CONFIDENTIAL – DO NOT DUPLICATE
Investigator’s Report
Complaint: E.E.O. #2023-009
Page 2
Reporting Officer:
Brian Nielsen, Sergeant
ID:
6904
Division
Internal Affairs
Approved by:
Carmelin Rivera, Lieutenant
Date of Report:
October 31, 2023
SUMMARY:
On July 21, 2023, Officer filed an EEO complaint against Sergeant David RAMIREZ,
The complaint was received by SDPD Internal Affairs Unit and a formal
investigation was launched.
On August 20, 2023, at approximately 1545 hours, Officer received a message via Instagram in
a group chat that consisted of Officer Officer and Sergeant RAMIREZ. The
message was sent by Sergeant RAMIREZ and was a video meme of an elephant with a large penis with
the caption that read “Sometimes you get more than you originally wanted” with a laughing emoji.
Officer was offended by the message due to its penis reference and initially interpreted the
meme to be some kind of sexual message from Sergeant RAMIREZ. Officer then believed it
was a threat of retaliation from Sergeant RAMIREZ because of the first EEO complaint filed by Officer
on July 21, 2023.
Officer was later interviewed and desired a formal investigation be conducted for sexual
harassment and retaliatory harassment.
CONFIDENTIAL – DO NOT DUPLICATE
Investigator’s Report
Complaint: E.E.O. #2023-009
Page 3
Reporting Officer:
Brian Nielsen, Sergeant
ID:
6904
Division
Internal Affairs
Approved by:
Carmelin Rivera, Lieutenant
Date of Report:
October 31, 2023
ALLEGATIONS:
On August 20, 2023, Officer filed an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint
against Sergeant David RAMIREZ. Officer was interviewed and confirmed the following
allegations:
1. EEO – Retaliation
Officer alleged Sergeant RAMIREZ sent a video meme message via Instagram
as a threat of retaliation against him for filing an EEO complaint against Sergeant
RAMIREZ on July 21, 2023.
2. EEO – Sexual Harassment
Officer alleged Sergeant RAMIREZ sexually harassed him when he sent him a
video meme message via Instagram.
CONFIDENTIAL – DO NOT DUPLICATE
Investigator’s Report
Complaint: E.E.O. #2023-009
Page 4
Reporting Officer:
Brian Nielsen, Sergeant
ID:
6904
Division
Internal Affairs
Approved by:
Carmelin Rivera, Lieutenant
Date of Report:
October 31, 2023
INVESTIGATION:
On August 20, 2023, this EEO complaint was filed by Officer
On August 22, 2023, I discovered a voice message on my work phone from Officer The
message was left on August 20, 2023, at 1622 hours. Officer stated in the voicemail he had
just received a “disturbing direct message” on Instagram from Sergeant RAMIREZ. Officer
said he had taken a screenshot of the message to show me and that it was “extremely inappropriate.”
I was notified by Lieutenant SCHMOTTLACH that an EEO complaint had been received from Officer
the day before on August 21, 2023. I reviewed the Discrimination/Harassment Control Form
completed by Captain DEL TORO and saw it was the same incident that Officer described in
his voice message. The form had the following summary:
On July 21, 2023, Officer reported to the Northwestern Command Staff that
David Ramirez referred to him as a "bitch" in a conversation between the
two. Officer took offense to the remark and reported the incident. On August 20
th
, 2023
while at work around 1545 hours, received a group message on Instagram. The group
consisted of Officer Officer and was sent by Sergeant David
Ramirez. The message was of an elephant with a large penis with the caption that read
"Sometimes you get more than you originally wanted". Officer took this to mean "I am the
big dick here" or if he was going to get the "dick" meaning he was going to get screwed from the
allegation. In either case, he believes this message is delivering the message that when this initial
investigation is over, he is going to be retaliated against. Lastly, Officer said he has not
received a message on that group since April of 2023 and thinks the timing on this message is
consistent with the initial allegation he has filed against Sergeant Ramirez.
On August 25, 2023, at 1414 hours, I conducted an EEO intake interview with Officer in an
interview room in the Internal Affairs Unit at SDPD Headquarters. I digitally recorded the interview and
later uploaded the audio recording into the IA PRO case file.
