Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • WVWD Internal Investigation Report - Shanae Smith

    Uploaded by

    Gregory Young
    27 views23 pages
    Investigative Report prepared by Albright, Yee & Schmit regarding EEOC Claim by Shanea Smith against Clifford Young, President, West Valley Water District. Dated 3/3/2017.

    Original Title

    WVWD Internal Investigation Report_Shanae Smith

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Investigative Report prepared by Albright, Yee & Schmit regarding EEOC Claim by Shanea Smith against Clifford Young, President, West Valley Water District. Dated 3/3/2017.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    27 views23 pages

    WVWD Internal Investigation Report - Shanae Smith

    Uploaded by

    Gregory Young
    Investigative Report prepared by Albright, Yee & Schmit regarding EEOC Claim by Shanea Smith against Clifford Young, President, West Valley Water District. Dated 3/3/2017.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 23
    INTERNAL INVESTIGATION REPORT. (FIDENTIAL Date: March 3, 2017 To: Matthew Litchfield General Manager, West Valley Water District From: Stella Albright § h : Christopher Pantet Albright, Yee & Schmit, APC RE: West Valley Water District Internal Investigation Report EEOC Charge by Shanac Ms. Smith a tL Executive Summary Albright, Yee & Schmit, APC (AY&S), was engaged by the West Valley Waler District to investigate allegations made in a Charge of Discrimination filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on or about October 21, 2016 (“Charge 480- 2017-00219”), by Shanae Smith (“Ms, Smith”), the Secretary to the West Valley Water District Board of Directors. Ms. Smith charges the President of the West Valley Water District Board of Directors, Dr. Clifford 0. Young, Sr. (“Dr. Young”), with harassment and discrimination on the basis of gender and race, as well as retaliation for engaging in a protected activity (filing Charge 480-2017-00219 with the EEOC). Ms, Smith alleges the events supporting her charge took place between September 13, 2016, and December 14, 2016. ‘This investigation, initiated on December 15, 2016, and concluded as of the date of this Investigative Report, finds Ms, Smith’s allegations are unsubstantiated. Specifically: ‘© Ms. Smith's charge that Dr. Young discriminated against her on the basis of race (African American) and gender (Female) is unsubstantiated, ‘© Ms, Smith's charge that her EEOC filing resulted in retaliation and harassment against her by Dr. Young in the form of a hostile work environment is unsubstantiated, © Ms, Smtith’s charge that Dr. Young discriminated against other female employees of the District on the basis of race, gender, age and/or pregnancy is unsubstantiated, CONFIDENTIAL Investigative Report - Ms, Smith EEOC Allegations Page 2 ‘© Ms. Smith’s charge that Dr. Young targeted female employees for termination and that he maintained a list of those employees is unsubstantiated, Several factors led us to find Ms. Smith less credible than Dr. Young overall. While her description of alleged offensive actions by Dr. Young were generally substantiated by the eviclence (except as noted in this Report), Ms. Smith linking those actions to a discriminatory motive by Dr. Young is wholly unsubstantiated, Ms. Smith’s own statements negate het contention that Dr. Young discriminated against her because she is a Black female. She identified a political rift between Dr. Young and VP Gonzales, and Ms, Smith aligning herself with VP Gonzales vis a vis Dr. Young, as having caused Dr. Young to view her as disloyal and ‘consequently to treat her in a manner she found offensive. It is this political gamesmanship between Board members in which Ms. Smith became a willing participant, and not any dligeriminatory or illegal retaliatory motive by Dr. Young, that fueled the uncomfortable interactions between Ms. Smith and Dr. Young. Itis significant that Dr. Young advocated and was instrumental in Ms. Smith’s promotion to her current position as Board Secretary, The Investigators reject the proposition that Dr. Young has recently discriminated against Ms, Smith because she is a Black female, when historically he championed her advancement in the organization. The cause of the change in Ms. Smith's relationship with Dr. Young is credibly explained by Ms, Smith ~ the political tension flowing from Ms. Smith aligning herself with, or perceived to be aligning herself with, VP Gonzales vis a vis Dr. Young. ‘The Investigators accept this explanation for the actions of Dr. Young complained of by Ms. Smith and reject that those actions were in retaliation for her her EEOC Complaint, In assessing the interactions complained of by Ms. Smith, the Investigators considered her duties to Dr. Young and the Board. As Board Secretary, she holds a “confidential position” with access to information few staff members enjoy. In that position, itis eritical that she separate herself from the polities between and among Board members. She is required to follow the direction of the Board, often expressed through the President on occasions outside of formal meetings. The evidence points to Ms. Smith having crossed into the political foray, an anathema to her position as Board Secretary. Dr. Young, corroborated by other witnesses, identified what he viewed to be shortcomings in Ms. Smith’s job performance, which were the subject of several of the ‘uncomfortable exchanges between him and Ms. Smith. That evidence led us to question whether ‘Ms, Smith's filing with the EEOC was motivated in part to ward off legitimate performance- related threats to her position as Board Secretary and to draw attention from her failure to obtain a project management certification. As part of her June 2016 performance evaluation, Ms. Smith agreed the project management certification is a job requirement for the Board