Chris Lagerbloom 25 February 2022

City Manager
City of Fort Lauderdale
100 North Andrews Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

Dear Mr. Lagerbloom:

On November 22, 2021 the City entered an agreement with Rossman Legal wherein this author
was tasked with investigating “various complaints and allegations of workplace discrimination at
the Fort Lauderdale Police Department related to recent promotions.” The City was seeking an
independent investigation from outside its own organizational structure. The Scope of Services
called for “objective investigative services regarding the matter.” In this role, I was given complete
freedom to investigate the matter by “gathering and reviewing relevant records, interviewing
relevant witnesses” and the agreement required “preparing a report” of my findings. This
document summarizes my investigation and serves as the “report of my findings” as spelled out in
the “Scope of Services.”

I stand ready to discuss the report and the basis for its findings at your convenience.

Sincerely,

Gregg Rossman
 Investigation of Complaints of Discrimination

I was advised that somewhere between four (4) to six (6) employees may have alleged a
complaint or complaints invoking possible Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) violations directly related to the matter. I was advised that four (4) employees were
represented by counsel. I was provided the names of employees that “might” have relevant
information. I was provided documents for review including two (2) filed “grievances”, three (3)
promotional eligibility lists, and a press release related to promotions. I reviewed relevant
Collective Bargaining Agreements, City Codes/Ordinances, City Human Resources Department
Policy, EEOC guidelines and relevant case law. I was provided a private setting to interview City
employees without input or participation by City staff.

I broke out the scope of the work into several stages. First, there was a review of “governing
documents” including those stated above. Second, there was a review of EEOC guidance and
case law. Third, interviews were conducted with a number of employees relating to the matter.
Finally, there was an independent analysis conducted by this investigator. The purpose of this
report is to relate the findings of my investigation. It is the product of the above described
process.

Stage 1: Governing Document Review

Collective Bargaining Agreements

The first grievance alleged a violation of “Article 6, Section 3.” The grievance listed two classes
of employees - sergeants and lieutenants - as complainants. This is significant because sergeants
work under a particular collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the City.1 Lieutenants work
under a separate CBA.2 Upon reviewing Article 6 in each “Agreement,” the language was found
to be exactly the same and the relevant sections are re-stated here:

ARTICLE 6 - EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Section 1 The City and the Union agree to full and unequivocal cooperation with each other in
eliminating all unlawful discrimination and to assure all personnel programs, policies, and
assignments are free from unlawful discriminatory practices.

Section 3 There shall be no unlawful discrimination by the City in employment, employment

opportunities or job actions on the basis of race, creed, color, religion, age, sex, national origin,
disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, familial status or marital status, or other
characteristic protected by law unless one or more of the above constitute a bona fide
occupational qualification within the meaning of the law. No present employee will be unlawfully
discriminated against or given preference because of any of the above characteristics, unless
otherwise required by law.

1
2020-2022 Agreement between the City of Fort Lauderdale and the Fort Lauderdale Police Lodge 31 Police Officers and Sergeants.
2
2020-2022 Agreement between the City of Fort Lauderdale and the Fort Lauderdale Police Lodge 31 Lieutenants and Captains.

Author: Gregg Rossman, Esq. 25 Feb 2022

Page 1 of 12 Report of Investigation In Re: EEO Complaints in FLPD Promotional Process
This grievance alleged a “preference given in the promotional process based on gender or race.”

The second grievance likewise listed two classes of employees - sergeants and lieutenants - as
complainants. Again, this is significant because both Article 36 and Article 37 are very different
in the two relevant Agreements.

The second grievance simply alleged “Grievance: Article 37, Section 7 but not limited to;
Candidates passed over for promotion shall have the right to appeal beginning at Step 3 of the
Grievance Procedure.” However, Article 37 in each CBA deals with “Shift Assignments” and
has no relevance to the matter alleged.

It appears the complainants intended to invoke Article 36 – Promotional Examinations, Section 7

in the CBA pertaining to Officers and Sergeants. The grievance references some language found
therein. Article 36, Section 7 in this CBA states:

Section 7. Promotional scores shall be whole numbers, and the Police Chief shall have the right,
when recommending appointments, to choose from the top five (5) candidates certified.
Candidates passed over for promotion shall have the right to appeal beginning at Step 3 of the
Grievance Procedure. If tie scores result in more than five (5) candidates being certified, the
Police Chief may choose for promotion from the larger number.

