COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
PERSONNEL BOARD
INVESTIGATION NO. 2018-001
INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT AT THE
LITTLE SANDY CORRECTIONAL COMPLEX
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
**

**

**

**

**

SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION
At the request of Personnel Cabinet Secretary Thomas B. Stephens, in December 2017,
the Personnel Board opened an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment of female
Correctional Officers by Correctional Sergeant Stephen Harper at the Little Sandy Correctional
Complex. In this investigation, the Personnel Board was primarily tasked with answering two
questions: 1. Did Sergeant Stephen Harper engage in sexual harassment of multiple female
employees at the Little Sandy Correctional Complex? 2. Was the Department of Corrections’
response and investigation of sexual harassment complaints legally sufficient, and does the
Department of Corrections’ handling of those allegations offer lessons for other agencies going
forward?
After conducting a thorough investigation, the Investigator finds:
1.

Stephen Harper harassed multiple female employees of the Little Sandy

Correctional Complex (“LSCC”), violating 1) the Executive Branch’s Sexual Harassment Policy,
2) Corrections Policy and Procedure 3.5 on Sexual Harassment, and 3) KRS 18A.140(1).
2.

The Department of Corrections’ response and investigation of the harassment

claims against Harper were insufficient.

Although the Department of Corrections had a

harassment policy in place and conducted annual training on sexual harassment with its
employees, the Department of Corrections: 1) did not conduct adequate investigations of
allegations that came to its attention, 2) did not ensure that the individual who conducted the
investigations was properly trained, 3) did not maintain adequate documentation of its
investigations, and 4) did not include an independent review of investigation findings and
procedures. In one instance, a report of sexual harassment was not investigated at all. Many

 Investigation Report and Recommendation
Page 2
interviews were conducted without an investigation plan. In addition, the investigation revealed
that a culture existed within LSCC, which may have contributed to acts of sexual harassment and
a reluctance to report allegations of sexual harassment.
INITIATION OF THE INVESTIGATION
At the December 2017 Personnel Board meeting, Personnel Cabinet Secretary Thomas B.
Stephens submitted a written request to the Personnel Board to conduct an investigation into
sexual harassment allegations at the Little Sandy Correctional Complex (LSCC). A copy of this
letter is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Report and Recommendation Attachment
A. The Personnel Board assigned the investigation to Executive Director Mark A. Sipek.
At the January 2018 Personnel Board meeting, the Board was informed that, at Mr.
Sipek’s request, Board members Katie Monteiro and Tanya Lawrence would be assisting with
the investigation. Based on Secretary Stephens’ letter, the investigators were aware of a general
timeline of events; these allegations of sexual harassment first came to light in 2013, a lawsuit
was initiated in 2014, and a jury verdict occurred in 2017. The investigators decided that they
would conduct their own interviews of witnesses, but would also review previous investigations
and testimony provided during litigation.
After contact with the Justice and Public Safety Cabinet Secretary John Tilley and
General Counsel Andrew English, the investigators learned that the Hon. Edward Baylous was
designated as the representative of the Justice and Public Safety Cabinet for this investigation.
Baylous also was the counsel of record for the underlying litigation, Donna Adkins vs. Stephen
Harper, 2014-CI-061 and 2017-CI-075, as well as other related cases.
THE BOARD’S INVESTIGATIVE TEAM
1.

During the course of the investigation, the investigative team reviewed thousands

of pages of documentation, including personnel files, occurrence reports, investigation reports,
emails, policies, shift rosters, logs, medical records, training materials, and calendars.

In

addition, the team also reviewed court records, including legal complaints, court orders,
depositions, and settlement agreements. Moreover, court records from other relevant civil and
criminal litigation were reviewed.

Video recordings were reviewed, including the Steptoe

 Investigation Report and Recommendation
Page 3
interviews, the New York Times report, Internal Affairs interviews, a Kentucky State Police
interview, deposition testimony, in addition to testimony from both the injunction hearing and the
jury trial in the matter of Adkins v. Harper. Audio recordings from Internal Affairs and the
LSCC Personnel Office were also reviewed.
2.

The investigators reviewed all sexual harassment complaints and investigations

conducted at LSCC since the facility opened in 2005. The investigators also reviewed other
investigations conducted by the Department of Corrections from 2013 through 2018.
3.

The investigators also conducted 68 interviews with 57 witnesses. All interviews

were recorded and all witnesses testified under oath.
4.

General Counsel Stafford Easterling was available to assist the investigative team

with background matters including, but not limited to, legal research, strategy, logistics,
document review, and editing. However, it was determined that he would not be involved in
conducting interviews of witnesses based on his employment with the Justice and Public Safety
Cabinet while these matters were investigated and litigated.
5.

Although Board Members Katie Monteiro and Tanya Lawrence participated in all

aspects of the investigation, this Report and Recommendation is solely the work of Investigator
Mark A. Sipek.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1.

Stephen Harper was a Correctional Sergeant employed at LSCC. He was hired

as a Correctional Officer in 2005 and was promoted to a Correctional Sergeant in 2009. In 2012,
2013, and most of 2014, Harper was a Correctional Sergeant assigned to first shift. He resigned
his position as a Correctional Sergeant at LSCC in November 2018.
2.

On May 24, 2013, Correctional Officers (“CO”) Colleen Payton and Laura

Mayse approached Shift Captain Terry Wallace with complaints regarding Harper. Payton and
Mayse were not willing to put a report in writing so, pursuant to policy, Wallace filed a report
based on what they had told him. A copy of Wallace’s report, dated May 24, 2013, is attached
hereto and incorporated herein as Report and Recommendation Attachment B. In the written
report, Wallace stated Payton alleged she was sexually harassed by Harper on at least three (3)
occasions. She stated Harper had unzipped his pants, exposed his penis to her, attempted to
place his hands down her shirt, and had attempted to put his hands down the back of her pants.

 Investigation Report and Recommendation
Page 4
Mayse stated that Harper had attempted to remove her shirt, exposed his penis to her in the
Tower, and attempted to pull her into the chemical closet in the Special Management Unit
(“SMU”). Wallace wrote that both Payton and Mayse stated that Harper was also harassing
another Correctional Officer, Angie Markwell. One incident with Markwell was alleged to have
been witnessed by Sgt. Shawn Ramey. Wallace reported that he asked Harper if any of this was
going on, and Harper denied it. Wallace told Harper that if anything was going on, it needed to
stop immediately, and that he was not to have any contact with the officers mentioned in the
report. Wallace’s report was forwarded to the Warden’s office. Warden Joseph Meko was not at
work and the report was reviewed by acting Warden Mary Godfrey.
3.

Wallace’s report was reviewed by Warden Meko on May 29, 2013. Meko stated

that the report should be forwarded to Serena Waddell, LSCC Human Resource AdministratorInstitutional, for a sexual harassment investigation. Meko also ordered that Harper should be
ordered to cease and desist and the employees should be kept separated.
4.

Stephanie Appel, Executive Director, Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, Office

of Management and Administrative Services, was informed of the complaint. This may have
been by a telephone call, as no documentation of this communication exists. Appel agreed with
the selection of Waddell to conduct the investigation.
5.

