Impartial investigators have determined that current Los Angeles Sheriff's Department (LASD) efforts to deal with gender discrimination and harassment problems are insufficient. Both sides in a major class action lawsuit agreed to the investigation. A report detailing the department's failures will be released to the public for the first time at a press conference tomorrow morning. Women's groups and other civil rights groups will call upon the LASD and County to undertake major structural reforms, including creation of an independent entity to handle complaints of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.

The Bouman v. Baca class action lawsuit instigated an intensive examination of the LASD, and the court appointed an expert to conduct a thorough review of the LASD's practices and policies. Attorneys for the county and the plaintiffs have jointly agreed to recommend the expert's findings to the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors.

The report reveals a pattern of cultural practices that supports gender bias, from a "code of silence," to ineffective training about sexual harassment and gender discrimination, weak investigation of reported incidents, and insufficient discipline. It also reveals that the LASD has failed to remedy the problem for years, despite a longstanding court order in Bouman which requires it to do so'and despite having made nearly 200 specific commitments to change as recently as 1995. According to the report, "There is no evidence...of effective attempts to complete them (the recommendations) all or to evaluate their success or failure." (p. 11)

The report lists numerous serious deficiencies: "Among the most serious deficiencies noted in detail below are: a strong Department culture that is resistant to change and the notion of 'valuing diversity;' significant denial even among top-ranked officials the Department has a serious problem related to workplace equity; a tradition of mistakenly equating 'loyalty to the Department' as 'silence,' even in the face of discrimination and unfairness, as well as a tradition of punishing in illegal and potentially dangerous ways those who complain; and substantial cynicism among rank and file about the ability and intentions of the 'brass' to 'walk the walk' as regards workplace equality."

Chief among the recommendations of the report are the creation of an independent civilian Equity Oversight Commission, which would oversee a unit that would investigate and report on complaints of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. (p. 35)

"Women on the force continue to face discrimination and harassment'and the sheriff's department still hasn't fully come to grips with that fact. Women of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department have been telling us this for years'and they keep telling us about discrimination, because the changes have not yet arrived. This report tells us why, and shows us where we have to go next," said Penny Harrington of the National Center for Women & Policing. "We urge the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department: listen to the department's own employees. Pay attention to the expert evaluators who have once again confirmed women's experiences. And work with women's rights and civil rights groups to develop an oversight system which will ensure that women in the LASD are treated fairly and are valued for the contribution they make to law enforcement every single day. We can help you do that."

Civil rights groups, including the California Women's Law Center, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, the Japanese American Citizens' League, the ACLU of Southern California, and the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, recently called upon the county to implement very similar reforms as the result of another lawsuit (Moriguchi v. County of Los Angeles). In a March 2, 2000 letter to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, these groups urged the county to set up an independent office outside of the Sheriff's Department, which would be empowered to review complaints of officer misconduct. See "Sheriff's Bias Review Panel Urged,"LA Times, 3/3/00. Civil rights groups made the request because a Japanese-American officer, Brian Moriguchi, and his girlfriend experienced illegal intimidation and harassment when he complained about racism in the department.

"Two hundred promises have been broken in the last five years," said ACLU Staff Attorney Dan Tokaji. "Does anyone still think the LASD can bring about the necessary changes without outside help? A culture of hostility to diversity still endures throughout the agency, and individuals who try to combat it sometimes face dangerous and illegal retaliation. An independent oversight structure is absolutely vital if we are to put an end to the 'code of silence' that has allowed discrimination to persist in the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department. The time has come for the county to take action."

California imposes a harsh penalty on teenage welfare recipients who have children without even warning them of the penalty, claim five welfare recipients who filed suit today over California's "family cap." The policy, intended to discourage welfare recipients from having more children, denies benefits to babies born to parents already receiving aid, but only if the parents received detailed notice about the policy before becoming pregnant.

