At an October 2014 Harmony Fire District Board meeting, Ferragamo, fellow female EMT/firefighter Kimberly Perreault and several of their male colleagues expressed concerns about women not receiving fair treatment in the department. At the meeting, according to the ACLU’s complaint, Ferragamo expressed the view that the fire department “was a boys club and that the women had no input.”

Perreault was soon fired for allegedly being “unhappy” with the department. Shortly after that, Ferragamo sent a letter to the Harmony Fire District Board of Directors complaining about Perreault’s termination and expressing concern about the way men, but not women, were being promoted in the department. A month later, Ferragamo was suspended for allegedly missing, without notice, three shifts over a two-month period. She was then terminated in August 2015. Ferragamo’s complaint alleges that male members of the department were not terminated or suspended for similar absences and that her suspension was an act of retaliation for the concerns she had raised about the department’s treatment of women at the October 2014 meeting and in her letter.

Ferragamo said today: “I have spoken up at several district board meetings in which I voiced my concern about the treatment of women in the department. My termination was in retaliation for my concerns. I have been a very active member of the fire department for 12 years. I also always found time to help and promote the department with outside activities. I hope to one day return to help the citizens of Harmony.”

In November, the ACLU of Rhode Island filed a charge of sex discrimination on behalf of Perreault, a 12-year veteran of the department. None of the male firefighters who raised concerns about equal treatment of male and female employees have been disciplined or terminated.

ACLU volunteer attorney Sonja Deyoe, who is handling both complaints, said today: “Mrs. Ferragamo was brave enough to ask for equal treatment within the Harmony Fire Department and its response was to freeze her out of the complaint process, suspend her, then terminate her. It is my sincerest hope that we will be able to get her restored to her rightful position and begin a process of change within the department that will allow the women within it to be treated equally with their male counterparts.”

A copy of the complaint is available here: http://riaclu.org/images/uploads/Ferragamo_affidavit.pdf

Perreault’s firing, the charge alleges, was in retaliation for concerns raised at a Harmony Fire District Board meeting in October of last year. At the meeting, Perreault, another female EMT/firefighter, and several male firefighters expressed concerns about women not getting fair treatment in the fire department. Three months later, she was summoned to a meeting with Fire District Chief Stuart Pearson where she was terminated. The only explanation that Pearson gave was that he believed she was unhappy working there.

Perreault stated in the complaint: “I had not expressed unhappiness with the Department. I had expressed concern that the Department was not treating women on a level field with men…I believed that I was discriminated against because of my gender and retaliated against because of my opposition to discrimination and the perception that I was supporting a complaint of opposition to the existence of gender discrimination in the Harmony Fire Department.”

After Perreault was fired, the other female EMT/firefighter who raised concerns about gender discrimination was later terminated for similar reasons. None of the male firefighters who raised concerns have been disciplined or terminated.

ACLU volunteer attorney Sonja Deyoe, who is handling the complaint, said today: “No one should be penalized for asking their employer for equal treatment. Our laws are set up to protect individuals who do so, because absent those protections, no one would ever ask for equal treatment from their employer.”

Ms. Perreault added: “I have always been available at a moment’s notice to help the people of the Harmony Fire District and the surrounding communities in their time of need. A job I have done for the past 12 years with pride.  Needless to say, I was shocked when I met with Chief Pearson in January to find out the meeting was my termination for supposedly being ‘unhappy.’ I am pursuing this with the hope of stopping this type of discrimination and retaliation from repeating itself.  The actions taken by the Chief have impacted my standing within my professional community, which is something I have worked very hard for.”

ACLU of RI executive director Steven Brown noted: “The troubles with fire districts, which seem to operate like little fiefdoms, appear to go deep and wide. It is disturbing to now see discrimination added to their list of transgressions. We hope to see this injustice rectified.”

The Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights will now investigate the complaint.

A copy of the complaint is available here: http://riaclu.org/images/uploads/Perreault_Statement_Discrimination.pdf

[From a press release]

The act would also prohibit police officers from asking juveniles and adult pedestrians if they will consent to be searched. Right now, a police officer who lacks probable cause to conduct a search is allowed to ask permission to search pockets and backpacks. Preventing police officers from asking for permission to conduct searches of citizens who present no probable cause protects juveniles from being intimidated into giving assent.

The bill under consideration is the culmination of at least 12 years of effort on behalf of community organizations and members of law enforcement. Providence Public Safety Commissioner Steven Paré helped craft the bill in a way that would satisfy a wide range of concerns. The meetings were held in an open and forthright manner and anyone was welcome to join in.

Why then does Attorney General Peter Kilmartin‘s office oppose the bill?