Secretary position, Ms, Smith, however, had not obtained the requisite certification as of the date Charge CONFIDENTIAL Investigative Report ~ Ms, Smith EEOC Allegations Page 3 480-2017-00219 was filed on or about October 21, 2016, and the Investigators had no evidence suggesting her obiaining that certification was imminent. Finally, while the Investigators find Ms. Smith’s claim of discrimination and retaliation. against Dr. Young to be unsubstantiated, his conduct towards her falls short of professional standards for the leadership position of President that he holds. While his is a political position, he, as well as VP Gonzalez, must recognize that staff positions, such as the Board Secretary, are not and should conduct themselves accordingly. Il. Scope of Investigation and Methodology, ‘The scope of our investigation was circumscribed by the allegations made by Ms. Smith, and the investigation’s starting point was Ms. Smith’ letter to the Board dated November 7, 2016, outlining her allegations and attaching the FEOC intake questionnaire and the “Incident “Vimeline” prepared by her. [Appendix, Exhibit 2, 004-012,] Ms. Smith's letter was the West Valley Water Distriot’s (“District”) first notice of Ms. Smith's claims, and also the District's first notice Ms, Smith had sought recourse from the EEOC. Ms. Smith did not raise her claims intemally with the District prior to filing with the EEOC. In the course of our investigation, we obtained Ms. Smith's EEOC Charge of Discrimination [Appendix, Exhibit 3, 015.] Ms. Smith ‘was represented by counsel throughout this investigation, but her counsel was not present at her December 15, 2016, interview with AY&S, and had no direct dealings with the investigation (though Ms. Smith indicated during her interview on December 15, 2016, that her counsel advised her to meet with the AY&S investigators). We followed the evidence elicited from Ms, Smith and witnesses identified by her, as well as witnesses we identified in the course of our investigation as being percipient to particular events, We then discussed the particular allegations made with Dr. Young, and gave him a full ‘opportunity to respond. In addition to Ms. Smith and Dr. Young, the following witnesses were interviewed by AY&S between December 15, 2016 and February 9, 2017: GM Matthew Litchfield, Director Gregory Young, Bob Christman, Wendy Strack, Lauren Albrecht, Andrea Regalado, Nadia Aguirre, and Yolanda Ramirez. Two of the five Board members, Linda Gonzalez, Vice President of the Board of Directors (according to Ms. Smith, Dr. Young discriminated against VP Gonzalez on the basis of age, gender and race), as well as Director Don Olinger, declined without explanation to be interviewed by us or otherwise cooperate with this investigation. [Appendix, Exhibit 14, 102-103.] District employees Peggy Asche and Heidi Harper, identified by Ms. Smith as subject to discrimination on the basis of gender, also declined to be interviewed or cooperate. [Appendix, Exhibit 15, 106-107.] Former District employees Laurie Westbrooke, Rochelle Clayton, and Susanne Cooke, also identified by Ms, Smith as subject to discrimination, ‘were not interviewed insofar as evidence available to this investigation from other sources shows CONFIDENTIAL Investigative Report ~ Ms, Smith EEOC Allegations Page 4 Ms, Smith’s allegations concerning Westbrooke, Clayton and Cooke are unsubstantiated (see injra, §1V).. AY&S sought a second interview with Ms. Smith on February 10, 2017, to essentially close the loop on her claims and to allow her to add to, withdraw, or modify her allegations as, she described them to us during her initial interview on December 15, 2016, We also sought to clarify her version of events in light of subsequently acquired witness statements and documentation (including statements and documentation from Dr. Young). Ms, Smith, however, declined a second interview without explanation, and this left the investigators without a means to determine Ms. Smith's response, if any to Dr. Young’s version of events, [Appendix, Exhibit 13, 098] Nevertheless, AY&S believes a sufficiently full record was developed from the interviews it did conduct to make the findings in this Report. ‘The Appendix to this Report includes the AY&S interview summaries for Ms. Smith (the claimant) [Appendix, Exhibit 16, 113-148} and Dr. Young (the accused) (Appendix, Exhibit 17, 149-174], as well as relevant supporting documents. The interview summaries are not verbatim transcripts. They are based on counsel's recollection of and notes taken at the Ms. Smith and Dr. Young interviews, respectively. Certain of the events appurtenant to Ms, Smith's allegations took place at Board of Directors committee meetings on October 3, 2016, and December 14, 2016, and were thus witnessed by others. For these allegations, as well as Ms. Smith’s claim that multiple women faced discrimination by Dr. Young, sources are cited anonymously to ensure witness confidentiality. II, Ms. Smith’s Allegations that Dr. Young Discriminated Against Her on the Basis of nd Gender and Retaliated Against Her for Engaging in a Protected Activity are Unsubstantiated Below we address each of the allegations made by Ms. Smith, followed by Dr. Young’s response and, as applicable, by accounts of other witnesses or relevant documents, and conclude ‘with our Investigative Finding as to each allegation, Many of Ms, Smith’s allegations and the conduct by Dr, Young that purportedly support the allegations appear at first blush to be redundant. In fact, they are distinct allegations about conduct by Dr. Young occurring on different occasions during the relevant period; the Investigators believed it was preferable to have ‘what appears to be repetition than to potentially miss any nuances as framed by Ms, Smith, A, September 2016 1. Allegations by Ms. Smith On or about September 13, 2016, “I was harassed by Board President Dr. Clifford Young. For example, but not limited to, Dr. Young making an offensive comment (i.e., "subservient CONFIDENTIAL Investigative Report ~ Ms. Smith EBOC Allegations Page 5 Black woman") about my race and gender.” [Source: Charge of Discrimination, Appendix, Exhibit 3, 0015.