Waddell conducted her investigation, which included interviewing Payton, Mayse,

Ramey, Markwell, and Harper. After summarizing the statements of the witnesses, Waddell
concluded her report by stating:
Upon speaking to all of the individuals involved in Captain
Wallace’s report, I have come to the conclusion that the claim of
sexual harassment is unsubstantiated. Because both CO Payton
and CO Dennis1 refuse to put the claim in writing, and because CO
Dennis refused to give me details about her experience. If it did
happen, I think she would have told me what happened. CO
Payton did not give vivid details about where she was and what
happened in those places. Sgt. Harper, on the other hand, was very
matter of fact with me, as if he had nothing to hide, and denied
doing any of the things he was being accused of.
Also, CO Angela Markwell stated that Sgt. Harper had not done
anything to her and Sgt. Ramey said he did not witness Sgt. Harper
1 At the time of the alleged incidents, Laura Mayse was married to Dwight Dennis. In this report, she is

referred to as “Laura Mayse,” however, in some attached documentation she is referred to as “Laura
Dennis.”

 Investigation Report and Recommendation
Page 5
doing anything inappropriate at entry post to CO Markwell. When
I learned that CO Markwell contacted Sgt. Harper about this matter
after I spoke to her, I could not help but think that she wouldn’t
have contacted him if Sgt. Harper did in fact expose himself to CO
Markwell.
In conclusion, I find that the allegations made by CO Colleen
Payton and CO Laura Dennis are unsubstantiated, and Sgt. Harper
has been falsely accused.
6.

Waddell submitted her report to Warden Meko on June 19, 2013.

In a

handwritten note, Meko stated that he reviewed the investigation on the same date and wrote
“not sustained.” A copy of Waddell’s report entitled “Investigation of Incidents Reported to
Captain Terry Wallace by Colleen Payton and Laura Dennis on May 24, 2013” is attached
hereto and incorporated herein as Report and Recommendation Attachment C.
7.

Correctional Officer James Griffith prepared an undated report alleging that he

was working in Segregation with Correctional Officers Greg Banas, Steffan Jones, Payton, and
Harper when Payton showed a tattoo on her “right butt cheek” to the other staff members. The
tattoo was described as 1 1/2” to 2” in diameter and looked like a flower. This Occurrence
Report was reviewed by Meko on June 21, 2013. He wrote a note stating, “Referred to include
in investigation of staff with Personnel.” Waddell investigated this matter, interviewing Harper,
Banas, Griffith, and Payton. Griffith and Harper said that the tattoo was on Payton’s butt cheek,
and she pulled her pants down and showed the tattoo. Payton denied she pulled her pants down,
said the tattoo was on her hip, and she pulled the edge of her pants down to show the tattoo. At
that time, Payton said the incident happened three or four months ago; Harper said this
happened two or three months ago. Waddell reviewed day shift duty rosters beginning January
1, 2013, and only found one day in which Harper, Jones, Banas, Griffin, and Payton were
working in Segregation together, which was May 2, 2013. At the end of her report, Waddell
noted, “If May 2, 2013, is in fact the date that this took place, this would have happened during
the time CO Payton claimed she was being sexually harassed.” A copy of the investigation
report prepared by Waddell entitled “Investigation of Segregation Incident Involving Sergeant
Stephen Harper, CO Colleen Payton, CO James Griffith, CO Gregory Banas, and CO Steffan
Jones as Reported by CO James Griffith on June 21, 2013” is attached hereto and incorporated

 Investigation Report and Recommendation
Page 6
herein as Report and Recommendation Attachment D. Waddell completed this report on July
9, 2013.
8.

Meko prepared a memo, dated July 22, 2013, informing Payton and Harper of the

outcome of the sexual harassment investigation. Mayse was not informed of the outcome of the
sexual harassment investigation. The memo to Payton read, “This is to notify you that the
investigation on the claim of alleged sexual harassment you filed against Sergeant Stephen
Harper is complete. I have determined that this claim is not sustained.” Deputy Warden David
Green issued this memorandum to Payton on August 1, 2013, at 1:13 p.m. On the same date,
Payton and Harper both received written reprimands. Payton was reprimanded for showing her
tattoo in the Segregation Unit. Harper was reprimanded for not reporting the tattoo incident.
9.

Before she heard the results of the sexual harassment or tattoo investigation,

Payton sent an email to Stephanie Appel, Executive Director, Justice and Public Safety Cabinet,
Office of Management and Administrative Services. A copy of this email is attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Report and Recommendation Attachment E. In her email, Payton
outlines the allegations she told to Captain Terry Wallace, as well as the allegations involving
Laura Mayse and Angie Markwell. She added that Harper had been placed in the Central
Control most of the time since the alleged sexual harassment occurred. Harper had also been the
Yard supervisor and Segregation supervisor. Payton asked Appel to check into this matter
because she feared retaliation. She felt as though “this matter had been put aside with no real
corrective action.” Appel emailed Deputy Commissioner James Erwin on August 1, 2013,
asking if Erwin knew if the Professional Standards Unit (“PSU”) investigated or followed-up on
this complaint. Erwin responded on the same date that LSCC completed the investigation and
took action. He did not see any need for PSU to investigate. Erwin stated he asked LSCC to
send the investigation for Appel’s review to make sure it was done appropriately.
10.

Later, in a series of emails from August 20, 2013, through August 22, 2013,

Appel requested a copy of the investigation from Waddell and Warden Meko.
11.

On August 30, 2013, after reviewing copies of the investigation report, Appel

emailed Payton and stated, “It appears this matter was investigation (sic) was completed and
final action has been taken on this issue.”
12.

On December 16, 2013, Sergeant Dovie Kelly submitted a written report to

Deputy Warden Green detailing reports of sexual harassment she had heard. Kelly advised

 Investigation Report and Recommendation
Page 7
Green of a conversation she had with Payton. Payton advised that she filed a sexual harassment
complaint against Harper and it did not go anywhere because of a lack of evidence. She also
advised that the same Sergeant harassed another CO, Angie Markwell. Kelly further reported
that the last time she worked with CO Lisa Suliman, she heard about the lack of action on
Payton’s allegations and her perception that LSCC management wrote her up for the tattoo
incident because she could not prove her allegations against Harper. Suliman stated that is why
she would not report Harper’s harassment, because nothing would be done. Suliman also said
she believed Payton’s allegations because he has done something similar to her as well. Kelly
wrote that she had advised Payton to speak to an attorney. She stated she wrote the report “under
duress and duty,” and she wanted to “protect the female staff.” A copy of Kelly’s report is
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Report and Recommendation Attachment F.
13.

According to an email exchange between Waddell and Appel, the two of them

spoke on the telephone on December 17, 2013. Waddell sent an email to Appel, asking if they
need to do anything else regarding the Harper harassment investigation in response to Kelly’s
statement. Waddell stated, “We consider our investigation of the harassment claim complete.”
Waddell also asked if they needed to respond to Kelly, either verbally or in writing, letting her
know the investigation is complete. Waddell ended by asking, “We don’t need to get anyone else
involved, do we, such as start up another investigation?”
14.

A Cease and Desist Memorandum was prepared from Warden Meko to Kelly,

dated December 20, 2013. The short directive is attached hereto and incorporated herein as
Report and Recommendation Attachment G. The Memo to Kelly reads as follows: “It has
come to our attention that you may be conducting an independent, private investigation regarding
a sexual harassment complaint during your work hours. If you are doing so, you are being
ordered at this time to not conduct this activity during work hours, as this is not your assigned
duty as a Correctional Sergeant. You are to cease and desist this activity immediately.” Deputy
Warden David Green issued the memorandum to Kelly on December 23, 2013.
15.