Petitioners are represented by the ACLU of Southern California, the Western Center on Law and Poverty, and the National Center for Youth Law. Clare Pastore of the Western Center, one of the attorneys for petitioners, explained that the basis of the lawsuit is the welfare department's failure to explain the rule to welfare recipients, especially teenagers. "The law says the family cap doesn't apply to any parent that wasn't warned about it ahead of time," said Pastore. "This is only fair'without advance warning, the family cap is just a senseless penalty on infants already starting out with a tough row to hoe." Pastore notes that the state provides no notice whatsoever that the family cap applies to teenagers who happen to be on welfare with their parents when they get pregnant. "The state welfare department doesn't have to apply this policy to teenage parents at all," notes attorney Martha Matthews of the National Center for Youth Law. "Applying it to them undermines their ability to finish high school and get off welfare. But if the department insists on applying the rule to teen parents, the least it must do under the law is warn them about it ahead of time."

ACLU-SC attorney Rocio Cordoba noted that California's Maximum Family Grant statute - part of a nationwide trend - is based on the mistaken belief that welfare recipients have additional children to get more aid. "The aid 'an extra $28 a week in most cases - doesn't even cover the cost of feeding, clothing and housing the new child," said Cordoba. "It's a myth that the welfare system 'rewards' women for having more children; the cold hard reality that the system punishes them for doing so. Denying subsistence benefits to these babies without even warning the parents in advance is irresponsible at best, cruel at worst."

The case, Nickols v. Saenz, was filed in San Francisco Superior Court today. The recipients ask the Court to enjoin the denial of aid to newborns unless and until proper, detailed notice is provided to all affected parents, including teenagers.

Today the ACLU of Southern California and the law firm of Newman. Aaronson. Vanaman, in conjunction with State Administrator of the Compton Unified School District (CUSD) Dr. Randolph Ward, announced a permanent settlement implementing a comprehensive consent decree to ensure that the 29,000 students enrolled in the CUSD are no longer denied the habitable school facilities and fundamental learning tools and opportunities guaranteed them by the California Constitution. This historic settlement is the first to require by court order that the state of California provide students within a particular school district equal educational opportunity to other California students in grades K-12. It is the result of a lawsuit (Serna v. Eastin) filed against the State of California in Los Angeles Superior Court in July of 1997 by the ACLU-SC and Newman. Aaronson.Vanaman on behalf of all students within the Compton Unified School District.

Serna v. Eastin charged the State Superintendent of Public Instruction and other state education officials with failing to provide students an equal and adequate education and a safe learning environment following the state's takeover of the district in 1993. The suit was the first of its kind ever to be filed in California. Students in the CUSD had been denied the most basic educational tools available to public school students elsewhere in California, such as textbooks, certified teachers, and classroom homework policies. In addition, students were deprived of even minimally acceptable learning conditions as a consequence of unusable restrooms, boarded-up windows, broken lights and exposed electrical wiring.

The permanent settlement establishes a comprehensive system for addressing the educational and safety needs of Compton students.

Some of the terms of the settlement include:

-The provision of appropriate in-class and take-home textbooks in all core subjects to all students in the CUSD

-The presence of a certified teacher in every classroom on every school day

-The development of a plan to reduce district-wide employee absenteeism

-The implementation of a homework policy at every school site

-Assuring healthful and safe schools district-wide

-Regular community meetings to elicit parent feedback

-The neutral monitoring of the conditions in school facilities by an independent party, with clear evaluation standards for progress as to educational equity and facilities improvements

Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU of Southern California, praised the court-approved settlement as "adding the essential fourth R to the 3 R's of education - 'Responsibility.' For the first time in decades, the Compton school system receives passing marks when it comes to affording equal educational opportunity to its students." Rosenbaum credited the successful negotiation to the commitment of State Administrator Ward and State Superintendent Eastin and her staff.

Dr. Randolph Ward, state administrator of the CUSD, added that, "There are too many low performing, persistently failing school districts in this country. Six years ago, Compton used to be one of them. Today, you will find a different picture here. The court approved settlement has provided us with a useful tool in making needed changes to facilitate student success in the classroom. It took a lot of hard work for the Compton Unified School District to have reached this point in its recovery and there is still a lot of hard work ahead."