Greene & Hafer, LLC

529 Main Street Ste. PH 200

Charlestown, MA 02129
Phone: 617-396-4600

September 22, 2021

Via: Electronic Mail
Attorney Brian Maser
KP Law, P.C.
BMaser@k-plaw.com

Re: City of Medford Confidential Investigative Report- CONFIDENTIAL

Dear Attorney Maser,
I write to report my findings for the investigation I undertook on behalf of the City of Medford
(the “City”) in regard to several complaints brought by Michael Durham against Mayor Breanna
Lungo-Koehn and Neil Osborne alleging unfair pay practices, discrimination based on veteran
status and retaliation.
My role in this investigation is that of a fact finder. My objective is to be impartial, precise, and
thorough and to produce a fair and balanced report of my findings. Payment for my services is
not contingent upon the outcome of the investigation, including whether I determined that
inappropriate behavior occurred.
This report outlines the steps I took in reaching my findings, which included: identifying the
specific claims that prompted this investigation; interviewing witnesses; reviewing documents;
and assessing the information I obtained from persons with knowledge of the facts, and review of
relevant background information.
A. Investigation Background
Independence. Independence is an important component of this investigation. I have no interest
in the City or the individuals involved. I knew none of the persons involved prior to
commencing this investigation. No party interfered with, or attempted to influence, the findings
in this Report.
Admonitions. I informed each witness that although I am an attorney, I was not acting as their
counsel or as the counsel for the City, and that my role in this matter was not to provide legal
advice, but to conduct a factual investigation into complaints relating to the work environment. I
informed witnesses that I was conducting an independent investigation and advised each of them
that although I could not require confidentiality, I encouraged them to refrain from discussing the
matter to protect the integrity of the investigation. Each witness I interviewed expressed comfort
with the investigative process and agreed to speak with me voluntarily.
Methodology. Witnesses did not give their statements under oath. Nonetheless, all were told
that it was important that they be honest and candid, and that the investigation would proceed
under the good-faith expectation that witnesses were answering questions truthfully. This does
Neil Osborne Michael Durham Consumer Email October 16, 2020
affairs meeting
Michael Personnel
Durham Action Form
Michael Finance and Payroll Parking Memo October 20, 2020
Durham Accounting & Code
Allowance
Memo
Neil Osborne Personnel October 21, 2021
Action Form
Michael Breanna Lungo- Appointment Email October 22-23,
Durham Koehn 2020
Aleesha Nunley- Kim Scanlon Confidential Memo October 22, 2020
Benjamin
David Neil Osborne Follow up, Email October 22, 2020
Rodrigues 10.22.2020
David Michael Durham Follow up, Email October 22, 2020
Rodrigues 10.22.2020
Michael David Rodrigues Written Memo October 26, 2020
Durham statement for
Appeals
investigation
Neil Osborne David Rodrigues Summary and Memo with October 23, 2020
outline hearing attachments
officer duties
with Michael
Durham
Kim Scanlon Breanna Lungo- confidential Email November 30,
Koehn 2020
Aleesha Nunley Unknown Payment to Letter January 12, 2021
Benjamin Michael
Durham
Michael David Rodrigues Ethics Email January 11, 2021
Durham Investigation
update

4
 Michael Kim Scanlon Hostile work Email January 11, 2020
Durham environment
Michael Legacy Summary Memo January 25, 2021
Durham Documentation findings of Mr.
Neil Osborne
investigation
David Michael Durham Retro pay Email February 1, 2020
Rodrigues corrections
Chief Jack Commonwealth of Bilingual Letter March 8, 2021
Buckley Massachusetts HR Selective
Division Criteria
Michael Legacy document Discrimination Memo May 5, 2021
Durham against veteran
hiring by Mr.
Neil Osborne
Michael Neil Osborne Veterans Email May 13, 2021
Durham discrimination
Michael Neil Osborne Commission on Email August 9-11, 2021
Durham Civil Service
Law
Michael Kim Scanlon Relevant Memo August 14, 2021
Durham Evidence in
Support of my
claim of hostile
work
environment
Kim Scanlon Investigation
notes
Breanna Lungo- Breanna4Mayor Facebook August 13, 2021
Koehn video

Applicable Policies.
The City has a personnel handbook that includes an Anti-harassment Policy and Whistleblower
Policy, both of which are applicable here.
The Anti-harassment policy states:

5
Employees are protected from harassment on the basis of their race, color, religion, national
origin, ancestry, sex, gender identity, gender expression, age, handicap (disability), participation
in discrimination complaint-related activities, sexual orientation, genetics, or active military or
veteran status. We are committed to providing employees with a work environment free of
unsolicited and unwelcome verbal and non-verbal behavior that may interfere with their work,
productivity, and general sense of well-being.
The Whistleblower policy states:
Employees of the City of Medford are hereby advised of their rights in accordance with Chapter
149, Section 185 and "The Massachusetts Whistler Blower Statute". The City of Medford, as
employer, shall not take retaliatory action against an employee because the employee does any of
the following: 1. Discloses or threatens to disclose an activity, policy or practice which the
employee reasonably believes is a violation of the law, or which the employee believes poses a
risk to public health, safety or the environment; 2. Provides information or testifies before a
public body investigating any violation of the law or risk to public health, safety or environment;
3. Objects to or refuses to participate in activity which the employee reasonably believes is a
violation of a law or which the employee reasonable believes poses a risk to public health, safety
or the environment.
B. Investigation Findings
The below findings of fact are based on interviews with the above referenced individuals and
review of documents.
Mr. Durham, through his attorney Mark Rumley, has refused to participate in the investigation of
his complaints. The scope of my investigation is limited to complaints by Mr. Durham of unfair
treatment in in the workplace.1 Over the course of ten months, Mr. Durham brought four
complaints relating to his employment:
October 2020: failure to properly pay stipend;
January 2021: retaliation for complaint about unpaid stipend;
May 2021: discrimination against veterans and
August 2021: hostile work environment in retaliation for former complaints.
Mr. Durham is the Director of the Office of Veteran’s Affairs for the City of Medford (“City”).
In or around February or March 2020, Mr. Durham was offered a position as a Medford Police
Officer. However, Mr. Durham declined the position because, as he explained to Mr. Rodrigues
and Mayor Lungo-Koehn, he wanted to grow his career in municipal management. Mayor
Lungo-Koehn supported him in this stated goal by permitting him to attend a class at Suffolk
University during his working hours.
In April 2020, Mayor Lungo-Koehn offered for Mr. Durham to expand his role and assume the
job duties of the municipal appeals and parking ticket appeals officer (“Appeals Officer”). In

1
Mr. Durham’s complaints relating to Mr. Osborne’s employment status are outside the scope of my investigation.
6
May 2020, Mr. Durham accepted the role and, by July, had begun a transfer of duties with Neil
Osborne who was handing over the duties. In September 2020, Mr. Durham held a full day of
appeal hearings, clearing several months of appeals. In mid-October 2020, Mayor Lungo-Koehn
also offered for Mr. Durham to manage the consumer affairs office. Mr. Durham was offered a
$5000 stipend for assuming the Appeals Officer duties and another $5000 for taking on the
consumer affairs role.
In or around September 14, 2020, Mr. Durham asked Mr. Osborne and Chief Financial Officer,
Aleesha Nunley, the account number for the Appeals Officer stipend, in order for him to
complete paperwork necessary for him and his assistant, Darlene White, to receive payment.
When Mr. Durham learned that the Appeals Officer stipend account had only a $500 balance, he
followed up with Mr. Osborne and Ms. Nunley inquiring if there was an error funding the
account.
On or around September 28, 2020, Mr. Durham submitted a Personal Action Form (“PAF”)
requesting payment of the promised Appeals Officer stipend and for an anniversary step increase
effective October 1, 2020. The anniversary step pay increase was rejected because Mayor
Lungo-Koehn had directed a freeze of all non-union anniversary step increases due to budget
concerns. On October 15, 2020, Mr. Durham’s revised PAF with the two $5,000.00 stipends and
no step increase was approved.
On October 20, 2020, Mr. Durham submitted to finance a request for retroactive payment of the
Appeals Officer stipend for work performed from July through September and an additional
payment to Ms. White for her assistance with the appeals hearings conducted in September. Mr.
Durham was informed by Ms. Nunley that the stipend had been paid to Mr. Osborne, from July
through September.
On October 22, 2020, Ms. Nunley sent a confidential memo to City Solicitor Kim Scanlon
expressing his concern that both Mr. Osborne and Mr. Durham were claiming payment for the
Appeals Officer stipend for the same period of time, July through September 2020.
On or around October 26, 2020, Mr. Durham filed a complaint with Chief of Staff Rodrigues,
alleging he was entitled to the Appeals Officer stipend effective July 2020 and questioning why
Mr. Osborne was paid the stipend after July 2020.
Ms. Scanlon conducted an investigation, which included reviewing documents from and
speaking with Mr. Osborne, Mr. Rodrigues and Mr. Durham. On November 30, 2020, Ms.
Scanlon advised Mayor Lungo-Koehn that Mr. Durham was entitled to the stipend starting July
2020 and that the account which provides for the stipend payment should be made whole.
On January 11, 2021, Mr. Durham sent two emails: the first, to Mr. Rodrigues at 9:34 am,
requested an update on the status of the investigation of his complaint; and the second, to Ms.
Scanlon at 2:41 pm, alleged a hostile work environment due to the lack of response to his
October 2020 complaint.