During the interview, Officer provided the video meme that was sent by Sergeant RAMIREZ.
I watched the video and saw it began with an elephant walking toward the camera with the camera
positioned at or near ground level. A caption overlayed the video that stated, “Sometimes you get more
than you originally wanted” with a laughing emoji. The video then continued with the elephant walking
past the camera, at which time the elephant’s penis came into view very near the camera as the elephant
walked by:
CONFIDENTIAL – DO NOT DUPLICATE
Investigator’s Report
Complaint: E.E.O. #2023-009
Page 7
Reporting Officer:
Brian Nielsen, Sergeant
ID:
6904
Division
Internal Affairs
Approved by:
Carmelin Rivera, Lieutenant
Date of Report:
October 31, 2023
EEO Complaint Intake Interview: Officer
On August 25, 2023, at 1414 hours, I interviewed Officer in an interview room within the
Internal Affairs Unit at SDPD Headquarters. The interview was digitally recorded. Internal Affairs D/Sgt.
Nathan CHAMBERS #7021 was also present in the interview.
While all efforts were made to be accurate, for exact and complete details of the interview, refer to the
digital recording. The recording is 12 minutes and 59 seconds in length. Through questions and answers,
Officer essentially stated the following not necessarily in chronological order:
Immediately after the first incident I reported concerning Sergeant RAMIREZ on July 21, 2023, I
blocked Sergeant RAMIREZ on all social media. The only social media platform I have is
Instagram.
On Sunday, August 20, 2023, I was at work and sitting in the lounge area
when my phone alerted me that I had an Instagram message. The message was sent in a
group chat, and the notification said that I had one person in the group chat blocked. In order to
view the message, I had to accept. The group chat consisted of myself, Sergeant RAMIREZ, and
Officer
Since it was sent by Sergeant RAMIREZ, and I know he was made aware of the previous
complaint, I was curious and concerned about what he had sent so I accepted the message and I
saw what he had sent.
The message was a video meme that had text overlaying the video that said, “Sometimes you get
more than you originally wanted.” The video itself was an elephant walking toward the camera,
and the camera was positioned on the ground. As the text fades, the elephant walks by the camera
and a large elephant penis drags over the view of the camera.
“Initially, when I saw that, I was kind of in shock. And thought initially, this being sexual in
nature, that it was like a meaning of like ‘you’re about to get the dick.’ And then the more I
thought about it, I took it extremely threatening.” Like, since I had made a complaint against him.
Also, because the initial complaint was being investigated as a procedure and not EEO, that he
felt he had won and was going to get back at me.
At this point during the interview, I asked Officer to explain what he meant when he said he
initially interpreted the video message to mean “you’re about to get the dick.” Officer
essentially stated the following:
Well, the message said, “Sometimes you get more than you wanted,” like he was about to give me
the dick. I took it sexually, which was off-putting. And then that thought flipped to like, ok, is he
CONFIDENTIAL – DO NOT DUPLICATE
Investigator’s Report
Complaint: E.E.O. #2023-009
Page 8
Reporting Officer:
Brian Nielsen, Sergeant
ID:
6904
Division
Internal Affairs
Approved by:
Carmelin Rivera, Lieutenant
Date of Report:
October 31, 2023
talking about he’s going to drag his dick over my face? Or am I going to get fucked in the ass? I
took it as sexual in nature, which like I said was off-putting. And then the more I looked at the
message, I thought – this was a group chat that was created by Officer which I’ve
contributed very little to. I would only comment, and I never sent any memes or videos.
At this point during the interview, I confirmed with Officer that this message was sent in a
group chat between him, Officer and Sergeant RAMIREZ. I asked Officer if there
was anything associated with the video that showed it was intended to be directed at him, or if anything
else was sent to identify that it was intended for a specific recipient. Officer essentially stated
the following:
No, there wasn’t. But I just find it funny that the last correspondence on this group chat was way
back in April. And if you’re familiar with how Instagram works, if you haven’t received a message
since way back in April, you have to really dig down deep to send a message specifically on that
thread. And, knowing Officer and Sergeant RAMIREZ’ relationship, I find it hard to
believe that there has not been any Instagram correspondence between them since April. And, if
Sergeant RAMIREZ meant to send that just to Officer he knows how Instagram works
and could have sent that as a message just to him. But to have to dig down to a message thread
back in April and click on that specific message thread and send that meme, I took that as the
message was directed at me, but in a way that could be covered up. Basically, I think you have to
jump through a lot of hoops to send that message on an old group thread, so I don’t believe it was
an accident.