On December 26, 2013, Waddell sent an email to Appel regarding Kelly’s

harassment report and the Cease and Desist memo. In this email, Waddell stated, in part:
“Sergeant Dovie Kelly has been using state time to ask other staff questions regarding a sexual
harassment case we have already investigated and closed. We feel that she is doing so in order to
get information to try to ‘benefit’ her case regarding her grievance, where she was not selected

 Investigation Report and Recommendation
Page 8
for C and T Officer (Classification and Treatment Officer) I. The staff she has been questioning
complained about this.” No investigation was conducted on Kelly’s December 16, 2013 report,
despite the fact that Suliman’s complaint of being sexually harassed by Harper had never been
investigated.
16.

Kelly was issued another Cease and Desist memo in June 2014.

17.

Next, a series of Occurrence Reports were filed on August 28, 2014. These

reports were filed by Kelly, Officer Linda Smith, and Senior Captain Danny McGraw. Kelly
reported that Smith was upset while they were both working in Central Control. Smith was upset
because she had been moved out of working in Laundry and was told that Harper had said that a
female should not be working in Laundry. She also reported that, when she was walking to her
vehicle in the parking lot, someone was approaching behind her in a vehicle, driving fast and still
accelerating. Smith turned around, looked, and saw that it was Harper driving the vehicle.
18.

Smith filed a written report alleging that she had been told that, according to

Harper, females were not to work in Laundry. As set out in Smith’s report, Donna Adkins told
Smith that Harper had grabbed Adkins in a stairwell, was hugging on her, had her pinned up
against a wall, unzipped his pants, and had his penis out. Adkins had been seeing a psychiatrist
as a result of that incident. Adkins told Smith not to report this because of previous problems
Adkins had at LSCC.
19.

In McGraw’s report, McGraw stated he was called to Central Control by Kelly,

stating that Smith needed to talk to him. Smith detailed the allegations set out above to
McGraw. McGraw told Smith to put the allegations in an Occurrence Report and turn them in to
him immediately. Kelly then asked to speak with McGraw privately. Kelly told McGraw that
she had additional information that Lisa Suliman was told by Adkins that Adkins had been
harassed by Harper. Kelly said she was told by Suliman about the harassment “about a week
ago.” McGraw informed Kelly that her delay in reporting these allegations was against the
applicable policy and procedure. Kelly stated she knew that the delay was contrary to policy, but
said that, if she again reported harassment, she was in fear of retaliation from the administration.
20.

On August 29, 2014, Danny McGraw spoke with Stephen Harper and asked if he

had done anything inappropriate with Donna Adkins. Harper stated that he did not do anything
inappropriate with Adkins and prepared a written report. He also stated that McGraw advised

 Investigation Report and Recommendation
Page 9
him not to speak with Adkins until the investigation was complete. This report was sent to
Warden Meko for review.
21.

On September 11, 2014, Adkins, who had been off work since the August 28,

2014 reports, returned to work and filed a handwritten report, outlining her complaints against
Harper. A copy of this complaint is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Report and
Recommendation Attachment H. In her report, Adkins stated she was working in E-Dorm and
CO Doug Preston was working in H-Dorm the day Harper assaulted her. She could not recall
the date. Harper came in E-Dorm doing his Fire, Safety, & Sanitation walk-through. Harper
asked Adkins to go with him to check out the stairwell to make sure it was clean. While coming
down the stairs, she stated Harper slapped her on the butt. She told him to stop. When they got
to the bottom of the stairs, Harper unzipped his pants and pulled out his penis. She told him to
stop. Harper then grabbed her from behind, started kissing her neck and hugging her. Next,
Harper pushed her against the wall and started touching her breasts. Harper grabbed Adkins’
hand and put it on his penis. Adkins freed her hand and, while her hand was free, Adkins hit him
in the stomach and said, “Here comes an inmate.” She exited the stairwell. Adkins recalled that
Preston was standing in the Cab, bouncing a ball, and stated, “I thought you were having a drill.”
Harper laughed. When Adkins got home from work, she called Linda Smith and told her what
had happened. Adkins also included in her report that Harper had tried to follow her home
several times on various Sundays.
22.

Adkins’ report was reviewed by McGraw, Deputy Warden David Green, and

Warden Meko. Upon reviewing the report, they believed that Adkins had alleged criminal
conduct on the part of Harper. As a result, they contacted the Kentucky State Police Detective
Donnie McGraw who investigated events at LSCC. Detective McGraw is the twin brother of
Senior Captain Danny McGraw.
23.

Detective McGraw arrived at LSCC and interviewed Adkins regarding her

allegations. Adkins related to Detective McGraw the events she had outlined in her handwritten
report.

Detective McGraw recorded this interview on a digital audio recorder.

Detective

McGraw also conducted a short interview with Stephen Harper on the same date. Detective
McGraw is not sure if Harper’s interview was recorded; however, during the interview, Harper
denied the allegations and said that it did not happen.

 Investigation Report and Recommendation
Page 10
24.

Detective McGraw stated that based on what he had heard, he thought it sounded

like sexual abuse, third degree, which was a misdemeanor.

He based this on all of the

information from these two interviews, including statements Adkins made about the timeframe
of the incident. Based on Adkins’ description of events, McGraw concluded the events were well
over a year old at the time of the interview. He contacted the Commonwealth Attorney, who
confirmed there would be no charge after a year. After the interview, Adkins was supposed to
contact Detective McGraw if she wished to pursue criminal charges. Detective McGraw stated
he never heard from Adkins regarding these events. No criminal charges were ever filed against
Harper based on Adkins’ allegations.
25.

On November 11, 2014, Adkins reported that Linda Smith had told her that

Harper had inappropriately touched her and that Smith was afraid to report it because of
retaliation. This matter was forwarded to Warden Meko for review, who indicated it should be
made a part of the investigation by Serena Waddell.
26.

Adkins, Linda Smith, Colleen Payton, and Lisa Suliman (“the Plaintiffs”) met

with attorneys Bill Slone and Ned Pillersdorf on September 16, 2014. They filed a lawsuit
against Harper, Warden Joseph Meko, and the Department of Corrections on September 22,
2014. The lawsuit claimed violations of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act, including discrimination
based on sex and a hostile work environment. The complaint also included tort claims, including
assault, battery, negligence, gross negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and
outrageous conduct.

The Plaintiffs sought compensatory damages for pain and suffering,

humiliation, medical expenses, as well as punitive damages.
27.

Along with the complaint, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Temporary Injunction

and/or Restraining Order with affidavits attached. All four of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed
affidavits outlining the instances of sexual harassment they alleged against Harper.

The

affidavits from Suliman and Smith were the first time the specifics of their complaints had been
placed in writing. All four affidavits are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Report and
Recommendation Attachment I.
28.

As a result of the complaints involving Smith and Adkins, Serena Waddell

conducted additional interviews. With respect to Smith’s allegations, Waddell interviewed Smith
on September 10, 2014, regarding the allegations that women should not work in the Laundry
and the parking lot incident. Waddell was unaware that Smith would go on to allege that Harper

 Investigation Report and Recommendation
Page 11
harassed her while Smith and Harper worked together in the Laundry, so Waddell did not
investigate those harassment allegations. Coincidentally, Waddell interviewed Pam Griffith and
Harper regarding the Laundry and parking lot allegations on the same day the Plaintiffs filed
their civil suit, on September 22, 2014.
29.

