I find it a bit disconcerting when people allege misleading intentions either intentionally or unintentionally do the same thing, convoluting the story and adding emphasis and allusions that don't quite fit the facts. That's really where you can find out what the truth is in most matters.
To be clear, Maj. Temple filed a suit alleging discrimination which was dismissed last year. According to Delmonico, it was because she was an at-will employee. However, I have yet to see anything to support this, and it could just as easily be for lack of merit or evidence. Wrongful termination suits are usually dropped if there isn't evidence to show discrimination or other reasons for wrongful termination. This is gap#1 in the "McManus is an evil discriminator" story. Gap #2 is why she was fired. The Strib says that McManus was told he could bring in his own team, asked for her resignation because she was undermining him and didn't share his philosophy. When she balked, she was placed on leave and then fired. She filed what I'm assuming is a wrongful termination suit which was dismissed. Then she filed an EEOC which upheld that she was not given equal pay and then fired because of complaint about this. Here's what doesn't make sense, if she has been on the force for 29 years, why is the complaint just coming up now (or in the last year) and how is it that the Chief asks for her resignation (as he did with others) because she doesn't share his vision, but she alleges she was fired for complaining about the pay inequities that developed before McManus came to Dayton and which she didn't address for 28 years.... It's important to note a few things here about EEOC procedure. The EEOC and most State's Depts of Human or Civil Rights make you choose either a discrimination charge or a lawsuit, but not both except in special cases like the Equal Pay Act. Procedurally under the EEOC's guidelines, a charging party receives a "right to sue" notice after the determination of a violation (or a request for said notice and enough evidence discovered), and can then file suit. However, after a violation is determined, the EEOC will then attempt conciliation which was in the document Sgt. Delmonico posted, but it will consider bringing suit only if they are unable to bring about conciliation. If they decide not to sue, they will issue a notice closing the case and informing the charging party of the "right to sue." Title VII cases are forwarded to the Dept. of Justice. The letter mentioned in the Strib stating the DOJ was not suing was this closing of the case. This is Gap #3 So what we have is an officer who was undermining McManus, whom he asked for her resignation and she refused. She was terminated as an at will employee, filed a discrimination or wrongful termination suit which was dismissed. Filed a EEOC charge on pay issues that were in place before McManus arrived but she hadn't addressed in her 29 year tenure. This case was subsequently closed ( I would hazard a guess that the discrimination determined was not willful discrimination as that would have prompted a lawsuit, and that the City of Dayton could have merely denied the charges and not provided evidence or details. If this were the case, the determination would be made solely on the evidence presented by the charging party. So it could easily be that the determination was based on Maj. Temple's claims. This would account for the case being closed which shows that it is not sustained). And now the lawyer has filed an appeal and is talking to reporters. I'm not seeing the evidence which says that McManus discriminated against anyone, and barring that I think it is rash and irresponsible to start lobbing accusations around. Once you understand the process, it really is a negligible consideration, and I am a little concerned that rather than doing the research like I or anyone else interested did to find information, that people are very quick to make a determination and try to paint a nasty picture. It behooves us all to actually examine situations before we rush to judgement and to be watchful, but also give our elected and appointed officials the benefit of the doubt before we decide to hold mock courts and witch hunts. It creates panic and breeds distrust. How about we try working towards the good of the community and allow due process instead? Jonathan Palmer Victory "If you think twice, before you speak one; you will speak twice, the better for it." -Wendell P. Whalum, "Wit and Wisdom" In a message dated 3/5/2004 7:47:14 AM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is a reply to John Delmonico's post regarding William McManus that was circulated on March 4, in response to a post from Rybak's office: for the full effect read from the bottom up. I would also be helpful to read http://www.startribune.com/stories/1557/4643665.html from the Star Tribune. Roberta writes: It is interesting that the folks who seem to be complaining about "not being told" are the very people who could, and should have researched McManus, independently. It must be easier to shift blame to the "no one told me" theory then it is to take responsibility for their recommendation. Where was Delmonico (or any other selected) during the interview process? What happened? Didn't anyone on the search committee ask McManus if he had ever implicated the city that employed him in a lawsuit because of an act of discrimination, or any other reason for that matter? There is nothing in the link that Delmonico provides that sheds any light on the Barbara Temple case other then it existed as a plea in the Court of Montgomery County in Ohio. There have been thousands of lawsuits brought by women (and men) for discrimination related to employment. John Delmonico may have felt compelled to respond to David Fey's post regarding illegal discrimination by William McManus (in Dayton) because as he alleges, he was an un-informed member of the search committee for a new Minneapolis police chief however, he may have responded because the Federation represents a number of female officers, one of whom has been suspended in the due process of an investigation. It may be that he has chosen to be preemptive, taking the position that McManus is a chief that fires females, even if Gerold is dismissed as a result of her own actions. And, by the way, do you think that Delmonico's position might indicate he anticipates the need for a defensive strategy? And, the Star