In Martin County, an investigation into workplace harassment has led to significant repercussions for two sheriff’s office supervisors, Lt. Todd Schimelfanick and Sgt. Stephen Walter. The inquiry revealed that both men mishandled a report regarding a civilian service aide, Daniel Klimek, who left his position under troubling circumstances. Klimek was accused of inappropriate conduct, including inappropriate touching and comments directed at both coworkers and citizens. As a result of their failure to act according to the agency’s established harassment policies, Schimelfanick was demoted to sergeant with a substantial pay cut, while Walter faced a two-day suspension.
The case originated when a civilian service aide reported being inappropriately touched by Klimek. Despite the clear indication of harassment, both Schimelfanick and Walter admitted they were unfamiliar with the sheriff’s office’s policy on harassment. The agency’s protocols emphasize supervisors’ obligations to prevent harassment and to take action when notified of such issues. Any failure to do so could lead to serious disciplinary action, including charges of neglect of duty. The investigation revealed a general lack of awareness regarding these policies among the supervisors, contributing to the mishandling of the situation.
The chain of events began when a female aide reported feeling uncomfortable due to Klimek’s actions, which included an off-duty encounter where he approached her inappropriately. After her report to a corporal, she expressed frustration over the lack of action taken by Schimelfanick and Walter. This prompted a further escalation, where the corporal sought to address the issue more formally, noting that the complainant should feel free to report harassment to any supervisor. However, Schimelfanick dismissed the incident as not meeting the threshold for sexual harassment, prompting further complaints from his subordinates.
As the investigation progressed, it became evident that Walter exhibited a lack of understanding about what constitutes sexual harassment. He justified his handling of the complaint by indicating that he was “too old school” and suggested that his perception of harassment standards might not align with modern definitions. Walter’s handling of the documentation of the incident was another critical factor, as he noted that he had not received formal training on proper procedures and relied on personal practices developed over a lengthy career. This attitude underscored a significant disconnect between established policies and the supervisors’ responses.
The investigation revealed a troubling pattern of complacency and failure to recognize the seriousness of harassment complaints within the department. Schimelfanick’s reliance on Walter to manage the situation, coupled with his own inclination to downplay the severity of the misconduct, suggested a lack of commitment to addressing harassment in the workplace. Both supervisors’ responses contributed to an environment where inappropriate behavior could go unchecked, leading to a breakdown in trust between employees and management in the sheriff’s office.
Ultimately, these disciplinary actions reflect a growing awareness of the importance of addressing harassment in the workplace, especially within law enforcement agencies. The shortcomings highlighted in this case serve as a cautionary tale about the consequences of neglecting established protocols for handling complaints. It emphasizes the necessity for continuous training and a proactive approach to creating a safe and respectful working environment. The shift in leadership and accountability in Martin County’s sheriff’s office indicates a critical step towards ensuring better management of workplace harassment issues in the future.