?9 Jim CITY or Momma, cocoon -, jg . JD Bureau of Police Too Wheeler, Mayor Danielle M. Outiaw, Chief of Police 1111 SW. Zno' Avenue . Portlana, OR 97204 a Phone: 503-823?5003 integrity . Compassion Accountability - Respect .. Excellence Service MEMORANDUM (CON FIDENTIAL) January 12, 2018 TO: Sergeant Gregg LeWis, #23515, PRNR #199009 Personnel Division SUBJECT: Discipline: Termination lA Case 20l7~B-0008 You are hereby noti?ed that your conduct, while employed wim the Portland Police Bureau, has not met standards to the Bureau. The charges are violations of the following Police Bureau directives and City Human Resources Administrative Rule (in rclevanl parts): Directive 344.05 Biased?Based Policinngro?ling E?rohibited l. The Portland Police Bureau is committed to providing services and enforcing, laws in a professional, fair and equitable manner. The intent of this Directive. is to respect individual rights, build relationships, and increase Police Bureau legitimacy. 2, The Police Bureau is funhcr convinced to partnering with tho criminal justice system to develop unbiased nitergovemmental procedures and joining with community service providers to rehabilitate offenders through reconciliation with victims and the conununjty at large, so as to facilitate trustworthy systems, productive lives, and a cost-effective. society over arrest and incarceration. ll is the responsibility of the Police Bureau to administer a comprehensive training program that will provide for the professional growth and continued devclOpmenl of its members. Curriculum regarding legal and equity concepts and skill sets will be incorporated into training and reflect the Bureau?s commitment to equity in policy and practice. 4. Police Bureau membem are prohibited from taking or not taking any police-action motivated by bias or profiling. 5, Characteristics of a protected classi?cation ma}r be taken into account when a member is acting on a suspect description or information related to an identi?ed or suspected violation of a provision of law. Members must be able to articulate speci?c facts, circumstances or conclusions that support reasonable suspicion or probable cause for any stop, search, or seizure. 6. lt is the resoonsibiliry of all Police Bureau members to proactively ensure compliance with this Directive. Any member who becomes aware of conduct that could constitute bias based policing shall take irmnecliate action to stop or prevent the conduct and shall inuncdialely report the conduct to his or her supervisor. U.) Community Policing: Making the Difference Together An Equal Opportunity Employer City Information Leno: 563-823-4080, {for hearing and speech impaired): 503'823-6868 Website: Sergeam Gregg Leads, #225153 PRNR #199009 January 12, 2018 IA Case 20} 7-13-0008 Page 2 TR Managers and supervisors will reinforce the value of this directive and not wait for events to occur. Any supervisor or manager who is aware of bias based policing and condones it by aczlon or inaction will be subject to disciplinary action, Prolccled classi?cations include the following: - Race or color, - National origin or ethnicily, . Citizenship, immigrant or refugee status! Religion, - Gender? gender identim or gender expression, Age, 0 Marital or familial status, - Sexual orientation, 0 Mental or physical disability, - Mental illness, Economic status} 0 Political ideology or af?liation, - Veteran status, 0 Language, 0 Housing status {having or not having ?xed residence, public assistance, use of shelter, homelessness (houselessness?. Directive 315.00 Laws, Rules, and Orders Members are required to conform, on or of? duty, to all applicable laws, rules, and orders. Members shall not commit any act or fail to perform any act constituting a violation of any applicable laws, rules, and