Four Women File Complaint Against Concord Police Department

Four women have filed a lawsuit against the Concord Police Department alleging discrimination, retaliation and misconduct.

Former officers Amy Hendricks, Harley Valadez and Kristen Krieger have all sued the department. Meanwhile, Beth Long, who is still working at the department, has also sued. They claim they were denied promotions on the basis of gender and promotions were given to male personnel—who they believe were less qualified.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Retaliation, Cal. Gov’t Code §12940(h)
Hostile Work Environment Harassment, Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(j)
Failure to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment, Cal. Gov. Code § 12940
Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy
California Whistleblower Protection Act, Gov. Code § 8547.1
Gender Discrimination, Cal. Gov’t Code §12940
Cal. Pregnancy Discrimination, Cal. Gov. Code § 12940
Retaliation, Cal. Lab. C. § 98.6

The 80-page complaint lays out how the Concord Police Department is dominated by misogynistic men who are unwilling to allow these four eminently qualified women to grow and thrive.

As a result, not only has the Concord Police department damaged the Plaintiffs’ careers and damaged the Plaintiffs emotionally and psychologically, but, more important, the Concord Police Department has damaged the citizens of Concord, California by preventing extremely well qualified officers to serve to the best of their ability.

To view the 80-page complaint: C23-02544 – Initial Complaint Filed

Plaintiff Amy Hendricks

She lays out years of being passed over for promotions—in some cases to less qualified candidates. Lays out sabotage in the promotions process.
Instances of bullying, unfair treatment, reassignments
Instances of harassment – unsolicited items placed in her mailbox
Layouts out a series of instances from her “boobs” flopping all over the place while breastfeeding, to being passed over multiple times for promotions and roles she sought out. She claims she was not given proper support for her PTSD. She was she was not allowed to be human on the job and women were being “emotional” and “overreacting”. She also shared instances of hostile work environment.
In 2004, Hendricks filed for divorce and was given unsolicited feedback and opinions on her divorce. One male supervisor encouraged her to stay with her husband and stated to her that, “All men cheat” and “You don’t want to break up your family.”
Winter of 2012 Ms. Hendricks was shamed and harassed by her superiors and colleagues for not divorcing her husband. She received unsolicited comments about her marital status and certain colleagues stopped talking to her while rumors circulated through the department.
In 2015, she was denied for a standard training requires for the Women Leaders in Law Enforcement Symposium—a annual statewide training she had attended the past three years.
In 2016, she tested for patrol corporal, four positions and five candidates—first three positions given to male candidates with less experience. She was not selected, but ultimately got the position when another officer declined due to work schedule.
Accused Sergeant Cody Harrison’s supervision as being a bully, hypercritical, and micromanaging towards her. She received a negative “employee discussion” for late reports which she claims was unreasonable expectations placed on her.
In June 30, 2016, Ms. Hendricks received a phone call from Captain Voerge while off- duty. Captain Voerge instructed her that she was being reassigned full-time to Dispatch, effective immediately, in spite of her recent offer decline by Lieutenant Donnelly. Ms. Hendricks knew of circumstances involving Captain Roche retaliating against the female Dispatchers, which intentionally caused a staffing shortage. He told Ms. Hendricks that the Dispatchers were “bitches” and he was going to “make it miserable for them.” Captain Roche said he was going to “force them out” and get the “good ones” jobs elsewhere. Ms. Hendricks spoke out about this decision to the Police Association Board.
Hendrix also reported several unwanted items placed in her mailbox and reported them as harassment—this was dated between 2016-19
On November 9, 2020, Sergeant Harrison publicly shamed Ms. Hendricks in his briefing regarding her personal social media post following the previous attempted suicide call. He referred to her as a “sea donkey” a derogatory and offensive term to reference to women. Sergeant Harrison read her social media post out loud during his briefing, mocking and humiliating Ms. Hendricks. The post was raw and vulnerable, and Sergeant Harrison mocked her religious references.
On December 10, 2021, Concord PD informed Ms. Hendricks that she was not allowed to retain her duty weapon. Lieutenant Gartner misrepresented the department policy. He implied she retired not in good standing. Concord PD wanted her doctors to answer if she was a danger to herself or to others. They also wanted the doctors to answer if she should be able to retain her duty weapon. Every medical report that addresses Ms. Hendricks ability to carry a firearm or any danger concerns consistently showed there was no evidence to suggest any issues. Ms. Hendricks never harmed herself or anyone. She owns her own firearms. She was told that CA law does not allow her to retain her conceal and carry if retired due to mental health. It was common practice for them to allow male members to retain their duty firearm in situations of medical retirement. Ms. Hendricks was excluded from this standard and tradition practice of gifting the employee their duty weapon due to her gender as a female and in retaliation of her lodged complaints.
On December 17, 2021, Ms. Hendricks was her last day of employment with Concord PD as she was terminated by being forced into early retirement.

