For the second time this year, Yolo County Sheriff Ed Prieto finds himself the subject of a lawsuit from one of his employees. Victoria Zetwick, a 24-year veteran sheriff’s deputy working as a correctional officer, claims that over the course of 14 years (which dates back to Ed Prieto’s election in 1998, first becoming Yolo County’s Sheriff), she was subjected to sexual harassment which allegedly included “unwanted hugging and kissing.”
Ms. Zetwick, 48, is married to a sheriff’s deputy, as well. She claims in her suit that she saw Sheriff Prieto “hug and kiss several dozen female employees.” When present with both male and female employees, Sheriff Prieto, according to the suit, would hug the female employee but give a handshake to the male employee.
Ms. Zetwick estimates that over the course of 14 years, she was hugged by the sheriff at least one hundred times. She describes that “each time was awkward, unsolicited, and unwelcome…”
The suit adds that in the early years, Sheriff Prieto would hug and kiss her on the cheek. “At an employee awards ceremony in May 2003, [Sheriff] Prieto kissed [Ms. Zetwick] on the lips. [Ms. Zetwick] was shocked and told her husband, whom she had just recently married. [Ms. Zetwick’s] husband was upset by [Sheriff] Prieto’s conduct.”
“[Ms. Zetwick] told her co-workers and supervising lieutenants that [Sheriff] Prieto had kissed her on the lips and that she was offended by his conduct. Although [Ms. Zetwick’s] lieutenants were authorized to receive, report, and forward complaints of harassment, under the Sheriff’s Department’s policies, none of [Ms. Zetwick’s] supervising lieutenants forwarded her complaints for investigation or resolution.”
The suit goes on to allege that after the May 2003 incident, she was discouraged from filing a formal complaint as she had been promoted to sergeant and was on her probationary period. She feared that the sheriff would retaliate against her by taking away her promotion.
The suit adds, “Even though Plaintiff told her supervisors about [Sheriff] Prieto’s sexual harassment, the supervisors never offered to document it, and they seemed to be too intimidated by [Sheriff] Prieto to do anything about it. Furthermore, Plaintiff knew that [Sheriff] Prieto and an upper-level member of the COUNTY OF YOLO’S Human Resources Department were friends and had socialized together on a boat excursion to the Bay Area. Plaintiff was afraid that if she went to the Human Resources Department with a complaint, she would not be believed and/or the Human Resources Department would take [Sheriff] Prieto’s side.”
The suit describes an incident in 2007, when Sheriff Prieto asked a female sergeant about her weight and the sergeant responded that she had lost 20 pounds. The Sheriff was insistent on inquiring about her weight and the female sergeant finally responded.
Ms. Zetwick witnessed this exchange and, according to the suit, “felt demeaned as a woman. In 14 years, she had never seen [Sheriff] Prieto ask a male employee about weight.”
The suit describes a 2010 incident in which the sheriff was in the booking area with Victoria Zetwick and another female correctional officer. Sheriff Prieto allegedly “approached Plaintiff and reached to hug her but stopped and stated that people had complained and so he could not give a hug. But then [Sheriff] Prieto hugged [Ms. Zetwick] and the female correctional officer anyway. Plaintiff was offended by the hug. [Sheriff] Prieto told them that he hugged everyone, including male employees. However, [Ms. Zetwick] has never seen [Sheriff] Prieto hug a male employee when [Sheriff] Prieto had the opportunity to do so. Instead, [Ms. Zetwick] saw [Sheriff] Prieto give handshakes to male employees.”
The suit adds that over the years, Victoria Zetwick’s “co-workers and supervising lieutenants would tease [her] that [Sheriff] Prieto was going to kiss her on the lips. The supervisors who teased her were the same persons who had the authority to receive, report, and forward a sexual harassment complaint to the Sheriff’s Department management.”
The suit acknowledges that, as time wore on, Sheriff Prieto’s hugs were not accompanied by kisses on the cheek, but nevertheless “the unwelcome hugging continued.”
The suit argues that his conduct has “created a hostile working environment that permanently altered the workplace and unreasonably interfered with [Ms. Zetwick’s] ability to do her job. [Victoria Zetwick] found it difficult to concentrate at work when [Sheriff] Prieto was nearby, her work was made inefficient during times she tried to avoid contact with [Sheriff] Prieto, and she grew anxious and upset when [Sheriff] Prieto was nearby or was said to be on his way.”
