Last month, I wrote a story about a sexual harassment complaint filed against D.C. police photo lab head William “Bill” Gresham. The story speculated on a finer point of the extremely graphic lawsuit filed by former Gresham employee Mary N. Gilkey—an allegation in paragraph 14 that “Defendant Gresham introduced what he called a ‘peter meter’ to the office.”

Gresham and D.C. police declined to comment on my story about what, exactly, a “peter meter” is. Now, the photo lab boss has officially denied that he ever “introduced” one to his office. Last Friday, a response was finally filed in the case on behalf of Gresham and the District of Columbia. The answer to the complaint denies the allegation concerning the “peter meter,” along with the remainder of Gilkey’s allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation. There are a lot of allegations to deny. In her Sept. 24 complaint, Gilkey claimed the harassment spanned 14 years of her employment in the photo lab, and included Gresham commenting on her body while “he licked his tongue and touch[ed] his penis,” Gresham showing her “pictures of two men engaged in a sexual act where one man had his arm up the other man’s ass,” and Gresham hitting her “on the top of her head with a telephone receiver so hard she bled.”

After denying Gilkey’s “allegations of discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation and violation of the common law violation,” the answer to the complaint, filed by Acting Attorney General Peter J. Nickles, requests that the “matter be dismissed.”

When Mary Gilkey filed her sexual harassment suit against D.C. Police Department photo lab head William “Bill” Gresham, the complaint included some common sexual harassment allegations—touchy-feeliness, money for sex, pornography in the office. It also contained some unexplained terms. Among the more provocative of the complaint’s claims was the following:

“Defendant Gresham introduced what he called a ‘peter meter’ to the office.”

No legal definition is provided for this so-called “peter meter”—the phrase is simply dropped in the complaint alongside clearer lawsuit jargon like “hostile work environment” and “physical and mental anguish.”

Surely, any good photography lab would have a densitometer to measure the reflective quality of a print or light meters to measure the proper exposure of photographs. But under what circumstances, exactly, would one introduce a “peter meter”? Gresham, who picked up the phone at the photo lab, referred the “peter meter” question to department spokesperson Traci Hughes; Hughes says she can’t comment on current cases.

The definition of “peter meter” lacks consensus: Sex shops, porn magnates, even Google all offer different definitions. Below, choose from The Sexist’s best guesses.

A) It’s a novelty item. A quick survey of online gag shops reveals one “Peter Meter” offering—a condom printed with a ruler that measures penis length. “How will you measure up with the rubber that’s a ruler?” asks the condom, which charts length from four inches (“teenie weenie”) to eight (“farm animal”). The condom is specified “for novelty use only.”

Still, it’s unlikely you’ll find any such Peter Meter in your local sex shop. “It’s not something that any of my customers has ever asked for,” says an employee at Dupont fetish outfitter the Leather Rack. Employees at both D.C. locations of sex shop the Pleasure Place also weren’t clued into the meter. “I would, taking a guess, say that it’s a ruler,” said an employee at the Dupont location, after noting she’d never before seen anything like it. “Google it,” advised a Georgetown rep.

B) It’s a person. Google it I did. Urban Dictionary defines a “peter meter” as “a woman who is very sexually promiscuous.” The Web site delves deeper into the etymology of the phrase, revealing that it “[o]riginates from the idea that said woman’s vagina is like a meter for ‘peters’ (penises).” The idea here is that a woman who had a lot of sex with men would be in the position to serve as a sort-of walking folk-measuring instrument.

C) It’s a machine that tests how aroused you are. According to pieces in L.A. Weekly and Denver Westword, “peter meter” is a not-uncommon nickname used for “phallometric assessment”—a controversial test used to determine what turns sex offenders on. In the technique, images connected with illegal sexual practices are displayed—coercive sex for rapists, for example, or child molestation—to determine whether the subject has a natural attraction to the acts. It’s unlikely a machine of this type would find its way into MPD headquarters, with or without images of female police department photogs.

D) It’s a personal rating system. When Google fell short, I “Boobled.” When I ran “Peter Meter” through the adult-specific search engine, I stumbled upon the name of porn enthusiast and former Screw magazine publisher Al Goldstein. Now 72 years old, Goldstein has fallen from his high-rolling days. The mag went bankrupt in 2003; Goldstein now contributes to a sex blog and is currently running for president. Goldstein claims to have introduced his own Peter Meter to the world with the magazine’s debut in 1968. Goldstein describes his Peter Meter as a “measuring tool for evaluation of porn films,” a meter which was “based on how many hard-ons it produced.” In 1972, oral-sex porn showcase Deep Throat registered a 100 percent on Goldstein’s Peter Meter. It’s conceivable that the photo lab environment alleged in Gilkey’s complaint could accommodate such a porn rating system—Gilkey’s complaint alleges Gresham displayed “pictures of nude women on beaches” and pornography “where one man had his arm up the other man’s ass.”

What, really, is the alleged peter meter? Find the answer after the jump.
Answer: “OK, a peter meter is some kind of a meter that measures the size of the penis,” explains Ted J. Williams, Gilkey’s attorney. “The allegation is that he bought it from a sex parlor in New York,” Williams adds. So did Gresham measure up? According to Williams, “He demonstrated the manner in which it would make the measurements, but he didn’t actually take his penis out and measure it up next to the ruler.”