At this point during the interview, I asked Officer why he thought the video message was a
threat. Officer essentially stated the following:
The text itself led me to believe it was a threat. When you want to use slang terms to tell someone
you’re going to get back at them, you say “You’re going to get fucked in the ass.”
At this point during the interview, I clarified my question to Officer and asked him why he
believed Sergeant RAMIREZ would have a reason to send him a threat at all. Officer
essentially stated the following:
Due to the initial complaint that I filed against him. And this was his way he was saying he was
going to eventually get back at me, considering the initial complaint was not being investigated as
an EEO. So, I think Sergeant RAMIREZ feels the complaint is a “nothing burger” and he’ll get
past it. And once he does, “you’re going to get more than you wanted” – to use the terms in the
video.
After I received the video, I called you (Detective Sergeant NIELSEN) and I also notified my
sergeant, Sergeant I don’t remember if I contacted Sergeant first or you, but
CONFIDENTIAL – DO NOT DUPLICATE
Investigator’s Report
Complaint: E.E.O. #2023-009
Page 9
Reporting Officer:
Brian Nielsen, Sergeant
ID:
6904
Division
Internal Affairs
Approved by:
Carmelin Rivera, Lieutenant
Date of Report:
October 31, 2023
it was pretty much simultaneously. And as soon as I notified Sergeant the EEO control
forms were completed, and the process was started to document the complaint.
I blocked Sergeant RAMIREZ on Instagram, but I don’t know if he blocked me back. Instagram
does not notify the blocked party that they have been blocked, so I don’t know. That also means
Sergeant RAMIREZ would not have been notified by Instagram that I had blocked him.
No one responded to the video message after it was sent. There has been no other messages or
activity on that group thread.
My nickname on the Instagram thread is something is Officer
I would like this complaint investigated formally.
I concluded the interview.
CONFIDENTIAL – DO NOT DUPLICATE
Investigator’s Report
Complaint: E.E.O. #2023-009
Page 10
Reporting Officer:
Brian Nielsen, Sergeant
ID:
6904
Division
Internal Affairs
Approved by:
Carmelin Rivera, Lieutenant
Date of Report:
October 31, 2023
Subject Officer Interview: Sergeant David RAMIREZ #6702
On September 20, 2023, at 0959 hours, I interviewed Sergeant RAMIREZ in an interview room within
the Internal Affairs Unit at SDPD Headquarters. The interview was digitally recorded. Present as Sergeant
RAMIREZ’ representative was Internal Affairs D/Sgt. CHAMBERS
#7021 was also present in the interview.
I read Sergeant RAMIREZ the Subject Officer “Sworn Personnel Admonishment (with Lybarger/Garrity
Warning).” Sergeant RAMIREZ and I then signed the admonishment and I provided Sergeant RAMIREZ
a copy of the signed Admonishment form.
While all efforts were made to be accurate, for exact and complete details of the interview, refer to the
digital recording. The recording is 17 minutes and 19 seconds in length. Through questions and answers,
Sergeant RAMIREZ essentially stated the following not necessarily in chronological order:
I have been with the San Diego Police Department for about 15 years and am currently assigned
to Northwestern Division. I have been at Northwestern Division since I promoted to sergeant
about 2 years ago.
At this point during the interview, I asked Sergeant RAMIREZ, “On Sunday, August 20, 2023, did you
send a video message in an Instagram group message thread to Officer and Officer
Sergeant RAMIREZ essentially stated the following:
I did send the meme to the group chat, I learned after the fact. But I don’t remember the date.
At this point during the interview, I played the elephant video meme provided to me by Officer
I asked Sergeant RAMIREZ if the video I played was the same one he sent on August 20,
2023. Sergeant RAMIREZ said, “Yes.”
I then asked Sergeant RAMIREZ why he sent the video to Officer Sergeant RAMIREZ
essentially stated the following:
I didn’t know that it was as group chat. I sent it to three friends of mine, including Officer
When I sent it to Officer I did not see that there was multiple…I had previously
blocked and unfollowed Officer and I think he did the same to me. So, I did not think
any communication with him was possible. So, he was not in mind at all when I sent that. He was
not an intended person to send it to. I did not know that he could even receive that.