} On September 14, 2016, Dr. Young purportedly telephoned Ms. Smith about her decision to leave work early the previous day. Ms. Smith told Dr. Young that she did so because she was upset over the way he spoke to het. According to Ms. Smith, Dr. Young then stated he was having a hard day, and that Ms, Smith was an integral part of the team. Dr. Young stated he could not have “done things” without Ms. Smith’s support. Ms. Smith responded and stated Dr, ‘Young put her in a “compromising position.” Dr. Young then apologized to Ms. Smith. [Source: Ms. Smith Interview Memorandum] On September 15, 2016, Ms. Smith stated Dr. Young heaped public praise on her at a regularly scheduled Board Meeting, calling her the “glorious and beautiful” Board Secretary. In Ms, Smith’s opinion, Dr. Young was trying to make up for his behavior by giving her publ praise. Ms. Smith stated she “felt better,” but preferred Dr. Young did not praise her publicly. Ms, Smith stated everything was fine with Dr. Young between September 15, 2016, and October 2, 2016, but that her general impression is that Dr. Young wants Ms, Smith to do what he says because she now has a great office and a great raise. [Source: Ms. Smith Interview Memorandum.} 2. De. Young’s Response Dr. Young denied calling Ms. Smith a subservient black woman on September 13, 2016, or any other time, Dr, Young stated “I never made that statement to [Ms. Smith], that’s not who Tam.” Dr. Young noted, however, that the term had come up in a much different context. Ms. ‘Smith started at the District in 2011, and for about four years she worked under the supervision of the former General Manager, Tom Crowley. In or about 2014, Ms. Smith complained that Crowley treated her like a “subservient black woman.” Dr. Young stated that he had never heard that term before, and he asked Ms. Smith to clarify what she meant, Ms. Smith responded that Crowley belittled and demeaned her. ‘To address Ms, Smith’s complaint, Dr. Young arranged a meeting with Crowley. Some four people were present at the meeting, including Gonzalez, and they discussed the location of Ms. Smith’s office, among other topics. Ultimately, the decision ‘was taken to move Ms, Smith to the Board Secretary position (a decision which Dr. Young pushed for because he was “trying to help [Ms. Smith}”), ‘This promotion transferred Ms, Smith out of Crowley’s line of supervision so she would be supervised by Dr. Young. According to Dr. Young, Ms. Smith and Crowley have a “long history of conflict.” Dr. Young believes there is no documentation about this complaint, and everything was verbal, [Source: Dr. Young Interview Memorandum; see also Appendix, Exhibit 4, 017 (Organizational Chart showing Ms. Smith no longer reports to the GM after her promotion to Board Secretary)]. As for Ms. Smith’s allegation that she was upset and went home early on September 13, 2016, Dr. Young stated Ms, Smith goes home “when she likes.” In response to Ms. Smith’s CONFIDENTIAL Investigative Report - Ms, Smith EEOC Allegations Page 6 allegation that on September 14, 2016, Young telephoned her to apologize, Dr. Young denied apologizing and stated he did not know what he would be apologizing for, Ms. Smith further alleges that Dr. Young heaped public praise on her at a regularly scheduled Board Meeting on September 15, 2016. Dr. Young stated that he recalls this Board meeting, and that it was the end of the quatter and he thanked the staff'in general, The praise was “for everybody.” [Souree: Dr. Young Interview Memorandum.] Prior to September 2016, Dr. Young thought his relationship with Ms. Smith was “fine” and by pushing for her promotion to Board Secretary he was “trying to help somebody.” Both Dr. Young and VP Gonzalez recommended Ms. Smith’s advancement, and Director Greg Young did also once he joined the Board. Other than her verbal complaint of her treatment Ms. Smith had no employment issues or at the District prior to filing with the BEOC. [Source: Dr. Young Interview Memorandum] Dr. Young received Ms, Smith’s November 7, 2016 letter on November 8, 2016, and he was “blown away.” This was his birthday and he'd just arrived home from a trip when he received an e-mail from GM Matt Litchfield forwarding Ms, Smith’s letter. Dr. Young stated ‘Ms. Smith was well aware it was his birthday, Since finding out about the allegations, Dr. ‘Young stated he's avoided Ms. Smith. Since filing with the EEOC Ms, Smith has not lost wages. She has not been denied particulars (such as vacation pay ec.), she has not been demoted, and Dr. Young has taken no action relating to her, [Source: Dr. Young Interview Memorandum.] Findings Ms. Smith’s claims that Dr. Young harassed her on the basis of her race or gender by making offensive comments to her in the September 2016, timeframe, such as referring to her as a “subservient black woman,” are unsubstantiated. B. October 3, 2016 1, Allegations by Ms. Smith “Ms. Smith was admonished, demoralized and treated poorly in front of other staff ‘members at the board committee meeting. Treated in an offensive and abusive manner.” [Appendix, Exhibit 2, 007 (EEOC Intake Form),] Ms due to her working relationship with VP Linda Gonzalez.” [Appendix, Exhi ‘Smith Incident Timeline).] Smith was retaliated and treated in an intimidating, offensive and abusive manner , OL (Shanae Ms. Smith attributes Dr. Young’s offensive and abusive treatment to her perceived alliance with VP Gonzalez vis a vis Dr. Young. According to Ms. Smith, tensions rose between CONFIDENTIAL Investigative Report ~ Ms, Smith EEOC Allegations Page 7 Young and Gonzalez, particularly around a