San Diego lifeguard chief derailed sexual harassment investigation, misled city officials, investigation finds

Three weeks after San Diego’s longtime lifeguard chief abruptly left his job, newly obtained internal city records reveal that investigators found he and two lifeguard sergeants mishandled a sexual harassment complaint.

The City of San Diego’s Equal Employment Investigations Office concluded in September that former Lifeguard Chief James Gartland and Sergeants Dana Vanos and Eric Care violated the city’s Equal Employment Opportunity policy after a lifeguard reported being sexually harassed by a coworker in June 2023.

Investigators found the two sergeants created an environment in which the employee felt unable to leave a two-to three-hour meeting without resigning. They also held Gartland responsible for directing the meeting.

In a separate finding, investigators concluded Gartland misled city officials about the nature of the sexual harassment allegations, ultimately preventing an investigation into the original complaint.

The findings, detailed in a Sept. 16 report obtained by NBC 7 Investigates through a public records request, came just weeks before Gartland’s sudden departure from the city.

Gartland had served as San Diego’s lifeguard chief since 2018 and worked for the department for approximately three decades. 

The city has not confirmed whether the internal investigation played a role in his recent departure.

A sexual harassment complaint followed by a resignation

The allegations date back to June 2023, when a San Diego lifeguard reported receiving unsolicited sexually explicit photographs and messages from another lifeguard with whom the employee had previously been romantically involved.

According to the city’s investigative report, the employee told investigators that the relationship had been consensual but that the coworker subsequently began sending unwanted sexual messages through Snapchat.

The employee said the coworker offered money in exchange for sex, then continued sending explicit messages after receiving no response.

The employee described being shocked by the offer and showing the messages to two friends.

The employee reported the situation to Lifeguard Sgt. Dana Vanos on June 28, 2023, after becoming concerned that the coworker might make a competing sexual harassment allegation.

According to the employee’s account, Vanos initially characterized the situation as relatively common and indicated that the employee’s job was not in jeopardy.

Vanos disputed making that assurance when interviewed by city investigators. 

The following day, Vanos asked the employee to prepare a written statement and attend a meeting with her and Lifeguard Sgt. Eric Care. The employee emailed Vanos a statement on June 29, 2023, explaining the allegations in detail.

The meeting took place June 30 of that year. But instead of discussing how the city would investigate the reported harassment, the employee said the sergeants presented two options: resign or face an investigation that would result in termination.

A meeting that lasted two to three hours

The employee told city investigators that the meeting lasted about two hours and that repeated requests for an investigation or appeal were discouraged. Care recalled the meeting lasting closer to three hours.

According to the city’s report, the employee said the sergeants repeatedly warned that an investigation would result in termination and damage the employee’s prospects for future employment.

The employee also said requests for additional time to consider the options and speak with Human Resources were denied.

Care disputed that the employee was prevented from leaving but acknowledged that a decision was expected before the meeting ended.

“[The employee] was clear to leave whenever [the employee] wants, but [the employee] was making a decision of going down the disciplinary path or resigning before we leave that room. Two choices,” Care told investigators, according to the report.

One of the most unusual details involved a diagram Care drew during the meeting. The employee alleged that Care drew a chart showing two options, resignation or investigation, with an arrow connecting investigation to termination.

Care acknowledged drawing a diagram but disputed the employee’s characterization. “I literally had to write it down,” Care told investigators. He explained that the employee appeared shocked and was having difficulty understanding the options.

“Not to be condescending, just to get a different way to hear me,” Care said.

When investigators specifically asked whether his diagram showed that an investigation would lead to termination, Care responded, “I think you’re leaving out ‘could lead to.'”

Both sergeants denied pressuring the employee to resign. Vanos, however, acknowledged that the employee appeared uncomfortable and possibly scared during the meeting.

“It’s a scary situation going into meetings with two sergeants,” she told investigators. Vanos also recalled that Care recommended resignation as the better option for the employee. Care told investigators that he sometimes advises employees that resigning would allow them to leave without a termination on their record.

The employee ultimately resigned.

City investigators concluded that Vanos and Care violated the city’s Equal Employment Opportunity policy by creating an environment in which the employee felt unable to end the meeting without resigning.

Investigators also held Gartland responsible because he directed the sergeants to conduct the meeting and understood that resignation would be presented as an option.

Chief’s emails led officials to close the matter without investigating

The city’s investigation found additional problems with how Gartland reported the original allegations.

On July 3, 2023, Gartland emailed city officials describing the situation as a dispute between two former romantic partners who had exchanged inappropriate photographs.

“The two employees … were in a romantic relationship together that did not work out,” Gartland wrote.