At this point during the interview, I asked Sergeant RAMIREZ to explain how this video meme was sent
in an Instagram group thread that included Officer Sergeant RAMIREZ essentially stated the
following:
CONFIDENTIAL – DO NOT DUPLICATE
Investigator’s Report
Complaint: E.E.O. #2023-009
Page 11
Reporting Officer:
Brian Nielsen, Sergeant
ID:
6904
Division
Internal Affairs
Approved by:
Carmelin Rivera, Lieutenant
Date of Report:
October 31, 2023
Well, I’m not the most technological person. When I learned it happened, I went back to try and
figure out how could it have happened. What I think happened was me, Officer and
Officer were in a group chat together. When we blocked and unfollowed each other, I
can’t see anything on his page, and he can’t see anything on mine. If I see something I want to
share, I click “share” and select the people I want to share it with – and I only saw the names of
the people I wanted to send it to. I did not see Officer name in there. I thought it was
only Officer name. Officer Instagram moniker is kind of long, so I don’t know
if was cut off so I couldn’t see it, or if it was invisible because maybe Officer
deactivated his account, and if he reactivated it then maybe he appeared again. I don’t really
know.
As soon as I heard about this, I called my captain first and told him I had just got wind of it and he
needed to know about it because it’s going to “blow up.” I couldn’t think of a safer environment
than the captain’s office with the captain present, so I asked if it was possible to have a meeting
with Officer
At this point during the interview, I asked Sergeant RAMIREZ the following series of questions:
NIELSEN: “Did you send the video in response to a complaint filed by Officer against you?”
RAMIREZ: “No.”
NIELSEN: “Was this video intended to threaten or intimidate Officer
RAMIREZ: “No.”
At this point during the interview, I asked Sergeant RAMIREZ what he did after he sent the video.
Sergeant RAMIREZ essentially stated the following:
As soon as I heard about this, I called my captain told him I had just complicated matters for
myself and the division. I told him I had sent the video to Officer and did not know how
it happened, but regardless it was not intended for him and sent accidentally. I told the captain I
would like to sit down with Officer and Officer in the captain’s office and
show Officer it was accidental and how it happened. I did not think Officer
was willing to do it, but I would like to try. A meeting with Officer and myself never
happened.
At this point during the interview, I went back to the topic of the video itself and asked Sergeant
RAMIREZ if the caption “Sometimes you get more than you originally wanted” with the laughing emoji
was referencing something specific in the video. Sergeant RAMIREZ essentially stated the following:
CONFIDENTIAL – DO NOT DUPLICATE
Investigator’s Report
Complaint: E.E.O. #2023-009
Page 12
Reporting Officer:
Brian Nielsen, Sergeant
ID:
6904
Division
Internal Affairs
Approved by:
Carmelin Rivera, Lieutenant
Date of Report:
October 31, 2023
Well, it’s the elephant penis. The account that published the video is a wildlife photography guy
with other videos of like lions and other wildlife. Those other videos don’t have captions, they are
just regular videos of wildlife.
I did not add the caption to the video, it was just like that. Because the other videos are regular
wildlife, so in this video the guy was intending to capture an elephant, but just not the penis erect
like that. So, to put “sometimes you get more than what you wanted” with a laughing
emoji…that’s not something that I added. That’s something that was in the video, and I just shared
that video. I assume the wildlife photographer guy added it because that’s how it was when it
went viral. Like 5 million people have viewed it now.
At this point during the interview, I asked Sergeant RAMIREZ what message he was trying to
communicate by sending the video. Sergeant RAMIREZ essentially stated the following:
It was just shock. I’ve been to the zoo and I’ve seen elephants, but I’ve never seen an elephant like
that before. And I was like, “Ha.” And I forwarded it to my friends. Like I said, the video has like
5 million views now, so I’m not alone in that. It’s interesting.
NIELSEN: “You said, ‘Ha.’ Did you think it was funny?