orders, whether stated in these directives or elsewhere. Directive 310.00 - Conduct, Professional Police Bureau members, whether on duty or off duty, shall be governed by the reasonable males of good conduct and behavior, and shall not commit any act tending to bring reproach or discredit upon the Police Bureau or the City of Portland Human Resources Administrative Rule (HRAR) 2.02 Prohibitioa Against Workplace Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation It is the City?s policy to prohibit workplace harassment, discrimination and retaliation on the basis of protected status. Protected status includes race, religion, gentler, marital status, familial status, national origin, age, mmtal or physical disability (as de?ned by the Americans with Disabilities Act and state law), sexual orientation, gender identity, source of income, protected veterans status or other protected status under applicable law. Sergeant Gregg, #22515. PRNR 735199009 January l2, 203 8 IA Case 20} 18?0008 Page 3 Workplace harassment, discriminaiion, and realization mam fesls in {he workplace in two primary ways: l. lo fonns of harassmem, discrimination, and retaliation that violate state and federal laws; and . 2. ln forms of inappropriate conduct that may not violate law, but which violate this Clly 1? role because the conduct is not conducive to creating a respeciml and professional work emlironmeot for employees. Discrimination: Unequal or differenl treatment of an individual in any personnel action on lhe basis of prolecled slams. Harassment: verbal or physical conduct, which may include conduct that is derogatory or shows hostiliry towards an individual, related to the individual?s protected status. The intent or consent of the persons engaging irz Elle inappropriate conduct does no: matter. Examples of Prohibited, Inappropriate Conduct Verbal or Physical Conduct 1. Use of epithets, ?onuendos, names, comments, foul language or slurs because of an individual?s protected slams. ManageriSupervisor Expectations Managers and supervisors shall enforce this rule and maintain a productive, respectful, and professional workplace. Managers and supendsors must take immediale action to stop and. prevent discrimination, harassment, or retaliation where they know or have reason to know thal i: is occurring. Tacit approval of harassment, discrimination, other inappropriate conduct, andf'or retaliation by, for example, laughing and treating a situation as a joke, failing to take action or advising an employee am to complain, is prohibited, Managers and supervisors are responsible for ensuring that notes, comments, posters and ozher materials on walls, bulletin boards or elsewhere in the workplace, that are derogatory or Show hostiliry toward an individual or group because of protected status are removed. Managers and supenrisors are expected to educate and remind employees about the impropriety of these items as well as the of jokes, slurs, or other negative verbal comments that violate this rule. Managers and supervisors are also reaponsible for educating employees that the use of City owned equipment, iocluding but not limited to vehicles and electronic devices such as compmers, telephones, photocopicrs, or faxes for any of these purposes is also prohibited. Under City of Ponlaod Human Resources Administrative Rule 5.01 a violazion of federal or szale law, or of the City Chaner, ordinances or any City rules or regulations, including Bureau?speci?c policies, is cause for disciplinary action. Sergean? Gregg Lewis, #32515, PRNR #199809 jaguar}: 12, 2303 8 1A Case 20318-0098 Page 4 BACKGROUED You have: been the Porzland PoEice Bureau Sines: April 25* i992, You retired Eran: the POEice Bureau a: the rank of Po?icc Scygeam on November 3, 302 6. and you were rshired at the rank of Paiicc Sergeant {m Decambcr 3, 2036.. under {he Bumau"s Retire-Rehire program, Your 11313101?); ofcorractive among and {iigcip?ine timing your career Wiih tha Paiice Bureau the following: 0 You received a Lena? of Reprimand 0113113}: 3 E: 2089 for vieiating Directive 315.30 Unsatisfacmz?y Fcrfomance, related to a vchicular (CRB 20G9068). Yen receivad Cammanzi Conn-Siding an Ocmber 6. 