They argue: “From 1998 through December 2011, [Sheriff] Prieto subjected [Victoria Zetwick] to severe or pervasive sexual harassment that created a hostile work environment. The hugging incident that occurred on December 5, 2011 between [Sheriff] Prieto and Plaintiff, was made possible by [Sheriff] Prieto’s inappropriate conduct towards [Victoria Zetwick] that began in 1998. That is, all incidents of sexual harassment are related to one another, made possible by virtue of [Sheriff] Prieto’s continuing misconduct towards [Victoria Zetwick] gained through years of acting with impunity and increasing boldness. All of the sexual harassment that occurred between 1998 through 2011 constitutes an intertwined pattern of continuing sexual harassment.”
This is the second suit this year against Sheriff Prieto for alleged work place violations. In January, Deputy Darrel Johnson, a 14-year veteran of the department, filed suit alleging that the Sheriff singled him out using possibly racially inflammatory names such as “gravy” and “dark one.”
That complaint alleged that Deputy Johnson “was subjected to vile and reprehensible racial slurs by the Sheriff of Yolo County, Ed G. Prieto. Those slurs and the subsequent racial harassment inspired by them is the subject of this claim. The slurs and harassment constitute discrimination based on race and color.”
The complaint states that “On September 28, 2011 at approximately 8 a.m, Johnson was present with 20 to 25 other deputies at a duty assignment assembly known as Court Holding. Court Holding is held in a building adjacent to the Yolo County courthouse in downtown Woodland.”
It continues, “At the end of it, Prieto asked if anyone had questions. At this point, Johnson was seated approximately 7 feet away from the podium where Prieto was. Prieto looked at Johnson and asked, ‘Gravy, do you have any questions?’ Johnson was puzzled as to whom Prieto was addressing. Johnson looked to his left at another deputy. Johnson looked back at Prieto. Prieto was looking right at Johnson and said, ‘You, the dark one.’ “
According to the complaint, “Johnson understood this to mean that Prieto’s ‘Gravy’ slur was directed at Johnson. Johnson told Prieto that he did not have any questions.”
The county is not responding to requests for comment on Victoria Zetwick’s suit, due to it being considered a personnel matter.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
No one has posted? Does that mean no one cares? It’s time for Prieto to retire.
Al Rojas’ comment from Facebook:
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH AS TO EQUAL APPLICATION OF THE “LAW”
WE MUST DEMAND THE STATE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL TO COMENCE A THOURUGH “INVESTIGATION OF THE ENTIRE “YOLO COUNTY JUDICIAL SYSTEM ! A RECKLESS SYSTEM WE AS CITIZENS NEED TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE !!!!!
his is just the “Tip of the Iceberg” has been Known to have had numerous complaints from several Women in Yolo County & Taken before the “Yolo County Grand Jury” for accusations of “Misconduct as an Public Employee” & Charges of Sexual “Discrimination”,we also have a “Superior Court “Transcript”Proof of an Incident of having inappropriately approached A “Yolo County Superior Court Judge,in a Criminal matter & the Superior court Judge Failed to pursue this matter as “Obstruction of Justice” a CRIME with the District Attorney & in “addition the “Yolo County District Attorney’s Office” also “Knowingly,Permitted & Allowed,for the Sheriff to Violate the Law IN NOT ENFORCING THE LAW EQUALLY & DID NOTHING !!! IT IS CALLED “OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE !!”,THAT GOES FOR THE SHERIFF,THE SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE & THE YOLO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WHY BECAUSE THE ARE ALL COMPLICIT !!
What about the sheriffs department is reckless?
I’m sure they’re referring to the Gutierrez case.
So, when did “sexual harassment” as a concept migrate from serious and materially damaging offenses to simply unwanted social/personal interaction?
From my perspective, in many cases, there is irony in how “harassing” displays of hyper-sensitivity can be. I find there are a minority of trouble-causing people lack objectivity and rational perspective. They, for example, bring baggage from their personal life to work and complain about things in the workplace that clearly put them outside the boundaries for what should be considered normal expected human behavior. They feel empowered and entitled to get their pound of flesh in a passive-aggressive fashion. For example, when challenged for why they didn’t directly confront the person they are claiming to be harassed by, they claim fear of reprisal. I have seen this type of behavior severally damage a work culture… put coworkers on eggshells… and cause there to be less human communication and interaction that would contribute to optimum team work.
We human animals are blessed with this ability to constantly progress and define a “new normal”. However, this blessing is also a curse when the march toward change is in the wrong direction. We need to constantly evaluate where we have been, and were we are going so we can make necessary adjustments so that we don’t corrupt the goodness that we achieve pursuing worthy goals.
All employees deserve a workplace where they are not harmed by sexual harassment. However, all employees also deserve a workplace where they are not harmed by people hyper sensitive to what should be considered average, reasonable and normal human behavior.
I’m not sure that Sheriff Prieto’s behavior has been average, reasonable and normal in this case. But some of what is reported seems to fall into that category.