This language does not exist in “Article 36 – Promotions” in the CBA pertaining to Lieutenants
and Captains. Therefore, this grievance as written does not apply to any Lieutenant or Captain.

Assuming arguendo this grievance applies to all complainants listed, it appears to state a
complaint about a contractual grievance process but makes no overt or implied allegation of
discrimination of any kind. Therefore, this issue is outside the scope of this investigation and the
author will offer no finding related to it.

City Codes/Ordinances

The City of Fort Lauderdale codifies its commitment to protecting individuals from
discrimination primarily in Chapter 29 of its Code. Chapter 29 is titled “Human Relations.”
Relevant sections are cited here:

ARTICLE I. - IN GENERAL
The general purpose and intent of this chapter is:

(1) To express support within the city for the policies embodied in the Broward County Human
Rights Act of 2011, as amended; Titles II, III, and VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended; Title VIII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended; Section 504 of the
Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; the Civil Rights Act of 1991, as amended; the
Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967, as amended; the Americans with Disabilities

Author: Gregg Rossman, Esq. 25 Feb 2022

Page 2 of 12 Report of Investigation In Re: EEO Complaints in FLPD Promotional Process
 Act of 1990, as amended; the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended; and other federal,
state, and county anti-discrimination laws; and

(2) To secure for all individuals within the city freedom from discrimination because of race,
color, religion, sex, national origin, age, marital status, political affiliation, familial status,
disability, sexual orientation, pregnancy, gender identity or expression, veteran or service
member status, lawful source of income, or being the victim of dating violence, domestic
violence, or stalking, in connection with employment, housing and public accommodations, or
real estate transactions, where applicable, and thereby to promote the interests, rights, and
privileges of individuals within the city.

This chapter shall be liberally construed to further the general purposes stated in this chapter. The
provisions of this chapter shall be construed consistent with similar federal and state statutes and
Broward County ordinances.

Sec. 29-2. - Definitions.

Aggrieved person means any person who claims to have been injured by a discriminatory
practice. Discriminatory employment practice means an act that is unlawful under Article II of
this chapter and Article VI, as it relates to acts made unlawful under Article II of this chapter.
Discriminatory practice means an act or practice designated as unlawful under the terms of this
chapter.

ARTICLE II. - DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT

Sec. 29-11. - Discriminatory practices in employment.
(6) Discriminatory information gathering. Except as permitted by ordinance, by applicable
federal, state, or county law, or by bona fide occupational qualifications, it is a discriminatory
practice for an employer or employment agency:

a. To elicit information about an employee's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age,
marital status, political affiliation, disability, sexual orientation, pregnancy, or gender identity or
expression; or

The city commission shall not adopt any ordinance or regulation that authorizes an employer to
disclose information that is otherwise prohibited from disclosure pursuant to federal, state,
county, or local law.

The City has clearly stated in the above quoted sections that it follows federal and state law and
county ordinances applicable to discrimination generally and employment discrimination
specifically. The City defines discriminatory practices in employment in Article II. Of note,
Section 29-11, subsection (6) declares it “discriminatory” to elicit information about an
employee’s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, marital status, political affiliation,
disability, sexual orientation, pregnancy, or gender identity or expression.

Author: Gregg Rossman, Esq. 25 Feb 2022

Page 3 of 12 Report of Investigation In Re: EEO Complaints in FLPD Promotional Process
 City Human Resources Department Policy
The City’s Non-Discrimination/Harassment Policies

The following Notices are taken verbatim directly from the Human Resources page on the City
website. The emphasis is original as it appears on the website:

The City of Fort Lauderdale is AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND AFFIRMATIVE

ACTION EMPLOYER. All applicants receive consideration for employment without regard to
age, ancestry, color, marital status, sexual orientation, national origin, disability, political
affiliation, race, religion, creed, sex or other non-merit factors (except as limited by law,
Personnel Rules, Collective Bargaining Agreements, or bona fide occupational qualifications).

