Market Overview

The Law Offices of Daniel Feder: San Francisco Police Department Sued by Muslim Police Officer for Race Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation


The Law Offices of Daniel Feder:

A former police officer of the San Francisco Police Department sued the
City of San Francisco today (San Francisco Superior Court
FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT). Plaintiff Mohammad Habib alleges that the
SFPD subjected him to extreme harassment, unfair performance criticisms
and wrongful termination for making complaints to his superior officers,
the Police Department's EEO Department, and to top brass in the SFPD
about harassment and discrimination against him based on his national
origin (Afghan) and his religion (Muslim). The harassment experienced by
the Plaintiff included racial taunts and slurs against Muslims by fellow
officers and superior officers, promotion of White Nationalism by his
fellow officers, and the posting of written warnings on his station-room
locker stating, "Isis Go Back," and "tick, tick."

Plaintiff Mohammad Habib's nationality is Afghani. A devout Muslim,
Habib attended the San Francisco Police Academy from June of 2016
through Feb. 17, 2017. Habib received excellent marks and reviews from
his supervising officers during his training.

Habib alleges that beginning in June of 2017, the SFPD subjected him to
a barrage of harassing comments, conduct, and other communications by
his supervisors and co-officers at SFPD's Central Station in North Beach
based on his race, religion and national origin. The harassment went so
far as to involve the posting of racist and xenophobic graffiti on his
locker twice: a drawing of an Isis flag with the statement "Isis go
back" and other slurs: "tick, tick" scrawled on the outside of Habib's
locker at the Central Station. Other comments included taunts to Habib
about him carrying bombs, using trip wires and references to Habib being
an associate of Muslim terrorist organizations, and threats to kill the
Plaintiff's family because of their religion.

Habib alleges that beginning in early November of 2017, he made numerous
complaints about the harassment, discrimination, and intimidation
occurring at the Central Station. Immediately after Habib complained to
management, his supervisors launched a campaign of intimidation and
retaliation against him. His locker at the Central Station was torn out
in the presence of several officers. He began getting calls immediately
after making his complaints from his superior officers in which they
threatened him. He received a call from his superior officer from a
blocked number stating: "Hey, it's your favorite sergeant. What's going
on? I'm worried about you. I need you to come in because I want to
protect you."

Several days after Habib complained to Internal Affairs on November 8
and 9, 2017, the SFPD transferred the Plaintiff to the Richmond Station,
where he was required to work shifts with many of the officers who had
harassed him at the Central Station. At the Richmond Station, Habib was
referred to by his fellow officers as a "rat."

On January 11, 2018, the Plaintiff made a written complaint of
discrimination and harassment with the City and County of San Francisco
Human Resources Department. In early February of 2018, Habib injured his
knee at work. As a result of his injuries, Habib took a medical leave
for about a month and a half. Habib's doctors returned him to work full
duty without any work restrictions. However, the SFPD refused to allow
Habib to perform his job duties at the Richmond Station. Instead, even
though Habib was fully able to perform his job as a police officer
working in the field, the SFPD forced him to work performing clerical
duties at 850 Bryant Street.

In February of 2018, the SFPD asked Habib to submit to a hand-writing
analysis so that the Department could rule him out as a suspect in
writing "ISIS go back" on his locker. No other employees of the SFPD
were asked to submit handwriting samples. After being asked to provide a
handwriting analysis, Habib filed a complaint with the California
Department of Fair Employment and Housing.

On March 19, 2018, Habib received a letter from the Internal Affairs
Division informing him that he was "under investigation" and that he was
required to report to Police Headquarters for an interview on April 4,
2018. After the SFPD informed Habib that he was under investigation, he
contacted the media anonymously to alert the public about the
discrimination, harassment and retaliation he was experiencing. After
Habib spoke with the media, including television interviews in which his
identity was hidden, a police lieutenant and two sergeants arrived in
squad cars at Habib's girlfriend's house in San Francisco. The officers
delivered a letter to him from the Chief of Police, William Scott,
warning Habib about negative consequences to him that could result from
him speaking with the media. When the officers delivered the letter from
Chief of Police Scott to Habib, the two sergeants present were allegedly
standing close to Habib in full tactical positions with their hands
placed on their firearms.

On May 8, 2018, William Scott, Chief of Police, signed a notice of
release from probationary employment. The letter informs Habib that
effective immediately upon service, he was being terminated. The basis
for the release from probationary employment alleges that the Plaintiff
failed to provide truthful information in his application for employment
with the Department. The SFPD had been authorized by Habib to conduct a
full background search in connection with his employment application,
which Habib alleges the SFPD performed before hiring. Habib denies
providing any false information. Habib's civil complaint alleges that to
intimidate Habib with a show of force, the termination letter was
delivered to Habib at his house in Pleasanton by a total of seven
officers, four officers from SFPD and three officers from Pleasanton.
Several fully marked squad cars were used to make the delivery.

About The Law Offices of Daniel Feder

The Law Offices of Daniel Feder specializes in representing employees in
discrimination, harassment, and class-action litigation.

View Comments and Join the Discussion!