I was shocked. It was more of like an impactful thing. I thought that it was worthy to share with
two of the people I normally share stuff with. I mean, bad car crashes and stuff like that. This is
just things that are just impactful that I want to share. And like I said, there are three people I
share stuff with. And this was intended to be sent to those three persons, and Officer
being one of them. I did not realize it was a group. I did not think it was possible for Officer
and I to communicate still.
If I knew there was any possible way Officer could see a video or anything from me, I
wouldn’t do it. Because, even prior to his first complaint, he had stopped communicating. So, I
had kind of tapered off the communication and the only communication I had with him was
At this point during the interview, I asked Sergeant RAMIREZ, “So, at this point in time, your
communication with Officer was purely work-related?” Sergeant RAMIREZ essentially stated
the following:
Yes. The only communication was the necessary work-related communications that were part of
my responsibility They were not on Instagram or anything like that, just
messages from my phone to the work group text of my squad.
CONFIDENTIAL – DO NOT DUPLICATE
Investigator’s Report
Complaint: E.E.O. #2023-009
Page 13
Reporting Officer:
Brian Nielsen, Sergeant
ID:
6904
Division
Internal Affairs
Approved by:
Carmelin Rivera, Lieutenant
Date of Report:
October 31, 2023
I did not really have any personal relationship with Officer at that point. Even after he
walked away from me after the incident on July 21, 2023, I had tried to get with him after the fact.
I’m in SLI (leadership training) and I have been trying to improve the squad and manage
expectations. But I found out he wanted to file a formal complaint against me for the incident on
July 21
st
, so that’s when the communication stopped.
When it comes to sharing that video on Instagram I think the way it works is, I saw the video, I go
to “forward,” I forward it to the three people I forward to, I send, and that sends. And then when
they click on the video it will open up to whoever originally posted that video. So, when the
receiver gets the video and clicks on it, it goes to that page and all the comments on the video. And
you can then click on the Instagram account and see all the other wildlife videos and stuff.
At this point during the interview, I asked Sergeant RAMIREZ, “Do you consider penis-related jokes
appropriate for a Department supervisor to share with their subordinates?” Sergeant RAMIREZ
essentially stated the following:
I don’t think that was a joke. Like I said, it was a wildlife account, there’s an elephant with its
penis erect. And I’d never seen that, and it was impactful to me. I thought that, since it’s gone
viral, it’s been impactful to a lot of people, and they forward it.
“I think the text caption made things, kind of like, complicated, not only in my case, but I think
even if you…”
NIELSEN: “Well, and the inclusion of a laughing emoji would be an indicator that this was to be meant
as humorous, would you agree?
That’s the question for whoever made the caption. What I saw, I was impacted. You don’t see it
until the very end, and you’re like “dang,” you know. I’ve taken my kids to the zoo and I’ve never
seen that. So, it wasn’t…I sent it because it was impactful. And I shared it with the people I
normally share things with. I just didn’t know he was in that text thread.
I concluded the interview.
CONFIDENTIAL – DO NOT DUPLICATE
Investigator’s Report
Complaint: E.E.O. #2023-009
Page 14
Reporting Officer:
Brian Nielsen, Sergeant
ID:
6904
Division
Internal Affairs
Approved by:
Carmelin Rivera, Lieutenant
Date of Report:
October 31, 2023
CONCLUSIONS:
1. EEO Retaliation – NOT SUSTAINED
Officer alleged Sergeant RAMIREZ sent a video meme message via Instagram
as a threat of retaliation against him for previously filing an EEO complaint against
Sergeant RAMIREZ.
On July 21, 2023, Officer filed an EEO complaint against Sergeant David RAMIREZ,
The complaint was received by SDPD Internal Affairs Unit and a formal
investigation was launched for possible procedure violations.
On August 20, 2023, at approximately 1545 hours, Officer received a message via Instagram in
a group chat that consisted of Officer Officer and Sergeant RAMIREZ. The
message was sent by Sergeant RAMIREZ and was a video meme of an elephant with a large penis with
the caption that read “Sometimes you get more than you originally wanted” with a laughing emoji.
Officer believed the message was a threat of retaliation from Sergeant RAMIREZ because of
the previous EEO complaint he filed on July 21, 2023.
