|
MALTREATMENT INVESTIGATION MEMORANDUM Minnesota Statutes, section 626.557, subdivision 1 states, “The legislature declares that the public policy of this state is to protect adults who, because of physical or mental disability or dependency on institutional services, are particularly vulnerable to maltreatment.”
License Number and Program Type: 1072329-H_CRS (Home and Community-Based Services-Community Residential Setting) Investigator(s): Scout Peterson 651-431-6578 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a staff person (SP) used a racially derogatory term (referred to as the “n-word” throughout the remainder of the report) more than once while talking to a vulnerable adult (VA). Date of Incident(s): January 12, 2024 Nature of Alleged Maltreatment Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 626.557, subdivision 9c, paragraph (b), and Minnesota Statutes, section 626.5572, subdivision 15, and subdivision 2, paragraph (b), clause (2): Conduct which is not an accident or therapeutic conduct which produces or could reasonably be expected to produce physical pain or injury or emotional distress including, but not limited to: the use of repeated or malicious oral, written or gestured language toward a vulnerable adult or the treatment of a vulnerable adult which would be considered by a reasonable person to be disparaging, derogatory, humiliating, harassing, or threatening. Summary of Findings: Pertinent information was obtained during a site visit conducted on March 5, 2024; from documentation at the facility; and through five interviews conducted with two staff persons (P1 and the SP), a supervisory staff person (P2), the VA and another client (C). The VA enjoyed reading and going shopping. The VA lived at the facility due to serious and persistent mental illness and multiple mental health diagnoses. The VA’s Individual Abuse Prevention Plan stated that the VA was susceptible to emotional abuse. The facility was a two-level home with a detached garage. The lower level included the facility office, a bathroom, a bedroom, and two utility rooms. The upstairs level had three bedrooms, a bathroom, a kitchen, a dining room, and a living room with two couches and a TV. According to the facility’s Client Incident Report, on January 12, 2024, the SP “kept using” the n-word to describe someone in a story the SP was telling. After the SP said the word “a few times,” the SP asked the VA if the word offended him/her, and the VA told the SP that s/he did not like the word. The SP then continued to tell the story and continued to use the n-word. On January 13, 2024, when the VA realized that the SP was scheduled to work the night shift that evening, the VA told P1 about the incident the day before. The VA provided the following information: · On an unknown weekend evening, when the SP was working, the VA and the C were in the living room sitting on the couch watching a movie. The SP came into the living room, sat down, and watched the movie with the VA and the C. · During the movie, the SP was “blabbering away,” telling the VA and the C a story about when s/he and his/her family member got into a car accident. The SP said that s/he wanted to kill and stab “that n-word” with whom s/he got into the accident. · While the SP told the story, s/he said the n-word five times. The last thing the SP said to the VA was, “I think all [people of a certain race] are [n-words], but you’re not offended, right?” The VA said s/he did not respond to the SP and was “shocked.” The VA also felt like the SP “basically called [him/her] the n-word.” The VA stated that the SP’s race was not consistent with the race commonly associated with the n-word. · After the SP finished the story, the SP got up and went outside. The C then told the VA that what the SP said “was not okay” and that the SP should not use that word. The VA said the C seemed “shocked” by the SP’s use of the n-word. · The VA stated that s/he had never heard the SP say anything similar in the past, and that the VA “barely knew [the SP]” because s/he had only worked at the facility for “a couple weeks.” · The next day, the VA looked at the staff schedule and saw that the SP was scheduled to work that evening, so while P1, the VA, and the C, were in the car running errands, the VA told P1 about the incident. The VA stated while the incident “wasn’t funny,” s/he was “so shocked [s/he] was laughing” when recounting the story to P1. P1 asked the VA if s/he was serious that the incident had occurred, and when the VA affirmed that was what occurred, P1 told to P2. The SP did not work at the facility that evening. The C provided the following information: · On an unknown date, the VA and the C were in the living room watching a movie. The SP came into the living room to watch the movie and talked to the VA and C about “bad stuff.” The C stated the SP told a story about a person who stabbed the SP’s family member and while telling the story, the SP used the n-word three times. · The SP then asked the VA, “Does that offend you?” and the VA said, “No,” but the C stated s/he “knew” it offended the VA because the VA was acting like s/he was “hurt.” The C stated that s/he “felt bad” for the VA because his/her facial expression changed after the interaction. The C felt “irritated” and “angry” after the interaction and did not talk to the SP for the rest of the evening. · The next day when the C, the VA and P1 were in the car, the VA told P1 that the SP used the n-word three times the night before. P1 was “not happy” and told P2 “right away.” P1 provided the following information: · On January 13, 2024, around 4 p.m., the VA and the C were in the car with P1 when the VA told P1 that the previous night (January 12, 2024) the SP said the n-word three times and then said to the VA, “That doesn’t bother you, does it?” · After they returned to the facility, P1 texted P2 “call me.” When P2 called P1 back, P1 told P2 that the SP used the n-word at work “multiple times” the night before. P2 then handled the incident from there. · P1 never heard the SP use the n-word around the clients, but heard the SP use the n-word in the office when no clients were present. P1 stated that the SP used the n-word “a lot” when s/he talked about his/her “past life.” · After the interaction, the VA was “bothered,” and that the interaction put the VA in a “vulnerable” position. P2 stated that on January 13, 2024, s/he received a text message at 4:55 p.m. from P1 stating, “Call me.” P2 then called P1. P1 provided information to P2 that was consistent with the information P1 provided during his/her interview. P1 also told P2 that the SP also said that all people of a certain race are n-words. P2 then met with the VA who stated s/he was “very upset” and “hurt.” P2 said s/he never heard the SP use the n-word while at work. P2 did not discuss the incident with the SP but suspended him/her pending further investigation by the facility’s human resources department. The SP provided the following information in the Client Incident Report: · When asked if s/he used the n-word at work, the SP stated, “Not really.” The SP then acknowledged that s/he used the n-word but added that s/he did not use the word to refer to the client and did not continue to use the word when the VA told the SP that the word offended him/her. · The SP also stated that if you look up the n-word in the dictionary it means “ignorant.” According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary the first two definitions of the n-word state, “Used as an insulting and contemptuous term for a [person of a particular race] and/or a member of any [specific color]-skinned race.” In addition, it stated that the “belief” that the word meant “ignorant” was not accurate and that the word was first included in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary in 1864 and it was “a word that was used ‘in derision of depreciation.’ There has never been a definition like ‘an ignorant person’ for this word in any subsequent dictionary published by this company. Nor do we know of such a definition in any earlier dictionary.” The SP provided the following information in an interview with this investigator: · On an unknown date “around [his/her] birthday in December,” the n-word “slipped out” of the SP’s mouth. The SP was with two clients whose names s/he could not remember, in the living room telling a story. The SP told a story about how a family member was stabbed and used the n-word to describe the person who stabbed the SP’s family member. The SP stated that s/he said the n-word one time. · The SP stated that s/he “didn’t mean it in a derogatory way.” The SP told the VA that s/he meant it with “no disrespect” and the VA responded that it was “fine.” The VA told the SP that s/he did not feel any type of “disrespect” by what the SP said, said, “Goodnight,” and then got up and went to bed. · The SP stated that s/he felt “really stupid” after s/he said the word and that s/he should not have said it. The SP talked to the facility’s human resources department after the incident to “explain” him/herself. According to the facility’s Respectful Workplace Policy, “Staff are required to refrain for the use of abusive, exploitive, or profane language on company premises or where company business is conducted. Use of this type of language around the people we support shows a complete lack of respect and will not be tolerated.” According to the facility’s Courteous Treatment policy, “Clients have the right to be treated with courtesy and respect for their individuality by employees of or persons providing service in the facility.” Facility documentation showed and P1, P2 and the SP each stated they were trained on the Reporting of Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act, the facility’s Courteous Treatment Policy, and the VA’s Individual Abuse Prevention Plan. Relevant Rules and/or Statutes Minnesota Statutes, section 245D.04, subdivision 3, paragraph (a), clauses (6) and (8), stated in part that a persons’ protection-related rights include the right to be treated with courtesy and respect; and be free from bias and harassment regarding race. Conclusion: The VA provided consistent information to P1, this investigator, and in the facility’s incident report that on January 12, 2024, the SP said the n-word more than one time while telling about an incident that occurred with his/her family member. The C was present during the incident and corroborated the VA’s account. The SP told this investigator that s/he used the n-word one time while talking to the VA and the C and that it “slipped out.” Given that the VA’s and the C’s information regarding the number of times the SP said the n-word, and that the SP had reason to minimize his/her actions for fear of repercussions it was determined that the SP used the n-word more than one time in the telling of his/her story. The SP’s actions were inconsistent with the standards of a professional caregiver in a facility licensed by the Department of Human Services; were a violation of the facility’s policies; and a violation of Minnesota Statutes, section 245D.04, subdivision 3, paragraph (a), clauses (6) and (8); and could be considered disparaging or derogatory. However, given that the SP’s actions occurred on a single day, at a single time; that the SP was telling a story to the VA and the C so the use of the n-word was not directed towards the VA or the C; and that the SP said s/he “didn’t mean it in a derogatory way,” and with “no disrespect,” there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether the use of the n-word when talking to the VA could reasonably be expected to produce emotional distress. It was not determined whether emotional abuse occurred (conduct which is not an accident or therapeutic conduct which produces or could reasonably be expected to produce physical pain or injury or emotional distress including, but not limited to: the use of repeated or malicious oral, written or gestured language toward a vulnerable adult or the treatment of a vulnerable adult which would be considered by a reasonable person to be disparaging, derogatory, humiliating, harassing, or threatening.) Action Taken by Facility: The facility completed an internal review and determined that policies and procedures were adequate and there was no need for additional staff training. The SP no longer worked at the facility. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: Given that the facility took immediate corrective action a correction order was not issued for the violation issued in this report.
|