He told officials that both employees had reported receiving inappropriate pictures, met separately with sergeants and subsequently resigned.

Gartland also disclosed that he had marked both employees as not recommended for rehire.

But investigators later determined that his account omitted critical information, including the allegation that one employee offered the other money for sexual favors.

It also omitted the reporting employee’s written statement.

Based on Gartland’s description, officials in the city’s Professional Standards Unit and Equal Employment Investigations Office concluded that further investigation was unnecessary because both employees had resigned.

In a July 5 email, one official wrote that if the photographs had only been exchanged between the two former employees, “there was no need to investigate.”

Gartland subsequently responded: “The paperwork has been processed and I will consider this matter closed.” He then forwarded the exchange to the sergeants, thanking them for their work.

“You all did a great job,” Gartland wrote. Care responded the following day: “This is great news. Thank you for trusting us with this big assignment. We were glad to help.”

Three years later, city investigators reached a different conclusion. Their September 2026 report found that Gartland had provided an inaccurate description of the allegations and the meetings, which prevented an investigation into the original sexual harassment complaint. Investigators concluded that Gartland violated city policy by failing to accurately report the allegations and ensure they were appropriately addressed.

Investigators raise questions about longstanding lifeguard practices

The investigation also raised questions about whether the circumstances were isolated. Gartland told investigators that the Lifeguard Division had conducted similar meetings since he was a sergeant.

Care also acknowledged that one reason employees were offered the opportunity to resign was to save the city the time and expense of conducting an investigation.

Employment attorney Brennan Kahn said those statements raise questions about whether other employees may have experienced similar treatment.

“I would think that all those factors combined, if all true, would implicate that there’s a larger problem here and potentially that there have been other victims who like this one were just pushed under the rug,” Kahn said.

The city’s investigation substantiated policy violations involving the handling of the complaint. However, the records didn’t establish that other employees were similarly pressured to resign.

Both employees were recommended against future city employment

The consequences extended beyond the employees’ resignations. Gartland completed separation paperwork recommending that neither lifeguard be rehired by the city.

For the employee who reported harassment, the reason listed was “Contact Lifeguard Chief.”

According to the investigation, a personnel department employee subsequently contacted Gartland to obtain additional information about the no-rehire recommendations.

The personnel employee told investigators that Gartland confirmed the recommendations involved information protected under HIPAA.

Gartland disputed providing that explanation. He told investigators he would instead have said that the employees failed to cooperate with an EEO investigation and exchanged inappropriate photographs. Investigators noted that such an explanation would also have been inaccurate.

The employee who reported harassment subsequently tried to return to San Diego lifeguarding.

According to a timeline provided to city investigators, the employee participated in another lifeguard tryout and interview in September 2023.

In October 2023, the city sent a letter notifying the employee that the Fire-Rescue Department had recommended against future city employment. The employee was not selected for a lifeguard position that December and was instead designated an alternate.

In a Sept. 14, 2026 memo, the city’s Equal Employment Investigations Office recommended that the Personnel Department review and remove the no-rehire designations for both employees. Investigators also recommended reviewing the city’s procedures for no-rehire recommendations to ensure compliance with law, labor agreements and city policies.

What happened to the supervisors?

The city completed its investigation on September 16, 2026, finding sufficient evidence that Gartland, Vanos and Care violated its Equal Employment Opportunity policy.

Two days later, investigators sent each supervisor a letter notifying them of the findings and explaining that the Fire-Rescue Department would determine any further action.

Gartland left city employment weeks later, ending a career that spanned approximately three decades. When NBC 7 initially reported his departure, city spokesperson Nicole Darling declined to provide an explanation.

“We cannot comment on personnel matters. I can confirm that James Gartland is no longer an employee of the City of San Diego,” Darling said at the time.

Gartland’s son, West, previously described the departure as a shocking and confusing time for the family.

Monday, NBC 7 Investigates asked the city whether Gartland’s departure was connected to the September findings, whether Vanos and Care remain employed and whether any disciplinary action was taken against the supervisors.

The city declined to comment on the two sergeants.

In a statement, a city spokesperson said: “The City does not comment on personnel matters; however, the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department takes all allegations seriously and claims are thoroughly investigated consistent with City policies and procedures.”

NBC 7 also reached out to Gartland, Vanos and Care directly for comment on the investigative findings. None has responded. 

The records leave several questions unanswered, including whether the original sexual harassment allegations were ever investigated, whether the affected employees’ no-rehire designations were removed and whether the city has changed the practices investigators identified.

This story was originally reported for broadcast by NBC San Diego. AI tools helped convert the story to a digital article, and an NBC San Diego journalist edited the article for publication.