2085 re3ated 10 a preventah?e vehicuiar soilisian (CR8 FACTS SLEPPORTENG DISCIPLINARY Yen were nominating, mi! caii on February 13, 301'? at appmximamiy 4:00 pm. when you mada scvarai comments that your coworkers; deemed inappr?epriate. {be time yea made the cezlxmentg? you were providing your subordinates on how to handEc civi? holds for puhiic intoxication. 1n the context of discussing how :0 handie different types inciuding homeiass individuals, yam made comments anng the ?nes of: ?If ymu come across a bind: pagan, jusi shoot them." There were approximately 16 of?cers and three sargcants present when yen made the inappropriate comments. February 13, 203?. at approximatciy 3:38 am, phoned -nd requested a meeting. and the .a?atenam's 0 ICE: In Central Precinct. three cxpiam?d at they were uncomferzabie with the commas you made during the C-Shi? re aye: i at several 0f {ha sergeants and ef?ccm prescm far the miicali had discussed what Occurred, and f6}? nbligats? 10 repon this incident :0 cemand staff? Written mt??cations of what had assumed were suhmitmd by Captain Jef??ey 8613 with {ha meessionai Standards Division. Excerpts from the nmi?cazions are as foilaws: 03: Sunday Februmj' 32, 310? a? 2699' appraximafc?y 1' 69$ hours 3 34m); sewed in {526' can? mam {311? Ceizfz'af Precinci while ng? Greg Lewis WM running ref! 6521?}, reading?s?ers and spea?dng (I group Qf15-20 Q?icers. A discussian bemeez: ng?. Lewis and afew Q?cers :3.wa the {egaliry ofpfacing 5072180928 {mo cuszodyforpubiie imm?iwzz?on on a premise open {a {he pu?y?c dereiopcd. 70 {123 5235:: quv rmofiecn'on, sometime during {leaf com'crsazion Sgt, Lam's mid {he enrirc group Qfo?cem ?go me: am! Show bias}: peepfa I remember hearing same nervous faugfzzer?'om some Ike mats: and am: (3:33:57 exckzim, ?of: my gadf ng. Lewiy laughed, {hmw his; hands up in $126 air and said, "Fuck What :10 1? care? {Memorandum to Capzain Jeffrey Bel} from?February E3, 30; Sergeant Gregg Lewis, #33535. PRENZR 3199:5195; Emmy E2. 353:} 32 LA Case 302 Page. 55 51772:?:sz Lam's.? #32525 gm? 2'52}? mff. {liming {1:53 we had a man?arszzifws ahmu wiz??er nr pas?z?a' {:0de is 35: ii 1* dgz'mx gm?ring 3632;585:723 LE 1-11}: mfg? fo?{?gr5 :0 313213;?" azbazrf 11:12:? sing}: z??zaxcd??nnz fnm'de {116 parking gimbazw'w. Lem}: Misfw', ?if/1mm {snags a guy in a 5m: magi at? (351223? and a :00 ?72333}: {a drink by '5 1522135752532? 329: :ize 532ij 73:33! Wars; {a dam: sfrafgiez nu: cg!? garage. He WW mas? {fix ,5'336?3?022. is a ?amzxiaszs gzn?, jam; Mi? be? 55312?. 2? (iaub: 3m going (0 3m: jam ?322; may as; Qf?car maximized :31? $2525? 323526; {:22 Gregmzirm m'fz'cfg-r fisc? 53200Ia'zrg. The 013%?! gnaw? 53:: had mad ?328 Cammenu; 5663;?01: fof?? m?'cfe am?? um: (ifg?mared bamme (I affirm: had wriz??c?n, @335 biac?k'?eapg?, ha? 013?; pgqniz. Officers: began faiic?ng {isemsefves abow {hi3 Mammy and {32822 2? Marc." Sergeant Lari}: 5mm, "?32353 gas crud and 1:53? hiaskpcopie". frmked ammch size roam? I0 gauge? {Em ibis: .cmi?rmenr has} on {In} cgfficcrs, 273:: {g?zam?s appeared Shocked and czsiwzx'simzi, There was; same fazaghfzar zizc room bu; mos? ware gum: F3215 bx?tzugizz roz?icafr? 1?0 and {Memorandum addressed 20 Captain ?tt?i'ey 8:313 ?em?Fabrua?? E7. 