contract implemented in October 2015, between the District and Innovative Federal Strategies, LLC (“Federal Strategies”), a Washington, D.C., based lobbying firm. On October 3, 2016, at a Monday meeting of the External Affairs ‘Committee, Ms. Smith claims President Young demoralized VP Gonzalez and Ms. Smith in front of staff, including the Interim General Manager, Matthew H. Litchfield, P.E., External Affairs Manager, Wendy Strack and Research Analyst, Lauren Albrecht. According to Ms. Smith, Dr. Young asked her to re-state VP Gonzalez’ motion to terminate the Federal Strategies: ‘contract several times, Each time, Ms. Smith claims, President Young screamed at her that she was wrong and made her repeat it, When Gonzalez, excused herself from the meeting, Young looked at Ms. Smith and yelled "Shanae, you didn' do it right! You did not capture the right recommendation!” Young then stormed out of the building, and Ms, Smith cried in front of all attendees, [Source: Ms. Smith Interview Memorandum.] 2. Dr. Young’s Response Dr, Young describes his conduct at the October 3, 2016 meeting as his legitimately demanding that Ms, Smith develop a properly worded motion, as was her duty to do so upon the request of the President. Gonzalez wanted to terminate the Federal Strategies contract but, at the October 3, 2016, meeting Gonzalez was unable to develop a properly worded motion to do so. ‘Ms, Smith then “jumped in” and assisted Gonzalez by developing a properly worded motion. Dr. Young put forward a substitute motion to review the contract and let it run its course (“Substitute Motion”), Three times he asked Ms. Smith (o state his Substitute Motion, and three times Ms. ‘Smith stated it incorrectly. Consequently, Dr. Young drafted a properly worded Substitute ‘Motion to go before the Board on October 20, 2016. [Souree: Dr. Young Interview Memorandum.) At the Board meeting on October 20, 2016, the Board voted to cancel the Federal Strategies contract, with Directors Olinger, Gonzalez and Trujillo in the majority, and President ‘Young and Director Grog Young voting against the cancellation, President Young then made the Substitute Motion, but it failed, The Substitute Motion that appeared in the package of papers submitted to the Board by Ms. Smith, however, was not presented as Dr. Young had drafted following the October 3, 2016, External Affairs Committee meeting, (This was the same ‘Substitute Motion which Ms, Smith purportedly misstated several times at the October 3, 2016, External Affairs Committee meeting.) Dr. Young believes Ms. Smith altered the Substitute ‘Motion (it was all “flipped up"), because only Ms, Smith had access to the packet submitted to the Board, [Source: Dr. Young Interview Memorandum; Appendix, Exhibit 10, 083-084 1 3. Confidential Witness Statements Do Not Support Ms. Smith's Allegations that Dr. Young’s Conduct Was Part of a Pattern of Gender and Race Discrimination CONFIDENTIAL Investigative Report ~ Ms, Smith EEOC Allegations Page 8 The witnesses describe the interaction between Dr. Young and Ms. Smith at the October 3, 2016, Extemal Affairs Committee meeting in substantially the same way. A motion or dircction was given to Ms. Smith for future movement for consideration by the full Board. Dr. ‘Young asked for the motion to be worded a certain way, but Ms. Smith changed it for the benefit of VP Gonzalez, There was a back-and-forth exchange in which Dr. Young repeatedly asked ‘Ms. Smith for a different wording of the motion. Ms. Smith kept repeating the motion with the same wording. Dr. Young took exception to this and expressed his exasperation in his tone, ‘which ereated tension in the room, After the meeting ended, but while attendees were still in the room, Dr. Young admonished Ms. Smith, telling her that she had gotten the motion wrong. Another confidential source stated the October 3, 2016, situation was precipitated when VP Gonzalez asked Ms. Smith to act against the wishes of the President. Ms. Smith has a “close relationship” with VP Gonzalez, Due to their close relationship, VP Gonzalez asked Ms. Smith to help, or perhaps Ms. Smith felt obligated to help, so she (Ms. Smith) did not do what Dr, Young wanted done, and instead turned things to assist VP Gonzalez, If the President makes a decision, or gives direction to the staff, as President and Chair of the Committee, those tions should be followed. In the absence of a fully seated Board, the President of the Board makes the decisions, Consequently, Dr. Young's anger was “justified” because Ms. Smith acted inappropriately by ignoring bis directions. 4, Findings Ms. Smith’s claim that Director Young’s conduct towards her at the October 3, 2016, Extemal Affairs Committee meeting was part of a pattern of gender and race discrimination against her is unsubstantiated. ‘The various witness accounts of the October 3, 2016, meeting ‘establish that Dr. Young raised his voice to Ms. Smith and by his tone and manner expressed dissatisfaction and exasperation with what he viewed to be her failure to comply with his instructions as Board President. While his conduct towards Ms, Smith at the meeting was not a model of professionalism, and his admonishment to her would have been better done privately, there is no evidence linking his conduct to a discriminatory animus against Ms, Smith on the basis of either her race or gender. Itis significant that Ms. Smith identifies her alliance and “working relationship” with VP Gonzalez (wholly unrelated to their being females) as a motivating factor for what she views to be Dr. Young's harassing conduct towards her. Such motive refutes Ms. Smith’s claim that Dr. Young’s conduet at the October 3, 2016, meeting was discriminatory. C. October 7, 2016 1. Allegations by Ms. Smith CONFIDENTIAL Investigative Report ~ Ms. Smith EEOC Allegations Page 9 “The President requested that I meet him for lunch on 10/7/16, I had an