Title VI Notice of Compliance

It is the policy of the City of Fort Lauderdale, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; Age Discrimination Act of 1975; Section 324 of
the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973; Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987; and related statutes
and regulations, that no person shall on the basis of race, color, national origin, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination or
retaliation under any federally or non-federally funded program or activity administered by the
City or its sub-recipients.

Although these statements do not carry the authority of an ordinance, they do make clear the
City’s total commitment to ensuring no individual suffers discrimination particularly within the
employment practices of the City.

Stage 2 EEOC Guidelines

The EEOC reference manual was reviewed and utilized for guidance. The following sections are
taken directly from the EEOC and relevant cases.3

Conducting A Thorough Investigation

Because discrimination often is subtle, and there rarely is a “smoking gun,” determining whether
race played a role in the decision making requires examination of all of the surrounding facts and
circumstances. The presence or absence of any one piece of evidence often will not be
determinative. Sources of information can include witness statements, including consideration of
their credibility; documents; direct observation; and statistical evidence such as EEO-1 data,
among others.

Title VII also does not permit racially motivated decisions driven by business concerns – for
example, concerns about the effect on employee relations, or the negative reaction of clients or
customers. Nor may race or color ever be a bona fide occupational qualification under Title VII.

3
See EEOC Compl. Man., Vol. I, Sec. 26

Author: Gregg Rossman, Esq. 25 Feb 2022

Page 4 of 12 Report of Investigation In Re: EEO Complaints in FLPD Promotional Process
Race/Color Discrimination & Work Situations
The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring,
firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or
condition of employment.

Potential Evidence of Racial Disparate Treatment

Race-related statements (oral or written) made by decisionmakers or persons influential to the
decision. Race-related statements include not only slurs and patently biased statements, but also
“code words” that are purportedly neutral on their face but which, in context, convey a racial
meaning. The credibility of the witnesses attesting to discriminatory statements, and the
credibility of the witnesses denying them, are critical to determining whether such statements
actually were made. If racially discriminatory statements were made, their importance will
depend on their egregiousness and how closely they relate – in time and content – to the decision
in question. For example, a statement that there are “too many Asians” in a department, made by
a hiring official when discussing applicants, would be strong evidence supporting an Asian
American’s failure-to-hire claim. Such a statement also would support a claim of hostile work
environment by Asian American employees.

Comparative treatment evidence. This is evidence as to whether the claimant was treated the
same as, or differently than, similarly situated persons of a different race. Such evidence is not
always required, but a difference in the treatment of similarly situated persons of different races
is probative of discrimination because it tends to show that the treatment was not based on a
nondiscriminatory reason. Conversely, an employer’s consistent treatment of similarly situated
persons of different races tends to support its contention that no discrimination occurred.
Comparator evidence that supports either party’s position must be weighed in light of all the
circumstances. For example, if the group of similarly situated persons who were treated better
than the claimant included persons of the claimant’s race, that would weaken his or her claim,
but it would not be conclusive proof of nondiscrimination because the balance of the evidence
overall might still more convincingly point to discrimination. Identification of persons who are
similarly situated to the claimant should be based on the nature of the allegations, the alleged
nondiscriminatory reasons, and other important factors suggested by the context, but should not
be based on unduly restrictive standards.

Relevant background facts. Specific employment decisions and issues should not be looked at in
isolation. Other information that can shed light on whether the employer’s adverse employment
decision was motivated by race includes the employer’s treatment of other employees (or
customers, etc.), race-related attitudes, the work environment generally, and the context of the

Author: Gregg Rossman, Esq. 25 Feb 2022

Page 5 of 12 Report of Investigation In Re: EEO Complaints in FLPD Promotional Process
challenged employment decision. The point is that background evidence can help determine the
employer’s state of mind and otherwise provide important context.

Relevant personnel policies. An employer’s deviation from an applicable personnel policy, or a

past practice, can support an inference of a discriminatory motive. Conversely, acting in
conformance with a consistently applied nondiscriminatory policy or practice would suggest
there is no such motive.

