Jason Proctor (CBC News) – A Burnaby, B.C., mountie says the RCMP discriminated against him by suspending him without pay for problems caused by post-traumatic stress disorder.
Const. Derrick Holdenried was charged with theft in January 2011 after he was accused of stealing $22 in loose change from a community policing station.
The charge was ultimately stayed, and psychologists have attributed the 39-year-old’s behaviour to post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of attending a “horrific” suicide scene.
Holdenried says he’s been left in limbo — a victim of the RCMP’s desire to look like it’s being tough on “bad apples.”
“The job made me sick,” he told CBC News.
“I am not a bad apple. I am a good person who is trusted and respected and loved by those who know me. I have struggled for two years to deal with this, and it’s damaged my family. It’s damaged me, and it’s damaged the image of the RCMP as well — and I regret that.
“But I need the RCMP to understand that there is a lot more going on here than just ‘a bad apple.’”
Consequences vary
The RCMP wouldn’t comment on the specifics of Holdenried’s case, except to say a date for a formal disciplinary hearing has yet to be set.
Possible sanctions could include “reprimand, loss of up to 10 days pay, demotion and dismissal.”
Holdenried says he’s been told the force wants to get rid of him.
He appealed his suspension without pay in Federal Court and filed a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission claiming the RCMP “failed to accommodate him and his disability, post-traumatic stress disorder, when it took a disciplinary approach to conduct caused by disability.”
He questions the decision to pursue criminal charges and release his name to the media. He says publicity around the case has devastated his family and made it impossible for him to find other work while he appeals his suspension without pay.
Holdenried feels he’s been dealt with harshly — especially compared to other high-profile cases of RCMP misconduct like a recent decision to demote and transfer a member who had sex with subordinates and exposed himself to a co-worker.
“It would seem that members who act out violently or abuse alcohol, there doesn’t seem to be the same consequences that I’m facing. So if I had drove while impaired and been caught — I’m not sure I’d be sitting here today with the story I have,” he says.
Caught stealing change
Holdenried graduated from RCMP Depot in January 2009 at the age of 35. He left a job at Ikea, where he worked for years as a manager, to pursue a dream of policing. His father was a police officer, and he says he always dreamed of public service.
According to documents filed in the court case, RCMP began investigating him in November 2010 when a member of the Burnaby School/Youth Section complained change had gone missing from her desk. One supervisor told her to lock her drawer, and at another point, she considered leaving a note for the thief to see.
Instead, supervisors mounted a camera above the desk and an electronic sensor on the drawer, in which they placed a steadily increasing amount of change.
On three occasions, the camera caught Holdenried removing a total of nine toonies and four loonies. He was interviewed on Dec. 8, 2010 and immediately admitted taking the money, initially blaming the behaviour on “stupidity.”
RCMP member services referred Holdenried to a psychologist, who diagnosed post-traumatic stress-disorder linked to his attendance at the suicide of an 84-year-old man who shot himself in March 2010.
According to the investigation notes: “All surfaces in the room were covered with a fine spray of blood and other tissue” and it took “substantial force to pull the rifle” from the man’s hands.
Holdenried spent hours in the room, taking dozens of pictures of the scene and the wounds.
“Really, that scene is seared in my head,” he says. ‘I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything as troubling as that.
“That scene, and what I was confronted with on that day, would vividly come to mind at any number of times. And it could be the smallest trigger and then I’d be in that room, smelling the smells and seeing what I had dealt with on that day.”
Theft ’symptomatic’ of PTSD
In the months leading up to the thefts, Holdenried became withdrawn and tired. He started binging on junk food and drinking as much six litres of pop a day.
Rick Hancock, the psychologist who diagnosed Holdenried, wrote a letter on his behalf to the RCMP.
“I believe the taking of loose change from an office desk is symptomatic of Const. Holdenried’s psychological condition following the discovery of the horrific suicide,” Hancock wrote.
“If I had had the opportunity to assess Const. Holdenried in the spring or summer of 2010, I would without a doubt have suggested that he consider a stress leave from work.”
The RCMP asked a psychologist from its behavioural sciences group to review Hancock’s opinion.
Dr. Teal Maedel wrote her report without meeting Holdenried. She says that while it is clear he may be suffering from work-related symptoms of PTSD, “it is very difficult to say with certainty that post-traumatic stress disorder was the causal factor in Holdenried’s thefts.”
Based on that opinion, Assistant Commissioner Daniel Dubeau stopped Holdenried’s pay on May 13, 2011.
Last month, a Federal Court judge refused to hear his request for judicial review of that decision because he hasn’t exhausted the internal RCMP grievance process.
But his lawyer argued that could take up to three years.
‘I was an excellent member of the RCMP’
Holdenried says both Veteran’s Affairs and Employment Insurance have accepted claims based on his PTSD diagnosis. And he apologized to the constable whose change he took, offering to make restitution. She asked for $20.
“I’ve always been honest about what I did,” he says. “And I took responsibility. I’ve made my apologies. I’ve dealt with the criminal case which resulted in a stay of proceedings. I’ve done everything that’s been asked of me and more to correct this as much as I can. What I would expect is accommodation.”
Holdenried says even if he can’t be a front-line officer, he would like to be part of the RCMP. He notes that a Crown counsel also recently contacted him to testify in connection with a criminal case he investigated while still on duty.
“I asked if he was aware of the situation I was in and if that was a concern,” he says. “He has no concerns with me testifying and doesn’t see it as an issue.
