Finding F3
Public safety agencies are not following Policy C-25 requirements to cross reporting and/or forward C-25 complaints to HR.
Jury report: Policy vs Practice: An Investigation into Riverside County’s Workplace Discrimination Procedures · PDF page 16
Permanent linkOfficial responses
Riverside County Board of Supervisors, Executive Office and Human Resources
Partly agrees about inconsistent cross-reporting, limited to matters within C-25.
Read official response · PDF page 7The accepted reporting inconsistency and disputed scope are identified. The reply does not treat every workplace complaint as a protected-status policy complaint.
This review evaluates the response document. Implementation claims have not been independently verified.
Riverside County District Attorney’s Office
Partly disagrees; distinguishes qualifying C-25 complaints and cites cross-reporting history.
Read official response · PDF page 2Agency Finding 1 quotes jury F3. The complete signed letter identifies protected-status scope and reporting practices, not a general refusal to report all qualifying complaints.
This review evaluates the response document. Implementation claims have not been independently verified.
Riverside County Sheriff’s Office
Disagrees wholly.
Read official response · PDF page 2The Sheriff describes investigation and notification when the C-25 protected-status criteria apply, distinguishing other personnel matters. This gives a specific disagreement explanation, not independently verified compliance.
This review evaluates the response document. Implementation claims have not been independently verified.