7
On January 13, 2021, Mr. Durham, Ms. Scanlon and Mr. Rodrigues met to discuss the findings
of the investigation relating to Mr. Durham’s October 2020 complaint. Ms. Scanlon explained to
Mr. Durham that he was owed the stipend starting July 2020 and that payment would be made.
On January 25, 2021, Mr. Durham drafted a memo to “Legacy Documentation” in which he
claimed he was owed the stipend starting from the last date Mr. Osborne executed an appeal
because Mr. Durham had to clear the back log of appeals that accrued while Mr. Osborne was
the Appeals Officer. A few days later Mr. Durham followed up on this claim, with an email to
Mr. Rodrigues, stating that the last appeal hearing Mr. Osborne executed was February 24, 2020,
and that he was entitled to the stipend from that date.
On or around May 5, 2021, Mr. Durham drafted another memo to “Legacy Documentation”
claiming that when he contacted Mr. Osborne to discuss his concerns about the City’s request to
include bilingual skills as a civil service list requirement, Mr. Osborne told him that veterans are
not reflective of the diversity needs of our community and that the City needs more bilingual
speakers not more veterans on the police department.
On August 14, 2021, Mr. Durham filed another complaint with City Solicitor Kim Scanlon, this
time alleging Mr. Osborne was retaliating against him and creating a hostile work environment
by refusing to communicate with him on matters relating to veterans. Mr. Durham also alleged
he was being isolated and marginalized by Mayor Lungo-Koehn citing her refusal to respond to
his wave and a Facebook post in which he alleges that she alluded to Mr. Durham having a
vendetta against her. Finally, Mr. Durham further alleged he was retaliated against by the Mayor
when he was not approved for the anniversary step raise, while others were given large raises or
new positions during the emergency budget freeze.
C. Analysis
October 2020 Unpaid Stipend
Mr. Durham’s October 2020 complaint for stipend payment starting in July was resolved in
January 2021. Following Ms. Scanlon’s investigation, the City paid Mr. Durham the Appeals
Hearing stipend effective July 2020, as he had initially requested.
January 2021 Retaliation
Mr. Durham’s January 2021 memo claiming he was entitled to the stipend payment starting in
March 2020, the time that Mr. Osborne stopped conducting work as the Appeals Officer, is
without merit. Mr. Osborne was forced to stop conducting the Appeals Officer work in early
March 2020, due to the COVID shutdown. From March 2020-late June 2020 (“Shutdown
Period”), much of the City’s in person business was put on hold because most of its employees
were not permitted to work at the office and in-person hearings were prohibited. There is no
evidence that Mr. Durham conducted work during that Shutdown Period that would warrant him
receiving compensation and the failure to pay this compensation cannot form the basis of a
complaint for retaliation.
Mr. Durham also claims in his January 2021 memo that the City’s delay in resolving the October
2020 complaint created a hostile work environment. On October 22, 2020, upon receiving the
8
memorandum from Ms. Nunley, Ms. Scanlon requested both Mr. Durham and Mr. Osborne
provide her with a written statement that outlined the timeline of the transition of hearing officer
role and the duties each performed. On November 25, 2020, Ms. Scanlon and Mr. Rodrigues met
with Mr. Durham and Mr. Osborne, separately, to further discuss the transition. On November
30, 2020, Ms. Scanlon sent an email to Mayor Lungo-Koehn recommending that Mr. Durham be
paid the stipend starting in July 2020, the date upon which she had concluded that he assumed
the role. On January 12, 2021, Ms. Nunley directed the finance department to make retroactive
payments to Mr. Durham. Ms. Scanlon acted swiftly and thoroughly to investigate the
complaints and make recommendations. There is no evidence of delay or failure to properly
investigate. Accordingly, Mr. Durham’s claim of retaliation based on allegations of delay is
unfounded.
Discrimination against Veterans
In his May 2021 written complaint, Mr. Durham does not allege that he was discriminated
against based on his veteran status. Rather, Mr. Durham alleges Mr. Osborne was discriminating
against veterans, as a class, because Mr. Osborne supported the City’s efforts to create a
language-based preference as an additional qualification for a full-time police officer position
with the City.
More specifically, in January 2021, Medford was hiring several police officers. Pursuant to the
civil service rules, Chief Jack Buckley requested the Medford Police Office Eligibility List
(“Eligibility List”). All of the veteran residents (approximately five (5) individuals) on the
Eligibility List were notified of the open positions. Only two of the individuals notified indicated
interest in pursuing a position. Of the two who initially expressed interest in the hiring process,
one of the individuals withdrew from the process and the other was given a conditional offer,
thus exhausting all veteran residents on the Eligibility List. Police Chief Buckley shared with
Mayor Lungo-Koehn that the City needed bilingual officers based on the diverse population in
Medford. Because the veteran residents had recently been exhausted from the Eligibility List,
Chief Buckley determined it was an opportune time to request a selective certification to recruit
bilingual officers.2 With Mayor Lungo-Koehn’s support, Chief Buckley drafted a proposal
requesting a requisition from the current eligibility civil service list for individuals who are fluent
in certain foreign languages (“Proposal”). Mr. Osborne’s role in Chief Buckley’s plan was
limited to a review of the language of the Proposal and acting as a liaison to the Mayor’s office.
On March 8, 2021, Police Chief Buckley submitted the Proposal to the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Personnel Administrator. Upon learning about the Proposal, Mr. Durham called
Mr. Osborne to express his concern that the language qualification would bypass veterans on the
Eligibility List. Mr. Osborne directed Mr. Durham to speak with Mayor Lungo-Koehn and Mr.
Rodrigues about his concerns. Mr. Durham also called Chief Buckley with his complaints that
the Proposal would negatively affect veterans. Chief Buckley explained to Mr. Durham that the
selective certification would not affect any eligible veterans because all veteran residents had
already been exhausted from the Eligibility List. Additionally, the Chief explained he has no