Commissioner Bob Paulson recently wrote an open letter to Canadians vowing to speed up the force’s disciplinary process.
Holdenried says he applauds any attempt to do that, but he says it has to be accompanied by attempts to understand the problems members face.
“The discipline process must be more streamlined and must be able to deal with a number of the issues the RCMP is facing. But there’s so much more to this than simply a discipline issue,” he says.
“I was an excellent member of the RCMP who had a human reaction to a very traumatic event. But they don’t want to hear it. It doesn’t matter. But it matters to me and other people who find themselves in this situation — it’s going to matter to them. And any adjustment to a discipline process has to take that into account.”
[Source]
Is it your observation that PTSD is not a valid reason for termination/pensioning if the individual is incapable of fulfilling employment requirements? Or are you specifically referring to this case?
I agree the standard is different in most of these cases.
PTSD is real to the person suffering from it but to others it’s just balony….
Matt Gurney: Thieving B.C. Mountie makes good point about discipline process
Matt Gurne
National Post
June 19, 2012
In January of 2011, a British Columbia RCMP officer, Const. Derrick Holdenried, was charged with stealing $22 in loose change from a co-worker. His colleague had noticed that change was disappearing from her desk and her supervisor set up a camera. Holdenried was caught on film stealing toonies and loonies from his colleague’s desk drawer on three occasions. He was charged with theft.
Holdenried was also suspended, pending a disciplinary hearing. It was determined in the interim that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), related to a particularly unpleasant suicide scene that the officer had attended. An elderly man had shot himself with a rifle, and Holdenried spent hours in the room, documenting the scene and taking dozens of photographs of the blood and gore that covered every surface. He also pried the rifle from the man’s cold, dead hands and reported that it took “substantial force.”
His RCMP-appointed psychologist determined that Holdenried should have taken a stress leave to deal with the aftermath of the incident, and that his petty thefts — which Holdenried confessed to and paid back the money — are a probable consequence of his PTSD. But another RCMP psychologist wrote in a report that while his theft may have been related to PTSD, it was impossible to prove a causal link. On that basis, the RCMP suspended his pay last May.
Holdenried feels that he has a disability that the RCMP has not accommodated. He has launched a human rights complaint regarding his treatment, saying that since his psychologist’s report blames his bad behaviour on a mental disability, it is discrimination for the RCMP to punish him for it.
That’s a bit of a stretch. As true as it is that PTSD is a legitimate disability that can have profound consequences on its victims, the fact remains that as an officer of the law, Holdenried should be held to a higher standard of conduct. He suffered with PTSD for months, engaging in a variety of self-destructive behaviours, before being caught stealing, and did not seek help until caught in the act. This would realistically raise doubts about his impartiality and judgment — vital requirements for a police officer. Police officers are the long-arm of the state, entrusted to use lethal force when required. It’s reasonable to expect more of them than the average citizen.
But Holdenried is not wrong when he complains that the RCMP’s disciplinary process has left him trapped in limbo. He was originally charged with theft in January of 2011, and the charges were eventually stayed. He had his pay suspended in May of 2011. It’s now June of 2012, and not only has Holdenried not had his disciplinary hearing, he hasn’t even been given a date when it’s expected to be held. During that time, he has not received any money from the RCMP, and claims that given the publicity surrounding the case, he has been unable to find work while pending a resolution. All this despite the fact that the criminal charges against him were dropped.
Holdenried believes that the RCMP wants him out, as part of demonstrating their crackdown on “bad apple” officers. He insists that he’s just a victim of his disease and should be allowed to continue serving as a police officer. That’s debatable. But he is entirely correct when he says that dragging out scheduling his disciplinary hearing for more than a year, which may ultimately end with a punishment as mild as a written reprimand being placed in Holdenried’s file, constitutes a punishment all its own.
Hodenried may ultimately be thrown out of the RCMP, or at least removed from front line duties that would place him in contact with the public (an outcome he himself agrees would be fair). If the RCMP chooses to take either of those actions, despite Holdenried’s sad mental health crisis, it would be both justified and within its rights to do so. But it owes Holdenried the courtesy of deciding in a reasonable time. Dragging out the process this long not only hurts Holdenried, but also calls the RCMP’s internal discipline processes — already under scrutiny due to several recent high-profile cases — into further question.
He is going to get fired. Make no mistake about it. But, it won’t be for stealing. Others have kept their job for that, and for doing much worse. The true motive for dismissal will be his PTSD. Theft is just the axe to grind.
I agree that no two cases are alike. But, there is more than one sexual misconduct precedent set by higher ranking officers….
Anyone familiar with the vagaries of criminal law is aware that in every instance it is not what you know, but what you can prove. In this case, the evidence of theft is eminently provable, and indeed was admitted to. The ongoing issue is the relevancy of the reasons for the act which only speak to punishment and excusable conduct vis a vis continued employment.
Your simplification in respect of unproven sexual conduct in an office environment is disingenuous.
You may wish to consider: Is it fair to assume that officers will in their service encounter more than one gruesome suicide? If so, to what detriment is this to this person? What is the duty to “accommodate” under present labor law in respect of a “disability” manifesting itself within 4 years of employment? Are there employment standards applicable to such situations? Is there a preemptive hiring assessment vehicle available to minimize such issues?
You can get fired for stealing a few bucks from co-workers, but not for criminal harassment of fellow members or coercing subordinates to have sex with you in your office. Something doesn’t add up.
I must say this is a terrible (or great, depending on your perspective) example of what appears to be applying different sanctions against different ranks.