opportunity to inquire as to why he had mistreated me and disrespected me at the board committee meeting in front of other staff, He stated, "T was mean to you because you did not follow my lead! You did not write what I said! Listen to me! Listen to what I say! If you are with Linda (VP) , you are not with me! Ifyou are with me, I wil protect you, if you are not, I cannot protect you from me!” [Appendix, Exhibit 3, 007 (EEOC Intake Form).] “In or around October 2016, I was subjected to additional harassment and retaliation by Dr. Young, For example, but not limited to, Dr. Young making offensive comments to me (i.e. ‘if you do this, | will protect you. If you don’t, I can’t protect you! And I cannot proteet you against me!’) for engaging in protected activity.” [Appendix, Exhibit 4, 015 (Charge of Discrimination).] ‘On October 7, 2016, Dr. Young contacted Ms. Smith at the office and requested that the two meet for lunch. At lunch, Ms, Smith asked Dr. Young why he treated her so poorly at the External Affairs Committee meeting on October 3, 2016. According to Ms. Smith, Dr. Young replied: "You did not follow my lead!" Dr. Young went on to explain that Ms. Smith listened to VP Gonzalez: when she should have listened to him instead, Ms. Smith, according to Dr. Young, should have ignored VP Gonzalez’ recommendation to cancel the Federal Strategies contract, and repeated his recommendation instead. Dr. Young stated if Ms. Smith is "with" Gonzalez, then she cannot be with Dr. Young. Dr. Young assured Ms. Smith that if she complied with his demands, her job would be protected. If she did not, Dr. Young stated he could not protect Ms. ‘Smith from himself, [Source: Ms. Smith Interview Memorandum] At this October 7, 2016, lunch meeting, according to Ms. Smith, Dr. Young stated VP Gonzalez wanted to hire “dumb Mexicans.” Dr, Young also told Ms. Smith he was mean to her because she (Ms. Smith) knew about VP Gonzalez’ efforts to cancel the Federal Strategies contract but did not tell him about it, Dr. Young further told Ms. Smith: “You can’t serve two masters.” [Source: Ms. Smith Interview Memorandum.] 2, Dr. Young's Response Dr. Young did not recall the specific date, but he acknowledged this lunch meeting ‘occurred. Dr. Young agreed that Ms. Smith asked him why he treated her poorly at the October 3, 2016, External Affairs Committee meeting. Dr. Young agreed that he told Ms. Smith that she had not followed his lead. Dr. Young did not recall stating that Ms. Smith was either with him or with VP Gonzalez. Dr. Young did not recall telling Ms. Smith that if she does what he (Dr. Young) demands, her job will be protected. Dr. Young does not recall telling Ms. Smith that he could not protect Ms. Smith from himself. [Source: Dr. Young Interview Memmorandum.] Dr. Young denied telling Ms, Smith that VP Gonzalez wanted to hire “dumb Mexicans.” Dr. Young did not recall whether he told Ms. Smith he was mean to her because she knew about CONFIDENTIAL Investigative Report — Ms, Smith EEOC Allegations Page 10 Gonzalez’ efforts to cancel the Federal Strategies contract but did not tell him about it. Dr. Young did not recall telling Ms. Smith that she could not serve two masters, [Source: Dr. Young Interview Memorandum.} 3. Confidential Witness Statements Insofar as Dr. Young purportedly told Ms. Smith “I can’t protect you,” the witness said Dr. Young contradicted that and told the witness he (Dr. Young) did not make that statement. TThe witness stated Dr. Young is not the kind of person to ever say such a thing, and that if the statement was made, Ms. Smith’s allegations take it out of context, [Source: Confidential.] 4, Findings ‘We find no evidence that Dr. Young told Ms. Smith that VP Gonzalez wanted to hire “dumb Mexicans” at a lunch meeting on October 7, 2016, or at any other time, and Dr. Young denies making that statement. ‘As to Ms, Smith’s charge that Director Young’s other purported comments to her at a Junch meeting on or about October 7, 2016 (such as: "You did not follow my lead!"; Dr. Young stated if Ms. Smith is "with" Gonzalez, then she cannot be with Dr. Young; Dr. Young assured ‘Ms, Smith that if she complied with his demands, her job would be protected; If she did not, Dr. Young stated he could not protect Ms. Smith from himself; Dr. Young further told Ms, Smith: “You can’t serve two masters”; “if you do this, Iwill protect you. If you don’t, I can’t protect you! And I cannot protect you against me!” "I was mean fo you because you did not follow my lead! You did not write what I said! Listen to me! Listen to what I say! Ifyou are with Linda (VP), youare not with me! If you are with me, I will protect you, if you are not, I cannot protect ‘you from me!) were part of a pattem of gender and race discrimination against her, we find such allegations unsubstantiated. Even assuming Dr. Young made the remarks noted in this paragraph, (despite that he denies doing so), such statements, while once again not the model of professionalism, do not constitute discrimination on the basis of gender or race on these facts. Ms, Smith attributes her alliance and working relationship with VP Gonzalez (wholly unrelated to their being females) as a motivating factor for what she views to be Dr. Young's harassing conduct towards her, Such motive refutes Ms, Smith’s claim that Dr. Young's conduct towards her on or about October 7, 2016, was discriminatory. [As for Ms. Smnith’s retaliation claim based on the events of October 7, 2016, the Board {and therefore Dr. Young) was not aware of Ms, Smith’s protected activity prior to November 7, 2016. Any purported conduct by Dr. Young prior to November 7, 2016, is therefore not retaliation against Ms. Smith D, —_ November 2016 CONFIDENTIAL Investigative Report ~ Ms. Smith EEOC Allegations Page 11 1. Ms. Smith's Allegations (On November 7, 2016, Ms. Smith sent a letter to the Board informing them, for the first