In an open letter released over the weekend, female deputies from Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department who work at the East Los Angeles station, forcefully disputed many of the claims made in a sexual harassment lawsuit filed earlier this month, by LASD deputy, Guadalupe Lopez. The lawsuit alleges that Lopez was the object of various kinds of sexual harassment and retaliation by a clique of deputies that called themselves the Banditos. The suit also states that Lopez was given to believe that various other female deputies submitted to the sexual demands. (Here’s a link to our previous post on the Lopez/Banditos lawsuit.
Yolanda Villanueva, the mother of the East LA female deputies, read the letter aloud on Saturday, according to NBC news. (The deputies have, understandably remained anonymous.)
The letter reads, in part:
….Guadalupe Lopez claimed female deputy trainees were expected to submit and provide sexual favors for male training officers as a form of initiation to become full pledged patrol deputies. Her claims suggest those of us currently holding patrol deputy positions, subjected ourselves in order to maintain our position at the station.
The women at East Los Angeles Station can state without equivocation that they have not experienced such conduct. In making these allegations and pursuing her own agenda, Guadalupe Lopez has diminished, not only what we females at East Los Angeles worked so hard to achieve, but also the progress made and the respect female law enforcement officers across the country have earned. Her claims trivialize our accomplishments and we find it insulting. The claims have affected us on a professional and personal level. Our reputation as female professionals, wives, mothers, etc., is unjustly questioned, as a result of her claims.
The full text of the letter may be found here: ELA Female Deputy Statement
WLA has corresponded with one of the deputies, a wife and mother, who was very upset by the claims Lopez made in her suit.
“The public needs to understand,” she wrote, “that ELA Station has very few female deputies (22 total), of those 22, only a small fraction work in patrol. The statement speaks for all of us. Therefore in order for a “sex club” to exist we would have to know about it. She has hurt us with her claims and diminished everything we worked so hard to accomplish.”
In response to the letter released by the deputies, one of Lopez’s attorneys released a statement reaffirming the allegations stated in the lawsuit. “Ms. Lopez never stated that the majority of female deputies assigned to East Los Angeles Station were involved in any sexual activities with their male counterparts,” the press release said, according NBC.
We’ll bring you more on this perplexing and painful story as it unfolds.
Well, Lupe I guess you have witnesses from some other place you worked?
For a person to read a letter out loud illustrates how strongly they believe their statement. All the deputies involved with the letter have now exposed themselves to investigation and witnesses later in court. Difficult to imagine that anyone would sign a document and expose themselves financially and lie!
Having previously been assigned to ELA Station, I have NEVER heard of sexual favors required by female Deps to get off training. If you’ve ever seen Ms Lopez, all would concur that this lawsuit is frivolous.
Its one thing to file a lawsuit and claim sexual harassment. Many woman have experienced sexual harassment in the work place and rightfully file lawsuits. However by reading the lawsuit Guadalupe Lopez did much more than that. She claimed “ELA deputy trainees” were expected to perform sexual favors in order to be patrol deps. If I worked at ELA, a law firm, a school, Mc Donalds and someone publized that the women employed at my place of employment had to so sexual favors to be employed I would be insulted too! What kind of an attorney would file this lawsuit and not expect a line of woman at the court in an uproar.
Well, well ,well … lookie, lookie here! When this story broke on this site, it was followed with the comment, “Let us hope that some of those folks come forward.” Well, they have …all 22 of them… and they have spoken. Case closed. All that is left to do is decide how much the “go away” money will be.
On April 1st I commented.
This is one of those capers where you probably wouldn’t be singing the praises of her case if you met for a cup with your fellow deps., because you might be looking like a naive fool later on down the line.
leftAtTheBall must be too busy searching for a crow recipe in an on-line cook book to comment now. I’ll help you out leftAtTheBall. Eliminate the three cups of “Got it” and the one cup of “Sure your right” in your marinade. It won’t be near as bitter to the palate when you have to swallow it.
I’m glad this came out. Not much to say after this letter.
