Tape reveals plaintiff lied about work

Darleene Barrientos

In a tape played to the jury in the Glendale Police sexual-harassment

trial, one of the plaintiffs in the case admitted lying about her

whereabouts to dispatch and to socializing with fellow officers when

she was supposed to be working.

“Having this much time to look back, I think I was an idiot,” said

Renae Kerner, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, in the 2001 taped

interview with Lt. Jonathon Perkins. The interview was part of the

Police Department’s investigation into reports of officers sleeping

while on duty.

Kerner is one of three Glendale Police officers suing the city,

alleging they were victims of harassment, unwanted sexual advances

and retaliation when they complained.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs and the defense bickered over whether

Perkins could read from a summary or a transcript of the interview

during cross-examination by city lawyer Irma Rodriguez Moisa. Judge

David A. Warner allowed Perkins to read from a summary, but also

ruled the taped interview should be played in the presence of the

jury.

The department’s “Napster” investigation was conducted in 2001

after police supervisors received reports of officers napping,

socializing or leaving their assigned districts while on duty.

Kerner reportedly was seen going outside of her assigned area to

sit in a secluded location behind a flower shop. Kerner said on the

tape that although she had told superiors she was parked behind the

flower shop to write reports, she was actually “hanging out” with

fellow officers.

“I know now [that] being out of my district was completely

irresponsible,” Kerner said on the tape.

Re-examining Perkins, plaintiffs’ lawyer Brad Gage waded through

departmental reports detailing Kerner’s activities while on duty in

2001, in an effort to prove her location did not affect her response

times.

Warner protested Gage’s re-examination, expressing concern over

what he was trying to prove.

“The reason why this trial is so bogged down is because of the

slow process of your examination,” Warner said.

Warner warned both the plaintiffs and the defense that he wanted

the trial finished by April 1.

Moisa proposed a time limit for Gage to present his case,

requiring he be done by March 20. Gage has yet to call any of the

plaintiffs to the stand.

“It’s unrealistic,” Gage said of the proposed time limit. “Counsel

[the defense] is making objections so frequently. It’s part of their

desire to delay the case, so the plaintiffs can’t present all the

evidence.”