SUBSTANTIATED MISCONDUCT WITHOUT CLEAR ACCOUNTABILITY

For years, the Phoenix Veterans Affairs (VA) Police Department has faced serious concerns involving racial harassment, sexual harassment, retaliation, and the conduct of its leadership. At the center of these concerns is Joshua E. Fister, a longtime Phoenix VA Police supervisor whose conduct was the subject of two separate substantiated VA findings in 2023.

On September 20, 2023, Phoenix VA Health Care System (PVAHCS)  Executive Leadership substantiated "inappropriate conduct of a sexual nature" involving Fister after another police officer reported witnessing him simulate masturbation behind an unsuspecting female employee. Just 23 days later, on October 13, 2023, the VA issued a Final Agency Decision finding that a Black VA Police Officer had been subjected to an unlawful, race-based hostile work environment involving Fister.

Two substantiated findings within 30 days, involving the same law enforcement supervisor.

Despite these findings, Fister remained in supervisory and leadership positions within the Phoenix VA Police Department for years afterward.

In August 2026, Fister transitioned into a non-supervisory Law Enforcement Specialist position during the VA's nationwide restructuring under the Office of Operations, Security, and Preparedness (OSP). Whether the change was disciplinary, administrative, or part of the broader restructuring remains unclear.

This petition raises a fundamental question about federal accountability: When an agency's own investigations substantiate serious misconduct involving a police supervisor, what responsibility does leadership have to ensure that meaningful corrective action follows?

1. RACIAL HARASSMENT — THE VA FOUND A TITLE VII CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION

October 13, 2023 | Final Agency Decision | VA Case No. 200P-644-2022-147530

On October 13, 2023, the Department of Veterans Affairs' Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication (OEDCA) issued a formal Final Agency Decision (FAD) finding that a Black Phoenix VA Police Officer had been subjected to a racially hostile work environment.

This was not merely an allegation or an unresolved EEO complaint. Following an official investigation that included sworn testimony, witness accounts, and documentary evidence, the VA determined that the employee had experienced unlawful racial harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The decision identified Fister as the supervisor responsible for the repeated conduct and found that VA management knew or should have known about the harassment but failed to take prompt and effective corrective action.

The investigative record documented several incidents involving Fister:

• "Whites vs. Blacks" — March 10, 2021. During a department meeting, Fister reportedly exclaimed, "There's more of them than us! Whites versus Blacks!" after observing that more Black officers than White officers were seated at a table. The remark was documented in the VA's EEO investigative record and considered among the race-related incidents underlying the agency's finding of an unlawful hostile work environment.
• "Brown Sugar" — March 18, 2021. Fister sent a Black subordinate a photograph of hand soap labeled "Apples & Brown Sugar," accompanied by the message, "Wife bought a new soap and I thought of you." Fister admitted sending the message but failed to explain why the product reminded him of the officer or what made the reference humorous. The VA documented this incident as part of the repeated racial harassment by a supervisor who held authority over the employee.
• "Hanging Out With the Enemy" — March 20, 2022. Fister approached a Black police sergeant and a White police officer while they were having lunch. Afterward, Fister followed the White officer into the restroom and questioned how often he associated with the Black sergeant and whether they were close friends. The White officer later testified under oath that Fister described the association as "hanging out with the enemy." The officer also expressed concern about the Black sergeant's treatment and acknowledged that racial discrimination was "very possible."
• "Didn't Mean to Mess Up Your Black Panther Party" — April 21, 2022. Three Black police officers were having an ordinary workplace conversation when Fister approached and made this remark. There was no indication that their conversation involved politics or the Black Panther Party. Instead, their gathering became the subject of a racial reference from a supervisor. During the VA investigation, Fister acknowledged that he may have made the remark.
• "They call me Mister Bennett!" — July 28, 2022. Fister directed this remark toward a Black police officer merely for wearing a suit and tie and displaying a professional demeanor. The statement referenced the famous line "They call me Mister Tibbs!" from the 1967 film In the Heat of the Night, starring Sidney Poitier as a Black police detective confronting racism, segregation, and prejudice while investigating a murder in Mississippi. The film prominently depicts the racial hostility and indignities faced by a Black law enforcement officer who demands the same respect afforded to his White counterparts. Its famous line later inspired the 1970 sequel They Call Me Mister Tibbs! Fister admitted making the remark.