Hiring and Promotion

The law generally leaves it to the employer’s business judgment to determine who should be
hired or promoted. Within that context, however, an applicant’s race should not affect his or her
chances. This means that employers cannot treat persons of different races differently in the
hiring or promotion process. Nor may employers use selection criteria that have a significant
discriminatory effect without being able to prove that the criteria are job-related and consistent
with business necessity. Thus, a sound way for employers both to achieve business goals and to
comply with the law is to hire and promote based on job-related ability, as measured by uniform
and consistently applied qualification/selection standards.

Uniform and Consistently Applied Standards

When making hiring and promotion decisions, employers must apply the same selection criteria
to persons of different races, and apply them in the same way, giving the same weight to each
criterion for each person. The reasons given for selection decisions should be credible and
supported by the evidence.

Stage 3: Summary of Interviews

Process

The City provided a pool of “potential witnesses” made up largely from the promotional
eligibility lists that were in effect at the relevant time and anyone involved in the promotional
process. The pool consisted of sixty-four (64) names.

I determined the best protocol to follow would be to invite witnesses via email. This would
ensure each witness received the exact same information in the invite. Each invitation contained
the following information: who I was, why I was hired, the process to be followed and the
voluntary nature of the invitation. The invitation stated that the meetings would be conducted in
person at a Conference Room provided by the city but outside City Hall or the Police
Department. It also stated that interviews could be conducted at any other location, via
Zoom/WebEx or via telephone if necessary.

Based on the initial information I was provided I decided to give the Chief the first opportunity
to meet with me prior to inviting or hearing from any other witnesses. His invitation clearly
stated that he did not have to meet with me at all. It also stated that if he agreed to meet, I would

Author: Gregg Rossman, Esq. 25 Feb 2022

Page 6 of 12 Report of Investigation In Re: EEO Complaints in FLPD Promotional Process
defer to his choice of meeting with me first or to meet with me last after all other interviews were
completed. The Chief did not respond to my initial email invitation but at a later time he reached
out and stated he would meet with me and we agreed he would be my last interview.

Initially, invitations were sent to twenty-four (24) potential witnesses. Twenty agreed to be
interviewed. Sixteen were interviewed in person and four over the phone. If necessary, a second
round of interviews were to be set however at the conclusion of these interviews I did not believe
any further interviews were warranted.

Witnesses were given a choice of how and where the interview would take place. All witnesses
were advised the interviews would not be recorded and no particular statement would be
attributed to anyone.4 All were advised they did not need an attorney but could bring one if they
so chose. This was offered to ensure maximum cooperation. Eleven interviews were conducted
in a City Conference Room, five in my office and four over the phone. Four interviews were
coordinated with and attended by one attorney. These four interviews were conducted first for
scheduling purposes. Interviews were taken from early December through the end of January.

Each interview began with a scripted introduction. A rubric of questions was asked of each
witness. Witnesses were encouraged to answer in a narrative form to ensure the sharing of as
much information as possible. Witnesses were given my contact information and encouraged to
follow up with me if anything new came to mind after our interviews. Two people followed up
with me after their interviews.

Factual Findings

The interviews with twenty-one (21) witnesses (including the Chief) revealed a consistent
narrative revolving around the Chief’s vocalization of his outright “intention to promote
diversity.”5 The following facts are deemed credible based on the convergence of facts from a
broad range of witnesses, interviewed independently from one another.

The Chief on more than one occasion, to different groups of people, pointed to the wall in the
Chief’s conference room and stated, “that wall is too white”6 and “I’m gonna change that.” The
wall displays pictures of FLPD Command Staff.7 These statements were made in meetings
involving General Staff on at least one occasion, Union members on one occasion and when
considering promotions for Captain. In the first couple weeks8 of the Chief’s tenure, promotions
were being considered because the promotional eligibility lists were due to expire. The Chief
said he chose a few members of senior staff of varying rank to assist him in the promotional
decision-making process because he was new to the agency and they had a wealth of institutional

4
It would be impossible to shield the Chief from attribution. This was discussed and the Chief stated his comments could be attributed to him.
Two other witnesses also agreed to being quoted directly. All witnesses discussed a fear of retribution if they spoke openly to this investigator.
5
The credibility of the witness statements is further bolstered by Chief Scirotto’s use of strikingly similar language in previous interviews for
open Chief’s positions. In an interview with Metro Nashville on 10/29/2020 he stated, “you have to be intentional about hiring diversity” and
in talking about promotions he said leadership must “promote diversity as an intention.”
6
The faces in the group consisted of 17/18 people, 4/5 of whom were from recognized protected classes. (Ethnicity/Gender/Sexual Orientation)
7
At the time, Fort Lauderdale PD General Staff was defined by the rank of Captain or above.
8
It is believed the promotional interviews were conducted on or about August 18, 2021.