Tribune quotes the lawyer who is trying to move the Temple case forward as an appeal against the City of Dayton, as a civil matter based on an equal pay issue after the Department of Justice denied the suit. Why wouldn't this attorney take advantage of a situation in Minneapolis that would further his case in Dayton, even if the similarity ends with gender and the only real impact is in the court of public opinion? Neither the Star Trib, nor Delmonico offer anything except supposition; spinning general comments that could lead to an erroneous conclusion. Equal focus on the facts, with full disclosure would be nice. It might be a good idea to let the investigation of the suspended officers in the Duy Ngo case play out before jumping to a Minneapolis conclusion. From a position in community, it appears people are solidly behind William McManus. So, be careful out there, remember, he has a three year contract! Roberta Englund Folwell Neighborhood ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Delmonico" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 2:58 PM Subject: Response to Email from Mayor Regarding Illegal Discrimination by William McManus > As a member of the search committee, I feel compelled to respond to the > email issued at the Mayor's direction. The Mayor's email is misleading in > many respects. > > 1) First, althouth the email references a lawsuit filed against Chief > McManus and the City of Dayton by a female deputy chief fired by McManus, > the email fails to mention that, separate from the lawsuit, the Cincinnati > Area Office of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") > made a finding that Ms. Temple was fired by McManus "because of her sex and > in retaliation for complaining about an employment act which is illegal > under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." A copy of this document > can be accessed by clicking on the following link: > http://www.clerk.co.montgomery.oh.us/pro/image_onbase.cfm?docket=6371639 > The City of Dayton did not appeal the EEOC finding. > > 2) Although the lawsuit was dismissed on the grounds that Temple was an > "at-will", appointed employee, she has appealed the ruling and, therefore, > there has not yet been a final disposition of the suit. > > 3) The Mayor was quoted in the StarTribune this morning that he knew of this > sustained EEOC finding before he selected McManus. > > 4) Despite knowing this information, the Mayor failed to disclose the > existence of the EEOC sustained finding to us as the members of his own > search committee. > > 5) As reported in the StarTribune, the Mayor also failed to disclose the > existence of the EEOC finding to Councilmember Niziolek, the chair of the > Council's Public Safety and Regulatory Service Committee (to which the > Police Department reports). Other council members have told me personnally > that they were not advised of this sustained finding. Further, I have heard > from other sources that the existence of the EEOC finding was not disclosed > to the City Attorney, the City Coordinator and other high ranking City > officials. > > 5) Although the Mayor and McManus may now claim that this EEOC finding is > "nothing," by failing to disclose this information to the search committee > (and apparently most if not all of the City Council), the Mayor has deprived > us all of the opportunity to reach our own conclusion as to the importance > of this serious information. Moreover, I personally resent the fact that > the Mayor has substituted his own judgment on this matter for my own ability > to digest and assess the impact of this information. While I cannot speak > for any of you or for the members of the City Council who were not made > aware of this information, I certainly would have protested against the > selection of any candidate who has been found to have discriminated against > a person from a protected class in violation of Federal law. > > 6) I have confirmed with persons who have performed background > investigations for new recruits as patrol officers that the MPD has > routinely rejected job candidates who have had discrimination/harassment > problems at a prior employer. This raises the question in my mind as to > whether the City of Minneapolis has a double standard for rank and file > patrol officers as opposed to Department heads. > > 7) I represent many female officers who were initially upset that the City > hired an external male candidate over two highly qualified internal female > candidates (one of whom the Oldani Report ranked as more qualified than > McManus). Now that it is known that the City passed over qualified females > to hire a male known to have discriminated against a female, they are > outraged and ready to begin picketing the offices of the Mayor, City Council > and Police Chief. They are convinced that the City does have a glass > ceiling and those that are qualified to serve in ranking positions of > authority have told me that they are beginning to look to leave the MPD for > a department that will afford them a fair opportunity for advancement. The > City may also have assumed a greater risk of future legal liability by > hiring a department head who was already at least once found to have engaged > in illegal discrimination. > > I urge all of you to read the EEOC finding and, unlike the Mayor, I > encourage you to reach your own conclusion about this new information. You > shoud feel free to discuss your concerns with any member of the media that > may contact you and you may also wish to make your feelings known to the > Mayor and the members of the City Council. Please feel free to contact me > if you have any questions. > > > Sgt. John Delmonico > President, POFM > > -----Original Message----- From: Champa, Bill A [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 6:28 PM Subject: Update Hello: I am sending this message to the Police Chief Advisory Committee on behalf of Mayor Rybak. It has come to our attention that you may be contacted by reporters asking for comment regarding a lawsuit filed against Chief McManus in Dayton, Ohio. The lawsuit was filed by a Police Major who was fired by McManus. The suit was dismissed on summary judgment last summer. Please contact us if you have any questions. David Fey, Deputy Mayor, can be reached at 612-673-3888. Sincerely, Bill Champa Human Resources Generalist 612-673-3428 REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
