The Last Word

2011-11-23T07:03:00.001-08:00

A local paper has stated that our circuit has leaned left. It must be some sort of trickle down theory. The leaning left seems to only be helping institutional power, and not the "little" people; that is for sure.

Just the other day, I overheard a conversation about harassment of another employee at work, involving vandalism, (at least the conversation was happening and police were called), and still, we blame the victim. We ask what the victim did to make the asshole act like an asshole? Basically, all the victim has done is take a job that gets her in proximity to the asshole; and then the victim dares to act as her hiring letter states, without getting permission from the office bully first. A third thing is that the victim is (typically) female, based on perceived stereotypes of weakness and passivity.

Once you get into the EEOC and litigation stage (my case had gender aspects), many more assholes appear, and those who were assholes before, become worse assholes. Yes, I was never passive. I spoke up directly to the bullies and am proud of that.

Therefore, being Thanksgiving, I must say my thanks for no longer having to deal with the following assholes.
(Some are not mentioned because they're so far beyond despicable in their behavior that they will get theirs from someone "higher-ranking" than me.)

John Gretz (Bully to another employee who became a bully to everyone involved in my case and others, including being a
bully high school umpire who was reprimanded)

Judge Roger Titus (The poor sap, he gets an average one Federal case a day, but only has to work one week out of a month, on three-strikes-and-your-out cases--so he never reads any civil litigation papers. He wrote his decision in my case before oral arguments, then handed it out, one minute after.)
The Fourth Circuit (Which did not make any interim rulings when asked to, while the case takes 5-7 years--Submissions were just ignored, even those from the other side; and "papers" were repeatedly lost.)

Eddie Taylor (Lawyer who flirted and told jokes about "Friday happy hour" with opposing counsel, then let opposing counsel slip in detrimental wording in a so-called joint agreement (just after happy hour). This , along with other things, such as refusing to file a Motion to Compel Discovery, doomed the case from the beginning. And that's assuming Titus would have woken up from his nap to notice the filing.)

Peter Eide (Lawyer who "forgot" that his Bar license had expired, so filings could not be filed)
Joe Ignacio (Idiot HR manager: He thinks the ladies like him, but they don't; just look at him!)
Judy Franz (Super bully bitch at the employer)
Conni Denning and Stephanie Jankowski (Bullies)
Elizabeth Buchan-Higgins (You should see her personnel file!)
Michael Stephens (He called me a ditz in testimony, but that only mattered if the Judge was paying attention, but he wasn't. And Stephens is weird, too)

Article about bullying for victim blamers and asshole supporters (who want to change).

Let's just say I do have some satisfaction with knowing more about the real personalities of these people (from all the personnel and other records and their embarrassing behavior during litigation) than they arrogantly think or present. Let's say their closets are a mess.

It has made me stronger and more confident. It has really helped me with my public speaking, especially in front of groups. If what happened to me then happens now, I will be an even bigger pain-in-the-ass. I will be even more persistent in fighting against it, whether I am or my co-worker is the target. So thanks guys for the pain (then) and the laughs (now, yes I am laughing at you all*).

And before you loud mouths get your knickers in a snit, this is a temporary post that is wholly my honest, untarnished opinion. Just be grateful this blog is ending, and I am not rehashing or writing out all the facts that led me to these opinions. Trust me, for those who have read my blog all along and seen just the tip of the iceberg--in what was allowed to be published--I have the basis on that alone. Many more people know about bullying and my voice has been heard here, to a large audience. For that I am supremely grateful.

(*BTW, I have the final figure on what APS spent in legal fees.)

APS HR and Jackson-Lewis Conspire to Commit Perjury

2009-07-22T06:26:00.000-07:00

APS HR director, Joe Ignacio and APS attorney Diane Windholz were less than forthcoming with the state EEOC during the administrative phase of this gender discrimination case. The APS statement, penned by Jackson-Lewis is here.

Here are two of the perjury incidents that occurred during the investigation:
1. Ignacio's false claim that the plaintiff, a new manager, provoked the physical taunts, threats and harassment she received from two incumbent subordinate females (who Ignacio testified had applied for the plaintiff's job but lost out) because she failed to discipline them. (He added that HR, therefore, had no role to take.) The state EEOC, after taking the case into their investigative unit for a year, ruled against the plaintiff on this basis.

An e-mail documents the second warning for the subordinate that the plaintiff e-mailed to her boss, Alan Chodos, APS Executive. This e-mail describes an actual warning that was provided to the subordinate separately and put into evidence. But APS failed to provide the e-mail (or warning) to the state EEOC and then testified that the plaintiff had failed to discipline this woman whom they admit, in their mild wording, was "disrespectful."

The subordinate's answer to the warning, sent to Ignacio and Chodos was entered into evidence; so Ignacio knew about not only about the discipline and the dangers of this woman's behavior (her personnel file contains further records), but that the behavior continued after discipline began, a serious policy violation. (Although APS deleted the address headers to hide the fact, the subordinate addresses both managers in the e-mail's body.) both warnings were provided by the plaintiff, because APS, who had them, refused to submit them.

