Campbell, Villa Term Sex Bias Suit a Screen : Newport police: Women filed case to cover up their incompetence, suspended chief and captain claim.

Suspended Newport Beach Police Chief Arb Campbell and Capt. Anthony Villa lodged their first legal defense Thursday, denying sexual harassment charges and accusing the five employees who sued them of masterminding the allegations to cover up professional incompetence.

In a detailed response to the women’s lawsuit, Campbell and Villa also deny in court papers that they raped Peri Ropke, a department dispatcher who accused them of accosting her at a drunken party 11 years ago.

Bruce Praet, the city-paid attorney who is representing Campbell and Villa, said Ropke is confusing the Newport Beach party with another sexual encounter involving two different men at the same time while she was employed by another department.

“I’m not saying she can’t tell them apart,” Praet said in an interview. “I’m saying she’s either intentionally or, at best, subconsciously substituting them for the true actors.” Praet declined to elaborate further.

Campbell and Villa further attacked the career records of those suing them, drawing attention to personnel evaluations of the women whose lawsuit has plunged the department into one of the worst controversies in its history.

They contend the women are using the lawsuit as a way to hide their own misconduct on the job, including love affairs with subordinates, long lunches, bad reputations among their peers and reprimands for poor work.

Their response, filed in Orange County Superior Court, further contends that Ropke has never, as she charged, had an affair with Villa nor had sex with either Campbell or Villa, but did have a romance with someone else in the department.

“Not true,” said Steven Pingel, the attorney representing the women. “We will prove that what was alleged between her and Villa and Campbell happened. That’s what trials are all about. . . . They’re throwing a lot of mud and they want to see what sticks. I don’t think any of it will stick.”

On Sept. 24, four current and former Police Department employees filed a lawsuit accusing Villa of sexually harassing them on the job and Campbell of failing to do anything about it. It further alleged that the department had become a “hotbed of sexually offensive conduct” at the top levels, a place where only women who “go along to get along” are promoted.

On Oct. 15, Ropke joined the lawsuit, alleging that she had been raped by Campbell and Villa at the outskirts of an abandoned landfill during a late-night police party in 1981. Hours after her revelation, Newport Beach City Manager Kevin J. Murphy placed Campbell and Villa on paid administrative leave. They have contended in a lawsuit against the city that their removal from duty and an ensuing “witch hunt” have violated their civil rights.

While Praet in broad terms has repeatedly denied the allegations on behalf of his clients, the Thursday filing is the first comprehensive response to the charges.

Campbell and Villa contend generally that the lawsuit is unjustified and fails to provide sufficient facts to support a claim, and that the women have not exhausted other remedies for relief. It also contends that the women never filed official sexual harassment complaints, despite a city policy requiring employees to report such conduct.

“That happens all the time,” Pingel said. “Most women don’t file formal complaints. In Peri’s case, who’s she supposed to file a complaint to, her superiors? She’s 22 and it’s a sergeant and a captain of police who are obviously fair-haired types in the department. . . . That’s a common employer defense made against women in sex harassment cases and it just doesn’t hold up in trial anymore.”

Besides Ropke, the women who sued are records supervisor Mary Jane Ruetz; communications supervisor Margaret McInnis; Officer Cheryl Vlacilek and fired officer Rochell Maier, who is seeking her job back.

In their response, Campbell and Villa allege that Ruetz, whom the city tried to fire in late 1991, “has achieved a reputation among her co-workers for being difficult to work with and dishonest.” Her participation in the lawsuit, they say, is really an attempt to retaliate and “hide her lack of competence.”

City civil service board records show that Ruetz, who had an unblemished record after 21 years of work for police agencies, was fired for making derogatory remarks about a co-worker, failing to report for duty, and dishonesty.

Reutz appealed her termination to the civil service board, which reinstated her after concluding that the city’s case against her was groundless and that Ruetz never lied to her superiors as the Police Department had claimed.

Campbell and Villa allege that “she has also filed this lawsuit in an attempt to shield her own romance with a person who is her subordinate.” They further contend that the women’s allegations of having to dress suggestively and go to local bars with superiors is “a diversionary attempt to cover up their own inappropriate behavior.”

One example, Villa recalls, occurred when Ruetz and McInnis allegedly arrived at a restaurant he was at and regaled him with the story of how they had “picked up” two men and took them to Ruetz’s hot tub. “Capt. Villa, becoming embarrassed by the two plaintiffs’ lurid description of events, left the establishment,” the legal document contends.

Said Pingel: “Not true. . . . You can quote my laughter. I mean, for Capt. Villa to pretend to be embarrassed by lurid words defies credibility. . . . That description more than anything else . . . gives the lie to (the men’s) allegations.”

In the case of Maier, Campbell and Villa also allege retaliatory treatment--for job incompetence that led to her firing.