Plaintiff Beth Long

Due to pregnancy, she was assigned to dispatch. At the time, Concord PD had a policy stating that female officers could not work a uniformed assignment after their first trimester. As display by Defendants towards unfair gender treatment, Female officers were assigned to Dispatch for modified duty while male officers on modified duty were not.
Multiple promotions she was bypassed in favor of male superiors.
Expressed concerns of not feeling supported by Concord PD
Received unsolicited items in her mailbox
Alleges retaliation for complaints of gender discrimination and denied promotions.
Alleges different hours for men and women in terms of modified duty and shifts.
Alleges she was punished for her pregnancy by Lieutenant Gartner.

Plaintiff Harley Valadez

Alleges wrongful termination in January of 2022
Was told by Lt. Rodriquez that she “would not go far at concord”
After an altercation in the jail, Sgt. Harrison spoke negatively about the fight involving Valdez while also making comments about Corporal Amy Hendricks and her mental state.
Excluded Valdez from an investigation despite being mentioned
Valdez contracted COVID-19 while on duty and hospitalized—suffering long-term effects and was in pain. She was not given option to work on modified duty despite her symptoms.
On March 1, 2021, Detective Chris Blakely informed Ms. Valadez that a few detectives asked to donate their compensation time to Ms. Valadez so she could heal while she was out with COVID-19. This was a customary practice at Concord PD for employees to donate their time to help fellow coworkers. However, as continued discrimination, Concord PD denied anyone donating time to Ms. Valadez.
Alleges male officers were able to remain on modified duty for extended time while Valdez was told to come to work or stay at home unpaid.
Says conversations on her attitude would not be brought up if she was a man
Valdez was forced into modified duty assignments while she requalify—however, male officers allowed to immediately requalify. Says it was done to embarrass her.
On July 1, 2021, Sergeant Provost made comments about Ms. Valadez to Corporal Long.
He told Ms. Long that Ms. Valadez was “too focused on children that aren’t even hers” in referring to her two stepdaughters. He told Ms. Long that Ms. Valadez “wasn’t focusing on herself.” Her performance wasn’t lacking, but he didn’t like that she was taking responsibility for her stepchildren as both were listed as her dependents
Alleges gender discrimination when changing schedules or switching/swapping shifts.
Extended probation without being given a reason.
Advised not to talk to her stepfather, a Sergeant at another agency, about being a cop. She was also told she shouldn’t talk to her husband either as it could end their marriage.
On January 1, 2022, Sergeant Danielle Cruz told Ms. Valadez that there were people at
Concord PD that did not want her to succeed. She confirmed to her that Captain James Nakayama and Lieutenant Rodriguez were out to get her.
On January 24, 2022, Sergeant Cruz gave Ms. Valadez her evaluation. Ms. Valadez met standards on all parts. She noted that Ms. Valadez was on track to complete probation. Ms. Valadez signed her evaluation and sent it to Captain Nakayama’s desk. Captain Nakayama did not sign the evaluation, nor did he place the evaluation in her file. Instead, Ms. Valadez was terminated about a week later.
Unlike her male colleagues, Ms. Valadez was not given the opportunity to resign instead of being terminated. She was not provided with any recommendations to other police offices as her male officers had been extended. In addition, she was not provided with her final paycheck. Ms. Valadez was told she would receive her final paycheck during the normal pay period.