In Waddell’s interview with Harper on September 22, 2014, she did, however,

discuss Adkins’ allegations of sexual harassment or assault against Harper. Waddell then
interviewed Lisa Suliman on September 22, 2014, and interviewed Doug Preston on September
24, 2014, both regarding Adkins’ allegations. Recordings were produced of all of the interviews,
except for Suliman’s interview. Suliman stated she did not want to discuss these matters with
Waddell based on the advice of counsel. Suliman said she was afraid of getting fired and
mentioned a former Correctional Officer who complained about a former Deputy Warden at
LSCC. Suliman started to cry and stated that she had been harassed. According to Waddell’s
report, Suliman would not give any additional information.
30.

On October 23, 2014, the Elliott Circuit Court conducted a hearing on Plaintiffs’

motion for injunctive relief.

All four of the Plaintiffs testified about Harper’s alleged

harassment.
31.

Warden Joseph Meko also testified at the hearing that, of the four Plaintiffs, only

the complaint of Colleen Payton had been investigated to conclusion.

He said the

investigation’s finding was that her complaint was unsubstantiated; however, he indicated that
additional information could result in a different determination. All of the other investigations
were ongoing, and Meko stated he was willing to receive any additional information from the
Plaintiffs. With regard to the criminal investigation of Donna Adkins’ allegations against
Harper, Meko advised that, at the time of the hearing, he had received no final determination
from the Kentucky State Police regarding the criminal complaint.
32.

Serena Waddell also interviewed Debbie Fraley on November 14, 2014,

regarding a report Fraley had written, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as
Report and Recommendation Attachment J. This report was regarding Suliman telling Fraley
that Harper had harassed her sometime in 2013.
33.

At the request of Ed Baylous, counsel for the Justice and Public Safety Cabinet,

the Internal Affairs Branch from the Department of Corrections’ Central Office conducted an
investigation on February 2, 2015, and February 3, 2015.

This investigation consisted of

 Investigation Report and Recommendation
Page 12
interviews of Laura Mayse and Fraley, conducted by Internal Affairs Investigators Mark
Wasson and Captain Michael Williams. In addition, members of the DOC’s IA investigative
team attempted contact with several former female employees of LSCC. They were able to
contact five (5) former employees, one of whom said she had been the victim of sexual
harassment while she was employed at LSCC. A second stated she was never the victim of
sexual harassment, however, she did report she was uncomfortable around certain supervisors.
The other three former employees said they had never been the victim or the witness to any
sexual harassment. None of the incidents of sexual harassment involved Harper.
34.

Jennifer Dennis joined the lawsuit on or about April 1, 2015.

She made

allegations of harassment against Harper. No documentation exists regarding these allegations.
Dennis alleged she reported these incidents to Laura Mayse at a time when Mayse was a
supervisor and was an appropriate party to whom to report such complaints. No investigation
was conducted by the DOC regarding these allegations before Dennis became a party to the
lawsuit.
35.

While the litigation was underway, a report was prepared by Captain Terry

Wallace on August 13, 2015, stating that Colleen Payton came to his office and told him about
an event that happened at the 2012 Joint Corrections Emergency Response Team (CERT)
training. She stated that, amongst other actions, Harper came to her hotel room and knocked on
the door. She did not answer the knock. She stated that Harper had harassed her so much at that
training, she had asked Lieutenant Alvin Gillum to tell Harper to stop. Wallace asked Payton to
write a report and she refused. Although she would not write a report, Payton signed Wallace’s
report. Serena Waddell interviewed Payton about these allegations, and also obtained a written
report from Gillum. No report was requested or obtained from Harper. No one interviewed
Harper regarding these allegations.
CONDENSED SUMMARY
OF THE ALLEGATIONS OF HARASSMENT
AGAINST STEPHEN HARPER
The following summary of the allegations against Sergeant Stephen Harper are presented
in the order they became known to LSCC management.

 Investigation Report and Recommendation
Page 13
Colleen Payton
1.

On May 24, 2013, Colleen Payton reported to Captain Terry Wallace that Harper

had sexually harassed her on at least three (3) occasions. Payton alleged Harper had unzipped
his pants and exposed his penis to her. Harper had also walked up behind Payton while she was
seated and attempted to place his hands down her shirt. On another occasion, Harper attempted
to put his hands down the back of Payton’s pants. Payton refused to write a report.
2.

Payton alleged that Harper harassed her on four occasions. She alleged that

Harper harassed her on February 2, 2013, in Central Control; February 20, 2013, in the Tower;
and on two occasions in April 2013, while working in Segregation. Payton alleges Harper
exposed his penis and groped her on all occasions.
Laura Mayse
3.

Also on May 24, 2013, Mayse told Wallace that Harper had attempted to

remove her shirt while he was inspecting the Tower. She also alleged Harper exposed his penis
to her while they were in the Tower. On another occasion, Harper attempted to pull her into a
chemical closet in Segregation. Mayse refused to write a report.
4.

Mayse denied that Harper harassed her when she was interviewed in this

investigation.
Angie Markwell
5.

On May 24, 2013, Payton and Mayse both told Wallace that Harper was also

harassing another correctional officer, Angie Markwell. No additional details were provided,
except that Sergeant Shawn Ramey witnessed that one incident of harassment.
6.

Markwell has consistently denied that Harper harassed her or did anything

inappropriate towards her.
Lisa Suliman
7.

On December 16, 2013, Sergeant Dovie Kelly reported to Deputy Warden David

Green that the last time she worked with Lisa Suliman, Suliman told Kelly she had heard about
“Payton’s thing” and “he” had done the same thing to her. She stated she was not going to report
it, because nothing is ever done.

 Investigation Report and Recommendation
Page 14
8.

Suliman submitted an affidavit, dated September 16, 2014, along with her lawsuit

and a Motion for a Temporary Injunction. The lawsuit was filed September 22, 2014. In the
affidavit, Suliman alleged that, in March 2013, Harper followed her into a bathroom in the
Segregation Unit and exposed his private parts. She estimated that on thirty (30) different
occasions, Harper had touched her in an inappropriate manner. She alleged these inappropriate
touchings included grabbing her breasts, grabbing her buttocks, and grabbing her hand in an
attempt to make her touch his penis. She stated she did not make a formal report because she
believed if an LSCC employee complained about such sexual assaults, they would lose their job
or would be reprimanded in some fashion.
9.

Suliman determined that the date Harper harassed her in Segregation was January

17, 2013. She also alleged that, later that same day, Harper pinned her to the desk in the
Segregation supervisor’s office.
Donna Adkins
10.

On August 28, 2014, Dovie Kelly told Senior Captain Danny McGraw that she

had been told by Suliman that Donna Adkins had been harassed by Harper. On the same date,
Linda Smith filled out an Occurrence Report stating Adkins had told Smith that she was
grabbed by Harper in the stairwell of a dorm, that he was hugging on her, kissing her neck, had
her pinned up against the wall, and had unzipped his pants. He had his penis out.
11.

On September 11, 2014, Adkins turned in a written report to McGraw stating that

she did not remember the date or time the incident occurred, but she was working in E-Dorm and
Doug Preston was working in H-Dorm. Harper came into her dorm doing his Fire, Safety, and
Sanitation walk-through. Harper asked her to go with him to the stairwell to make sure it was
clean. They walked up to the upper level. When they were coming down the stairs, she stated
Harper slapped her on the butt. She told him to stop. When they got to the bottom level, he
unzipped his pants and pulled his penis out. She told him to stop again. Harper grabbed her
from behind, started kissing her neck, and hugging her. Harper pushed her up against the wall
and started touching her breasts. Harper grabbed Adkins’ hand and put it on his penis. Adkins
freed her hand and, while her hand was free, she hit him in the stomach. She then said, “Here
comes an inmate,” and exited the stairwell.