I should have said “if” you have to swallow it. It’s not over yet. Ms. Lopez’ could be telling the truth and the rest of the women at ELA could be lying.
I’ll wait for some of the experts that are able to make snap judgements and then present them as if they’re accurate to point me in the right direction before I jump to a conclusion.
What do you think leftAtTheBall? Should I still be a little bit suspicious of Ms. Lopez’ suit or should I condemn the other women for lying?
Take note of the comment, “tons of female deputies standing in line to set this weak caper straight.” You don’t come up with that kind of stuff in retirement PJ’s and slippers. Finger on the pulse…! Just sayin! Boomer.
IthacaBoomer Says:
March 31st, 2014 at 10:04 pm
Completely bogus and baseless lawsuit. Rolled up, grasped for straws, and now wants a fat payday. We’ve all seen this before. Question is will the Department cave? Hope not, there’s tons of ELA female deputies standing in line to set this weak caper straight. No biz in patrol, especially not in my radio car! Boom.
According to the Witness LA article,”the deputies have, understandably remained anonymous,” and the deputy who told NBC, “There’s no sex club. That’s just ridiculous,” on the condition of anonymity;” why? I don’t know which or if any of the Lopez lawsuit’s allegations have merit, but I do know first hand the severe, gang-like bullying and peer pressure that is all too common amongst too many working the gun-slinger stations. The Lopez lawsuit I read alleged certain behaviors toward Lopez, not female patrol deputies en-masse. She alleged HER experiences, her observations, and did not claim to speak for all other females. How can an anonymous letter claiming to represent EVERY female deputy at the station, claiming that each knows with absolute certainty, that none of the lawsuit allegations have merit? Omnipresence? How does an unsigned letter, read by a representative, on behalf of anonymous female deputies, get taken seriously? Lopez may be a mediocre or substandard deputy, or a good one, and her lawsuit may get dismissed, or it may go to trial and perhaps find for the plaintiff. Regardless of how the lawsuit shakes out in court, we still have major problems with the “them” and “us,” the elitist culture and the folks who go to work every day just wanting to do their jobs well without undue thug intimidation.
How about that Boomer. Me and you on the same page. And you didn’t even have to “school” me prior to me thinking the suit didn’t pass the sniff test.
My suggestion, we let this take its course. Lopez has to “prove” her case, we all know the routine. Let her have her day in court, let her lay out the facts (that is all I am interested in) and let the truth be told. I’m not interested in rumors. wagons being circled to support others, character assassination statements, hypotheses or the infamous, “I heard,” I just want to hear the facts. Lopez has the burden of proof, lets stop assuming we know about this case based on the law suit itself.
As for the Banditos, thats what LASD really needs right now, another “alleged” clique. That group is now going to face an investigation and the spotlight is now on ELA. I wish folks would just stop and think about the long term repercussions for their ink, what it represents and the effects on the public and Plaintiff attorneys when this stuff surfaces. Don’t people ever learn?
Searchlight, I think your approach to this is correct. My earlier comments were tempered with caution and I stated more than once that Ms. Lopez’ suit could be exactly as alleged.
I cautioned people that they might want to wait before they sing the praises of the suit.
I gave my opinion that I saw some indicators, nothing more, that made it smell funny to me. I flatly stated I knew no facts of the case. I reminded them they didn’t either.
Yet, some of these LE people who purport themselves to be experienced, knowledgable cops couldn’t wait to jump all sarcastic with me. They made comments that insinuated I was either biased or a fool.
I have no interest in circling the wagons for anybody. But I do have an interest in checking a smartass know-it-all who thinks he’s the smartest cop in the room know that he MIGHT not know as much as he comes off like he does.
My experience tells me that is usually the only way people like that learn.
It’s not over yet. She hasn’t had her day in court. But let’s be honest, there won’t be near as many cops looking into their crystal ball and jumping on her bandwagon now. The indicators say she’s got an uphill battle. Her counselis probably thinking instead of her buying that condo in Hawaii, they’re hoping they can get her enough for an apartment in El Monte. More could be revealed. If I’m wrong, I WILL COMMENT, FOR ALL TO SEE, that my instincts were wrong, and that I read the indicators wrong and still have a lot to learn.