Special Assistant Attorney General Joee Lindbeck testified that the AG’s office opposes the bill because it would require police officers to ask permission to search juveniles. She also said that the Attorney General’s office was not privy to the meetings between law enforcement and community group’s where the bill was put together.

Under questioning from Representative Edie Ajello, Lindbeck admitted that under current law, a police officer without probable cause cannot ask for consent to search your automobile, but is allowed to ask for consent to search an adult pedestrian or juvenile. Doesn’t this, asked Ajello, protect the privacy of automobile drivers more than the privacy of adult pedestrians and juveniles?

“That is a position you could take, I believe,” replied Lindbeck.

Michael Évora, director of the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights, took issue with the Attorney General’s  position on the bill.  The bill does not prohibit a police officer from searching an adult pedestrian or juvenile if there is probable cause. It only prevents a police officer from asking for permission if there is not probable cause. This does not amount to a public safety issue, as Lindbeck asserted, said Évora.

Évora also took issue with the idea that the Attorney General’s office was somehow unaware of or not able to attend the meetings between community organizations and law enforcement officials where the bill was painstakingly crafted. “The meetings were always open,” said Évora. Further, Évora maintains that Commissioner Paré and Attorney General Kilmartin met weekly on a variety of issues, and that Kilmartin was surely informed about the content of the bill. “It is disingenuous at best,” said Évora, “to say the Attorney General was not aware.”

Speaker after speaker addressed the necessity and immediacy of the CCPRA.

Jim Vincent of the RI NAACP spoke of the importance of this legislation in building some sense of trust between communities of color and the police. “There is no need for a Rhode Island name,” said Vincent, “to be added to the long list of young men and women who have needlessly lost their lives due to police violence.”

“If we have hopefully learned anything from the outbreaks in Ferguson, Cleveland, Staten Island and of course the recent unrest in Baltimore,” said Jordan Seaberry, chairman of the Univocal Legislative Minority Advisory Commission, “it is that we cannot afford to avoid the question of race in our society.”

Seaberry went on to say that the legislators in the General Assembly “are tasked with creating the conditions for Rhode Islanders to prosper.”

“As long as racial profiling exists, we in fact are dooming families, neighborhoods [and] communities to [the] fringes. We cannot have prosperity without equity.”

Ray Watson, director of the Mt. Hope Community Center was offended that the Attorney General’s office would suggest that the process of developing the bill was not open and inclusive. He was doubly offended that the rights of juveniles were held to a lower standard than the rights of automobile owners.

Prompted by Rep. Edie Ajello, Watson spoke about being stopped and searched by the police, and the effect police harrassment has on young people of color. “It gets to a point that when you’re a youth and you’re out in the community, I mean, there’s only so much your parents can do to protect you. So you get to a point where you’re like, ‘you know what, as long as I didn’t get arrested or I didn’t hurt it’s fine’ but it definitely breeds resentment towards law enforcement.”

In compelling testimony, Ann DeCosta spoke of her concern for her 23 year old son,  a recent graduate of the University of Rhode Island. The problems of raising a child are multiplied when raising a young man of color in this society, says DeCosta, “From a young age I taught my child, if you get separated from me, if you are hurt, if you need assistance, look for that badge… that’s the person you need to trust.”

But, when her son got older, and went to URI, her son told her that, “he gets stopped, 3 or 4 times a month in North Kingstown and Narragansett… I find this very upsetting… Everyone in the car is asked for ID, sometimes they’re pulled out of the car and searched for reasons such as having an air freshener hanging from the mirror…”

When Eugene Montero sent his son to the store for some milk in Coventry, his son was stopped by a police officer and told to turn out his pockets because he “fit the description” of someone selling drugs. When Montero called the police station to complain about his son’s treatment, the police had no record of the incident. “What I’m sad to say,” said Montero,  “is that my kids have had several incidents since moving back to Rhode Island. My two boys who are now grown, have moved. They live in Florida.”

When Mike Araujo was 14 years old, he was beaten “very badly” by a police officer. “I had my skull split. I had my eye orbit broken. I had my jaw broken. My fingers broken. He broke my ankle. I remember that he stepped on my knees to prevent me from standing up.”

When Araujo became an adult, he tried to look into the beating he had endured. “When I looked into the record, I found it was really hard to find my own name. I finally found it, it was ‘African American male, approximately 18,’ (I was 14), ‘resisted arrest on Westminster St.'”

As these stories show, presently there is little to know accountability. Without the police keeping accurate records of all stops and searches, there is no way to introduce policies to curb abuses and racism. The Comprehensive Community Police Relations Act would be a great start in the right direction.