Susan Gastaldo, RCMP Officer, Fights For Her Job After Affair With Boss

Susan Gastaldo Rcmp Affair

First Posted: 02/23/2012 8:07 am Updated: 02/23/2012 9:54 am

VANCOUVER -- An RCMP officer who had an on-going affair with her boss -- including having sex in a police car -- shouldn't lose her job while her superior simply loses 10 days pay, her lawyer told an RCMP panel.

Larry McGonigal told the panel Wednesday it would be inappropriate and disconcerting for Const. Susan Gastaldo to be fired after the panel found her guilty of disgraceful conduct.

Her superior officer, Staff Sgt. Travis Pearson, has already been reprimanded and docked 10 days pay by the same panel after admitting to the affair and using a Blackberry to exchange suggestive emails.

But Gastaldo fought against the accusation and claimed she was coerced and sexually assaulted on more than one occasion.

The panel didn't believe her and suggested her punishment should be harsher than Pearson's because she denied the claim.

McGonigal said the disparity in penalties is too harsh.

"He is the supervisor, she is the subordinate. He gets a $4,000 fine. Are we really going to impose upon her loss of job, loss of income, pension, promotional opportunities, benefits in the range of $4 million?" he said. "That would be very disconcerting."

The panel will hand down its decision Thursday.

The board already ruled last December that Gastaldo, who has an anxiety disorder, wasn't truthful, her claim wasn't plausible, and she was only making the accusation because her husband found a Blackberry with email messages between her and Pearson.

"The board isn't convinced that a person who has been sexually assaulted would readily communicate with their assailant," board chairman John Reid said in his ruling.

Records show the pair spoke for a total of 48 hours over a three month period and exchanged 160 email messages, many of them romantic or sexual in nature.

Gastaldo, who attended Wednesday's hearing, sat quietly beside her lawyer as he argued against her being fired.

McGonigal said if Gastaldo does lose her job, it would have a chilling effect for others who may want to come forward and could undermine public confidence in the justice system.

"Part of what we're facing in the RCMP currently is the fact that there is a great deal of sexual harassment that people have not complained about or that has not been handled properly," he said, referring to recent allegations of systemic harassment in a proposed class-action lawsuit by dozens of female RCMP officers.

Gastaldo has also launched a civil lawsuit against Pearson and the RCMP in connection to her case.

RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson announced an investigation late last year into the harassment claims.

McGonigal said Pearson engaged in harassing Gastaldo, and even though she refuted him on at least three occasions, he didn't take no for an answer.

"Just as Commissioner Paulson sets out to tackle this sensitive issue, I suggest the board should tackle the issue with him,'' he said. "(The board) should not look to the consequence of dismissal or request for a resignation within 14 days."

The lawyers on both sides had previously suggested a reprimand and the loss of seven days pay for Gastaldo.

But Corp. Gregory Rose, the lawyer representing the RCMP's E Division in British Columbia, stood after McGonigal's submission to remind the board that this isn't about Gastaldo having an affair with her boss or having sex in a police car.

``This is about her credibility before the board and credibility of a police officer.'' he said. ``Susan Gastaldo has never accepted responsibility for her actions.''

Earlier on Wednesday, the panel rejected an attempt by McGonigal to have the findings of Gastaldo's case thrown out and a new hearing ordered.

He told the panel that because it heard evidence against Gastaldo when she wasn't present, she didn't get a fair hearing.

The two Mounties' hearings were divided and the panel accepted an agreed statement of facts in Pearson's case that McGonigal said his client disputes.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST CANADA