Sadly enough, I won’t hold my breath waiting for the same admission from others if I turn out to be right.
Re: Your comment on ink nowadays, I couldn’t agree with you more.
My original post is below. I still stand by it. If the training was conducted professionally and documented correctly, without the flat tires, and rats and other high school pranks, AND the sexual harassment/”assault” did not exist then the odds of this lawsuit would be greatly reduced.
I also said there are facts and fabrications in the lawsuit.
But at the risk of sounding redundant, “You guys did not do yourself any favors in the handling of this one.”
Before you light the cigar and share a beer, ask yourself, “could we (the deputies) have done this any better?
Even if everything is a lie, you have highlighted “The Banditos” as another rogue group. And some of you will wear that with honor. That is truly the sad part.
And why do the females want to be anonymous? I personally would commend them coming forward to say they were never harassed. Surely out of the 22 one could come forward and say I trained at ELA and their were no issues. I trained several females, and if one made an allegation, I would expect all the others to be interviewed.
I see so if she had a loaded shotgun in the station, she couldn’t of been sexually coerced? Got it Bro, sure your right. Maybe if the training focused on policy and procedure instead of her pants, she would have known.
And what about the flat tires? Justified, “we are ol school Bro.” Got it.
And the rat? Hey she has to learn Bro. Got it.
WTF is going on? High School?
I’m sure there is some truth and fabrication in the lawsuit, and maybe she would have failed patrol training, but you guys are not doing yourself any favors.
The attorneys response: “Ms Lopez never stated that the majority of female deputies assigned to East Los Angeles Station were involved in any sexual activities with their male counterparts,”
Oh not the “majority” does that mean only some? Ms. Lopez needs to make this about herself and stop slandering the females. She’s trying to get paid at all costs.
Lefty,
Not doing myself any favors? No. I’m not. I was never trying to. I’m not lighting a cigar, nor pouring a cold one over any of this. It’s sad. Very sad. I get no pleasure out of it.
And speaking of one not doing their self any favors, in an attempt to avoid admitting that it appears you might simply be wrong, you’re digging a deep hole. I find not only that your logic is extremely flawed, but you’re also putting up some red flags where your personal ethics are concerned.
“Even if everything is a lie, you have highlighted “The Banditos” as another rogue group”.
I see. If it’s determined she is lying about everything, it’s still a good lie. It’s for the greater good. Evil needs to be rooted out. She’s doing the right thing by lying.
You would have just done better to admit it appears you may have got this wrong. In your attempt to justify and rationalize your position, you are exposing yourself. And not in a good way.
Oh, one other thing. As far as them being “anonymous”, they aren’t. They aren’t truly anonymous because they work there and are listed on a roster and on the LASD Outlook e-mail system. Anybody on the LASD can find out who they are.
So which is it, are you’re not smart enough to realize that? …..OR……is it yet another example of you being willing to say things you know not to be the case simply to try and justify your previous position?
Is it not truly astonishing the lengths some people will go to in order to avoid admitting they MIGHT be wrong about something.
I might be wrong. Ms.Lopez could be telling the truth and everybody else could lying. I still don’t know the facts of the case. See how easy that is leftAtTheBall?
Are you sure they who wrote the letter, are the same as the ones who work there? That would be an assumption, and those don’t usually hold water.
As far as me being wrong, I don’t state I know the facts of the case. History has taught me with most lawsuits there is a lot of lies. Having been sued myself I have been subjected to the lies. That being said there is always some truths. In this case I say even if all of what she said about the sex favors, the Banditos are still in the forefront.
My main point is IF we focus on being the professionals we are, and don’t resort to the high school shenanigans of flat tires, dead rats, and other forms of hazing, and document training issues then we usually avoid these type of issues.