time, of the existence and scope of her EEOC claim. [Appendix, Exhibit 2, 003-012.) At the November 17, 2016, Board meeting [Appendix Exhibit 9] Ms, Smith alleges Dr. Young required her to repeat pending motions. Ms. Smith claims this is a change in her role and fetaliation for filing with the EEOC, which Dr. Young was made aware of on or about November 7, 2016. {Source: Ms. Smith Interview Memorandum.) ‘Atthis meeting, Dr. Young also introduced a memorandum concerning the cancellation of the Washington, D.C., trip, and the denial of reimbursement to Vice President Gonzalez, for going on that trip. Ms. Smith claims that (unnumbered) butlet point four on page two of Dr. ‘Young’s memorandum [Appendix, Exhibit 16, 141] is retaliatory. Specifically, Ms. Smith claims retaliation based on Dr. Young’s statement, in the November 17, 2016 memorandum, that ‘on September 19, 2016: “[Young] advised [Ms. Smith] to inform External Affairs Manager Ms. ‘Wendy Strack and Viec President Linda Gonzalez that the trip was cancelled.” Ms, Smith asserts she was never directed to cancel the entire trip, Dr. Young, Ms. Smith claims, instructed her to tell Strack and Gonzalez that they were not going on said trip. Ms. Smith presented a document ‘that purports to be a text message from herself to Wendy Strack, dated September 13, 2016, to that effect. Ms. Smith believes Young’s reference to “cancelled” in the November 17, 2016 ‘memorandum is retaliation against Ms. Smith for filing an FEOC complaint, which complaint Dr. Young was made aware of on or about November 7, 2016. Ms. Smith believes this is relaliation because the memorandum makes her appear insubordinate. Ms. Smith claims she was ‘made to look insubordinate beeause she did not cance! the entire trip as purportedly directed by Dr. Young, but only cancelled travel plans for Strack and Gonzalez. [Source: Ms. Smith Interview Memorandum.] Dr. Young’s Response Dr. Young denied there was any change to Ms, Smith’s role at Board meetings post November 7, 2016. As to Ms. Smith’s allegation she was required to repeat pending motions, Dr. Young stated it is his custom and practice for “thirty years” to have motions repeated when they are not clear, {Source: Dr. Young Interview Memorandum.] Insofar as Ms. Smith’s allegations that Dr. Young’s November 17, 2016 memorandum is retaliatory, Smith grouped together several documents which she claims support her allegations. ‘These documents, as grouped by Ms. Smith (see Exhibit D to the Ms. Smith Interview Memorandum, Appendix, Tab 16, 139-146), were shown to Dr. Young during his February 9, 2017, interview. Ms. Smith's theory concemning retaliation based on these documents was also CONFIDENTIAL Investigative Report — Ms. Smith EEOC Allegations Page 12 explained, at length, to Dr. Young by interviewing counsel at the February 9, 2017, interview and Dr, Young was asked to respond. Dr. Young stands by his November 17, 2016, memorandum, and he denies he intended to travel to Washington D.C., alone. In support, Dr. Young provided documentation which shows he cancelled his trip. [Appendix, Exhibit 17, 161-167.] Dr. Young further denies his November 17, 2016, memorandum is retaliation against Ms. Smith, and he denied retaliating against Ms, ‘any way due to her filing with the BEOC or for any other reason, [Source: Dr. Young Interview Memorandutn.] 3. Findings ‘Ms. Smith’s claims that Dr. Young discriminated against her on the basis of her race and/or gender, or retaliated against her for filing with the EEOC by virtue of his November 17, 2016, memorandum are unsubstantiated, Further, we find Ms. Smith's claim that being asked to repeat pending Board motions at the November 17, 2016, Board meeting constitutes discrimination or retaliation is likewise unsubstantiated. Nothing on these facts supports a finding that Dr. Young acted with retaliatory or discriminatory motive. Indeed, Dr. Young’s trip cancellation documents support the conclusion that the November 17, 2016, memorandum is accurate, It is significant that Ms. Smith attributes her alliance and working relationship with VP Gonzalez (wholly unrelated to their being females) as a motivating factor for what she views to be Dr. Young's harassing conduct towards her. Such motive refutes Ms, Smith’s claim that Dr. ‘Young's conduct concerning the November 17, 2016 Board meeting was discriminatory or in retaliation to her decision to file with the EEOC. E, December 14, 2016 Finance Committee Meeting Ms. Smith's Allegations “1 feel (sic) was subjected to additional harassment and retaliation by Dr. Young, For example, but not limited to, Dr. Young making offensive comments to me (i.e, “Your presence here is irrelevant,’ “Your presence here is insignificant,’ and ‘Your presence here is unnecessary.”) for engaging in protected activity prior to starting a second Board meeting. [Appendix, Exhibit 3, 015 (EEOC Charge).] ‘On December 14, 2016, at or about 6:00 pam., there was an External Affairs Committee meeting, In attendance were Wendy Strack, Lauren Albrecht, Robert Christman, VP Gonzalez, and President Young, ‘There was also a member of the public present, a visitor applying for the Assistant General Manager position, As the proceedings transitioned to the Finance Committee ‘meeting, according to Ms. Smith, Dr. Young stated: “Madam Clerk, what is your role here? CONFIDENTIAL Investigative Report ~ Ms, Smith EEOC Allegations Page 13 Your presence is unnecessary.” Ms. Smith asked four times if Young wanted her to leave. Young repeated: “Your presence is unnecessary.” [Source: Ms, Smith Interview Memorandum.] 