She stated Preston was standing in the Cab,

 Investigation Report and Recommendation
Page 15
bouncing a ball. When Adkins got home, she called Smith and told her what had happened.
Adkins also alleged that Harper tried to follow her home several times on various Sundays.
Linda Smith
12.

On September 11, 2014, Adkins told McGraw that Smith told her that Harper

had inappropriately touched her.

Smith was afraid to report it, because Harper was her

supervisor and she feared retaliation. Adkins put this in an Occurrence Report and turned it into
McGraw.
13.

In an affidavit attached to the lawsuit and the Motion for a Temporary Injunction,

Smith alleged that Harper had touched her breasts and buttocks on numerous occasions in the
Laundry at LSCC. Smith stated Harper sexually attacked her when he approached her from
behind and began to rub his private parts against her buttocks. She stated this attack stopped
when an inmate entered the room. Smith further alleged, in July 2014, Harper was with Smith in
a chemical room, exposed himself, and told her to touch his private parts. Smith refused and left
the room. Smith stated she did not report this incident because she was afraid of reprisals.
Lisa Brickey
14.

Payton alleged that she witnessed Harper comment on Unit Administrator Lisa

Brickey’s weight loss. Payton alleged that Harper approached Brickey, grabbed her by the rear
end, and stated, “Don’t lose any more weight in your butt.” Payton believed this incident
happened in April 2013. When Payton approached Brickey and asked her about it, Brickey
stated, “Oh, that’s just Harper.”
Jennifer Dennis
15.

CO Jennifer Dennis alleged that she witnessed Harper engage in a series of

“perverted” sexual behaviors while she was on duty at LSCC during 2011 and 2012. She alleged
she saw Harper standing in the bathroom with the lights off, exposing his penis while he was in
the process of masturbating. She alleged Harper also would touch her in a sexually offensive
manner. Dennis alleged, in July 2012, while working in the Segregation Unit, Harper exposed
his penis to Dennis and asked her to touch it. She also alleged that Harper assaulted her by
causing his penis to touch her arm. Dennis screamed and ran away from this event. Dennis

 Investigation Report and Recommendation
Page 16
immediately reported this incident to her supervisor, Laura Mayse2, who failed to properly
report this sexual assault to her supervisors. Other than this alleged report, Dennis’ allegations
were unknown until April 1, 2015.
Former Employee 1
16.

A former employee of LSCC alleges that when she was on duty at Building

Entry Post, Harper called out from a chemical closet to get her attention. When she looked over
at Harper, he had exposed his penis. The former employee yelled at Harper, at which time he
stopped. The former employee did not report this incident and did not consider it to be sexual
harassment because Harper stopped this behavior.
STANDARD FOR DETERMINING IF ALLEGATIONS ARE TRUE
1.

The main purpose of this investigation is to determine if Stephen Harper sexually

harassed women at the Little Sandy Correctional Complex. The Investigator heard the testimony
of a number of witnesses that Harper harassed multiple women at the prison. The Investigator
also heard from a number of witnesses who stated that the women lied about Harper and they
were not harassed. The Findings of Facts in this investigation involved making credibility
determinations with respect to these witnesses.
2.

Here are the standards the Investigator used in determining credibility in this

investigation:
a.

Is the witness impartial?
Does the witness have an economic gain to testify a particular way? Does

the witness have motivation to fabricate? Is the witness a close friend or sworn
enemy of the accused or accuser?
b.

Is there corroboration for this witness’ story?
Are there other witnesses or documents that support or rebut this story?

c.

Is the story consistent or has the witness’ story substantially changed

during the investigation?
Further, are the witness’ answers vague or are they evasive?
2 Laura Mayse was a Correctional Sergeant from October 1, 2009, to January 16, 2013, when she was demoted to
Correctional Officer. See Personnel Board Appeal No. 2013-018.

 Investigation Report and Recommendation
Page 17
d.

What is the chronology?

Does the witness’ timing of events match other witnesses or documents?
e.
3.

Is the story logically plausible?

The Investigator did not rely on witness demeanor in determining the credibility

of their testimony. The Investigator does not consider himself an expert in his ability to read
witnesses. It is hard to judge what is being communicated by a witness’ facial expression, body
language, or tone of voice. The Investigator recognizes that many of the witnesses were placed
in stressful situations answering questions during this investigation.
4.

The Investigator applied a preponderance of the evidence standard in finding

facts. In other words, a fact is true if it is more likely than not.
I.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Sexual Harassment Allegations Against Stephen Harper
The following Findings of Fact regarding the allegations against Sergeant Stephen Harper
are presented in order from the most credible allegations to the least. The Investigator hereby
incorporates the LSCC Investigative Summaries as if they were fully set out herein.
Former Employee 1
1.

The Investigator finds that Former Employee 1 was sexually harassed by

Stephen Harper when he exposed his penis to her.
2.

Former Employee I is a credible witness because she is impartial. She had

nothing to gain by testifying a particular way in this investigation. She had no reason to fabricate
her testimony that she was harassed by Harper. Former Employee 1 was a reluctant witness who
did not want to come forward and be a part of this investigation. She had no bias against Harper.
She did not think his conduct constituted sexual harassment because he stopped and it never
happened again. She was not biased in favor of the other women alleging Harper harassed them
and did not wish to be associated with them in any way.
3.

Former Employee 1’s testimony is corroborated by Former Employee 2 who

testified she told him about Harper’s conduct. Her testimony is also corroborated by documents

 Investigation Report and Recommendation
Page 18
produced during the investigation that she worked the Building Entry Post frequently and was
assigned there on a regular basis in 2012. Former Employee 1’s testimony was consistent with
her actions. She did not report Harper’s conduct because she did not believe it constituted sexual
harassment.
4.

The Investigator finds that Harper’s conduct towards Former Employee 1 was

unwelcome, demeaning, offensive, and directed at her because she is a female. The Investigator
finds that Harper’s conduct included vulgar and indecent gestures.
Colleen Payton
5.

The Investigator finds Colleen Payton was sexually harassed by Stephen Harper

on four occasions prior to May 24, 2013. The Investigator finds Payton’s testimony that she was
harassed by Harper more credible than Harper’s denials.
6.

The Investigator finds that neither Payton nor Harper are impartial.

7.

There is corroboration for Payton’s story in that the documentary evidence

establishes that she worked Central Control with Harper on February 2, 2013. The documents
also demonstrate that Payton worked the Tower and Segregation during the general timeframe of
her allegations. Payton’s testimony is also corroborated by Greg Banas who said she told him of
Harper’s harassment.
8.

Payton’s testimony has stayed consistent throughout. Payton’s answers were not

vague or evasive and she gave precise detail about Harper’s actions. The Investigator finds that
Payton did not fabricate her allegations of harassment against Stephen Harper because: 1) she
came forward with her allegations that Harper exposed his penis to her before she knew of the
allegations of Former Employee 1 and 2) she came forward on four separate occasions offering
the Department of Corrections a chance to take remedial measures regarding her complaints.
9.

The Investigator finds that Harper’s conduct towards Payton, including exposing

his penis, was unwelcome, demeaning, offensive, and directed at Payton because she is a female.
The Investigator finds that Harper’s conduct included vulgar or indecent gestures or language.

Donna Adkins

 Investigation Report and Recommendation
Page 19
10.

The Investigator finds that Stephen Harper sexually harassed Donna Adkins on

April 21, 2013, in E-Dorm. The Investigator finds Adkins testimony more credible than Harper’s
denial.
11.