2
All of the veteran residents on the Eligibility List had been notified of their eligibility to pursue a position. Those
who indicated interest in a position had either been made conditional offers, declined or withdrew.
9
authority to elevate the status of non-resident veterans since the eligibility requirements are
governed by state civil service legislation.
The Commonwealth responded to Chief Buckley’s Proposal requesting a significant amount of
data. Chief Buckley chose to abandon the Proposal for the selective certification because he
knew it would take significant time to gather the information requested and that the selective
certification would possibly affect the new Eligibility List being created in September 2021,
potentially excluding veteran residents, which was avoided previously because all veterans had
been exhausted from the then-current Eligibility List.
When Chief Buckley proposed, drafted and submitted the Proposal on the City’s behalf, he did
so with the Mayor’s support and their shared intention to alleviate an ongoing challenge
unrelated to Mr. Durham, specifically, or veterans, generally. Mr. Osborne had minimal
involvement in the Proposal and no authority to influence the Eligibility List, the impact on
which is at the heart of the issue. Certainly, there is no evidence that Mr. Osborne, by supporting
a Proposal unrelated to Mr. Durham or veterans, had any discriminatory animus. Additionally,
there is no evidence that the Proposal, even if approved, would have had a negative impact on
veterans. To the contrary, the Proposal was withdrawn by the Chief for concern that it might.
Accordingly, I find there is no basis to Mr. Durham’s allegation that Mr. Osborne engaged in any
discriminatory conduct toward veterans.
Retaliation August 2021
Mr. Durham alleges that Mr. Osborne and Mayor Lungo-Koehn retaliated against him for
making prior complaints against both. Specifically, Mr. Durham claims that Mr. Osborne and
the Mayor created a hostile work environment by isolating and marginalizing him and the
Department of Veterans’ Affairs. He also alleges that he is being retaliated against because he
was denied the anniversary step raise, while others were approved for raises or new positions
during the emergency budget freeze.
Specifically, Mr. Durham claims Mr. Osborne is ignoring him and excluding him from
collaborating with Mr. Osborne on issues relating to veterans. Mr. Osborne participates in a
Special Legislative Commission (“Commission”) to study and examine the Civil Service law,
before which he was scheduled to speak on September 24, 2021. On August 9, 2021, Mr.
Durham emailed Mr. Osborne requesting an advance copy of Mr. Osborne’s planned remarks,
claiming he wanted to make sure the two were aligned on Veterans issues. Mr. Osborne did not
respond to Mr. Durham’s email request. Mr. Durham sent a second email to Mr. Osborne on
August 11, 2021, again asking for a response to his earlier message, to which Mr. Osborne did
not respond.
Mr. Osborne’s Commission appointment is not related to his job duties for the City of
Medford. It is a volunteer appointment made by the NAACP’s New England Area Conference
President. Mr. Osborne does not act as an agent of the City in his activities with the Commission.
Moreover, Mr. Osborne was never scheduled to speak to the Commission about veteran issues.
Rather he was asked to present information on civil rights. Accordingly, I find that Mr. Osborne
had no obligation to confer with Mr. Durham relating to his presentation to the Commission