381?) To #326 has: :?z/cw?fc?ciiwz, 2? a (ii?c?mwsion (m aw?or?a' 2?0 defer Him is in parking garage. Sergew? Greg Lewis marred dz?'iez?em 35pm (gfgmups Wm may be in the parking gnwc'mz?e. Respan?mg {0 ma?a Og?cer who was we mfg}?! be {arge?'ag cc?rzm?n gmum Sergewz: Greg Lewis sass? ?grimy an? Mari: 33:5: 3176:}: {hem to Captain Baii from Fchman' 20} 37} Th3 E3rofessionai Standard Dix isigm?s lmcmai Affairs Linii am} the Bureau 0f Humau Resoums? canductcd an ins-'estigazim imo the incident Of Directive 344.05 Biase? Basc? i?QlicinQ?Pm?iing Prohibited: A5 a Bupen?isor. v01: faiied to reinforce the \rahzes 0f Directive 344.95 w~ Biasm? Base? Policing-?Pm?img E?mhibited, \I'iolazion of Directives 344.133 - B?ased Based thib?md, and 315.90 Laws. Ruies. and Orders: You suggeszeci enforcement amian againsz ci?iimns based on protected ciassificazions. \i?iolatmn of Directive 310.80 - Conduct, Prafessionai: You acted in a manna? landing to bring rewaach 0r discredi: 11:30:: the Pa?iand Pa?ice Bureau when mu ma?a disgaraizim comments against citizens of a pmiwted class in mi} 831%. You were imam-?ayed by Enigma} Affairs; investigam-on March ?16, 30} Sergeant Gregg tom's, #22515, PRNR #3 99009 January 22, 2018 1A Case 20173-0008 Page 6 You told Investigator -that you would not make police decisions solely on how a person was dressed, their housing status, or the color oftheir skin. You remembered participating in a group discussion about when and from Where you could detox someone. You remembered saying if someone is wearing a suit or tie them you could put that person in a cab while a transient would not have that option (IA Interview, lines 248?250). When you were presented with other employees? recollections which indicated the}: thought you were directing them to treat the homeless differently, you responded: I have a habit? ofsomezr?mes being (1 Katie sarcastic, saying ?rings sareasrfcaliy, and they mtg}?! have faker: smoothing I said or interpreted some?zing I said di?erentf}: than what my was, bur. I can ?1 specificaiiv say wig]: one person heard somerizing dr'?eren: than another. (IA Interview, lines 274?27?) You were asked if you made a comment about black peoole, and you responded: Andfor? fire .. the coupfe Qfdays prior to that, we had been talking about some statements that were in {he media regarding rgj?cer-owolved shootings and when we shoe! a person ofcor?or, we 1:171 them, and {hen when we 51200! a person - a whim person, a Caucasian person, we only wound them- So there had been these ridicufous statements in the media about the decisions we nuke when we shoot people. So these conversations had gone on rigor before mi! coil in the locker room, {here had been conversations about that particular topic. 50, as we were. just gezrirtg?nisked, I remember saying, and 1 though? was kind offmmaa?ous, in 35317,? of these Stupid conversations in the media, so, you know, zmiess if ?3 a Hack guy, than we just Shoo: firem. (Interview, lines 304?31 1) You admitted you made diSparaging remarks against a person of a protected class and admitted your mistake. You said: 34/853, again, the conversation about {fir was a black guy, we wouldjust shoot. (from, is inappropriate and, as a sapen?fsor, I shoafa? have been aware ofthaf and thought a {irrie more plainly arbour who! it is I was saying and the message I was delivering and how i: was received. (1A Interview, lines 459?461} Weir, Ijust, in looking as #2839 things, I understand {he 2. 02 and regardiess ofm}: z?rztem what zire - the message, you know, and how that '5 perceived, how that could be a Vioian'on oleris, bar? this having had time to ?00k or this, 1 wadersamd that somebody calu?a? take Q?ease to 1322?s, but I wasjust? trying to high?gha? this ridiculous sm?tha! was in the media. br?z'ngpeopie back downjusr to ground, the of?cers, you ?77011}, I believe a forge portion afzirefofks in rim! I C) Serg?am Greggl?wis. #132335. gianuay}! E2, . EA Cage 38} 7%?6898 33?" n?i :1 {If} ('33 ran? (?if azazimmd rim: {32:5 m: a swarms; ma?a im; 5255: Med fawn? me? 5.53:gem mam: mrr?mrrs?. Emma? were was :me mafia s! {13:33, far}; 5' in: mm}; .