am going to
ask you to get off the corner;” when the crowd did not move, plaintiff did not know how to
handle the situation. Ex. H, pp. 30-31. a

RESPONSE: Deny. This incident happened previous to the July 24, 2000 Daily
Observation Report on which Adams gives Bray a “4,” an Acceptable rating in both “Verbal
Communication” and “Community Interaction.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 42 Remedial Summary
Report, 000169) She also rates her field qualified in those categories along with every other

65



a eee ane coe ll ce i ee oe Bt oe ee oe Ee Oe |

110. On this same day, Adams also allegedly invited plaintiff to three parties, one for a
housewarming for Adams’ new house, one for a dominatrix and one for her daughter. Ex. C, pp.
111-12.

RESPONSE: Admit that this occurred and that Adams’ said that Bray didn’t have to join

in [at the dominatrix party], she could just watch. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 111)

Plaintiff claims she said she would come to the housewarming party but not the
dominatrix party. Ex. C, p. 112.
RESPONSE: Admit, however, Adams also stated that she was not interested in

dominatrix. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 111)

Plaintiff did not attend any of Adams’ parties. Ex. C, p. 112.

RESPONSE: Admit.

Plaintiff's failure to attend Adams’ housewarming party did not offend Adams. Ex. H, p.
107,
RESPONSE: Deny. Adams did not talk to Bray after she did not come to her parties. (PI

LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 125)

The parties were after plaintiff's training cycles. Ex. C, pp. 125-26.
RESPONSE: Admit.

135


ie ee Bn nce eB a Bi ces, Be ie ee i |

p. 101.

RESPONSE: Admit that when they exited the building through the revolving doors,
Askew jumped in the partition with Bray, grabbed her waist and gave her a bear hug. (Pl
LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 99; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 7; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p.
000109) Askew pressed Bray up against the window of the partition and pushed his body
against hers so hard that she could feel his penis on her buttocks. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep.
p. 99-101, 147; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 7) When Askew pressed up against her, she
could feel that his penis was hard. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 148; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers
to Ints p. 7) Bray felt humiliated and very embarrassed by Askew’s conduct. (P! LR56.1(b) Ex.
1 Bray dep. p. 148; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 7) As they exited the revolving doors, Bray
told Askew to stop. (P! LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 101) Askew then asked Bray if she had a
boyfriend. (PI! LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 102; Ex. B Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 7; Ex. 15
Bray’s Notes p. 000109) Bray responded “no” and that she was not interested in a relationship.
(P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 102; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 7; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p.
000109). Askew commented that, “You are too young to be thinking like that. You should go
out and just fuck everybody.” (Pl LRS5.1(b) Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 7; Ex, 15 Bray’s
Notes p. 000109) Bray got in the car and did not respond. (P] LR56.1(b) Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers
to Ints p. 7) Once again Bray felt uncomfortable and embarrassed by Askew’s comments. (Pl

LRS56.1(b) Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 7)

99. Plaintiff asked Askew about Officer Corey Walker, who used to be Askew’'s
partner, because she was interested in him. Ex. G, pp. 121-124. After dropping plaintiff off near

119



sain ila Hill cone Hilt cxee Willan Tit one Tit aie, Willan Wil cone ition Wilton Mica, Wile teen Mien |

At this time, plaintiff did not consider Askew her supervisor. Ex. C, p. 81.

RESPONSE: Deny. Plaintiff believed that Askew could retaliate against her and cause
her to lose her job if she ever complained to him about the sexual harassment, which he did by
contacting the Police Academy after she threatened to report him and requested that they
evaluate Bray’s performance and recommended to the Review Board that they terminate her
employment. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 71, 80; Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 72-73; Ex. 3 Adams

dep. p. 80-82; Ex. 27 Askew’s letter; Ex. 4 Jones dep. p. 26; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 4)

Piaintiff could not pinpoint whether this allegedly happened in July, August, September
or October 2000. Ex. C, pp. 81, 434; Ex. U, No. 3(1)(g).”

RESPONSE: Deny. On two separate occasions on or about August or September 2000,
Askew approached Bray and asked her if she had her bulletproof vest on. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1

Bray dep. p. 82; Ex. 13 Bray’s Answers to Ints p. 6; Ex. 15 Bray’s Notes p. 000110)

Plaintiff states that twice, while in the hall in the p District, FTO Askew “came up to me
and said, Bray, do you have on your [bullet-proof] vest?” Plaintiff claims that before she could
answer he touched her bullet-proof vest. Ex. C, pp. 81-82.