2. The false claim that Ignacio—who sat directly next to the male in question—did not know of any male subordinate who harassed his male boss. First of all, APS is 67% female, as APS testified, plus over 80% female at the subordinate level. Secondly, the plaintiff provided the names of the male parties in writing to the state EEOC, and notes indicate that the investigator discussed the parties by name with APS (see below for a photo). In fact, the investigator had to prod APS with a second interview to force APS to be forthcoming. Further, documents in the record indicate Windholz was actively engaged in the male subordinate's departure from APS. She was also on the phone with the state EEOC, while personnel records indicate the male supervisor's own observations and interactions with his hostile staffer. Lastly, Ignacio testified and wrote a lengthy affadavit describing this male subordinate's behavior, his interactions with the male, and the male's last days of employment. Unless this is an everyday thing for Ignacio and Windholz, these events were the focus of Ignacio, Chodos and the male's supervisor, for weeks. These events occurred at the same time the plaintiff was being shoo'ed away.

Here is a section of the EEOC notes where Ignacio calls the threats and physical taunts against the plaintiff by other females "high schoolish," yet deems a conflict between a male and his employee "perf. issues" of ONLY the subordinate's doing. Both the male manager and employee's names are redacted. (The female plaintiff, a new manager, was fired as a result of the taunts, but the male manager was supported, with the removal of his employee.)

Calling for the Resignation or Firing of Ignacio
Most organizations hold the HR manager accountable for not enforcing anti-harassment rules or allowing subordinates to physically display anger towards their bosses. They are also held accountable for the disruption and cost related to any subsequent lawsuit. (APS and parent AIP did see the light when the litigants were male.)

Ignacio knowingly overlooked an environment full of bullying, harassment and discrimination (both gender- and race-based, as evidence shows). It began when Ignacio, a married man, asked the plaintiff, a new manager, out on a date, which some may construe as sexual harassment, and to which the plaintiff said no. He then ignored her when she came to him with complaints of harassment by two female subordinates (who had unsuccessfully applied for the plaintiff’s job) that included emotional fits and threats. He told the plaintiff "babysitting is your job." The plaintiff’s faults as Ignacio sees them? Rather than being a good little lady manager and taking ALL the "girls" to lunch, she wrote up the harasser, notified her supervisor (who also refused to get involved), recommended the harasser get counseling by EAP and referred the matter to Ignacio for discipline.

Ignacio said "no" to the discipline and counseling, admitting that he and other male managers lacked the proper "people" skills to intervene. He made jokes—describing the issue among "girls" as “high-schoolish." Ignacio also told the plaintiff that Franz did not have to follow the law, and the plaintiff should get a thicker skin.

According to an APS filing, Franz, who was not the plaintiff's supervisor, counseled the plaintiff on "management style." Franz felt the plaintiff’s style was not feminine enough, ie, that she could not get emotional females to stop emoting without male help. The plaintiff answered that she was not anyone's handholder and would hand out discipline for harassment and refer violators to HR. Ignacio then fired the plaintiff, claiming her style did not fit in (ie, she provoked her own harassment).

At the same time, Ignacio was assisted a male Education manager, admittedly not a great manager, in removing his harasser, a male. This subordinate, who had an emotional fit the plaintiff witnessed, was deemed to have serious issues and was written up. Ignacio never investigated whether the male boss had "style" issues: He could be a hard-ass, but would still get help. The male bully was not allowed back into the building, as the plaintiff also witnessed, until the bully received counseling. When men act like “women," Ignacio ... does his job. To Ignacio, women managers are good for keeping emotional women out of his office and handling paperwork. (He testified to not knowing about HR forms, procedures and benefits.)

Even though these males, who were regularly present in the plaintiff's area, testified they witnessed the plaintiff as professional in interactions with subordinates/coworkers, the males also testified that the plaintiff must still have some flaw: After the plaintiff's harasser, Stephanie Jankowski, admitted she "argued" with her boss, Jankowski then testified her animosity was justified because, in her words, the plaintiff "came in late and spent hours flirting with males." (One could presume that Ignacio feared his unprofessional interest in the plaintiff might be outed.)

In state EEOC papers, incidences of hostile taunting from Conni Denning (Jankowski's friend) also mirrored the male subordinate's behavior. The plaintiff reported that Denning refused to complete simple tasks, such as filling our leave sheets. Denning angrily yelled at the plaintiff, "I will explode" if you make me. The male Education manager, also new, reported that his charge was combative when charged with new tasks. But Ignacio termed the men's events "serious performance issues," requiring discipline, EAP and termination of the male subordinate.