{jusz' wax 35mg n; gt; {km om am? 5'0 rim; m3? 523:?, 32:36! a: armed {Ezra-92? 0:5? {395323. Imemw', limes 559666} ?y'mz mmembemd iaiking the ef?cms ?2me using their best judgmem when dewxing hm 3?02: didn't b?ievc you dircch?zd {ham :0 pmiica based upon} ecanomic atatus? You admizwd we made {he ahau: "shooting, Mack magpie" 5:3 an a?smpz at humor. Directive 344.05 states. in pm: ?The Poniand Felice: Bureau is 10 providing, sarvices and czxi?ercing Eat? in a nondisc?mimwr}; fair am} equitabie mammr. The imam 0f shit; Direciix'e i310 respect individual rights! buiid raiatimships? and increase: Poiice Bureau Your during role can ??smSpi-rcuxi righw and wez'e Suggestive ofbiascd basad policing and discriminamg? iaw premises and shackc? yam cowgrkers. Yam mmarks undermine the: Poiice Bureau's community rc?a?onships and our legizimacy. and brought mpmach and ham} upm uur ergazz?zaiim: of Bureau of Human Resourccs Adminiszmtive Ruhr 2,92 - f?mhjbit?w against kapiacs: Harassment. Discrimination and Rezaliatim The Bureau of uman Rasourccs {20:1de med its awn im?estigazion mm the ailegcd Ailegalion: On February 12, 301?. Sergeant Gregg Lewis; was in {his workplace and sewing as the ags?gned gupervisor cmducting mi! cali fer shift a: Can-{ml Precinc: when he made inappmp?am szazcmems to staff suggesiing ways a si?zen when responding to them being intoxicated in tha dawmawn Parking Garages, The alicged siaiemmts Lewis were: ?if 3:013 come 21:1?ng a guy in a suit and tie that some downimm an? had a ?fth?: me much {0 drink he?s probably not the guy you want 10 detox straight cu: 0f the garage. He Will mos: iikeiy sue you. If its?s homeEess guy; you xvi}; pmbabiy a: safe. 3 (3:31.123! E1633 going :0 sue yea; it is a 2:31an guy, than we just sham them". These statemems ware hard by members of {he C?Shif: Gaming the {012 mil. (Emery)! {mm Repay: of Eavestiga?on, Findingg and Cominsions, Compiaim of 2.02 \?igiations BHR Casg N0. 110094; 1.1% Case N0, 20 183038. Ma}: 19, 2817} in their repoz?a, BER awed that mnazeen sworn empieyees who were resent at {he r031 cal} cm February 32, 293 ?are inten?iewec? from Febmam? 22?28, 201?, mi epancd hearing no inappwp?am Statements mada by yam dim ng ca an eanng you maxe- re ?0 ac pear? a, transients, andfor shaming (Swing mii caii an Fabmaz}? 12, hawever._ mesa of?cers raise: reported being distractc? and am: having a ciear mediation as what was gamed. The foiiowing Sergaant Gregg Lewis? PRNR 25193089 ianuary 32* 3018 IA Case 28E 37?30008 Page 8 sergeams and of?cers mated that ?aey heard you make aim fe?awimg stalememg during r021 ca}? 03': February 2017: _epor?ed hear-mg 3:021 say. ?ifym ?nd a hameiess black pcrgon. maxi: sure you sham him and 1613 him? Rims 331?4381 ?ep0??:d hearing you say: gums if ynu?re black, you gs: shale, and ifyou're white you den" i" $33156de, line 356). eponed hearing 3m: say; ?if it?s a biack transiem we can just shoot Zine 1:10}. sported. baring you say: ?If?they?re homeless; we go and deter?; whatever and if they?re biack yea; just ?1.32! {ham"-fransczipt? lines 156?2 37). z?eparied hearing yen say: "Sugpem is black and they, sither they rangeript, Sine 144). ported hearirzg you say: ?if they?re biack just shoot them" - or sham them" Transcript, ?ne 3?38). Freponad basking yea my: guess we jigs: have: to go 0m and shoe: 3 ac mm: 885 person? lines 142~143). hearing you say: ?if they?ra biack and hamdess- {anm?pn line 170}. reported hearing you 3213;: out and sham bias}; - than: 01' kiil them? ranger: cpancd hearing you say: "if you came across a guy in a sui: and tit: {1131032116 downtuwn and had a link: me much to drink, he?s: probabiy not the guy you want to dew): here dowu at the garagc, He will mosi iikeiy sue ygu. if it?s a homeless guy, you? 11 pmbabi}; be safe. I doubt he?s gning It) 5126 you" script, page lines 16?