Author: Gregg Rossman, Esq. 25 Feb 2022

Page 7 of 12 Report of Investigation In Re: EEO Complaints in FLPD Promotional Process
knowledge. The Chief invited all eligible officers to submit resumes and he invited all of them to
meet in person with him and the senior staff he had chosen to assist him.

After the meeting process was completed, the Chief discussed possible promotions with the
senior staff he had assembled. The Chief asked the senior staff members who they believed
should be promoted. When discussing the open Captain’s position, there was unanimity that the
person with the second highest score from the testing process (Lt. Charlie Studders) was “very
easily” the top choice based on his body of work within the Department.9 He is a white male
with twenty years tenure.

The Chief’s response was reported to be:

- “not Charlie”
- “it’s between these two” (pointing to the names of Stone and Cruz, two males of color)
- “this is between Cecil and Eddie” (Stone and Cruz)
- “which one is blacker”
- “this wall is too white”

One witness reportedly said, “minority status is not related to the darkness of the pigment of their
skin” and “you can’t choose someone based on their skin color.” The Chief replied, “which one
will be more acceptable to the community” or “is this an accurate reflection of the community?”

It is unclear if the Chief made the following statements in this same meeting or just after, but it
was said in relation to the Captain’s promotion:
- “Cecil obviously looks more black than Eddie.”
- “Cecil is blacker than Eddie.”

Cecil Stone was promoted to fill the open Captain’s position at that time.

In relation to this promotion one of the four candidates was a white female (Lt. Kim Maus). She
was told she was promoted in January of 2021 and this was published in a document titled
“Memo from the Desk of Interim Chief Karen Dietrich.” This document is dated January 22,
2021. This “promotion”, along with three others, was invalidated by the City based on a change
in status of an allegedly retiring Captain. She remained on the eligibility list when the new Chief
was appointed. She was initially listed fourth out of the eligible candidates but six people were in
the “Rule of Five.”10

As stated above, the Chief employed a process to determine how to fill the open positions within
the Department. There were four eligible candidates on the expiring Captain’s list and there was
one open Captain’s position in August of 2021. The Chief consulted with senior staff and
received input from them. The Chief confirmed that they all advised him that Lt. Charlie
Studders, listed number two on the list, was the top choice for this position. According to the
Chief, no one recommended Lt. Maus among all four eligible candidates.

9
The expiring eligibility list had four names remaining on it. The Department uses a “Rule of 5” promotional tool so all four were eligible picks
within the Chief’s discretion despite rankings from the testing process. The second highest score was a 92. The next highest score was an 84.
The two bottom scores were 80.
10
Inexplicably the “Rule of Five” is not limited to five candidates. It could have an unlimited number of eligible candidates as there is no tie
breaker among scores so theoretically every person that tests for a promotion could be eligible no matter how many people test.

Author: Gregg Rossman, Esq. 25 Feb 2022

Page 8 of 12 Report of Investigation In Re: EEO Complaints in FLPD Promotional Process
The Chief personally called each candidate that was considered for promotion – not just the one
being promoted.11 Lt. Maus12 claims the Chief told her that he “was passing her over and
promoting Lt. Cecil Stone.” She stated that every person previously promoted on January 22,
2021 and had that promotion rescinded was now being promoted by Chief Scirotto – except for
her. Based on that, she went in and met with the Chief on August 23, 2021. She claims in that
meeting the Chief said “what happened to those people was unfathomable” in relation to the
rescinded promotions. She also stated the Chief told her directly that her “rank provided him the
opportunity for some diversity, and I (he) took it. Cecil Stone is a competent black male.” Lt.
Maus stated this was a “gut punch” and was “humiliating.”