RESPONSE: Plaintiff admits that this occurred, however, Askew did not simply touch
her breast as defendant tries to characterize, Bray states explicitly he “grabbed” her breast. (PI

LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 82)

Each time Askew allegedly touched her bullet-proof vest in the vicinity of where

121



aie ie ee BO oe ie te Boe, Bl oe ee i ee

simply the way her classes were conducted while she was in the Academy. (P! LR56.1(b) Ex. 1

Bray dep. p. 194-197)

Plaintiff testified she did not have time to learn the material. Ex. C, p. 195.
RESPONSE: Admit with clarification. Plaintiff testified that the Academy did not give
the entire class time to lear all the material before testing them on it. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1

Bray dep. p. 194-197)

She had sexual harassment training at the academy and a quiz on the material. Ex. E, 11]
6-17; Ex. C, pp. 191-93.

RESPONSE: Admit with clarification. Plaintiff states that the teacher gave the answers
to the tests to the entire class instead of teaching the material to them. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray

dep. p. 194-197)

HI. THE CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT'S POLICY AGAINST SEXUAL
HARASSMENT AND RETALIATION

13. It is the CPD’s policy to maintain a workplace free from sexual harassment and
sexual harassment is strictly prohibited. Ex. E, 1] 6-16, Ex. 4-10; Ex. C, pp. 199.

RESPONSE: Deny. Defendant did not enforce this policy as evidenced by the continued
sexual harassment Bray was subjected to by Askew and Adams during her employment. (P1

LRS56.1(b) Ex. Ex. Bray dep. p. 91, 321-322; Ex. 13 Plaintiff's Answers to Interrogatories p. 3, 8)


requested in writing or in any other official police document no to work with Bray. (Pl
LR56.1(b) Ex. 28 Zapolsky Statement) Jones stated at her deposition that she was never fearful
of working with Bray and would not have asked to work with her again if she was. (Pl
LR56.1(b) Ex. 4 Jones dep. p. 10) The Review Board based its decision to terminate Bray on
inaccurate and misleading gossip intentionally provided to it by Askew. (PI LR56.1(6) Ex.47
Review Board Decision) The Review Board’s findings do not reflect that they reviewed or even
received Bray’s statement or the statements prepared by other officers on her behalf. (P1

LRS56.1(b) Ex. 47 Review Board Decision)

ADS Schenkel does not always accept the Review Board’s recommendation. Ex. D, 7
RESPONSE: Deny. The defendant does not provide cited evidence of previous

Review Boards’ recommendations not accepted.

ADS Schenkel reviewed all the materials the Review Board did, plus plaintiff's statement
and PO statements attached thereto, and her academy file, and independently determined to
support the Review Board’s recommendation. Ex. D, 11 9-15; Ex. W, pp. 9-10, 12.

RESPONSE: Deny. Schenkle did not review Bray’s Statement or the statement’s she
submitted from the other police officers. (Def LR56.1(a) Ex. D Schenkle’s Affidavit) In his
Affidavit, Schenkle simply claims that he received the documents in addition to the initial packet
he received from the Review Board. (Def LR56.1(a) Ex. D Schenkle’s Affidavit) In fact, the
First Amended Position Statement submitted by the City of Chicago to the EEOC, which lists
and attaches the documents it claims were relied upon in making the decision to terminate Bray,

97 3


Daniels told plaintiff to “[j]ust pay attention to me and listen to me. Keep on going, go,
go, go.” Ex. C, p. 257. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 257)

RESPONSE: Admit.

Plaintiff was “arguing back.” Ex. C, p. 257.
RESPONSE: Deny. Plaintiff wanted to see for herself that the intersection was clear.

(P1 LRS6.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 257)

Then, at an intersection, plaintiff “looked, and everybody kind of stopped ... By the time
[she] eased out,. . . this older guy hit [her].” Ex. C, pp, 257-58.

RESPONSE: Admit.

Plaintiff states she was found responsible for the accident and was suspended a day. Ex.
C, pp. 258-61; see Ex. H, pp. 18-19.

RESPONSE: Deny. The man was brought into the district and he wrote a statement
saying it was his fault because he was unable to stop due to the bad weather conditions. i

LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 258)

After the accident, plaintiff went on injured on duty (“IOD”) leave. Ex. C, pp.260-61.