} ?wail 1m}: jug: g0 0m and ki? ad! the biack peapie" ranscr?m. ?ne 25 7). a reported hearing yen say: ?If they?re biack, just Show than" -l"ranscript, Hm: You init?a?y stated that: yen made {he abnvc statements ?gh? before mi! nail in {be Locker {mm You same-d 1316: you bsiievcd a Large patina of the folks in that re}? call gathered that- your rmark was a satiricai commi on media. You 3511ch is? a supervisor it?; make a seminar}: such as ?ag: ml! cm? (LA interview, March 16, 203 7, ?ne 41 8). You also 3:33:63: Z??eif, again, zizc conversaaz?on abom? g'?i wag a ?ack gm: we wmidjusz Show them, is Izzappr?opz'iale and, a5 :2 .Supenxisar, should have been aware offha: and {bought a lime more pfainb: about what if is 1435:; 502ng and the message I was delivering and {2034? if was received. interview? ?nes 459-461} Yam were asked if yen felt your som1en?& standing On their awn! wouid be considered by many in our society to be a comment with racia} avenones. Yin: rcpiic?: ?Yes, as I pram sure I mentioned mn?z?gr" Emcwicw ?ne 544}. You had siaisd cariier: Sergeant Gregg Lewis. #32515, PRNR #199009 January 12, 2018 1A Case 20113-0008 Page 9 can zwdersrond how peopie wom?d {him} ma! Iizere wows? be a mange mom-wow: or flag! woufo? be on! ofconrex: to beer (has. 815:, again. i! was no! n-aozivafed by (my redo? thing, i: Trying-Io kind of, in sarcasfic Jone, iz?ghh?glzr Ibis 5=fii1rszagf?zoz was in {he media, Imen?iew, lines 366?368) imresiigator-eskcd you if your intention was to make a sarcastic comment. You replied: 2?85, arm?jm! f0 kind ofirgjecf I though: was 501?; afar; ironic humor Io {he {he media andjusz 1:3? people see 3123.5, azaa?jusz or: kind 9be able Io brush Ibo! sif?ness of?ng? go em and do Ifmirjob and not warm: abouz {he 85 stt'o?zizo: she}? see 2'32 the media. (1A lines 378-380) lnvesiigator-askcd you whether this statement went against your training. You replied: I think in cwmnunicar?ion sense does, bm?, again, I had no intention. There was no: the: was no! the message 1 was trying {0 deliver, 50 in the strides: sense, yes, would probobf}? be in w?oiarion a?oat, buz. again, no! wharf intended to deffver in the message. (1A interview, lines 397-399) You were asked to read the de?nitions of harassment on page two of HRAR 2.02. You were then asked if your comment? cook} have been a vioiation of 2.02. You replied: ?Based on thaz? sentence, yes (Lewis TR, page 31, ?ne 506). You were asked to read the par: 2.02 that Speaks to managerfsupervisor speci?cally the section stating, "Managers and supewisors shaii enforce this rule and maintain a productive, respectful and professional workpiece.? You were asked if your comment complied with the spirit of this section of the mic, to which you replied: "No (IA mica-view, line 514), You stated in your closing remarks: understand Iize 2.02 and regardiess ofmy :?nzem I understand 112a}? somebody couZd rake o?mse to this, Eur? wasjusf {gong Io Jzz?ghir'ghr {his ridicuious srtr?khor was in the media, bring peopz?e back down fax? to ground, {he officers, you ?mow, I beZiwe a large portion of?ze folks in ziaa: r05} 03?? garhered {hat {his was (a sorz'rfca? comment on media, but {(jusr kind of hurts me rho-r if getspoz'nrea? in rocz'of because there was never any .rfnriezza? 