Adkins testimony is corroborated by the E-Dorm log from April 21, 2013, which

shows that Donna Adkins was working in E-Dorm on that date. The log also demonstrates that
Stephen Harper entered the dorm to do a sanitation check in preparation for the ACA mock audit.
The log further demonstrates that the Yard supervisors, Sgt. Shawn Ramey and Lt. Alvin Gillum,
entered the dorm for their routine rounds. The shift rosters show that CO Doug Preston was
working in H-Dorm. Finally, the documentation for the ACA mock audit demonstrate that the
audit began on April 29, 2013.
12.

Adkins’ testimony is also corroborated by the testimony of CO Timmy Wagoner.

Wagoner testified that Adkins told him about Harper’s conduct and he witnessed her reaction
when Harper would enter the dorm.
13.

Moreover, Adkins’ testimony is corroborated by her medical records, which

demonstrate that she told her therapist about Harper’s conduct.
14.

Adkins’ testimony of the events with Stephen Harper have been completely

consistent. Although she has changed the alleged date of the incident, she has always stated
these events occurred in preparation for the ACA mock audit. The Investigator finds this
discrepancy does not detract from her credibility.
15.

The Investigator finds that Adkins did not fabricate her story because she accused

him of the exact misconduct he committed with Former Employee 1.
16.

The Investigator finds that Harper’s conduct was unwelcome, demeaning,

offensive, and directed at Adkins because she is a female. The Investigator finds that Harper’s
conduct included vulgar or indecent gestures and language.
Lisa Suliman
17.

The Investigator finds that Stephen Harper sexually harassed Lisa Suliman on

January 17, 2013, and other unspecified dates. The Investigator finds Suliman’s testimony more
credible than Harper’s denials.
18.

The Investigator finds that both Suliman and Harper are biased witnesses.

 Investigation Report and Recommendation
Page 20
19.

The Investigator finds that Suliman’s testimony is corroborated by:

1) the

Segregation log for January 17, 2013, 2) the shift roster for January 17, 2013, 3) the eyewitness
testimony of CO Barry Davis, CO Debbie Fraley, Sgt. Dovie Kelly, and Tim Suliman.
20.

The Investigator finds Suliman’s testimony is consistent with the exception that

she added the incident of Stephen Harper pinning her to a desk. The Investigator finds that this
testimony does not detract from her credibility because it is supported by eyewitness testimony
of Barry Davis.
21.

The Investigator finds that Suliman did not fabricate her testimony because she

came forward in December 2013 before she would have known there was credible evidence that
Harper exposed his penis to Former Employee 1.
22.

The Investigator finds that Harper’s conduct towards Suliman was unwelcome,

demeaning, offensive, and directed at Suliman because she is a female. The Investigator finds
that Harper’s conduct included vulgar or indecent gestures and language.
Jennifer Dennis
23.

The Investigator is unable to make a determination that Stephen Harper sexually

harassed Jennifer Dennis.
24.

The Investigator cannot determine that Dennis is more credible than Stephen

25.

The Investigator finds that both Dennis and Harper are biased witnesses.

26.

The Investigator did not find corroborating witnesses for Dennis’ testimony.

Harper.

Laura Mayse denies that Dennis reported Harper’s harassment to her.
27.

Dennis’ story has not stayed consistent. She initially alleged that Harper exposed

his penis to her on two occasions. She later testified that he exposed himself on three occasions.
28.

Based on the standards for determining a witness’ credibility set out above, the

Investigator does not make a finding that Stephen Harper harassed Jennifer Dennis.

The

Investigator reaches this conclusion based on Dennis’ inability to establish dates or times of the
incidents, and the fact that the number of incidents changed in her testimony. Accordingly, the
lack of corroboration from Laura Mayse and the lack of a contemporaneous report also make it
difficult to determine that these events happened.

 Investigation Report and Recommendation
Page 21
Linda Smith
29.

The Investigator is unable to make a determination that Stephen Harper sexually

harassed Linda Smith.
30.

The Investigator cannot determine that Smith is more credible than Stephen

31.

The Investigator does not find any corroborating witnesses or documentation for

Harper.
Smith’s claims.
32.

Smith’s testimony has not been consistent, as she cannot recall the number of

times she was harassed by Harper during her interview. Many of her answers were vague and
she stated she was having memory problems on the date of her interview. Therefore, based on
the standards for determining a witness’ credibility, the Investigator does not make a finding that
Harper harassed Linda Smith.
Laura Mayse
33.

The investigation revealed conflicting evidence regarding the allegations that

Stephen Harper harassed Laura Mayse. The Investigator finds he is without sufficient probative
evidence to determine whether Harper harassed Mayse.
Angie Markwell
34.

The Investigator does not find that Stephen Harper engaged in any sexually

harassing conduct towards Angie Markwell. Markwell and Harper deny that Harper engaged in
any inappropriate conduct. Their testimony is supported by Sgt. Shawn Ramey, who was
determined to be an impartial witness.
Lisa Brickey
35.

The Investigator does not find that Harper engaged in any sexually harassing

conduct towards Lisa Brickey. Harper denied that he engaged in any inappropriate conduct and
Brickey stated she did not know whether Harper did or did not. There is insufficient evidence to
corroborate the eyewitness account of Colleen Payton.

 Investigation Report and Recommendation
Page 22
Stephen Harper
36.

Stephen Harper has consistently denied all allegations involving all of the nine

women discussed in this report. Nonetheless, the Investigator finds that Harper harassed Former
Employee 1, Colleen Payton, Donna Adkins, and Lisa Suliman when he exposed his penis and
engaged in other inappropriate conduct.
II.

Department of Corrections’ Investigation
of Sexual Harassment Complaints

Sexual Harassment Policies and Training
1.

As set out in the EEOC guidelines and in United States Supreme Court cases,

employers have an obligation to try and prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. The best
way to do this is to have a policy in place, which prohibits sexual harassment and allows for a
complaint procedure, calls for prompt and effective investigation of complaints, and the
availability of prompt remedial action.
2.

The Personnel Cabinet, in the Employee Handbook, has a Sexual Harassment

Policy, as well as a Policy Statement on Harassment Prevention. This policy statement makes
clear that unwelcome sexual advances and physical conduct of a sexual nature that creates or has
the intention of creating a hostile or offensive working environment is prohibited.

The

provisions apply to all employees discussed in this investigation.
3.

In addition, the Department of Corrections has its own policy in place,

Corrections Policy and Procedures (CPP) 3.5, Sexual Harassment and Anti-Harassment. This
policy states that “Corrections employees shall avoid offensive or inappropriate conduct or
sexually harassing behavior at work.” As defined in the policy, prohibited behavior includes,
“vulgar or indecent gesture” and “threatening, demeaning, or offensive conduct directed toward
or regarding an individual because of his sex.” This policy provides that prohibited behavior
shall be reported to a supervisor, an EEO counselor, or the personnel administrator. CPP 3.5 also
provides for supervisors to document a complaint if the complaining employee is not willing to.
Another provision of this policy states that the supervisor is supposed to report this matter
directly to the Warden, who is to contact the Division of Personnel Services before taking further
action. With respect to investigations, this policy reads as follows:

 Investigation Report and Recommendation
Page 23
Depending upon the type and nature of the complaint, the personnel director shall
determine whether the investigation shall be conducted at the district or
institutional level, or by an outside investigator. The complainant, the alleged
harasser, and any witness may be asked to submit additional written statements
and may be interviewed. During the course of the investigation, the complainant
and the alleged harasser may be temporarily reassigned. The alleged harasser
may be placed on special investigative leave pursuant to 101 KAR 2:102.
This policy was applicable to all events reviewed during this investigation. A copy of
Corrections Policy and Procedures (CPP) 3.5, Sexual Harassment and Anti-Harassment is
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Report and Recommendation Attachment K.
4.