2. Dr Young’s Response Dr, Young, at his February 9, 2017 interview, stated he asked Ms. Smith if she was necessary for the meeting, but he did not ask her to leave. Dr. Young?s rationale was that he had “privileged” information concerning “possible opportunities for the District” to share with GM Matt Litchfield, Director Greg Young and Bob Christman. Dr. Young stated Ms. Smith left before the Finance Committee meeting began and, as he recalls, the visitor left as well. The people Dr. Young wanted fo discuss the “privileged” matter with (supra) remained. Dr. Young stated Ms. Smith “shows up sometimes” for committee meetings, and other times not. Ms, Smith’s attendance is not consistent at these meetings and, to Dr. Young’s knowledge, itis not one of her required job duties. [Source: Dr. Young Interview Memorandum] 3. Witnesses Do Not Substantiate Ms. Smith’ ‘The witness statements concerning the December 14, 2016, Finance Committee arc consistent. The Extemal Affairs Committee met that evening, then adjourned and there was a brief pause around 6:25 p.m., before the Finance Committee meeting began, During this pause, Dr. Young asked why Ms, Smith’s presence was necessary, noting the agenda item for the Finance Committee was not slated to go to the full Board. Dr. Young was respectful but firm with Ms, Smith, and he asked Ms. Smith the question several times. Each time Ms. Smith responded “Are you asking me to leave?” So Dr. Young repeated his question, This happened three or four times before Ms. Smith left voluntatily. 4, Findings Ms. Smith’s claim that Director Young’s conduct towards her just prior to the December 14, 2016, Finance Committee meeting was part of a pattern of retaliation, harassment, gonder and race discrimination is unsubstantiated. ‘The witness accounts establish that Dr. Young asked Ms, Smith whether her presence was required in a respectful but firm manner. Ms. Smith’s claim that Dr. Young’s conduct was retaliation against her for filing with the BEOC is unsubstantiated. Likewise, Ms. Smith’s claim that Dr. Young’s actions were discrimination against her on the basis of either her race or gender are unsubstantiated. To the contrary, the witness statements show Dr, Young wanted to discuss an agenda item that was not slated (0 go to the full Board with select, management and director level personnel only. IV. Ms. Smith’s Allegations that Dr. Young Discriminated Against Other ‘Women on the Basis of Gender, Race, Age and/or Pregnancy are Unsubstantiated CONFIDENTIAL Investigative Report ~ Ms, Smith EEOC Allegations Page 14 A. Ms, Smith’s Allegation that Dr. Young Had a Termination List for Female Employees is Unsubstantiated 1. The Board President Does Not Have Authority to Terminate Employees ‘According to Ms, Smith, Dr. Young wanted to terminate several female employees in 2016, and Ms. Smith referred to these employees (Asche, Aguirre, Westbrooke, Ramirez, Harper, Cooke) as being on Dr. Young’s “list.” Dr. Young stated he has never seen such a list, [Source: Ms, Smith Interview Memorandum.] Dr. Young, furth (ed the President of Board does not have rer to terminate employees. Insofar as the hiring process is concerned, the general rule is every Board Member ‘votes on each new managerial hire, and every managerial hire must go through the vetting process (responding to the job ad, taking interviews efc,). Dr. Young has unspecified “influence” ‘on managerial hires as the President of the Board, but this does not affect or alter the procedural requirements. [Source: Dr. Young Interview Memorandum.) ‘There were soveral recent managerial hires, including Matt Litchfield (GM), Karen Logue (EIR), Wendy Strack (External Affairs Manager), Joanne Chan (Operations Manager), and Bob Christman (hired as Assistant CFO and now Interim CFO). Dr. Young stated that Ms. Smith’s promotion to Board Secretary also happened recently in December 2015, Dr. Young did not recall if these candidates were unilaterally selected or if they went through the interview process, but he said they all went through “some process.” Dr. Young stated there is diversity in the new hires and he referenced the “2016 West Valley Water District New Hite/Promotion Report” which contains a breakdown of new bires/promotions by employee name, date, gender, race, position and, if applicable, pre-promotion pay (see Dr. Young Interview Memorandum, Exhibit B) [Appendix, Exhibit 17, 168-171]). Dr. Young denied that he told Litchfield the District hired too many women. [Souree: Dr. Young Interview Memorandum.] Without identifying corroborating witnesses, at her December 15, 2016, interview, Ms. ‘Smith claims employees feel Dr. Young uses the District as “his own personal empire.” In response, Dr. Young stated he was elected to an organization in need of change and depth of ‘operations, The District hired seventeen or eighteen people in 2016, which is a lot for an organization with less than seventy employees. Dr. Young stated, as President, he’s tried to influence the process to promote women, and many women and Hispanics were in fact hired and promoted (see Dr. Young Interview Memorandum, Exhibit B) [Appendix, Exhibit 17, 168-171), Dr. Young lamented there are not more qualified African American applicants. [Source: Dr, ‘Young Interview Memorandum.] Dr. Young stated that when he ran for the Water Board in 2013 he was already retired. He was upset with the prior Board and General Manager at that time because of the rate structure, CONFIDENTIAL Investigative Report — Ms. Smith EEOC Allegations Page 15 Dr. Young noted he gets paid only a $149 stipend for Board meetings, so it is essentially a volunteer job [Appendix, Exhibit 8, 057]. Dr. Young stated he’s lost money due to his service on the Board, The benefit he gets is service to the community. [Souree: Dr. Young, Interview Memorandum] 2, The Evidence Does Not Support Ms. Smith's Allegation that Cer ‘ere on a Termination List or Otherwise Discriminated Against by Dr. Young. According to witnesses Dr. Young did not keep a list of women he wanted terminated, and they had no knowledge of any gender discrimination, harassment or retaliation against any of ‘the women identified by Ms. Smith, One witness, who