These incidents were among the evidence considered in the VA's final decision. OEDCA emphasized that the repeated conduct occurred over nearly two years and originated from a supervisor who held power over the complainant.

The VA concluded that the employee had established an objectively hostile work environment based on race and that the agency was legally responsible under Title VII. Although the VA did not substantiate discriminatory non-selection, Fister—the supervisor identified as responsible for racially harassing the Black officer—also served on the hiring panel evaluating him for a Criminal Investigator position. Fister gave one response a score of 1 that another panelist rated 5 and assigned an unexplained zero elsewhere. The VA's failure to substantiate the non-selection claim does not erase Fister's direct involvement in evaluating the career advancement of an employee he racially harassed.

The Department of Veterans Affairs officially found a violation of federal civil rights law involving conduct by one of its own police supervisors.

Source: Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication (OEDCA), Final Agency Decision, October 13, 2023, VA Case No. 200P-644-2022-147530, pp. 3–5 (racial harassment incidents), 10–12 (Criminal Investigator selection and interview-panel scoring), 13–16 (substantiated race-based hostile work environment and Title VII findings), and 22 (identification of Joshua E. Fister as the responsible management official).

THE VA ORDERED CORRECTIVE ACTION — BUT WHAT ABOUT DISCIPLINE?

On page 22 of the Final Agency Decision, the VA specifically identified:

• "The responsible management official in this case is Joshua E. Fister, Supervisory Police Officer, GS-10"

The decision directed that Fister receive four hours of EEO training concerning unlawful discrimination, hostile work environments, and retaliation, along with two additional hours of sensitivity, diversity, and inclusion training.

But OEDCA did not treat that training as a substitute for disciplinary consideration.

Under the heading "Disciplinary Action," the decision expressly stated:

• "The Agency must consider taking appropriate disciplinary action against the individual identified above."

The decision further clarified:

• "Training is not considered disciplinary action."

Despite this formal finding and direction, Fister continued to serve in supervisory positions. The available records do not establish what disciplinary review occurred following the decision or whether any additional disciplinary penalty was imposed for the racial harassment finding.

That distinction is significant. An agency can require training, but training alone does not establish that an employee was disciplined or that meaningful accountability occurred.

Source: VA OEDCA, Final Agency Decision, October 13, 2023, Case No. 200P-644-2022-147530, p. 22.

2. SEXUAL HARASSMENT — A SECOND SUBSTANTIATED FINDING

September 20, 2023 | Harassment Prevention Program Case No. 6210

Less than one month before the VA issued its racial harassment decision, Phoenix VA executive leadership had already substantiated a separate matter involving Fister and inappropriate sexual conduct.

The incident occurred on May 17, 2023, at the Phoenix VA Police 32nd Street location. According to a police officer who witnessed the conduct, Fister watched a young female employee as she walked away, pretended to spit into his hand, and made a gesture simulating masturbation behind her.

The female employee was unaware of the gesture, but other police officers witnessed the conduct. One officer reported it as sexual harassment.

The incident was referred through the VA's Harassment Prevention Program, and a formal fact-finding investigation was conducted.

On September 20, 2023, PVAHCS Associate Director of Operations Stacey Scherpf signed a Memorandum of Record documenting the outcome. The allegation concerned an inappropriate comment, gesture, and action of a sexual nature in front of multiple officers.

The memorandum concluded:

• "Fister has engaged in inappropriate sexual in nature conduct."