If Joe Ignacio offers You a Job, Why You Should Say No
Just when applicants are hoping for a new job, they fall prey to "snake oil" HR salesmen; most lack understanding of the harsh legal realities of employment. Even though an article written by Ellen Dannin reports that 80-90% of Americans feel they can only be fired legally for a good reason, in most states, you can be fired for any or no reason, even if detrimental to the business. Further, employees believe probation is for training, with leeway for learning. But the employer labels you "probationary," a risky label also applied to misbehaving employees! The plaintiff studied turnover at APS Physics for 2003-08. The plaintiff asked APS to state which people were fired (versus those who left), and what their job titles were, but APS refused. On your interview, Ignacio tells you there's no turnover, the job is long-term. But employees taking staff-level jobs at APS Physics who leave are gone in an average of 16 months. Almost 40% are gone in six months or less.

Joe Ignacio Speaks at CESSE
Joe Ignacio, the APS Physics HR director who refused to protect the plaintiff from threatening harassers because she refused to go out with him, will speak on why HR should solve workplace conflicts. Or else be deemed "incompetent." See the Agenda, pp. 26-27, right next to a session by Jackson-Lewis, whose attorney conspired with Ignacio to commit perjury before the state EEOC.

Part 2: APS Physics HR Manager, Executive Commit Perjury About Annual Report
Executive Kate Kirby employs two high-level males who committed perjury, in their efforts to come up with some reason (other than gender discrimination) for firing a female plaintiff, after HR expert Joe Ignacio, one of those managers, lured the plaintiff from her long-term job, asked her out on a date (to which she said "no") and participated in firing her six months later.

Let's begin with just a few (there were 12 documented we in the lawsuit altogether):

1. It is APS Policy to provide only neutral references about prior employees (a statement he made to reference caller, who provided an affadavit). In his deposition, he stated that supervisors can give ANY reference they want, to which those in the room laughed. You determine which one is a lie.

2. I (Joe Ignacio is "I") extended the plaintiff's termination one day because I am a nice guy, and this gave her company-sponsored health insurance for an additional month. The plaintiff never had health insurance through APS Physics.

3. I don't know about any male subordinate harassing his boss in a similar manner to what the plaintiff faced (a statement made again to the Maryland Commission on Human Relations). Records show that the plaintiff gave the man's name to the commission, and they then talked to Ignacio about him. Other records indicate significant internal and external interactions between HR and this fellow. Ignacio later wrote a lengthy affadavit about the situation; his attorneys also say later in official court filings that the man was fired for being threatening to others.

The Devil is in the Details
For background, while the plaintiff was employed at APS Physics, her department was given an annual report to do. The plaintiff hired a creative temp. (The temp denies in his affadavit working on the report, but his agency billed APS for it).

The plaintiff met the schedule to everyone EXACTLY, sending the report to the printing vendor over two weeks prior to its due date. The printing was also done on time, according to the vendor's affadavit and supplied records.

Just when the report’s extra copies were being delivered to APS, Ignacio, HR director, lied to the unemployment agency in this statement, falsely claiming that the report was late, and that the proofreading quality was bad as a result. He didn't think anyone would find out. Inconceivably, he later testified in his depo (not knowing the plaintiff had his statement) that he did not speak with the unemployment office. Ignacio also testified he never opened the box of reports, nor looked at drafts to make his determination, and that APS destroyed the project's records and samples!

APS neither showed anyone the alleged errors nor provided it to the court, because there are NO ISSUES with it. Written records that the plaintiff and the third party vendor saved show there were no issues.

Because APS destroyed its records of the report during litigation, the plaintiff had to obtain the report from the third party. This third party also supplied an e-mail from APS (Contractor Elizabeth Higgins wrote it for Franz, as Franz testified) approving the annual report, as done by the plaintiff. APS wrote that the report "looked great." (Higgins, knowing that APS had destroyed the reports—but unaware the plaintiff had obtained her contemporaneous e-mail—lied in testimony that the report was a "mess.")

In depositions, Franz denies working with the plaintiff on the report during production. Yet Ignacio and APS lawyers, Jackson-Lewis, had already told the state EEOC (Written Findings) that a so-called annual report incident led to the plaintiff's immediate dismissal. Attorney Diane Windholz chooses this path as well, both lawyers contradicting Ignacio's initial unemployment statement. The two have trumped up false (and very serious) charges.

Earlier, Franz and other staff approved the first proof, now lost to the APS shredder. The plaintiff submitted a proof that has Franz’s writing on it, during a stage where she claimed no interaction. Chodos also denied in his deposition that he routed this page proof, but his initials are there! Self-servingly and to show it was fine, Chodos only fired the plaintiff after he confirmed the plaintiff's work on the annual report was completed to his satisfaction.

APS Physics 2004 Annual Report (Final)

Click here for the final, beautiful 2004 Annual Report,. This is the one annual report, even though APS states on its Website otherwise, that APS does not want you see.

Wake Up APS Physics

The Last Word

APS HR and Jackson-Lewis Conspire to Commit Perjury