Department Procedure 5.03 – EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY, dated September 2,
2021, states in part:
V. POLICY STATEMENT
A. Members shall be permitted a work atmosphere free from discrimination and
harassment of any form. Members shall not discriminate against, nor harass other
members. It shall be the responsibility of all supervisors to ensure a nondiscriminatory
work environment exists.
4. Federal and state law makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color,
gender, creed, religion, national origin, age, marital status, ancestry, medical
condition (history of cancer), pregnancy, disability, transgender status, or
sexual orientation. The Department’s EEO policy builds upon this foundation
and extends to every employee our commitment to provide a workplace that is
consistent with the law and actively supports and implements behavior that
reflects our Vision, Values and Mission Statement.
VI. DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT
A. Equal Treatment
CONFIDENTIAL – DO NOT DUPLICATE
Investigator’s Report
Complaint: E.E.O. #2023-009
Page 15
Reporting Officer:
Brian Nielsen, Sergeant
ID:
6904
Division
Internal Affairs
Approved by:
Carmelin Rivera, Lieutenant
Date of Report:
October 31, 2023
All employees shall be treated equally without regard to race, color, gender, creed,
religion, national origin, age, marital status, ancestry, medical condition (history of
cancer), pregnancy, disability, transgender status, or sexual orientation in all employment
matters, including, but not limited to, promotions, transfers, job rotation, training, work
assignments, hiring, merit increases, overtime, awards, and discipline.
B. Harassment-free Work Environment
1. All employees shall be provided a work environment free from harassment.
Behavior constitutes harassment, as defined by this policy, when it is unwelcome
and unsolicited, offends or otherwise causes distress, and is undertaken because of
a person’s race, color, gender, creed, religion, national origin, age, marital status,
ancestry, medical condition, disability, pregnancy, transgender status or sexual
orientation. Examples include the use of derogatory comments, slurs, jokes, or
derogatory pictures, cartoons, or posters.
2. The City of San Diego and the Police Department have a 100% Response Policy
regarding harassment. The Department prohibits any harassment of employees, as
defined above, and actively responds to all allegations of violations of this
procedure. Such inappropriate conduct may be in violation of this policy and result
in discipline the first time such behavior occurs. Prior incidents of harassment can
be considered when assessing the facts and circumstances of a later complaint.
3. Whether an alleged action constitutes harassment, as defined above, will be
determined on a case-by-case basis by assessing the entire record and the totality of
the circumstances. Factors, such as the nature of the behavior and the context in
which the alleged incidents occurred, will be considered in assessing the allegations
and in determining the appropriate resolution.
J. Retaliation
1. Retaliation is defined as an adverse employment action taken against an
employee because that employee complained of discrimination or participated in an
EEO investigation.
2. An adverse employment action can include, but is not limited to, unwanted
transfers, change in work assignment or location, denial of leave requests,
demotions, negative performance evaluations, unsupported discipline, ostracism,
harassment, or other actions that adversely affect the work environment.
CONFIDENTIAL – DO NOT DUPLICATE
Investigator’s Report
Complaint: E.E.O. #2023-009
Page 16
Reporting Officer:
Brian Nielsen, Sergeant
ID:
6904
Division
Internal Affairs
Approved by:
Carmelin Rivera, Lieutenant
Date of Report:
October 31, 2023
3. Retaliation is illegal and should be reported immediately. The Department will
not tolerate retaliation. Any employee found to have retaliated against another
Department member would be subject to discipline.
Officer stated during his intake interview he believed Sergeant RAMIREZ intentionally sent
the message to him because he believed Sergeant RAMIREZ knows how Instagram works and that
Sergeant RAMIREZ would have had to “jump through a lot of hoops” to send it in the group thread that
included him. Officer did say there was nothing included with or specifically about the video
message that indicated it was meant to be directed at him, but Officer said he still felt the
message was directed at him and was only sent in the group thread to “cover up” that fact.
Sergeant RAMIREZ stated during his interview he never intended to send the video to Officer
and that his sending it in the group thread was an accident. Sergeant RAMIREZ said he was “not the
most technological person” and did not think sending anything to Officer was even possible
because he said he had blocked and unfollowed Officer after the first complaint was filed
against him. Sergeant RAMIREZ stated he shared the video by clicking “share” and then selected the
names of the individuals he intended to send it to, one of them being Officer Sergeant
RAMIREZ said he never saw Officer name at all when he was sharing the video. Sergeant
RAMIREZ speculated that maybe Officer name was cut off due to Officer account
name being long, or that Officer name was invisible due to Officer deactivating
his account and reactivating it later.