stated such a list existed, conceded that everything the witness knows about the purported “list” comes exclusively from Ms. Smith and no other source. That particular witness heard nothing from Ms. Smith about the “list” until late November 2016, well after Ms. Smith filed with the EEOC. a. Peggy As ‘Asche, according to Ms. Smith, worked for a previous General Manager and is a thirty plus year employee of the District. Asche, according to Smith, was demoted and transferred to clerical duties on account of her gender. [Source: Ms. Smith Interview Memorandum.] Dr. Young stated Asche was transferred out of the front office to fulfill secretarial duties at the recommendation of VP Gonzalez. GM Litchfield made this decision. Dr. Young stated he ‘was aware of the transfer but had nothing to do with it. [Dr. Young Interview Memorandum.] ‘Asche declined to be interviewed or cooperate with this investigation (see If, supra). ‘A knowledgeable witness stated Asche was the Board Secretary prior to Ms. Smith, [Asche has close ties to a long-serving prior General Manager, Anthony Araiza. Asche was from her position to a different position with the District because she was feeding. sensitive information to Araiza. Finding: Ms. Smith, who took Asche’s place as Board Secretary, claims Asche was discriminated against by Dr. Young, who purportedly demoted Asche on the basis of gender. ‘These claims against Dr. Young are unsubstantiated insofar as GM Litchfield was responsible for Asche’s transfer, and this move was made at the recommendation of VP Gonzalez, Further, ‘evidence indicates that Asche was moved from the Board Secretary position at or about the end of 2015, the same time as an unsuccessful campaign by Mr. Araiza for a seat on the Board of Directors. We conclude Asche’s demotion/transfer to a secretarial position was not discriminatory in any way. CONFIDENTIAL Investigative Report ~ Ms, Smith EEOC Allegations Page 16 b. Nadia Aguirre Ms. Smith claims Dr. Young wanted to terminate Nadia Aguirre (GM Litchfield’s assistant) on the basis of gender. [Source: Ms. Smith Interview Memorandum] Dr. Young stated that Aguirre was hired by the GM and works for the GM. ‘There was never an issue of Aguirre being terminated, and she is still employed by the District. Aguirre’s employment status is up to the GM, and itis not something Dr. Young has control over. (Source: Dr. Young Interview Memorandum] A knowledgeable witness stated there was no discussion about terminating Aguirre. ‘Aguirre is doing a good job, and Dr. Young recently commended her for setting up the Christmas party, Einding: Ms, Smith’s claims that Aguirre was discriminated against on the basis of gender are unsubstantiated. Aguirre was not terminated and remains a District employee. c. Laurie Westbrooke Ms. Smith claims Westbrooke, who recently retired (in or about December 2016), was on Dr. Young’s list for termination on the basis of her gender. {Source: Ms, Smith Interview Memorandum.] Dr. Young stated Westbrooke was “extremely happy” with the District and he had “nothing to do” with her decision to retire. (Source: Dr. Young Interview Memorandum] ‘A knowledgeable source confirmed that Westbrooke retired after twenty plus years of service to the District, and she was commended for her service. ding: Ms. Smith’s claims that Westbrooke was discriminated against and forced to retire on the basis of gender are unsubstantiated, a. inda Ramis Yolanda Ramirez is the HR Administrative Assistant, She was given a raise, associated benefits, and promoted to HR Analyst by the previous GM and, according to Ms. Smith, Dr. Young wanted to reverse that promotion on the basis of Ramirez’ gender. Ramirez. was in fact demoted back to HR Administrative Assistant, but she kept her raise and associated benefits, [Source: Ms. Smith Interview Memorandum] Dr. Young stated the GM (Litchfield) made the decision to vacate Ramirez’ promotion. Dr. Young stated he told the GM that he (Dr. Young) would not place Ramirez in a critical CONFIDENTIAL Investigative Report ~ Ms. Smith EEOC Allegations Page 17 position, but he would leave her salary increase. Dr. Young’s question was why someone who ‘cannot do the job would be promoted into that critical position, which Dr. Young described as the “number two HR position.” Dr. Young stated the promotion was announced, but the GM made the decision to vacate the promotion, This decision was made independent of Dr. Young, ‘The previous HR Manager was Mitch Curtis, and when he left there was a six month gap before the current FIR Manager, Karen Logue, was hired. During this gap, Dr. Young stated Ramirez was the only person working in HR. [Source; Dr. Young Interview Memorandum.] Deborah Martinez, who was hired to fill the HR Analyst position, went through some hiring “process” but Dr. Young did not recall specifies. Dr. Young stated that he’s known Deborah Martinez’ husband, George Martinez, for about one and a half (1.5) years from “parties the neighborhood.” Dr. Young denied there was any favoritism in the decision to hire Deborah Martinez, Dr, Young reiterated he does not decide who is hired, fired, or demoted. ‘These decisions are made by the GM or someone who reports to the GM. [Souree: Dr. Young Interview Memorandum.} According to witnesses, the decision to promote Ramirez, from administrative tasks to HR Analyst was made by outgoing General Manager Crowley, and it was not cleared with the Board. Ramirez did not have the qualifications for the job she was promoted to (HR Analyst). Ramirez is doing a good job at her current (administrative) position, so she kept her raise but the promotion was reversed, Finding: Ms, Smith’s claims that Ramirez had her promotion reversed on the basis of gender are unsubstantiated. The fact that Ms. Ramirez kept the raise associated with the promotion is also strong evidence that her demotion was for non-

    You might also like