20 make than So. yeah, I 'm Sorry. was going to try zo gel rhea our com? {indeapherablei So (he: was 92!, Ijuse? wowed to throw that 0112? there. BER, as a resuit of its investigation, subsiantiatcd the complaint that you made an ioappropriaie statement that was derogatory towards individuals in a protccled c3335 (African Americans) when you commented to of?cers at roll call that, when approaching a potemiak ?e?zox subject, words to the effect of, ?sz83$ if ?5 a cigar}: guy, wejusf Shoo: {Ire-m You admitted making this stetcmeoi in a Sergeant Gregg Lewis, #22515, PRNR $99009 January 12, 8 IA Case ZONE-0008 Page 10 workplace setting but you continued to assert. throughout your interview, it was not your intent to be offensive or make a comment with racial overtones. As provided in HRAR 2.02, the intent or consent of the persons engaging in the inappropriate conduct does not matter. The statement you made meets the de?nition of harassment under HRAR 202 because it is verbal conducr that shows hostility towards an individual, related to the individuals protected status. BHR concluded your statements violated the ManagerXSupervisor Expectations as outlined in HRAR 2.02: Managers and supervisors shall enforce this rule and maintain a productive, respectful and professional workplace. Managers and supervisors are responsible for ensuring that notes, comments, posters and other materials on walls, bulletin boards or elsewhere in the workplace, that are derogatory or Show hostility toward an individual or group because of protected status are removed. Managers and supervisors are expected to educate and remind employees about the impropriety of these items as well as the of okes, slurs, or other negative verbal comments that violate this rule. BHR found your statement also violated HRAR 2.02 in that they implied tacit approval to harass, discriminate, use violence and/or engage in other forms of inappropriate conduct towards members of a protected class. BHR found your statement met the de?nition of discrimination under HRAR 2.02 because, in effect, you were instructing officers to apply unequal or different treatment of an individual on the basis of their protected Status. BHR also found your statement violated HRAR 2.02 because managers and supervisors are required to remove from the workplace comments that are derogatory or show hostility towards an individual or group because of protected status and are required to educate and remind employees about the impropriety and mappropriateoess ofjokes, slurs or other negative verbal comments that violate HRAR2.02. BHR concluded the complaint against you substantiated: You violated HEAR 2.02 when, on February 12, 2017, while in the workplace and sewing as the actingSupewisor, you made a discriminatory, derogatory and harassing inappropriate statement about an individual or group of - individuals on the basis of their protected status. You said you made the statement about shooting black people as an attempt a1 humor. Regardless of your intent, you conducted yourself in an unprofessional manner. Your comments violated Directive 344.05 Bias Based PolicingXPi-o?ling Prohibited and HRAR 2.02 - Egrhibition against Workplace Harassment. Discrimination and Retaliation. Your comments shocked your co-workers, caused harm and brought discredit to the organization, and undermined our efforts at building relationships within the community. Sergeant Gtegg Lewis, #323 5, PRNR #199009 El 2618 IA Case '20l 7-8-0008 Page ll UMMARY The Police Review Board met on August 2 201? and recommended the conclusion that you yioialed Directive 344.05 - Biased?Based Policingfli?ro?ling Prohibited, 3} 5.00 Laws, Rules, and Orders, 310.00 - Coodoct. Professional. Three board members believed your actions could have a signi?cant adverse impact on officer or public safety or to the professionalism of the Portland Police Bureau. Two board members believed your misconduct involved a willful disregard of Portland Police Bureau values and demonstrative a serious lack of integrity. One board member wem so far as to describe your actions as egregious and abhorrent. Board members also expressed