For almost half a decade, the Phoenix Veterans Affairs (VA) Police Department has operated with a toxic culture of racial and sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation — protected by the "Executive Leadership" of the Phoenix VA Health Care System (PVAHCS), and now the Office of Operations, Security, and Preparedness (OSP) - since the 2025/2026 consolidation of the VA Police). Despite substantiated findings, multiple EEO complaints, whistleblower disclosures, and pending federal lawsuits, the VA has repeatedly refused to hold harassing supervisors accountable.

Instead, leadership has:

• Retained supervisors with substantiated racial and sexual harassment findings.
• Retaliated against employees who filed EEO complaints or reported misconduct.
• Downplayed or concealed harassment through informal handling and “leadership‑driven” closures.
• Allowed a hostile work environment to persist, silencing victims and punishing whistleblowers.

This is not a series of isolated incidents. It is a systemic failure of accountability at the highest levels of VA oversight.

1. VA’S OWN OFFICE SUBSTANTIATED RACIAL HARASSMENT

In Bennett v. United States Dep’t of Veterans Affs. , No. CV‑24‑00084‑PHX‑SPL (D. Ariz. filed Jan. 11, 2024) (settled May 15, 2024), the VA’s Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication (OEDCA) issued a Final Agency Decision (FAD) – VA Case No. 200P‑644‑2022‑147530 – substantiating racial harassment and discrimination against an African American employee. The OEDCA’s FAD confirmed that the employee endured two years of a hostile work environment (HWE) based on race, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 .

The substantiated racial harassment included, among other acts, the following specific incidents:

• “They Call Me Mister Tibbs!” (July 28, 2022) – A VA Police Leadership official directed this phrase at the Black law enforcement officer because the officer was simply wearing a suit and tie. The official mockingly invoked the famous line from the film They Call Me Mister Tibbs! (1970) – the sequel to In the Heat of the Night (1967). 
  • Ironic parallel: A Black officer in a suit and tie was mocked with the same phrase by VA leadership, who then protected the offending official – just as the fictional police chief shielded his own.
• “Didn’t Mean to Mess Up Your Black Panther Party” (April 21, 2022) – A VA Police Leadership official approached three African American officers and made this racially stereotyped remark. None were affiliated with the Black Panther Party. The VA Police official’s comment was a clear act of race‑based harassment by a leadership official.
• “Hanging Out with the Enemy” (March 20, 2022) – A VA Police Leadership Official told a young White officer that associating with a Black Sergeant was “hanging out with the enemy.” The Black Sergeant then offered to be portrayed as “annoying” to protect the White officer from retaliation. Confirmed in VA’s own FAD.
• Text Message: “Brown Sugar” Soap (March 18, 2021) – A VA Police Leadership Official texted the employee at home: “Wife bought a new soap and I thought of you” with a photo of “Apples & Brown Sugar” soap. The employee inferred the racial reference. The official replied “LMFAO.” The official went along to avoid retaliation. A clear act of race‑based harassment by a supervisor.

RESULT: Despite VA’s own substantiated findings of racial harassment, the offending official received no demotion, no removal from supervision, and no termination.

2. SUBSTANTIATED SEXUAL HARASSMENT (2023): "SIMULATED MASTURBATION"

• Simulated Masturbation & Sexual Harassment (May 17, 2023) – A VA Police Leadership official, in full uniform and standing in front of multiple officers, pretended to spit in his hand and performed a "simulated masturbation" gesture toward an unsuspecting female employee. On September 20, 2023, PVAHCS "Executive Leadership" substantiated the matter following a Harassment Prevention Program (HPP) investigation (Case No. HPP 6210).

RESULT: Despite VA’s own substantiated finding of sexual harassment, the offending official received no demotion, no removal from supervision, and no termination – only a letter of counseling (Non-Disciplinary).

3. OAWP SUBSTANTIATED WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION AGAINST HISPANIC OFFICER MARIO RAMIREZ

VA’s Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection (OAWP) substantiated two distinct acts of retaliation against Officer Mario Ramirez, a Hispanic VA Police Officer:

• Disclosure No. 23‑PhoenixAZ‑21599 (May 8, 2023) – VA leadership instructed that FOIA responses be withheld until Ramirez signed disciplinary counseling. OAWP substantiated misuse of authority.
• Disclosure No. 23‑PhoenixAZ‑21589  (May 8, 2023) – An officer carried a VA‑issued firearm to a private residence without required approval. OAWP substantiated the violation.