Lt. Maus stated the next promotion occurred October 3, 2021. She stated the Chief called her
again to advise he was not promoting her and was promoting Lt. Charlie Studders and Lt. Eddie
Cruz. She stated that she challenged Chief Scirotto saying “you talk about diversity and on your
wall there is only one woman.” She stated the Chief replied, “I am promoting Lynette to
Major”13 and “as you can see there are not a lot of brown faces on that wall and I plan to change
that.”

Sgt. Malushi14 stated that Chief Scirotto called and advised him “you are being passed over (for a
promotion) for Deanna Greenlaw.” He stated in this conversation the Chief then offered him
praise and told him he was “respected within the organization” and to “keep doing your job.
Keep doing what you are doing.” Shortly after that conversation, on August 31, 2021, Sgt.
Malushi saw Chief Scirotto at an event at the POA Hall and asked him “why am I being passed
over?” According to Sgt. Malushi, Chief Scirotto said “I had to consider a lot of things. It was a
gut punch to Deanna to lose the promotion (previously rescinded). I have to consider diversity
and equity and this gave me an opportunity to get a female in the rank of Lieutenant.”

Sgt. Malushi stated that on October 4, 2021 the Chief called him once again to advise that he was
not being promoted into either of the two promotions he was making. According to Sgt. Malushi,
their conversation went as follows:

- Chief Scirotto “I have two positions. Unfortunately, I did not select you for either. I
selected Newman . . .”
- Sgt. Malushi interrupted “let me guess, Auguste.”
- Chief replied, “Yes.”
- Malushi “shocked”
- Chief remained quiet.
- Malushi “you’re promoting a guy with an IA investigation, kicked out of Special
Events, IA . . .”
- Chief “that’s just where we’re at”
- Malushi “I’m senior to both in overall time and rank”
- Chief “that’s just where we’re at”

11
Past practice the Chief called the person being promoted and an Asst. Chief contacted those not chosen.
12
She is directly quoted with permission after consultation with counsel.
13
Referencing Captain Lynette Falzone.
14
He is directly quoted with permission after consultation with counsel.

Author: Gregg Rossman, Esq. 25 Feb 2022

Page 9 of 12 Report of Investigation In Re: EEO Complaints in FLPD Promotional Process
 - Malushi “so the friends and family plan that dominated promotions . . . we bring you in
to change the culture, you say you’re a change agent and now under you it’s the equity
and diversity plan. I’m shit out of luck.”
- Chief “that’s just where we’re at. I’ve made my decision – this is where we’re at.”

Sgt. Malushi did not have any further direct conversations with the Chief. He did hear from
others after his phone call with the Chief. He was told the Chief said “who’s this Malushi guy. I
want to punch him in the face.” A version of this statement was confirmed by multiple witnesses.

Two other witnesses described conversations with Chief Scirotto when he called to advise they
were not being promoted. These statements are attributed to the Chief in those conversations:

- “You are being skipped”

- “I want to take the agency in another direction and to make it more diverse.”
- “I didn’t pick you. What happened to her was wrong.” (re: a rescinded promotion)
- “The wall is too white.”

Multiple witnesses directly described conversations with the Chief specifically related to
promotions. In a meeting with Senior Staff discussing certain promotions, the Chief told a Senior
Staff member that had offered his opinion on a specific choice “what do you care? You already
got Steve Johnson the Spanish guy.”15 Four people related individual, private conversations that
are, by their private nature, impossible to independently verify. However, when viewed within
the totality of similar comments related by a multitude of witnesses and some admissions by
Chief Scirotto himself, it is this investigator’s belief they are credible.

Chief Scirotto agreed to meet and his interview was intentionally scheduled after all other
relevant interviews had been finished. He was asked about the “promotional process” employed
upon his hiring as Chief. He said he had open positions to fill immediately and that the
promotional lists were expiring. He said he asked for a “90 day extension of the lists and the
FOP agreed.” He said, as an outsider, he was not familiar with the people eligible for
promotions, that he did not have the benefit of long term, institutional knowledge. Based on that,
he invited all eligible applicants to submit resumes for consideration and he invited each to meet
with him. He chose senior command staff of varying rank and varying experience, along with a
road patrol officer to participate in these meetings. After the interviews he discussed the
candidates with the senior command staff members.16 Chief Scirotto admitted the senior
command staff he had invited to assist him in this process “unanimously agreed that Charlie was
the only choice” for Captain “to fill the one open spot at that time.” The Chief stated the decision
was his and he believed he could use race as a “tie breaker assuming all other things are equal.”
He stated he considered “IA files, the resumes and the chat.” He said he “choose Cecil because
he was a qualified black man with a Master’s degree.”17

Chief Scirotto stated in his interview with me that he was going to “consider diversity at every
opportunity.” He stated that one had to be “intentional” in their decision making.