An allegation of retaliation requires a causal connection between the engagement in protected activity and
the perceived retaliatory behavior or action. In this case, there is no evidence to support or refute whether
Sergeant RAMIREZ intentionally sent the video message to Officer Both Officer
and Sergeant RAMIREZ’ statements concerning how and why the message was sent are plausible, with
no way to prove or disprove either claim.
Therefore, this allegation is NOT SUSTAINED.
CONFIDENTIAL – DO NOT DUPLICATE
Investigator’s Report
Complaint: E.E.O. #2023-009
Page 17
Reporting Officer:
Brian Nielsen, Sergeant
ID:
6904
Division
Internal Affairs
Approved by:
Carmelin Rivera, Lieutenant
Date of Report:
October 31, 2023
2. EEO Sexual Harassment – SUSTAINED
Sergeant RAMIREZ sexually harassed Officer when he sent him a video meme
message via Instagram.
On August 20, 2023, at approximately 1545 hours, Officer received a message via Instagram in
a group chat that consisted of Officer Officer and Sergeant RAMIREZ. The
message was sent by Sergeant RAMIREZ and was a video meme of an elephant with a large penis with
the caption that read “Sometimes you get more than you originally wanted” with a laughing emoji.
Officer was offended by the message due to its penis reference and interpreted the meme to be
some kind of sexual message from Sergeant RAMIREZ.
Department Procedure 5.03 – EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY, dated September 2,
2021, states in part:
V. POLICY STATEMENT
B. Members shall be permitted a work atmosphere free from discrimination and
harassment of any form. Members shall not discriminate against, nor harass other
members. It shall be the responsibility of all supervisors to ensure a nondiscriminatory
work environment exists.
4. Federal and state law makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color,
gender, creed, religion, national origin, age, marital status, ancestry, medical
condition (history of cancer), pregnancy, disability, transgender status, or
sexual orientation. The Department’s EEO policy builds upon this foundation
and extends to every employee our commitment to provide a workplace that is
consistent with the law and actively supports and implements behavior that
reflects our Vision, Values and Mission Statement.
VI. DISCRIMINATION AND HARASSMENT
A. Equal Treatment
All employees shall be treated equally without regard to race, color, gender, creed,
religion, national origin, age, marital status, ancestry, medical condition (history of
cancer), pregnancy, disability, transgender status, or sexual orientation in all employment
matters, including, but not limited to, promotions, transfers, job rotation, training, work
assignments, hiring, merit increases, overtime, awards, and discipline.
CONFIDENTIAL – DO NOT DUPLICATE
Investigator’s Report
Complaint: E.E.O. #2023-009
Page 18
Reporting Officer:
Brian Nielsen, Sergeant
ID:
6904
Division
Internal Affairs
Approved by:
Carmelin Rivera, Lieutenant
Date of Report:
October 31, 2023
B. Harassment-free Work Environment
1. All employees shall be provided a work environment free from harassment.
Behavior constitutes harassment, as defined by this policy, when it is unwelcome
and unsolicited, offends or otherwise causes distress, and is undertaken because of
a person’s race, color, gender, creed, religion, national origin, age, marital status,
ancestry, medical condition, disability, pregnancy, transgender status or sexual
orientation. Examples include the use of derogatory comments, slurs, jokes, or
derogatory pictures, cartoons, or posters.
2. The City of San Diego and the Police Department have a 100% Response Policy
regarding harassment. The Department prohibits any harassment of employees, as
defined above, and actively responds to all allegations of violations of this
procedure. Such inappropriate conduct may be in violation of this policy and result
in discipline the first time such behavior occurs. Prior incidents of harassment can
be considered when assessing the facts and circumstances of a later complaint.
3. Whether an alleged action constitutes harassment, as defined above, will be
determined on a case-by-case basis by assessing the entire record and the totality of
the circumstances. Factors, such as the nature of the behavior and the context in
which the alleged incidents occurred, will be considered in assessing the allegations
and in determining the appropriate resolution.
