Jury finds Mass. State Police systemically discriminated against women and minorities – WBUR

Report on Systemic Discrimination within Massachusetts State Police and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction and Verdict Summary

A Suffolk Superior Court jury has determined that the Massachusetts State Police engaged in systematic discrimination concerning promotional opportunities for women and minorities. This verdict highlights significant institutional failures that directly contravene key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). The court ordered the agency to pay $6.8 million in damages to the five plaintiffs, underscoring the severity of the discriminatory practices.

Case Details and Impact on SDG 5: Gender Equality

The case prominently featured the experiences of lead plaintiff Lisa Butner, a retired lieutenant with over 30 years of service. Her repeated denial of promotions in favor of less qualified male candidates exemplifies a direct violation of SDG Target 5.5, which calls for ensuring women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership in public life. The jury awarded Ms. Butner $4.1 million, acknowledging the profound and sustained nature of the gender-based discrimination she faced.

• Ms. Butner was consistently overlooked for positions within the internal affairs section.
• Promotions were reportedly awarded to white male candidates with fewer qualifications and stronger political connections.
• In 2014, prior to filing the lawsuit, Ms. Butner attempted to address the discriminatory patterns with the agency’s command staff, which at the time included only one woman and no minorities.
• These internal efforts failed to produce any meaningful change, leading to the legal action.

Systemic Failures and Contradiction of SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The jury’s finding that the discrimination was both “systemic” and “egregious” points to deep-rooted institutional barriers that prevent equitable advancement. This situation is in direct conflict with SDG 10, which aims to reduce inequality and ensure equal opportunity for all, irrespective of gender or race (Targets 10.2 and 10.3). The verdict confirms that the agency’s promotional practices have actively undermined the principles of inclusion and equal outcome.

1. The jury confirmed that the Massachusetts State Police discriminated against the lead plaintiff based on her race and gender.
2. The discrimination was found to be a systemic practice, not an isolated incident.
3. The court mandated a financial settlement of $6.8 million, distributed among five plaintiffs who suffered from these discriminatory practices.

Institutional Integrity and Challenges to SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

In response to the verdict, the state police issued a statement claiming its policies have “evolved” since the lawsuit was filed in 2016 and that it is reviewing legal options. However, this verdict is the latest in a series of events that challenge the agency’s integrity and its alignment with SDG 16, which calls for effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels. The pattern of misconduct undermines public trust and demonstrates a significant departure from the goal of building just and strong institutions.

Recent institutional challenges include:

• A bribery scheme involving troopers who administered commercial driving tests.
• The exposure of lewd and misogynistic text messages between troopers during a high-profile murder trial.
• An extensive overtime fraud scandal that implicated nearly two dozen troopers.

These incidents, coupled with the systemic discrimination verdict, illustrate a critical need for reform to ensure the institution is accountable, just, and inclusive, in line with the core tenets of SDG 16.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 5: Gender Equality

   The article directly addresses gender equality by focusing on a lawsuit where the Massachusetts State Police were found to have systematically discriminated against women in promotions. The lead plaintiff, Lisa Butner, was repeatedly denied positions that went to men she claimed were less qualified. The mention of “lewd and misogynistic texts” further reinforces the relevance of this goal, which aims to end all forms of discrimination against women.

2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   This goal is central to the article, which highlights systemic discrimination against both “women and minorities.” The jury’s verdict confirms that the state police’s promotion practices created and sustained inequality of outcome based on race and gender. The goal of reducing inequalities within countries is directly connected to eliminating such discriminatory practices in public institutions.

3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   The article critiques the integrity and accountability of a key public institution—the state police. The issues of systemic discrimination, bribery, overtime fraud, and unprofessional conduct all point to a failure to build an “effective, accountable and transparent” institution. The lawsuit itself is an action seeking justice and forcing the institution to reform, aligning with the goal of promoting the rule of law and ensuring equal access to justice for all.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Targets for SDG 5 (Gender Equality)

  • Target 5.1: End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere. The jury’s finding that the state police “systematically discriminated against women” is a direct example of the discrimination this target seeks to end.
  • Target 5.5: Ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life. The article highlights the denial of promotions to qualified women like Lisa Butner and the fact that in 2014, “only one woman… [was] on the command staff,” demonstrating a clear barrier to women’s leadership in public life.

• Targets for SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

  • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices. The lawsuit challenged the state police’s “pattern of discriminatory practices,” such as not posting open jobs, which led to unequal outcomes for women and minorities. The verdict against these practices aligns with the objective of this target.

• Targets for SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

  • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The series of scandals mentioned—discrimination, bribery, and fraud—demonstrates a lack of accountability and effectiveness within the state police, highlighting the need for institutional reform as called for by this target.
  • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. The article notes the agency is “composed of primarily white male troopers and command staff” and that in 2014, “no minorities, were on the command staff.” This points to a non-inclusive and non-representative decision-making structure, which this target aims to correct.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicators for SDG 5 & 16

  An implied indicator is the proportion of women and minorities in management and leadership positions within public institutions. The article provides a specific data point that can be used as a baseline: in 2014, the command staff included “only one woman, and no minorities.” Progress could be measured by tracking the increase in this proportion over time.

• Indicators for SDG 10

  The article implies an indicator related to the prevalence of discrimination. The lawsuit brought by five plaintiffs who experienced discrimination serves as a qualitative measure. A reduction in the number of such lawsuits and formal complaints of discrimination within the agency could be used as an indicator of progress toward ensuring equal opportunity.

• Indicators for SDG 16

  The article points to indicators of institutional integrity and public trust. The mention of bribery, fraud, and misogynistic behavior suggests a lack of accountability. An implied indicator would be the number of internal and external investigations into corruption and misconduct within the police force. The state police’s statement about implementing “promotional processes that align the department with national best practices” suggests that adherence to such standards could be another measurable indicator of institutional strength.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: wbur.org