Maier, 31, an Army Reserve captain and commander of a helicopter company, joined the department as an officer on May 25, 1990. In July, the city fired her on the grounds that she did not successfully complete her probation or tryout period. Hearings for her civil service appeal may be held next month.

The city argues that Maier does not have the right to appeal to the civil service board because she was a probationary employee who was properly fired for failing to meet department standards.

Maier’s personnel evaluations for a 12-month period, obtained by The Times, show that her overall performance was consistently rated below necessary skills. In those reports, written by a number of supervisors, she was cited repeatedly for judgment errors, lack of knowledge about routine functions, and declining performance under stress.

In a later evaluation, Maier even admitted that she had a “bad reputation” among her peers and supervisors.

“I think her record is not consistently below average,” Pingel said, “and we believe . . . the evaluations reflect discrimination and bias” themselves.

Maier contends that she has been discriminated against by superiors who hassled her for taking time off for military obligations, while a male co-worker and reserve major had no such trouble.

She also alleges that Villa retaliated against her for spurning his sexual advances and taking an emergency leave of absence during her probationary period to attend to her dying father in Wisconsin. Villa had denied that request, saying she would have to quit and then be reinstated upon return.

Villa contends in the response that the department promised to reinstate her upon return and granted “every single request she made for military leave.”

Civil service board records show that in 1991, the city fired Vlacilek for pulling a prank “with malice” on a co-worker at the police station and then lying about it to superiors who looked into the matter.

Vlacilek appealed her termination to the civil service board, and she was reinstated to her position in a settlement of the case.

The city alleged that Vlacilek and a colleague broke into the locker of Officer Maria Williams with bolt cutters, placed parking control officer uniforms inside, and stuffed her shoes with toilet paper. Then they closed the locker, replacing Williams’ lock with a new one.

Vlacilek said the prank was meant as a joke and denied taking any property. Williams, however, reported immediately after breaking off the new lock that her badge and police uniform were missing.

During the department’s inquiry, Vlacilek repeatedly denied that she and another officer were involved. Civil service records show that Vlacilek finally admitted in an interview with a lieutenant that she alone entered Williams’ locker, but she denied taking either the uniform or badge.

According to the civil service records, the traffic division commander and the patrol division commander eventually recommended Vlacilek’s firing for dishonesty and conduct unbecoming an officer.

In support of their recommendation, City Atty. Robert Burnham concluded that the prank was actually a “nastygram,” considering that Williams was concerned about her career and was on light duty because of serious injuries she had suffered in a traffic accident involving a drunk driver.

Burnham also said that termination was appropriate in light of a two-day suspension Vlacilek had received for rude and discourteous treatment of a motorist. During the investigation of the matter, Burnham said, she changed her story four times.

“The board should find it very hard to believe anyone who has lied as often as Vlacilek,” Burnham wrote in a legal brief for the civil service board.

Campbell and Villa outlined the same set of circumstances in arguing that the lawsuit is merely in retaliation for appropriate discipline, including a complaint from a bailiff for disrespect to a judge and jury. They say their claims of Vlacilek’s incompetence are further supported by the fact that she was required to spend at least six months in a “performance improvement program.”

McInnis was never subject to any disciplinary proceedings, but Campbell and Villa’s court papers mention the hot tub incident and deny her allegations that her pregnancy would stunt her career. Campbell hired her knowing she was pregnant, his court papers allege.

They also contend that she has a reputation for being difficult to work with and has used her position to launch personal attacks on colleagues. And co-workers, they allege, have complained that they have had to perform her job tasks because of her lengthy lunch breaks and outside commitments.

They further contend that she, too, was on a performance improvement program.

As to Ropke, Campbell and Villa make no charges regarding her work performance but contend that her lawsuit allegations are designed to cover up her own inappropriate behavior and promiscuity. Campbell and Villa contend that Ropke had a long-term relationship with another member of the Police Department at the time of the alleged rape.

When the boyfriend married someone else, they contend, “she engaged in unusual and delusional behavior” that included sending flowers to herself and wearing an engagement ring which she had purchased.

Campbell and Villa contend that Ropke has “a propensity for fabrication” and once boasted of being able to seduce a married co-worker. She contended in the lawsuit that she was offered a city grant to attend college in return for her silence on the rape. But Campbell and Villa maintain that any employee was eligible for such a grant.

“There’s no allegations of Peri Ropke’s promiscuity, no charges, no discipline, no anything, when she had the courage to come forward in this case,” Pingel said. “But even if it were true theoretically, a woman’s sexual conduct in California is essentially irrelevant under the evidence code except for some very narrow circumstances.”

Praet said Ropke’s sexual past and personal life are relevant in the lawsuit “only to the extent she has raised (those issues). . . . To the extent her allegations are fantasy, we need to show that.”