Both matters were referred back to local leadership – the same leadership accused of misconduct. No documented corrective action followed. Ramirez was later terminated after protected disclosures (OAWP and EEO) for improper storage and handling of a personal firearm (despite being a "Certified Federal Law Enforcement Officer" and allowed to have his personal firearm on property) , while the male dispatcher (W/M) who committed harassment and brought a personal firearm to work was allowed to voluntarily resign. See Ramirez v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No. 2:25‑cv‑00959 (D. Ariz. 2025).

RESULT: OAWP substantiated retaliation, but VA leadership took no meaningful disciplinary action against those who retaliated.

4. SUBSTANTIATED HARASSMENT (2024): A FIREARM, SEXUAL HARASSMENT, AND THE BETRAYAL OF THE DEPARTMENT’S “MOTHER FIGURE” – VAOIG CASE NO. 2024‑03707‑HL‑1220 | HPP CASE NO. 7116

A female VA Police dispatcher, described by colleagues as the department’s “Mother figure,” was subjected to severe sexual harassment. A male coworker disclosed his sex addiction and a mental health condition without her consent, then read aloud from a book titled “Sexual Behavior” in her presence. He also brought a firearm onto VA property in his backpack – a violation of federal law.

He self‑reported the firearm to leadership. Despite this voluntary disclosure, VA leadership did not secure the weapon as evidence. Instead, they told him to store it in his vehicle and take it home – an HPP investigation was later initiated. A VA Office of Inspector General investigation (OIG Case No. 2024‑03707‑HL‑1220) was opened, and it revealed that the HPP fact‑finding substantiated 3 out of 4 harassment claims – a documented violation of VA policy.

RESULT: The offending male employee was allowed to voluntarily resign, unlike Officer Mario Ramirez, who was terminated after making protected disclosures and reporting his personal firearm - despite inner culture of handling, selling, and trading firearms while on-duty. See Ramirez v. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., No. 2:25‑cv‑00959 (D. Ariz. 2025). The “Mother figure” was abandoned by leadership and later retired. 

5. RETALIATION AFTER REPORTING SEXUAL HARASSMENT – "SHORT LATINA OFFICER" STRIPPED OF CREDENTIALS, SUPPORTER FORCED TO RESIGN (JULY 2025)

A Latina VA Police Officer reported sexual harassment against a leadership official who already had substantiated findings of both racial and sexual harassment. After her report, leadership retaliated against her and a Hispanic officer who stood up for her.

Latina Officer (July 2025) – Stripped of her law enforcement authority, badge, and credentials immediately after her report. Detailed out of the department for nearly a year. Only returned to duty in May 2026.

• Stood Up for Her – Resigned Under Duress (July 2025) – A former Special Agent with the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (OSI) stood up for her. Leadership warned him not to associate with her, then detailed him. Because he was still in his probationary period, leadership knew termination would leave him with no appeal rights (no MSPB, no union grievance). Facing this threat, he resigned under duress – documented on his SF‑50.
• Accused Official - Stayed In Power – The accused leadership official, who already had substantiated findings of racial and sexual harassment, remained in power and continued to run the department - despite a non-supervisory detail that appeared to be optics only .

RESULT: The Short Latina officer lost her credentials for nearly a year, the officer who stood up for her lost his career (resigned under duress).

6. FOUR ACTIVE FORMAL EEO INVESTIGATIONS (2026)

As of 2026, the Phoenix VA Police Department is the subject of four formal EEO investigations that have all advanced beyond alternative dispute resolution into full official investigations through the Office of Resolution Management (ORM) – indicating long‑standing, unresolved discrimination claims.

• Investigations Under PVAHCS Executive Leadership - These investigations occurred under the watch of PVAHCS "Executive Leadership" prior to the 2025/2026 consolidation under the Office of Operations, Security, and Preparedness (OSP), making those executive leaders Responsible Management Officials (RMOs).
• Chilling Effect – Of these four complainants, one – rumored to be a supervisory official – succumbed to the "chilling effect" created by VA leadership’s history of retaliation. Unable to endure the difficult, lengthy EEO process, that individual did not follow through.
• Pending Final Agency Decisions – The other three, however, withstood the arduous process and are now pending Final Agency Decisions (FADs) – simply waiting the outcome.

RESULT: The chilling effect silenced one potential complainant. The three who persisted are waiting the outcome, while PVAHCS Executive Leadership (now RMOs) faces no immediate accountability.

7. PENDING FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUITS

Two federal civil rights lawsuits are currently pending against Phoenix VA Police leadership, with additional litigation expected this year. Both cases reveal a pattern of retaliation, disparate treatment, and the weaponization of the federal criminal justice system against officers who engaged in protected activity.