Photo by Darrow Montgomery.

In the strangest allegation, the suit accuses photo boss Gresham of having “purchased panties with a MPD insignia and provided them to the females in his office.” In the most violent, the lawsuit alleges Gresham “hit [Gilkey] on the top of her head with a telephone receiver so hard she bled because [Gilkey] made a disapproving face and mouthed disapproving words when she witnessed Defendant Gresham lying to his wife while he spoke to her on the telephone.”

The suit accuses Gresham and the District of Columbia of “sex harassment,” creating a “hostile work environment,” “intentional infliction of emotional distress,” and “retaliation.” The District of Columbia is also accused of “negligent training and supervision.” The suit alleges that “MPD knew about Defendant Gresham’s proclivities as a sexual predator, was informed of Defendant Gresham’s actions towards Plaintiff, and failed to take appropriate remedial actions against Defendant Gresham.” The complaint requests damages for “physical and emotional distress” and asks that Gresham be removed from his post.

Gresham picked up the phone at MPD’s photo lab yesterday. When asked about the case, Gresham said he hadn’t heard anything about the lawsuit. “I have no comment, and don’t know anything about [the allegations],” Gresham said.

Gilkey’s attorney, Ted J. Williams, previously represented MPD employee Tina Hall-Johnson in another sexual harassment case against Gresham and D.C., which the city settled in 2001. When asked about the new case against Gresham, Williams said, “I find it shocking that the Metropolitan Police Department would continue to employ this person, who clearly is a sexual predator and harasser and a wart, knowing what he had done to one employee. Also of concern is they were on notice of the actions of this man, and there is absolutely nothing that we’ve seen to show that they’ve taken any appropriate action.”

According to the complaint, Gresham’s alleged verbal harassment began shortly after Gilkey was hired on as an MPD lab technician in June of 1994. Gresham, Gilkey’s superior, is accused of commenting that Gilkey “had big full breasts” and “walked like she had good pussy.” Gilkey also alleges that Gresham told her “he would give her money if she would permit him to lick her pussy” and that “if he gave her his penis she would be wearing a mattress on her back.” According to the complaint, Gresham made many of these comments while he “licked his tongue” or “while touching his penis. Gresham is also accused of introducing a “peter meter” in the office, a term the complaint does not explain.

The complaint also accuses Gresham of several instances of physical harassment:

While in the dark room, Defendant Gresham would walk behind the Plaintiff and touch her body with his erect penis. Defendant Gresham on one occasion grabbed the Plaintiff’s breast and told the Plaintiff that if she informed anyone he would make it hard for her. Defendant Gresham repeatedly showed Plaintiff pornographic pictures and pictures of nude women on beaches. Plaintiff informed Defendant Gresham over and over that his actions were unwanted and asked him to stop.

While MPD was investigating Gresham in regards to the Hall-Johnson suit, the complaint reports that “Gresham was detailed out of the MPD Photo Lab for approximately one year.” Following the absence, however, the suit states that Gresham returned to work, “where he began his sexual harassment as if he had never left the photo lab.”

After reassuming his post, Gresham is accused of continuing his verbal and physical harassment of Gilkey between the years of 2000 and 2006, including exposing Gilkey’s breast, displaying pornography “where one man had his arm up the other man’s ass,” and constantly telling Gilkey “how good she looked and [that] he would do anything to fuck her.”

The suit claims that Gilkey reported the abuse to supervisors in 1998 and 2003, as well as during the course of the Hall-Johnson investigation. In both ’98 and ‘03, the suit alleges that supervisors “failed to act on Plaintiff’s complaint and did not either investigate Plaintiff’s complaint, refer Plaintiff to the MPD EEO office or restrain Mr. Gresham in any way.”

In response, the suit alleges, the harassment intensified. According to the complaint, Gresham:

created a situation by which Plaintiff’s co-workers would not speak to her or assist her so that she was forced to ask him for assistance. Defendant Gresham would then take advantage of [Gilkey] having to seek assistance from him and would touch her inappropriately or ask her for sex while complying with her request for assistance. He also encouraged Plaintiff’s co-workers to harass her with the ultimate goal of increasing control over Plaintiff and force Plaintiff to have sex with him.

When contacted yesterday, MPD spokesperson Traci Hughes said that the police department “cannot comment on matters that are currently in litigation.”

Details alleged in the suit, via Examiner:

In 1998, Gilkey told investigators in the Hall-Johnson probe that while working in the dark room, Gilkey turned around and saw Gresham holding his penis and smiling. Gilkey ran out of the room and reported it to Gresham’s supervisor.

Over the years, Gilkey said, Gresham offered her thousands of dollars to perform sex acts, commented about her breasts, introduced something called a “peter meter,” brushed up against her in the dark room with an erection, grabbed her breasts and showed her pornography.

In March 2006, Gresham struck Gilkey on the top of her head with a telephone receiver so hard that she bled, the suit alleges.

In 2003, Gresham was awarded with a Metropolitan Police Department lifetime achievement service award. In the program [PDF], Gresham was described as “a consummate photography professional” in “all respects.”