All of the employees involved in this matter, including Stephen Harper, received

sexual harassment training. They received this training in their initial training when they were
hired, as well as yearly in-service training. Sometimes sexual harassment was a classroom
course, and other times it was on-line training.
LSCC’s Investigations of the allegations against Harper
5.

This investigation revealed that there were four separate written reports that

employees were being harassed by Stephen Harper. All of these reports should have been
followed by a prompt, fair, and through investigation, conducted by a trained, impartial
investigator.
6.

This investigation also revealed that LSCC supervisors additionally received

numerous verbal reports of harassment. Pursuant to policy, these reports should have also
received some amount of appropriate follow-up, which did not happen in these matters.
7.

All investigations in this matter were conducted by Serena Waddell, who admitted

that she had no training in EEO investigations or in investigations at all.
8.

Only the May 24, 2013 investigation was completed by LSCC. Moreover, as

determined during the course of this investigation, it is unclear whether LSCC’s interviews were
recorded or not. If they were recorded, the recordings were lost. Notes were not maintained
with the investigation report. Witnesses who might have had crucial information were not

 Investigation Report and Recommendation
Page 24
interviewed. It appears only limited questions were asked of many witnesses without necessary
follow-up.
9.

No investigation at all was done of the December 16, 2013 report. Instead, the

supervisor who filed this report, Dovie Kelly, was given a Cease and Desist memo instructing
her to stop conducting sexual harassment investigations, if she was. These actions were counterproductive as they discouraged employees from coming forward with complaints and
discouraged supervisors from reporting complaints through the chain of command.
10.

Interviews were conducted following the August 28, 2014, and September 11,

2014 reports. There was no investigation planned and no investigation was completed. With
respect to the Donna Adkins’ complaint, it appears that LSCC relied on the Kentucky State
Police investigation; however, no one from LSCC communicated with the State Police regarding
the progress of this investigation.
11.

It is clear that an independent investigator was needed to review the reports of

sexual harassment in this matter. Both the investigator and the warden who looked at these
matters were too close to the situation to be impartial. Further, without any legal or policy
support for their position, both the investigator and the warden believed that reports of sexual
harassment submitted more than 24 hours after the event lacked credibility. These allegations of
sexual harassment were challenging to investigate fully and adequately; however, there was no
way to determine the facts with an incomplete and biased investigation.
12.

DOC’s investigation should have included a consultation with the Justice and

Public Safety Cabinet’s Office of Legal Services as soon as possible. This is because, based on
the nature of the allegations, litigation had to be considered a possibility no matter what LSCC
found during their investigation.
13.

On receiving the first complaint, Harper was ordered to have no contact with the

female officers. He was assigned to a post where he would have no physical contact with them.
However, stronger measures should have been considered, such as a temporary shift change or
even investigative leave pursuant to 101 KAR 2:102.
Atmosphere at LSCC
14.

The Investigators heard from a number of witnesses at LSCC that there was a

history of sexually harassing behavior by supervisors at the facility.

 Investigation Report and Recommendation
Page 25
15.

Many employees felt that management did not take these matters seriously, and

thought of it as a joking matter. Several witnesses referenced sexual harassment allegations
against a former Deputy Warden. It is alleged that a female employee who complained of sexual
harassment by the Deputy Warden lost her job. There were also general feelings from a number
of witnesses that sexual harassment complaints are “swept under the rug.”

The Board’s

investigation revealed a supervisor who had a number of complaints filed against him, none of
which were ever substantiated and no disciplinary action was ever taken. He has been promoted
three times since these complaints were made. Female employees told us they knew of his
reputation and they knew to stay away from him.
16.

In another instance, on three occasions, a current Lieutenant at LSCC has been

accused of sexual harassment and has admitted to the conduct all three times. Even more
concerning, scant record of these allegations are contained in that lieutenant’s personnel file. On
the first occasion, he received a written reprimand, which has since been removed from his file,
pursuant to 101 KAR 1:335. On the second occasion, he was serving promotional probation as a
Lieutenant, and was reverted back to Sergeant. As a matter of law, a reversion from a promotion
is not deemed disciplinary in nature. Therefore, even though the lieutenant admitted to the
harassing behavior, no disciplinary action was taken. On the third occasion, it was found that he
hugged and kissed a female employee, but he did not have any romantic intentions, so, once
again, he faced no disciplinary action. In spite of this significant history of acknowledged sexual
harassment, this individual has since been re-promoted to Lieutenant.
17.

These examples send a clear message to employees at LSCC that LSCC’s

supervisors can get away with sexual harassment without serious consequences. Directly or
indirectly, this leads to a reluctance on the part of LSCC’s employees to come forward with
complaints of sexual harassment.
New Practices and Procedures
18.

During the course of this investigation, the Justice and Public Safety Cabinet has

changed the way it handles sexual harassment complaints.

These complaints are now all

forwarded to the Justice Cabinet’s Internal Investigations Branch (IIB).

All harassment

complaints are placed in a database, and, in consultation with the Justice Cabinet HR Director,

 Investigation Report and Recommendation
Page 26
the IIB Director makes a decision regarding appropriate steps in those investigations. Some
investigations are conducted at the institutional level. Serious matters are assigned to IIB
Investigators, who are all trained investigators and also trained in EEO matters. There is an
effort to make sure that all such investigations are conducted by trained investigators.
19.

During the course of this investigation with LSCC, the Investigators learned of an

ongoing complaint at LSCC. That investigation was completed and, from a review of the
documentation, it appears the new policy has corrected many of the problems found in the
Harper investigation. The trained investigators were thorough, impartial, followed all leads, and
appeared to find exactly what happened.
II.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Department of Corrections’ Investigation of Sexual Harassment Complaints
The following Findings of Fact pertain to the Department of Corrections’ investigation of
the sexual harassment complaints against Stephen Harper. The Investigator hereby incorporates
the LSCC Investigative Summaries as if they were fully set out herein.
1.

The Investigator finds the Department of Corrections’ investigation of the sexual

harassment complaints against Stephen Harper was insufficient. The DOC failed to follow the
Executive Branch’s sexual harassment policy, failed to follow their own applicable policy, and
failed to conduct an adequate investigation of these allegations.
2.

The DOC erred in allowing these matters to be investigated by Serena Waddell,

Human Resource Administrator at LSCC. Stephanie Appel, Executive Director, Justice and
Public Safety Cabinet, Office of Management and Administrative Services, stated that she felt
Waddell would be a good choice for the investigation because she was a long-term employee and
would have had some kind of training. Joseph Meko, former Warden of LSCC, thought Waddell
did a good job as HR Administrator, including on sexual harassment investigations. However, it
is clear that Waddell did not have any specific training on investigations or on sexual harassment
investigations. Waddell had attended EEO conferences where the topic had been discussed, but
never received training on exactly how to conduct an investigation. She relied on her general
advice on investigations, which was just to gather the facts. These were serious reports of

 Investigation Report and Recommendation
Page 27
alleged sexually harassing behavior that would be a challenge for anyone to investigate. Asking
an HR employee, untrained in sexual harassment investigations, was not an appropriate response
no matter how many years’ experience she had in human resource administration.
3.

The Investigator finds that, given the seriousness of the allegations, including the

allegations contained in Captain Terry Wallace’s May 24, 2013 Report, these matters should have
been given the highest priority and should have been assigned to a trained investigator.
4.
investigator.

