Wolfeboro Police Chief

[Major]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

AB lost revenue because the establishments that support the transgender community will no longer purchase, and thus sell, the product.

Critics of the transgender community, like bar owner Kid Rock, continue to sell the brand at their bars.

Locker Room Humor can legally if the situation persists constitute a legal finding of a hostile work environment. The supervisor is responsible to see that it stops. The Chief, being the direct supervisor, had to be overstepped by the BoS after the investigation.

https://www.skassellaw.com/how-locke...k-environment/

The Board acts on behalf of the taxpayers; and I would guess got the best legal advice they could to protect those taxpayers.

Work environments are always tough... but we have to do the best we can to limit offensive behavior and make others feel comfortable to perform at exceptional levels.

California law may have a different standard for what constitutes a hostile work environment than New Hampshire law. When I retired from the Army 11 years ago the standard was that the conduct must be persistent, intentional, severe, recurring and pervasive, and must interfere with the employee's ability to perform. The person making the accusation must reasonably believe that he or she will be discriminated against, e.g., if not he or she will be terminated. Instances of locker room humor or inappropriate jokes are not enough.

That said, the standard probably has lowered over the years, especially with the "me too" movement. Also, there may be legal theories prohibiting such behavior other than hostile work environment. And while I agree we have to do the best we can to make people feel comfortable and perform well, those who can relate and adapt to all personality types do best. I thought the world was a much more interesting place where we had to deal with "characters." When I was a kid, there were "characters" everywhere. Now, in our effort to be diverse, we are creating a society of homogenous behavior. Boring!

[John Mercier]

https://www.shaheengordon.com/employ...0or%20comments

[Major]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

https://www.shaheengordon.com/employ...0or%20comments

No mention of the standard in the article. Just the types of behavior that may get you in trouble. Yes, inappropriate jokes and innuendos can get a person in trouble, if they are part of a severe pattern of behavior that caused the person to reasonably believe they are being discriminated against.

John, I used to give presentations on sexual harassment to each of the RIANG units every year for about 10 years straight. I know a little something about this topic.

[John Mercier]

It provides the NH Statutes pertinent.

[Major]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

It provides the NH Statutes pertinent.

The RSA supports what I've been saying. Jokes and locker room humor are not enough. Typically, Federal and State statutes, like NH RSA 354-A: 6 & 7, prohibit discrimination based on an employee's protected class. NH RSA 354-A: 6 states that it is discriminatory for an employer to refuse to hire or employ or to otherwise discriminate against an employee because of age, sex, gender identity, race, color, marital status, physical or mental disability, religious creed, or national origin. RSA 354-A: 7 prohibits harassment, such as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. Such behavior must include one of the following: (a) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment; (b) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual; or
(c) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.

What is not said in the RSA, and is required when proving such cases, is that the individual making the accusation must have a reasonable belief that they are being discriminated against, meaning that some level of reasonableness is the standard that the person being effected cannot perform his or her duties because of the conduct.

You are correct, the papers did not remove the chief. Based on what was in the article, it was the allegations about assignments and overtime that triggered the investigation, not his allegedly boorish conduct or poor performance. I agree about the Board's analysis, the Board weighed the likelihood of legal action in retaining the chief by the union and/or individuals offended by his conduct versus the likelihood of legal action in dismissing the chief by the chief. However, I am not sure what role his retirement plays. He may argue that his retirement essentially was a constructive dismissal. It will be interesting to see what happens.

[John Mercier]

(C) would cover it.

Also the bar for a civil suit is lower than a criminal violation of a statue.
Nor does it protect contractual employees from violation of policy.

The female employees could file on the basis that his comments suggested underlying discrimination against them.
And if it when public, all sorts of actions could come from the community at large.

The outcome of the Franklin case will be the more interesting, as that one is very active.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Major

California law may have a different standard for what constitutes a hostile work environment than New Hampshire law. When I retired from the Army 11 years ago the standard was that the conduct must be persistent, intentional, severe, recurring and pervasive, and must interfere with the employee's ability to perform. The person making the accusation must reasonably believe that he or she will be discriminated against, e.g., if not he or she will be terminated. Instances of locker room humor or inappropriate jokes are not enough.

