Support Local Journalism. Join the Cleveland Scene Press Club.

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

City Responds To Discrimination Lawsuit Filed By Group of "Non-African American" Cleveland Police Officers

Posted By on Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 4:11 PM

Cleveland_police.jpg

On Nov. 29, we brought you the news that nine self-identifying "non-African American" Cleveland police officers filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Cleveland, alleging racial discrimination in the aftermath of their involvement in the 2012 chase and shooting of Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams.

The plaintiffs are nine of the 13 officers who fired their guns (Michael Brelo, the worst of the bunch, is not a plaintiff). Here's what we reported in November:

The plaintiffs include eight white officers — Erin O'Donnell, Christopher Ereg, Michael Farley, Cynthia Moore, Michael Rinkus, William Salupo, Brian Sobolik, Scott Sistek — and Hispanic officer Wilfredo Diaz. They are bringing suit against the city of Cleveland, then-Police Chief and current Safety Director Michael McGrath, then-Safety Director Martin Flask, current Police Chief Calvin Williams and Mayor Frank Jackson, on counts of discrimination, civil rights violation and breach of employment contract.

The gist of the case involves their claim that because they aren't black, they were punished ("assigned to boring and menial tasks," etc.) more harshly for killing black people on the job than when black officers kill black people on the job ("The City of Cleveland, through the other named defendants, and the other named defendants in their individual capacities, have a history of treating non-African American officers involved in the shooting of African Americans substantially harsher than African American officers"). After police shoot people, it is standard for officers to be placed on temporary paid-leave — a 45-day "cooling off period" involving "menial and unpleasant tasks," the suit says. The white officers' "cooling off period" was too long, they say.

Today, Cleveland's lawyers filed their first response to the suit, simply denying everything they're accused of ("Defendants had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for all of their actions and/or there is insufficient evidence of a pretext for discrimination") without saying much more, as one would expect.

Make sure to check out our original story for more details on the lawsuit, and peruse the documents below, starting with the original complaint file in November...

... and the city's response today:

We welcome readers to submit letters regarding articles and content in Cleveland Scene. Letters should be a minimum of 150 words, refer to content that has appeared on Cleveland Scene, and must include the writer's full name, address, and phone number for verification purposes. No attachments will be considered. Writers of letters selected for publication will be notified via email. Letters may be edited and shortened for space.

Email us at news@clevescene.com.

Support Local Journalism.
Join the Cleveland Scene Press Club


Local journalism is information. Information is power. And we believe everyone deserves access to accurate independent coverage of their community and state. Our readers helped us continue this coverage in 2020, and we are so grateful for the support.


Help us keep this coverage going in 2021. Whether it's a one-time acknowledgement of this article or an ongoing membership pledge, your support goes to local-based reporting from our small but mighty team.


Join the Cleveland Scene Press Club for as little as $5 a month.

More on Scene & Heard

Read the Digital Print Issue

July 28, 2021

View more issues

Newsletters

Never miss a beat

Sign Up Now

Subscribe now to get the latest news delivered right to your inbox.

Calendar

© 2021 Cleveland Scene: 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 4100, Cleveland, OH 44115, (216) 505-8199
Logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners.


Website powered by Foundation