The DOC also failed to ensure the independence and impartiality of its
As a general matter, an investigator may be called on to make credibility

determinations of all parties. An independent investigator sends the message that the employer
takes the allegations seriously, wants to find out what happened, and take the appropriate action.
An independent investigator is impartial and does not have preconceived ideas about the parties
involved. Here, it was clear early on that the allegations against Harper, if proven true, would
probably result in Harper’s dismissal from LSCC. It was also clear that an investigation of these
allegations would require credibility determinations of all parties. Further, included in the
allegations against Harper were allegations that another supervisor may be subject to disciplinary
action for failure to report an incident of harassment. Yet, Waddell was neither independent nor
impartial. Waddell admitted she had preconceived ideas about witnesses. Waddell had recently
found a previous sexual harassment complaint brought by Payton unsubstantiated; Waddell
admitted this impacted her assessment of Payton’s credibility. Waddell had also recently been
accused of shredding a sexual harassment complaint from Mayse when Mayse stated she wished
to withdraw her complaint. Waddell was neither independent nor impartial and the DOC erred in
relying on her to conduct its investigation.
5.

The DOC failed to ensure its institutional leadership was adequately trained on

policy and the law regarding sexual harassment.

Warden Meko testified that he believed

complaints should be filed within 24 hours of the event occurring. He thought complaints filed
later were less credible.

Waddell testified she agreed with Meko.

Such beliefs betray a

fundamental misunderstanding of sexual harassment allegations. The DOC failed to ensure that
LSCC’s leadership, including Warden Meko, whom the DOC entrusted with significant amounts
of discretion, understood sexual harassment, sexual harassment prevention, sexual harassment
law, or the policies pertaining thereto. Lacking sufficient training, Meko and Waddell did not
believe that an investigation was warranted and Appel agreed.

However, based on the

 Investigation Report and Recommendation
Page 28
incomplete information they provided her, Appel did not function as an independent review of
these allegations. Too much discretion was afforded Warden Meko, who was too close to this
situation.
6.

The DOC failed to adequately protect its female employees after they made their

allegations of sexual harassment. As set out in Corrections Policy and Procedures 3.5, stronger
measures should have been considered, including a temporary shift change during the
investigation or even investigative leave pursuant to 101 KAR 2:102. Moreover, regardless of
what method of separation was chosen, the decision should have been documented with an
explanation of the DOC’s action. The DOC failed to do so here.
7.

The DOC failed to adequately document its actions and failed to adequately retain

those records. Whomever conducted the investigation of the allegations against Harper, it should
have been documented better and maintained in an organized fashion. For instance, Waddell was
not sure if she recorded the interviews she conducted. There should not be confusion on such a
simple point. Colleen Payton stated her interview was recorded and that Waddell lost the
recording. Either the interviews were recorded or not. If they were recorded, the recording
should be maintained with the rest of the investigation file. If they were not recorded and notes
were taken, the notes should have remained with the investigation file.
8.

The DOC failed to ensure it conducted a thorough investigation as Waddell did

not conduct adequate follow-up on a number of issues. For instance, Payton said she was
harassed four times over the past three months; she stated twice in Segregation Cab, once in the
Tower, and once in Central Control.

No effort was made with the witness or through

documentation to try to figure when these dates might have been. Payton gave a description of
what happened with one of the incidents in Segregation. It is not clear from the report whether
she was even asked to describe the other three incidents. Payton also stated she reported it at that
time because Mayse had come to her (Payton) and told her about an incident with Harper.
Waddell’s report does not reflect that Payton was asked at all about the allegations of Mayse
being harassed by Harper. Waddell’s investigation was riddled with failures to ask obvious
questions, loose ends going unaddressed, and missed opportunities to adequately investigate
these allegations.

It is also worth noting that the DOC determined that Harper would be

provided free legal representation to defend against the Plaintiffs’ lawsuit even though three of

 Investigation Report and Recommendation
Page 29
the four Plaintiffs’ claims had never been investigated. The Investigator is unclear if such a
decision would have been made if these allegations had been adequately investigated.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.

The Investigator finds that Stephen Harper’s conduct, as described in the Findings

of Fact, violated the Executive Branch’s sexual harassment policy. Specifically, the Investigator
concludes that Harper’s conduct included sexual advances, requests for sexual acts or favors, and
physical conduct of a sexual nature that created, or had the intention of creating, a hostile or
offensive work environment. Harper’s conduct was also unwelcome, demeaning, offensive, and
was directed at Former Employee 1, Colleen Payton, Donna Adkins, and Lisa Suliman because
they are female.
2.

Harper’s conduct, as described in the Findings of Fact, violated Corrections

Policy and Procedure 3.5. His conduct was threatening, demeaning, offensive, and was directed
towards Former Employee 1, Colleen Payton, Donna Adkins, and Lisa Suliman because they are
female. His conduct also included vulgar or indecent gestures and language.
3.

Harper’s conduct constituted a violation of KRS 18A.140(1), which states that no

person shall be discriminated against with respect to employment in the classified services
because of her sex.
4.

Lastly, Harper’s conduct also constituted a willful violation of 101 KAR 1:345.

This provision is general in nature, and merely states, “Appointing Authorities may discipline
employees for lack of good behavior or the unsatisfactory performance of duties.” Despite the
fact that the language in this regulation is general, the Investigator concludes that any reasonable
person would have recognized that Harper’s conduct constituted a lack of good behavior and that
Harper subjectively knew that his conduct constituted a lack of good behavior.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Investigator recommends that the Personnel Board:

 Investigation Report and Recommendation
Page 30
1.

Request the Secretary of the Personnel Cabinet to invoke the provisions of KRS

Chapter 18A and refuse to certify Stephen Harper as an eligible on any register, due to his willful
violation of the provisions of KRS 18A.032(1)(k). This provision reads, as follows:
Except as provided by the provisions of this chapter, the Secretary may
refuse to examine an applicant or, after examination, may disqualify an
applicant, remove his name from a register, refuse to certify any eligible
any on a register, or may consult with the appointing authority in taking
steps to remove such person already person if:
(k) he has otherwise willfully violated the provisions of this chapter.
2.

Encourage the Executive Branch to ensure that all sexual harassment complaints

or reports should be promptly, thoroughly, and adequately investigated. Serious allegations
should be assigned to trained independent investigators. Documentation of all aspects of the
investigation should be maintained.
3.

Acknowledge the cooperation of the management and employees of the Justice

and Public Safety Cabinet and the Department of Corrections in this investigation. Special
recognition goes to the Hon. Edward Baylous and to Elisha Mahoney who provided the
investigators with all the materials and access to all the witnesses to complete this investigation.
RESPONSES TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is on the agenda for the Personnel Board meeting on June 14, 2019 meeting
at 9:30 a.m. Any party who has received a copy of this report shall file any written response they
wish the Board to review by June 7, 2019. Any requests to appear and address the Board in
person at the June 14, 2019 meeting shall be filed by June 7, 2019.
So ISSUED at the direction of the Executive Director this ____ day of May, 2019.
KENTUCKY PERSONNEL BOARD
__________________________________
MARK A. SIPEK
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

 Investigation Report and Recommendation
Page 31
A copy hereof this day mailed to:
Board Members
Secretary Thomas Stephens
Secretary John Tilly
Hon. Edward Baylous
Hon. Ned Pillersdorf
Hon. Joe Childers
Hon. Bethany Baxter
Linda Smith
Stephen Harper