Strange question: “materially damaging offenses”
I guess I’m not sure your point – you believed that sexual harassment was only a situation in which the boss says sleep with me or your fired?
Here is the legal definition: “Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that tends to create a hostile or offensive work environment.”
Specifically: “involving the making of unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks”
Add this:
[quote] Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when
submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment,
submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individuals, or
such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. (29 C.F.R. § 1604.11 [1980])
[/quote]
In this case, the transgression itself appears to be relatively minor except that if (A) she is uncomfortable and (B) the authorities are not responsive and (C) she is fearful of retribution.
When did it become this?
Jeff
With all due respect you as a male cannot completely understand how this type of unappreciated behavior (by the plaintiff) is perceived by a female. I agree the plaintiff should have made it clear and tactful that she did not want hugs etc. We don’t know that from the story.
I was told the following story recently by a good friend who is a young (48 yr old)retired physician now working as a part time clerk for a small city back East. She reported unwarranted and inappropriate advances by a city worker. Her point: was that in all her physician years she was never harassed but now that the sphere of power has shifted, she is experiencing it.
To me says a lot about harassment which is power based.
Sorry it cut off…
When did it become this?
the law that I’m quoting from is from 1980.
[i]To me says a lot about harassment which is power based.[/i]
No doubt… but most of what I have had to deal with as a manger is claims from one peer employee about another. Almost 100% of the time the person claiming harassment was someone with a history of workplace conflict and/or performance issues… and/or people with demonstrated poor workplace conflict skills. Rarely was it the other way around. However 95% of the time the complainer won because of HR and legal risk aversion over the threat of lawsuits.
Frankly, the extent of “protection” to which some employees have grown to believe they are entitled to (and this is backed by an army of “victim advocates and lawyers”), has damaged management’s ability to lead and develop these employees to more effectively work in a team.
There is sexual harassment, and there is hostile work environment.
In my opinion, today, both of these get as frequently misused and exploited by unhappy people too easily transgressing to a victim posture, than we have occurrences of real material cases of harassment or hostility from power exploitation.
I had one case where a female employee that had dated a male employee filed a claim of harassment against the male employee because of unwanted advances. When asked why she didn’t tell the male employee that she wanted to break it off, she unbelievably responded that she didn’t want to hurt his feeling and was worried that he would become angry. She demanded that we (management and HR) deal with it because she was feeling harassed by him.
So, there goes the need to be human… replaced by the “wisdom” of government regulations and lawyers.
SODA, With all due respect, it depends on the person. I would never generalize “female” with respect to sensitivity or perceptions for what behavior is appreciated or unappreciated. I would also not generalize that all females would rush to a harassment claim when encountering unappreciated behavior.
I don’t see this as a gender issue. Discounting the true hierarchical power-based harassment, I see it as a sensitivity issue. Some people are thicker-skinned and not easily offended and are prone to being rough with words. Others are highly sensitive and prone to internalizing encounters and words and taking them personally. The tables are turned and the latter can harass the former with complaints. That is the downside to our over steering on this subject of workplace harassment.
All of that discussion is nice Mr. Boone, but that has nothing to do with this particular case and the Sheriff’s fitness to serve at this point.
LMAO, like this is news, Ed has been a dog for years, he likes the ladies and has power and enjoys having his way – this somehow shocks someone?
Please, everyone in town knows he was seeing the woman that ran the coffee shop on Main street for years. Both his daughters work for him in the department, one was sleeping with two different deputies and no one had a problem with that.
Come on Yolo, the Laws in this county have been good old boy for many many years, DA Reisig covers for Ed and Ed covers for him, Yolo County HR protects all department heads and hides their unethical activities to prevent lawsuits, both Prieto and Reisig get free legal protection from county counsel so they can cover up and conceal their deeds by claiming Attorney Client Privileged.
OK, for all the naive out there, here is how this will play out, a few false and misleading press releases, a statement from County and HR stating they are conducting an independent investigation of the incident, thousands of tax dollars spent on lawyers and fake investigations, the county used lawyers so they can hide the reports by claiming Attorney/Client privilege, then some statements that it is an on going investigation so we can’t talk about it, then a statement closing the investigation stating that no wrong doings were proven and how Yolo county takes all these complaints seriously and practices a safe working environment. Then private settlements will be paid out using more tax payer money and the county will claim they found no wrong doings by the Sheriff and sometime it is easier to pay a settlement than fight it out in court, that is code of we are covering for our stupid department heads and wasting tax payer money to fool you dumb tax payers.
Go back and check what happened when Ed was buying flowers and taking women out for lunch using the county’s credit card, the DA did not file, the DA covered, no charges for stealing and or misusing Gov funds, and nothing happened. And everyone will vote in the same DA and same Sheriff again so why the hell should they care or change their behavior?