10
since he was not representing the City. Therefore Mr. Durham’s claim that Mr. Osborne was
engaging in retaliatory conduct toward him by ignoring his requests is unfounded.
In support of his claim that Mayor Lungo-Koehn retaliated against him by isolating him, Mr.
Durham points to one occasion upon which she did not acknowledge him when he waved at her
in the parking lot. In response, the Mayor acknowledges that she did not reciprocate his
greeting, but asserts that, at the time of the incident, she was running late for a meeting.
Moreover, she felt that he was not genuine in his actions, but was engaging in intimidating
behavior, given his recent animosity toward her. I find that, regardless of the competing
interpretations of the exchange, this one isolated incident is not evidence of retaliatory conduct
by the Mayor.
Mr. Durham’s claim that the denial of the anniversary step increase in his salary was retaliation
for complaining about the unpaid stipend is likewise unfounded. In April 2020, prior to Mr.
Durham submitting his PAF requesting the increase, the Mayor’s office communicated to
department heads, including Mr. Durham, that the City had instituted a non-emergency spending
freeze and also that budget concerns brought on by the pandemic were causing the City to
consider budget changes including a freeze on non-union step increases. Nonetheless, Mr.
Durham alleges his step increase was denied, while others were approved. While he does not
provide any examples, I was informed that , approved a step increase
for several non-union employees in department against the Mayor’s directive to halt and then
to rescind them. was disciplined for this misconduct and no other non-union
employees were approved for an anniversary step increase during the spending freeze. I therefore
find that he decision to deny Mr. Durham’s step increase was not an act of retaliation, but rather
was following Mayor Lungo-Koehn’s emergency spending freeze directive. Accordingly, Mr.
Durham was treated similarly to all other non-union employees in relation to the anniversary step
increase.
Mr. Durham’s also claims that Mr. Osborne was given preferential treatment when he was
granted a pay increase or new position during the emergency freeze. This allegation is
inaccurate. Mr. Rodrigues, Mr. Osborne and Mayor Lungo-Koehn discussed and agreed that
when Mr. Osborne assumed his new role as Human Resources Manager effective January 2020,
he would be paid an annual salary of $111,129.00. For the first few months, while he was still
acting as Appeals Officer, he was paid $101,129.00 in salary and the remainder was paid through
the Appeals Officer stipend account. Once the Appeals Officer role was transferred to Mr.
Durham, Mr. Osborne submitted a PAF indicating that his total compensation should be paid as
salary.3 The compensation for the Human Resources position was established well before Mayor
Lungo-Koehn instituted the budget freeze and before Mr. Durham had made any retaliation
complaints.
I have no reason to doubt that Mayor Lungo-Koehn and Mr. Rodrigues were unaware of the
timing of Mr. Durham’s takeover of the Appeals Officer role until it was brought to Ms.
Scanlon’s attention at the end of October. During the January 13, 2021 meeting concerning
payment of the stipend, Mr. Rodrigues took responsibility for the administrative oversight,

3
Mr. Osborne submitted a PAF indicating a salary change to $111,129 and no stipend effective October 1, 2021.
11
recognizing that Mr. Osborne should not have received the stipend after July 2020 and that
money was to be paid to Mr. Durham. Once the stipend payment issue was brought to light,
everyone involved was made whole and the accounting issues were resolved. Therefore, the
circumstances and timing of Mr. Osborne’s salary increase illustrate there is no basis to find Mr.
Osborne received more favorable treatment or that Mr. Durham was treated less favorably in
retaliation for his complaints.
Finally, Mr. Durham alleges Mayor Lungo-Koehn retaliated against Mr. Durham by slandering
him in a video posted to Facebook, in which she explained the Proposal relating to the Eligibility
List. The video references “lies” and “rumors” in the community about the Proposal, but
contains no specific reference to a named individual, nor descriptors that would enable viewers
to identify any person to whom she was referring. Accordingly, I find that there is no basis to
infer that Mayor Lungo-Koehn was attempting to target or slander Mr. Durham in her post. The
post was an attempt to clarify the details of the Proposal and eliminate any misinformation,
rather than retaliation.
D. Conclusion
Based on the witness testimony and documentation submitted in the course of this investigation,
I find that neither Mayor Lungo-Koehn’s or Mr. Osborne’s conduct violated the City’s anti-
harassment or whistleblower policies.

Sincerely,

Corinne Hood Greene

12