C. Impact vs. Intent
1. Whether or not harassment occurred depends not on whether the act was intended
to cause harm, but the impact of the act on the individual’s employment or work
environment. For example, a person who teases in a sexual or racial manner, or
tells sexual or racial jokes, may create an offensive work environment for another
worker even though the person intended such action merely to be “good fun.” This
applies to the field, as well as office positions. If one’s behavior is harassing to an
individual or a group of individuals, it will not suffice that the harasser failed to
recognize the behavior as harassing.
2. It is not a requirement that the complainant be the intended target of the offensive
conduct. Witnessing offensive behavior between other employees may be grounds
for complaint.
CONFIDENTIAL – DO NOT DUPLICATE
Investigator’s Report
Complaint: E.E.O. #2023-009
Page 19
Reporting Officer:
Brian Nielsen, Sergeant
ID:
6904
Division
Internal Affairs
Approved by:
Carmelin Rivera, Lieutenant
Date of Report:
October 31, 2023
D. Sexual Harassment
1. Sexual harassment is a form of illegal gender discrimination. It is defined by law
as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, visual
or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:
a. Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term
or condition of an individual's employment;
b. Submission to, or rejection of, such conduct is used as the basis for
employment decisions affecting that employee; or,
c. Such conduct has the effect of unreasonably interfering with an
individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive working environment.
2. Unwelcome is used in the sense that the offended employee did not solicit or
incite the conduct and regarded it as undesirable or offensive.
3. The following are examples of sexual harassment. Behavior that constitutes
sexual harassment as defined by this policy is not limited to these examples:
a. Verbal harassment - sexual innuendo, sexually suggestive comments,
jokes, teasing of a sexual nature, discussing sexual exploits, spreading
rumors of a sexual connotation, or continued requests for social or sexual
contact.
b. Physical harassment - unwelcome contact, touching, or impeding
movement.
c. Visual harassment - sexually suggestive or derogatory posters, videos,
cartoons, drawings, documents, writings, electronic mail, texting, staring, or
leering.
d. Sexual favors - unwanted sexual advances or conditioning an
employment benefit on an exchange of sexual favors.
Officer stated he was at work and on duty when he received the video meme from Sergeant
RAMIREZ. Officer said he was “in shock” when he first viewed the video and saw it as being
“sexual in nature.” Officer said he took the message “sexually” and interpreted it to mean that
Sergeant RAMIREZ was going to engage Officer in a sex act.
CONFIDENTIAL – DO NOT DUPLICATE
Investigator’s Report
Complaint: E.E.O. #2023-009
Page 20
Reporting Officer:
Brian Nielsen, Sergeant
ID:
6904
Division
Internal Affairs
Approved by:
Carmelin Rivera, Lieutenant
Date of Report:
October 31, 2023
Sergeant RAMIREZ stated in his interview he decided to share the video was because it “shocked” him
and he was “impacted” by it. Sergeant RAMIREZ recognized that the focal point of the video, and what
the caption overlaying the video was referencing, was the elephant’s penis. Sergeant RAMIREZ said he
did not see the video as a joke, despite the “laughing out loud” emoji at the end of the caption, and stated
he chose to share the video because he was impacted by the video being an elephant with its penis erect.
Sergeant RAMIREZ also stated he did not intend to send the video to Officer Sergeant
RAMIREZ said at the time the video was sent he did not have a personal relationship with Officer
and the only communication he would send Officer was necessary, “work-related”
communications.
As explained in Allegation #1, whether Sergeant RAMIREZ intentionally sent the video to Officer
cannot be proved or disproved. However, there is no dispute that Sergeant RAMIREZ sent the
video and was received by Officer since Officer was part of the group thread in
which the video was sent. The message was unwelcomed by Officer who at that point in time
was only receiving work-related communications from Sergeant RAMIREZ. Officer who was
at work at the time, was offended by the sexual nature of the video and reported the incident to his
command.
Based on the totality of the circumstances, and regardless whether Officer was an intended
recipient of the video message, it was reasonable for Officer upon seeing the video to believe
he experienced sexual harassment by Sergeant RAMIREZ.
Therefore, this allegation is SUSTAINED.