15
Sgt. Steve Johnson is apparently of Trinidadian heritage.
16
The road patrol officer was excused and did not participate in these conversations.
17
Lt. Cecil Stone was promoted to Captain. It was confirmed he has a Master’s degree.

Author: Gregg Rossman, Esq. 25 Feb 2022

Page 10 of 12 Report of Investigation In Re: EEO Complaints in FLPD Promotional Process
He further stated in his interview that no one in his Command Staff recommended Lt. Maus for
promotion and that he considered those recommendations when choosing who to promote.18 The
Chief admitted to making several statements about “the wall being too white.” He stated the wall
did not reflect the community. He said the context of the comment is built around “how do I
convince the community that we are an inclusive and diverse organization if this wall is so
white?” He also stated that he asked “do we not have any qualified minority candidates?” He
believed these statements were made in a General Staff meeting or a meeting attended by a larger
group. One witness recalled the Chief “maybe saying something about the community” in
relation to the wall. No other witness recalled him making those statements. When asked if there
were “Hispanic faces” or “LGBTQ” faces on the “white wall” the Chief said “he did not see
diversity on the wall.”19

The Chief was asked directly about his question “which one is blacker than the other?” When
asked if he had asked that question the following exchange took place:

- Chief “in relation to promotions?”

- Investigator “promotions or any other context.”
- Chief “I never said that. I would never say that.”

The Chief was asked if he ever said he wanted “to punch Malushi in the face.” He did not deny it
but said that he was “frustrated” and that he was “likely not the only person that felt that way
about Malushi.”

Conclusions

Every single witness was asked about their tenure with the Fort Lauderdale Police Department.
Every witness was asked about their experience with prior promotional processes under several
different Chiefs. Each and every witness stated they believed the prior promotional “processes”
were fair even if the promotional decisions were not always perfect. While each person believed
that historically some people were promoted based on favoritism – no one related a belief that
promotions were based on immutable traits.

In speaking about the promotions that are the subject of this report, almost every witness was
dissatisfied. Most believed that Chief Scirotto made clear his intention to promote based on race,
gender or sexual orientation. Some believed it was about time changes were made but stated if
promotions were based on things such as race it would even hurt or undermine the people
promoted. Overall, there is a very divisive atmosphere within the Department based on the
perception the Chief is intentionally using race, gender and sexual orientation as attributes
necessary for promotions. While the goal to diversify is an important and laudable goal it must
be accomplished in a legally permissible manner. Specifically, diversity must be accomplished in
a manner ensuring all members’ rights are protected.

18
In this very same promotional process, he admittedly ignored the staff recommendations related to Charlie Studders.
19
Among the Command Staff at the time there were four or five members of recognized classes including the following: people of color
(Hispanic); gender; and LGBTQ.

Author: Gregg Rossman, Esq. 25 Feb 2022

Page 11 of 12 Report of Investigation In Re: EEO Complaints in FLPD Promotional Process
The Chief’s own words, admitted by him, are ill conceived if not plainly discriminatory. They
are not part of a well-conceived, adopted plan of affirmative action or diversity implemented by
ordinance or court order. The Fort Lauderdale Police Department has a strong history of
diversity within the Department particularly within the past two decades. People in legally
recognized protected classes have made it to all positions of rank including Captain, Major,
Assistant Chief and Chief. Based on the collective testimony of the parties interviewed, this was
accomplished most recently without any overt, intentional preference plan to promote diversity.
This history is strong evidence that anyone can rise to the highest ranks within the Department
based solely on merit.

Author: Gregg Rossman, Esq. 25 Feb 2022

Page 12 of 12 Report of Investigation In Re: EEO Complaints in FLPD Promotional Process