The quoted wording appears exactly as written in the agency's memorandum.

The VA stated that corrective action had been taken. The documented management response included a Letter of Counseling dated September 15, 2023, during the period when Tylor Whitt served as Phoenix VA Chief of Police.

What makes this matter especially significant is its proximity to the separate OEDCA finding.

Within a 23-day period, the Department of Veterans Affairs had documented two substantiated misconduct matters involving Fister: inappropriate sexual conduct under its Harassment Prevention Program and an unlawful racially hostile work environment under Title VII.

Despite both findings, Fister continued in positions of supervisory authority.

The concern is not whether the VA investigated the conduct. It did. The concern is whether the resulting corrective actions were sufficient to address the misconduct and prevent its recurrence.

Sources:  HPP Case No. 6210, September 20, 2023.

3. CONFLICTING SWORN TESTIMONY — QUESTIONS ABOUT LAW ENFORCEMENT CREDIBILITY

Ramirez v. Phoenix VA Police Department, Case No. 2:25-cv-00959-CDB (D. Ariz.)

Separate from the substantiated harassment findings, federal court records contain conflicting sworn testimony involving Fister's role in the issuance of a United States District Court Violation Notice against former Hispanic VA Police Officer Mario Ramirez.

The discrepancy concerns a basic but important question: Did Fister direct another officer to issue the federal citation?

In an official EEO affidavit dated October 18, 2023, Fister denied directing the citation:

• "I did not order anyone to write a citation nor was the citation unjust."

However, on December 7, 2023, Sergeant Todd Uthe, the officer who actually prepared and issued the citation, provided a sworn statement identifying Fister as the person who instructed him to do so.

Uthe described receiving a telephone call from Fister while off duty, requesting that he come to work for approximately two hours to prepare the citation. Uthe declined to report on his day off but completed the notice on his next scheduled workday.

More significantly, Uthe described a conversation on December 6, 2023, in which he reminded Fister of the instruction. According to Uthe, Fister acknowledged giving the order but stated that the directive had originated with then-Chief Tylor Whitt. Uthe also indicated that he had been uncomfortable issuing the citation.

The discrepancy did not end with the EEO investigation.

During a formal arbitration hearing on January 12, 2024, Uthe again identified Fister as the official who directed the issuance of the federal citation. He further testified that Fister instructed him to select the box requiring Ramirez to appear in federal court, despite posted departmental instructions indicating otherwise.

When directly asked whether Fister gave that instruction, Uthe answered:

• "Yes, sir."

Uthe also testified that the citation was subsequently dismissed by the U.S. Attorney's Office and that Fister informed him of the dismissal.

The importance of these statements is that Uthe was not describing a rumor or secondhand information. He was the officer who personally issued the citation and identified Fister in two separate sworn proceedings.

This does not establish that a court found Fister guilty of perjury or intentionally providing false testimony. The available record does not conclusively resolve the contradiction.

However, it raises a legitimate concern about candor and credibility involving a federal law enforcement official.

The integrity of law enforcement depends heavily on truthful reports, reliable statements, and testimony that can withstand scrutiny. Material credibility concerns may also implicate the government's Brady/Giglio disclosure obligations when an officer serves as a witness in a criminal proceeding.

Whether those obligations applied to any particular case would require a separate legal determination.

At a minimum, the conflicting sworn statements warrant an independent review of what Fister directed, what Uthe was instructed to do, and whether VA leadership adequately examined the discrepancy.

Sources: Joshua Fister's sworn EEO affidavit, October 18, 2023, p. 8, Event B, Question 4 (federal court Document 20-12, p. 33); Todd Uthe's sworn EEO affidavit, December 7, 2023, pp. 3–4, ORM Case No. 200P-644-2023-150580; Uthe Arbitration Testimony, January 12, 2024, transcript pp. 79–81 (federal court Document 45-8, pp. 81–83).