Plaintiff Kristen Kreiger

In Aug 2018, Kreiger suggested Lieutenant Gartner’s decision seemed to be bias toward female officers when denying training requests.
Highlighted several instances of discrimination towards woman and double standards.
On two occasions, Kreiger office was given away and she was not given time to collect her personnel items while other officers were untouched.
Multiple acts of retaliation by Defendants ensued following Ms. Kreiger’s complaints of gender discrimination.
On June 7, 2019, Concord PD retaliated against Ms. Krieger by accusing her of timecard fraud. She received an email from Captain Voerge. He told her she had inaccuracies on her timecard. Captain Voerge instructed her to use sick leave rather than straight pay for her work-related doctor appointments. At the same time, none of Ms. Krieger’s colleagues, male or female, were instructed to use sick leave for work-related appointments.
On June 12, 2019, Concord PD retaliated against Ms. Krieger by assigning her to a supervisor below her rank.
On September 3, 2019, Ms. Krieger was denied payment for her knee surgery on the day before her scheduled surgery. Concord PD informed her that they were partially denying payment for the costs of her surgery claiming that it was “too expensive” despite approving her surgery. At the same time, Concord PD covered higher costs for the same surgery for her male colleagues.
On April 1, 2020, Ms. Krieger was placed on administrative leave due to COVID-19. However, she was denied 4850 pay. At the same time, all other male employees were granted 4850 pay. Ms. Krieger was forced to use her sick leave. Concord PD later reversed the 4850 pay decision after Ms. Krieger complained of harassment and relation.
On July 1, 2020, Ms. Krieger retired due to medical.

Complaint Conclusion:

On information and belief, Defendants discriminated against Plaintiffs because of their gender.
On information and belief, Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff Long and Plaintiff Hendricks because of their pregnancy status.
On information and belief, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiffs after Plaintiffs complained about their discriminatory treatment.
On information and belief, Defendants disregarded Plaintiffs’ concerns regarding the discrimination and harassment they were experiencing.
On information and belief, when Plaintiff Hendricks reported Sergeant Williams for repeatedly being unsafe on various incidents, she was dismissed and ignored and therefore harassed and discriminated against for her knowledge and reporting said incidents.
Plaintiffs’ managers and superiors alike made their workplace a hostile work environment by failing to address their concerns about discrimination and harassment.
Defendants failed to prevent the foregoing discrimination and retaliation. As a result of such conduct, Defendants have caused Plaintiffs intentional infliction of emotional distress, stress, anxiety
Plaintiffs made formal complaints regarding the disparate and discriminatory treatment they suffered by Defendants. Defendants took no action to address the concerns raised by Plaintiffs.
As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs have suffered emotionally and psychologically from the discrimination and harassment they have experienced by Defendants. As a result of the hostile work environment and discrimination, Plaintiffs have suffered embarrassment, humiliation, mental and emotional pain and distress and discomfort.
Defendants have discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiffs based on their gender in violation of Cal. Gov. Code § 12940. Defendants failed to investigate and prevent the foregoing discrimination and retaliation, despite Plaintiffs complaints, in violation of Cal. Gov. Code § 12940. Defendants are also liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Defendants have discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff Hendricks based on reporting of Sergeant Williams unsafe practices in violation of the California Whistleblower Protection Act, Gov. Code § 8547.1 which allows employees to report violations of law and are to be free from retaliation for doing so.

Editors Note – similar incidents in 2022

In October: A female employee is accusing the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office of discrimination and retaliation in a lawsuit that has been filed — see story
In August, DA Charges Antioch and Pittsburg Police Officers with Obstruction of Justice and Bribery
Last year, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to vote on a $350k settlement with the two females as a result of two women who resigned from their positions at the healthcare district due to sexual harassment, unwanted sexual advances, hostile working conditions, and other unlawful actions resulting from Executive Director Lamar Thorpe’s misconduct, and the District’s inaction, despite having knowledge of that misconduct. The settlement did state there was no admission of guilt. — see story
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors has approved an out-of-court settlement in the lawsuit brought by Mary Blumberg, Alison Chandler, Jill Henderson, Mary Knox, and Rachel Piersig against the County and its District Attorney’s Office, Knox, et al. v. County of Contra Costa, et al. The County agreed to pay the five plaintiffs a total sum of $2.2 million dollars, which includes costs and attorneys’ fees. — See story
In May of 2022 City of Oakley Says Former Police Chief Fired Over Alleged Sexual Harassment