• Francis v. Veterans Affairs, No. 2:26‑cv‑00851 (D. Ariz. filed Feb. 9, 2026) – An African American VA Police Officer filed an EEO complaint in March 2022, successfully completed Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) , and reached a settlement.
  • Retaliation after settlement: Despite that resolution, management later attempted to pursue federal criminal charges against him using the federal judicial system – even though internal communications confirm that the department stated "99% of its criminal cases to the Maricopa County court system" (state laws).
  • “The 1%”: This made him a targeted exception – and he became know as "The One (1%) Percent."
  • Clerical Error: The case was closed due to a clerical error, and Francis is currently attempting to appeal that closure.
• Ramirez v. Phoenix VA Police, No. 2:25‑cv‑00959 (D. Ariz. filed May 2025) – Officer Mario Ramirez, who is Hispanic, filed an EEO complaint and OAWP disclosures in the beginning of 2023. After becoming fed up with inaction, he informed the entire department of the misconduct. He was then terminated for an alleged personal violation (improper handling/storage of a firearm).
  • Department Culture: This occurred despite a department culture where supervisors and officers routinely mishandled personal firearms – selling, trading, and carrying them while on duty without consequence.
  • Policy Permits Firearms: As a federal law enforcement officer on duty, VA Police are permitted to bring personal firearms onto VA property under VA policy.
  • Unprecedented Citation: Yet Ramirez was the only person on record in 10 years to be issued a "Mandatory" United States District Court Violation Notice (USDCVN) for firearm possession – while all other individuals (non‑law enforcement) received pre‑payable USDCVNs.
  • Demonstrated Animus: This disparity demonstrates leadership’s animus following his protected activity.

RESULTS: Both officers face ongoing legal battles. Management’s pattern of disparate treatment – from “The 1%” criminal referral to the unprecedented mandatory USDCVN – reveals retaliation against those who report misconduct. (Additional lawsuits are expected to be pursued this year by others).

WHY THIS MUST END

Veterans come to the VA for care – not to walk into a department where harassment is protected and whistleblowers are destroyed. Employees risk their careers just to report what leadership already knows.

When VA protects supervisors with substantiated racial and sexual harassment, when it punishes the officers who speak up, and when it lets the same abusive officials remain in power – that is not a failure of policy. That is a betrayal of the mission.

This is not about paperwork. This is about federal law – Title VII, the No FEAR Act, the Whistleblower Protection Act – all violated, all ignored.

Without independent accountability, the same leadership that buried substantiated harassment will continue to protect itself. Not the workforce. Not the veterans. Itself.

That ends now.

WHAT TAXPAYERS MUST KNOW

The VA has spent millions of taxpayer dollars on investigations, oversight bodies, and harassment prevention programs – yet substantiated racial and sexual harassment continues, whistleblowers are punished, and abusive supervisors remain in power.

OAWP failed. OIG failed. OSP failed. PVAHCS "Executive Leadership" failed.

No more demands to the same broken systems. Instead, the public deserves the truth:

• Taxpayer dollars fund a department that protects substantiated harassers – no demotions, no removals, no terminations.
• Taxpayer dollars fund retaliation against whistleblowers – officers who report misconduct lose their careers.
• Taxpayer dollars fund oversight that oversees nothing – investigations are referred back to the same leadership accused of misconduct.

This is not a request for action from those who have already proven they will not act. This is a notice to the American public, to Congress, and to the media: your money is bankrolling a culture of harassment and retaliation.

Accountability will not come from the VA. It must come from you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: The same leadership culture that protects harassers has also been accused of unlawful arrest and detention practices. While we believe those issues deserve separate attention, this petition focuses on the substantiated civil rights violations of racial and sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation — where the evidence is strongest and action is most urgently needed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

READER NOTICE

Concerned Citizens Media encourages readers to independently verify the information contained in this publication, including through public records, official sources, or AI-assisted research tools. For additional information or clarification, readers are encouraged to contact appropriate Department of Veterans Affairs officials or their local VA facility directly.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DISCLAIMER

Any attempt to retaliate against current or former VA employees, officers, contractors, or witnesses for engaging in protected whistleblower or EEO activity related to the matters discussed herein may constitute a violation of federal law, including 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)–(9), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and applicable VA anti‑retaliation policies. Documentation, reporting, or public discussion of substantiated misconduct, harassment, discrimination, or policy violations is protected activity.