That said, the standard probably has lowered over the years, especially with the "me too" movement. Also, there may be legal theories prohibiting such behavior other than hostile work environment. And while I agree we have to do the best we can to make people feel comfortable and perform well, those who can relate and adapt to all personality types do best. I thought the world was a much more interesting place where we had to deal with "characters." When I was a kid, there were "characters" everywhere. Now, in our effort to be diverse, we are creating a society of homogenous behavior. Boring!

Weird and sad that you imply the standard for keeping a police chief is that he has not broken the law. This is the kind of thinking that leads governments to function so poorly compared to businesses. Any decent business would just fire his sorry ass for being a lousy leader, as described in numerous reports that you seem to ignore.

If he's your brother, cousin, or BFF--that's cool and you're a good friend. But other than that, this is your toughest defense since Silber & Co

[Major]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Weird and sad that you imply the standard for keeping a police chief is that he has not broken the law. This is the kind of thinking that leads governments to function so poorly compared to businesses. Any decent business would just fire his sorry ass for being a lousy leader, as described in numerous reports that you seem to ignore.

If he's your brother, cousin, or BFF--that's cool and you're a good friend. But other than that, this is your toughest defense since Silber & Co

I don't know him from Adam. But when I hear that a union is unhappy, and then they generate an investigation based on allegations that appear to be within a chief's discretion, I tend to have skepticism of the allegations. People like you think you know everything about the situation just because you read it in the paper. I hate to break it to you but news reporting has biases, and they come out in articles like this one about the chief (and the article about the restaurant owner in Franklin). And it isn't sad, you or I do not know all of the facts, you or I don't know if the allegations are true or made-up. I know the standard for sexual harassment and workplace and they are basically the same for public and private sectors. Such standards are and should be high to protect the employee. Otherwise, someone can make an allegation and destroy someone's life. You are talking about something completely different when you suggest a lower standard for employment. I don't necessarily disagree with you. The standard should be lower for poor performance. However, in the private sector it is easier to terminate someone than in the public sector.

[John Mercier]

The papers didn't remove him from his position.

The allegations only trigger an investigation.

The Board, with legal advice, must have felt that a suit from the Chief was less likely to have a negative outcome than a suit(s) filed by others.

The Chief can file civil suit, if he feels that appropriate.

[Descant]

In a small state like NH police all over the state are known to each other. You don't get to be chief because you have no credentials, or because nobody knows you. Why isn't anybody questioning the commission that screened and hired this guy? We've seen other threads with police chief issues. This is not just a Wolfeboro problem, but it is a hiring problem.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Descant

In a small state like NH police all over the state are known to each other. You don't get to be chief because you have no credentials, or because nobody knows you. Why isn't anybody questioning the commission that screened and hired this guy? We've seen other threads with police chief issues. This is not just a Wolfeboro problem, but it is a hiring problem.

Aps and Major laid it out.
Changing standards. So what someone did in the past may have been more acceptable from a legal and social outlook.

Also, ex-employers really don't need the hassle of either a civil suit from a former employee or the social media attacks should they become disgruntled.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Aps and Major laid it out. Changing standards. So what someone did in the past may have been more acceptable from a legal and social outlook. Also, ex-employers really don't need the hassle of either a civil suit from a former employee or the social media attacks should they become disgruntled.

Who would do this to a woman today?

(Eight seconds in...)

https://youtube.com/shorts/mImLfx2TF...rJzIS0t70TAYBd

Edited to add (ETA):

Originally Posted by Billy Bob

First, there is NO defund the police movement. That’s fake news. I,m not suggesting getting rid of the local regular officer that is assigned to specific neighborhoods . The problem is the duplicate management groups needed when all these small towns create a police force. We probably have a dozen higher paid police chiefs around the lake followed by all the duplicate buildings , staffs, etc. Put hem all under one chief and staff and use the savings to put more actual feet on the ground

Millions have been donated to anti-police organizations, including PolicyLink, the group behind DefundPolice.org, according to investigative reporter Lee Fang. (Million$ by Facebook's Zuckerberg).

Look up Shivanthi Sathanandan--today's champion for defunding police--in Facebook. You'll get a chuckle (or maybe, a grimace).