“The tables are turned and the latter can harass the former with complaints”
So it seems you have no problem with harassment when it is directed at the weaker individual in a power relationship, but do object when the weaker individual seeks help in pushing back. At least you are consistent. This goes right along with your onesided view of “class war fare” as being an exclusive creation of the lower class conveniently ignoring that the wealthy would not have their lifestyles without the
cheap labor of those further down the economic ladder, or your recent attempt to blame women exclusively for un intended pregnancy when clearly there are two parties involved which would imply at least 50/50 share of responsibility.
“The tables are turned and the latter can harass the former with complaints”
So it seems you have no problem with harassment when it is directed at the weaker individual in a power relationship, but do object when the weaker individual seeks help in pushing back. At least you are consistent. This goes right along with your onesided view of “class war fare” as being an exclusive creation of the lower class conveniently ignoring that the wealthy would not have their lifestyles without the
cheap labor of those further down the economic ladder, or your recent attempt to blame women exclusively for un intended pregnancy when clearly there are two parties involved which would imply at least 50/50 share of responsibility.
This is what disappointments about this case and Jeff’s posts here.
If this is accurate, there’s a real problem here. Rather than helping her, the complaint alleges, “coworkers and supervising lieutenants would tease (Ms. Zetwick) that Prieto was going to kiss her on the lips.”
[i]So it seems you have no problem with harassment when it is directed at the weaker individual in a power relationship, but do object when the weaker individual seeks help in pushing back.[/i]
Medwoman, not at all.
I focus on material harm. In the case of material harm, I want to protect those materially harmed by the full extent of the law. Where I have a problem… claims of emotional damage/scars, etc. I think the bar is set way too low for this… and it continues to be set lower and lower. I see more and more cases of dubious complaints for what is a substitue for normal human interaction that we should all be expected to deal with and manage.
The definition of harassment has been expanded beyond what is reasonable to include anything that someone dislikes; and it protects the dysfunctional from having to deal with their problems… forcing others to bend to their unreasonable demands.
Like the employee that had a doctor’s diagnosis of some psychosis over the sound of crinkling paper that filed a harassment claim against the employee across the aisle for purposely crinkling paper to purposely cause her extra distress. It cost me hours of work time to resolve this through mediation and a HR/legal protocol that is backed by 100% disgruntled employee law suit risk aversion. Next she filed a claim of hostile work environment because she overheard employees talking about her, and she was excluded from employee activities.
What happened is that a person with psychological or emotional problems or development needs was given power to passively-aggressively harass other employees and block any attempts for addressing her performance and development needs. It damaged the work culture, the team dynamics… and the company. I actually had a very valued employee quit because of this problem employee.
You bring up the term “power” as if it is some absolute condition of hierarchy. Certainly higher positions of power can be used to exploit those in lower positions of power. But power is more often a state of mind and a personal presentation. There are also passive-aggressive actions that expoloit the use of power. You can train and develop people to be better at managing their relationship and preventing bullying and abuse. But this often requires them to do some difficult self-diagnosis work. Workplace harassment laws and practices have enabled these people to resist that difficult work; instead taking the position that it is the company’s responsibility to accommodate their fear of their own shadow, and a tendency to cause others pain and discomfort only to make themselves feel safer or better by comparison.
If you honor and respect fairness and inclusion, then it should include ALL people. For example, a group of boys or men in the locker room before and after the game would likely say things and behave in ways that some people would find offensive. So, now let’s introduce a meek, nervous and sensitive person to that locker room. Harassment laws and practices provide that single person the power to harass the entire group to cater to that single person’s meekness, nervousness and sensitivity. How is that fair or beneficial?
Getting back to the Sheriff… it sounds like he went too far and had a history of going too far… crossing the line between personal and professional behavior. The question I ask: did it cause any material harm? If so, he should be punished or fined or sued or all three… commensurate with that damage he caused.
Otherwise everyone needs to get over it and move on and stop wasting so much time and money dealing with it. Learning how to interact with people and deal with differences and conflict… it is simply a requirement of being part of the human race.
A person in a powerful position, like the sheriff, should know that what he was doing constitutes sexual harassment. After all, he does deal with the law and sexual harassment guidelines have been around for too long for him not to have an understanding of what he was doing. As for the colleagues who teased, they should be reprimanded at the very least and made to attend classes dealing with harassment. They made the work environment more toxic and looked the other way. This is not behavior we would expect from people working in law enforcement. If this is how they treat their own, how can anyone have respect for them. As a community we expect law enforcement to be above the law, Sheriff Prieto clearly is not and needs to be fired. That goes for anyone else working for the sheriff’s office that doesn’t get that what he did was unacceptable.