I will openly state I have no facts in this case. But if all is proved to false, the “Banditos” will be looked at in an negative way by many. Sadly that means all of us in uniform will be lumped in with that. ELA has had issues for some time. My main point is it is time to be the professionals we are and lose all the clique clubs, with the lingo and the slang. Some times it seems in fashion, by a few, to emulate those we take to jail.That is an insult to all of us. So if I gave you and others the impression that I saying she is completely factual in her suit, you are wrong. I have no knowledge of those facts. So we are clear on that?
Leftattheball they did come forward on television
Lefty,
We are clear on that. Always were. I assumed you didn’t know the facts of the case. Hey, how about that, there’s an assumption that proved out. Let’s be clear on one other thing. Not having a tattoo or not calling your club/clique/group by a specific name isn’t going to eliminate cliques of deputies. You keep using the high school metaphors. Did the jocks in high school have jock tattoos? The stoners? The surfers? Get my drift? Somebody having a tattoo or belonging to a group/club/clique doesn’t automatically mean they are good or bad. Nor does the failure of having a tattoo or calling their group by a name mean they will cease to exist. Example – the mafia. Not the EME. The American mafia. The outfit. The mob. No tattoos on those guys. They won’t even admit they’re in it. Am I making any sense?
By the way, if the Banditos are another example of an out of control rogue group of deputies on the LASD, I find it strange that I hadn’t heard of them until I read about them on this site. Can you give me an example of some of their previous out of control rogue behavior? Other than Ms. Lopez’ suit of course, which, as I stated before, doesn’t pass the sniff test with me. ELA has problems? More so than say, Compton or Carson or Norwalk or Lancaster? Can you enlighten us all by stating specific examples? I hadn’t even heard of them prior to this. Maybe I’m out of touch. Enlighten me. Please!
does the lawsuit filed against LASD by Deputy Guadalupe Lopez contain any allegation(s) that female trainees at E.L.A. Station provided or were required to provide sexual favors to male members of the Bandidos clique?
I don’t recall finding any such allegation(s) after skimming through the online copy of the lawsuit.
The lawsuit simply alleges that trainee Deputy Lopez was told that female deputies were required to service the Bandidos and she was told to follow along.
Deputy Lopez doesn’t need to show that anything unlawful, illegal or improper was done to or was participated in by any other female Deputy at E.L.A. Station in order to prevail in her lawsuit.
She only needs to prove that the treatment she received constitutes a violation of her employee rights by LASD.
Oh Well- I think we are clear. TO point out any other issues related to the “Banditos” would be pointless, it serves as cannon fodder for those who wish to further their own agenda.
So for the sake of argument lets say there is no other issue. Now ask a person their opinion of the Banditos today. Just take it from there.
And for the record, I am not saying there are no other issues, cause there are,if you are from ELA or have friends there, then you know, but enough crap has flowed from this story.
The “American Mafia” was Italian by the way. And using the high school metaphor, most of us left those cliques when we left High School.
Most of the ink worn by deputies relating to work identify where they are from.
As for the female deputies being on T.V., my bad, I try not to watch the news, its mostly B.S. and lies. So my apologies for the ignorance on that.
As for the ink, I declined mine. Honored to be considered, but in my own mind, I didn’t want it. Never judged those who did ink. But when this stuff blows up, it always negative. You understand it, I get it, but it never gets associated with anything good in the press.
And honestly some of the behavior is down right embarrassing.
And Ill close my conversation with that, you have your opinion, and you presented that well. I have mine, and it would appear the presentation was not so well. Hopefully we have the same goal to restore this department.
Lefty,
I couldn’t agree more that getting inked isn’t real smart nowadays.
And yes, we have the same goal. I never doubted that.
And great job re: not responding to my question. My bad. You’re right on that. I was wrong and had HUA to even ask.
Prophet Mo’ Teff, Guadalupe Lopez stated she was made to believe female trainees were required to do sexual favors in order to be patrol deputies. Her claims are suggestive, so much so that the news media referred to it as a “sex club”.
Why are you all in denial that there’s been sexual encounters amongst the lasd while on the clock? Have you not seen the many times that they’ve been caught having sex in their patrol cars? C’mon. Who would trust their significant other with these kind of behavior by their colleagues? Not many.