RESPONSE: Admit with clarification. Plaintiff went on IOD because Daniels told her
to, even though she wanted to return to work. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 260-261)
Daniels took off three weeks of work after telling Bray, “I’m going to complain of my neck or

42°



her deposition that Bray told her she was “scared” tq report the sexual harassment by Askew and
Adams because, “They were always telling her, you know, ‘I have got your job in my hand. I
can fire you just like that. It only takes .. . a pen.”. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 4 Jones dep. p. 26, 36)
Jones also testified that on or about June or July 2000, she confirmed to Bray that Askew and
Adams did have power over her employment. (Pi LR56.1(b) Ex. 4 Jones dep. p. 7-8, 16, 48-49,
53) Jones, who was 2 police officer with the City of Chicago for 10 years at the time, advised
Bray to “keep a record of everything, dates and times. . . because you are still on probation and
pretty much [Askew and Adams] can get you fired at any time.” (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 4 Jones dep.

p. 6, 16)

B. DONNA ADAMS

106. Plaintiff did not believe Donna Adams’ behavior towards her constituted sexual
harassment while she was employed by the City. Ex. C, pp. 381-83, see 219-20, 222.

RESPONSE: Deny. Plaintiff did not know that it was sexual harassment. (Pl LR56.1(b)
Ex. 1 Brapy dep. p. 383) Plaintiff states in her deposition that, “it was never explained that if
someone tried to push you into having sexual intercourse with someone, that was a form of
sexual harassment. That’s why it was unclear to me that I really looked at it as being sexual
harassment, but I know it was a feeling—an ugly feeling I did not like.” (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1

Brapy dep. p. 383)

107. The first alleged incident of sexual harassment involving Adams occurred while

on call at 59 and Halstead in June or July 2000 during her third cycle. Ex. C, pp. 91, 106-07.

130



in Bile Milt oeee Ul en Bl sain Se El oe ee Tl ee Pte, coe oe Bn

351, 353, 570-571) The decision also notes that allegedly “several police officers” in the district
had requested not to be partnered with Bray because ‘they do not feel safe working with her. (P1
LR56.1(b) Ex. 47 Review Board Decision) However, not one of these alleged police officers is
identified. (P1 LR56.1(b) Ex. 47 Review Board Decision) Not one single police officer ever
requested in writing or in any other official police document not to work with Bray. (P1
LR56.1(b) Ex. 28 Zapolsky Statement) Jones stated at her deposition that she was never fearful
of working with Bray and would not have asked to work with her again if she was. (Pl
LR56,1(b) Ex. 4 Jones dep. p. 10) The Review Board based its decision to terminate Bray on
inaccurate and misleading gossip intentionally provided to it by Askew. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex.47
Review Board Decision) The Review Board’s findings do not reflect that they reviewed or even
received Bray’s statement or the statements prepared by other officers on her behalf. (P1
LRS56.1(b) Ex. 47 Review Board Decision) The Review Board did not review any documents or
statements submitted by Bray. (P! LR56.1(b) Ex. 47 Review Board Decision; Ex. 26 Def’s
Amended Position Statement) In fact, the First Amended Position Statement submitted by the
City of Chicago to the EEOC, which lists and attaches the documents it claims were relied upon
in making the decision to terminate Bray, does not list nor attach Bray’s statement nor the
statements of the officers submitted by Bray. (Pl LRS6.1(b) Ex. 26 Def’s Amended Position
Statement) Moveover, Bray was treated differently than Officer Spurgeon who graduated from
the Police Academy at the same time as Bray. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 1 Bray dep. p. 546; Ex. 5
Spurgeon dep. p. 8) Spurgeon testified at his deposition that he also had Askew as a Field
Training Officer and that Askew made the same negative comments about him that he did about
Bray when he was PPO, including a comment that Spurgeon did not like to cuff people. (Pl

105


eee ne ee ee oe ee

36. Askew wrote in one DOR that “suspects can be handcuffed anytime officer safety
is a question.” Ex. K, D336.

i RESPONSE: Admit that cited document states this.

In another DOR, Askew wrote that “P.P.O. is aware whenever a driver is in her control
and she has been informed that this driver is a T[raffic] V[iolator] [on] B[ond] the driver is to be
cuffed and placed into squad after frisk without delay!!!” Ex. K, D338; Ex. G, pp. 26-28.

RESPONSE: Admit that cited document states this.

Askew stated two days after this incident, plaintiff did not frisk and handcuff a driver
who did not have a license or ticket on which he was allegedly driving. Ex. G, p. 36.

RESPONSE: Deny. Askew states this in his deposition, although there is no evidence of

such an occurrence written in any Daily Reports. (Pl LR56.1(b) Ex. 2 Askew dep. p. 36)

On the next DOR, Askew wrote that plaintiff must become more aggressive during arrest
situations. Once suspect or arrestee is to be taken into custody P.P.O. cannot allow her feelings
to allow her to drop her guard. During arrest for agg[ravated] batt[ery] a passive female arrestee
was permitted to stand outside of veh[icle] for about 10 min[utes] when complaints were signed
and transport was to be made P.P.O. asked “Should I cuff her?” To which FTO replied 10
min[utes] ago... .

Ex. K, D340; Ex. G, pp. 37-39.

45