concern that you engaged in such misconduct while serving in a leadership position as a police sergeant. Assistant Chief Davis agreed with the Police Review Board and also found you violated HEAR 2.02. You were provided with the opportunity to meet with me and present any infoonarion you wanted me to consider prior to making any ?nal disciplinary decision. We met on December 6, 2017. During our meeting, you explained the eveots of the day on February 13, 2017. You attributed the topic of conversation to irustratioo with how the media portrays police shootings. You described a conversation in the locker room as "hal?okirtg kinda weird comer-scrim? in {he locker room that preceded your roll call cornmeal. in providing context around detox actions, you explained that your discussion during roll call was about being articulate in the actions that you take and how you write a report. You described as ??ippanr? the remark you made ile ?wrogping up? roll call, that you communicated to me as, amass i! it a bide}: gay. and their wejus! shoot them. Your remarks can also he described as insensitive and ignorant. You explained the remark was a throwback to the conversation you had ten minutes earlier in the locker room. you didn?t know where- it came from, that you thought ?maybe it was sarcastic and that it didn?t go over very well. You adamantly denied having made the statement, ?PI-?eff fer ?sjusr go out and of? the biack peopie. You said it is difficult ?that {his is colored as a racial tiring have carefully considered the infomatioo you provided. While 1 recognize you dispute the exact words individuals cecall you using, the general nature of your comment about. ?shooting black people? is not in dispute. This comment was highly derogatory towards a class of individuals, was suggestive ofbiased based policing and was wholly inappropriate. Your remarks call into question our agency?s legitimacy: credibility and integiity, and our commitment to protect the community we serve in a compassionate, equitable and unbiased mariner. Ari aggravating factor is your rank as a supervisor. As a tenured police sergeant, you are expected to set an example and provide leadershio. Your actions and attitudes in?uence others. particularly younger officers who look to you for guidance and direction. You do not appear to acknowledge and accept responsibility for the unprofessional and unacceptable manner in which you communicated with other sergeants and officers at the roll call. Your remarks shocked and left a negative. impression on the of?cers and sergeants who were present. it does not appear you fully understand the impact of your statements and the implication that you were encouraging or condoning mistreatment of a grouo or class of individuals based on their race. Sergeant Gregg Lewis; #22515: PRNR #199809 January EB, 2018 IA Case 2017-8?0008 Page I2 Given the egregiousness of your bohax-?or, I have deiemined that terminaoon of your empioymen?r is the apprOpriate level of discipline in this matter, A copy of this 16116: wili be pIaoed in your personne} ?le. Under the provisions of the current labor agreement, you are emiiled to ?Ie a grievance: tioough your union, ifyou believe this action was no: for just cause. You are not being disciplined for politica'} or religious reasons, bur in good faith, and for the purpose of improving public service. MM.W mm 23,5101? DANIELLE Mr Date Chief of Folios Date, 7 TED WHEELER Mayor, Commissioner In Charge Read and Revie ed: V. . 225/5 ?zz/Z6? sgg?a?z oR?oo LEWIS #22515 Deterrime I??ertify that I have read and received a copy ofthis notice. c: Presidoni Daryl Tumor PPA Director Anna Kanwit - BEER Jewel} Gaddis BHR Police Bureau Personnel Fiie (201) Discipline File DMOfctp RECORD RETENTION: 10 years after separation AUTHORITY: OAR