4. CONTINUED COMPLAINTS AND FISTER'S RETENTION

The concerns involving Fister did not end with the two 2023 findings.

In July 2025, a Latina VA Police Officer ("The Short Latina 4'11 Officer") reported conduct involving Fister that she considered harassing and intimidating. Following her complaint, she experienced significant changes to her customary law enforcement assignments, including an extended detail outside normal police operations.

She alleged that these actions were retaliatory.

Those allegations require their own factual determinations and should not be confused with the previously substantiated misconduct. 

Nevertheless, the circumstances raise an important question about VA leadership's response to repeated concerns involving the same individual.

By July 2025, the agency had already known about Fister's substantiated racial and inappropriate sexual conduct for nearly two years. What steps had management taken to ensure that employees who reported new concerns involving Fister would be protected and that corrective measures remained effective?

His continued supervisory service is particularly relevant because a position of authority carries influence over employees, assignments, workplace expectations, and organizational culture.

The issue is not that every subsequent allegation must automatically be presumed true. It is whether VA leadership properly considered its documented findings when deciding how to address further complaints involving Fister.

5. AUGUST 2026 — A NEW JOB TITLE, BUT WHAT ACCOUNTABILITY?

In August 2026, Fister transitioned from Supervisory Police Officer (Major), GS-0083-11, to Law Enforcement Specialist, GS-1801-11, during the VA's organizational restructuring under OSP.

His duty station remained the Phoenix VA Health Care System.

The records establish that the personnel transition occurred, but they do not conclusively establish its purpose. There is insufficient information to determine whether it represented disciplinary action, an administrative reassignment, or part of the nationwide restructuring.

That uncertainty deserves clarification.

The transition does not erase the October 2023 Title VII finding, the September 2023 inappropriate-sexual-conduct finding, or the credibility questions arising from the conflicting sworn testimony.

Nor does it explain why Fister remained in supervisory and leadership positions for nearly three years after the 2023 findings.

Changing an official's job title is not, by itself, evidence that the agency adequately addressed previously substantiated misconduct.

The Department of Veterans Affairs should be able to account for its decisions without disclosing information protected by federal personnel and privacy laws.

PUBLIC AWARENESS NOTICE — SUBSTANTIATED MISCONDUCT AND CONTINUED RETENTION

This public awareness notice is intended to inform veterans, federal employees, taxpayers, and the general public about documented misconduct involving Joshua E. Fister, a longtime Phoenix VA Police supervisor, and the Department of Veterans Affairs' continued retention of the official following multiple substantiated findings.

In 2023, Phoenix VA executive leadership substantiated inappropriate sexual conduct involving Fister. Just 23 days later, the VA's Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication (OEDCA) issued a Final Agency Decision finding an unlawful, race-based hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, expressly identifying Fister as the responsible management official.

Despite two separate substantiated findings, Fister continued serving in supervisory and leadership positions for years afterward.

Additional federal court records subsequently revealed materially conflicting sworn testimony concerning Fister's involvement in directing a federal citation against another VA Police Officer, raising further concerns about law enforcement credibility and professional integrity.

In August 2026, Fister transitioned into a non-supervisory Law Enforcement Specialist position during the VA's nationwide organizational restructuring. The available records do not establish whether the transition was disciplinary or administrative.

These matters are not based solely on rumors, anonymous accusations, or public speculation. They are supported by official VA findings, sworn testimony, and federal court records.

The documented history raises substantial concerns about the judgment of Phoenix VA Police leadership, the effectiveness of its misconduct accountability processes, and the institutional consequences of retaining an official with substantiated racial and inappropriate sexual conduct.

This notice serves to preserve public awareness of those findings and the leadership decisions that followed. A change in employment classification does not erase an agency's documented misconduct findings or its responsibility for the decisions made afterward.

THE POSITION CHANGED. THE RECORD DID NOT.

Concerned Citizens | Phoenix, Arizona

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

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.