Filed by Kenny Yum  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 44
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tmzrules
11:00 AM on 02/24/2012
Good news. She can now be a nurse and be a superior and berate and belittle men with about the same pay> She's only going to need the same amount of brain power. The bonus is nobody will notice when she power trips'
10:36 AM on 02/24/2012
Thank you for posting this Huffpo.
The only way to get fair treatment in this case is to publicly show how unfair people are being.
07:06 AM on 02/24/2012
They both knew it was wrong. They didn't care. Fire both of them.
photo
butchcliff
The future is unwritten
06:50 AM on 02/24/2012
Takes two to tango. Should be reprimanded on a equally
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gx5000
Life's too short, be happy..
10:40 AM on 02/24/2012
Reprimand her, fire him.
04:26 AM on 02/24/2012
This is simply the Old Boys Club closing ranks to protect their own.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sean Connolly
12:24 AM on 02/24/2012
what I got from this article... cops get paid wayyyyyy too much
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gx5000
Life's too short, be happy..
10:40 AM on 02/24/2012
Comes with the Badge and the fact you may get shot at....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sofia Champion
The future is now.
11:20 PM on 02/23/2012
You seriously couldn't pay me to care about two Mounties shagging in a police cruiser. Seriously. Why does anyone care about this? Did they somehow defile the police car or something? Am I supposed to be gravely offended at the thought of this? Well, I'm not. People have sex in cars all the time. Big deal. People have affairs all the time. Leave that to their families and spouses to sort out.

What does offend me is the double standard. The superior gets 10 days of no pay and a fine, and not a single extra repercussion. The woman loses her job. They both did the same thing. Why are they not getting the same punishment?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gx5000
Life's too short, be happy..
10:42 AM on 02/24/2012
Because there might have been coercion on the part of her boss to have sexual contact.
She should have just walked out and wrote him up, but she went along with it and that's when things get complicated.
10:36 PM on 02/23/2012
This behaviour by male and female officers in the RCMP happens in all police forces. The OPP, Quebec Provincial Police,as well as every city and municipal police force has had its problems. Another example is the military. And while we're on the topic it goes on at the office and all work places.
Our society to-day has men and women working together and in many instances the fellow worker relationship takes over from the home relationship.All because the husband or wife do not have time for each other at home.
Add to all this are men on the make and women showing up with a nice smelling perfume and a revealing cleavage.Then they give/receive the attention they don't get from their spouses at home and an affair develops. Unfortunately, these affairs are not long lasting but damages to marriages and children are permanent. And sad to say for many their careers are not affected.In fact the male easily survives but the female sometimes gets to be a victim.
Our society to-day makes the older generation shake their heads in disgust and the newer generation laughs at all this.
10:16 PM on 02/23/2012
Having sex on are Dollor i bet!!!...he should get a harsher Penalty I agree. If the email show that she lieing. then she should Not be aloud back to the police force.
02:00 PM on 02/23/2012
It would be interesting to learn if any of the panel who found Gastaldo's behavior unbelievable were female.

The optics of this situation sure tarnish the RCMP. The superior who erred gets a fine and suspension. The subordinate gets fired.

At the very least the superior should have lost rank and not be allowed a command position until he has some heavy duty training in appropriate behavior toward subordinates. Sleeping with an immediate subordinate is a wrong in any work place, regardless of consent or circumstances. Wrong precisely because it leads to this sort of situation where in it is very difficult to judge the absence of harassment and coercion.

The argument that Gastaldo is being punished because she "lied" about the facts is wrong headed. It suggests that causing the panel inconvenience is a worse offense than sleeping with one's boss in a squad car.

If she did lie about her involvement, charge her with that infraction and deal with it appropriately.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
spinnerator
05:47 PM on 02/23/2012
yeah, fire her
01:44 PM on 02/23/2012
And some people say that discrimination is a thing of the past. If this isn't a blaring case of sexism, I'd hate to see where some would draw the line. Shame on the RCMP
08:37 AM on 02/24/2012
I agree, Imagine what some people will do to get promotions. That poor mountie that wants to get ahead by merit sucks out again.Pretty soon the white english speaking males will have to come to work in mini skirts just to hold their own in the work force!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
William Muller
01:27 PM on 02/23/2012
"...benefits in the range of $4 million?"
Where do I sign up?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dread
01:09 PM on 02/23/2012
I could understand a decision like this in 1950 but not today. The RCMP is really not doing their image and/ or credibility any good.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kvass
12:59 PM on 02/23/2012
Four thousand bucks? Expensive nooky.
12:13 PM on 02/23/2012
This is a terrible double standard. In no way should the superior receive a lesser penalty.

The panel's comments are window dressing to justify their decision. The panel can't see the forest through the trees. The point, inappropriate behavior by two Mounties in the vehicle is the overriding fact.

To say the least, I am surprised the supervisor was able to keep his job.