va whistleblower alleges discrimination for exposing evidence

8/9/2019 VA whistleblower alleges discrimination for exposing evidence

1/39

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

PATRICIA M. LELIGDON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

ROBERT A. McDONALD, )

SECRETAR, ) Cas! N".

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT )

OF #ETERANS$ AFFAIRS )

L"%is St"&!s Cl!v!lan' #A M!'ical C!nt!( )

*+* East B"%l!va(', )

Cl!v!lan', Oi" --* )

)

D!f!n'ant. )

COMPLAINT

Nat%(! "f Acti"n

1. After Paula M. Leligdon (Plaintiff or Leligdon) disclosed the destruction of

evidence and filed her own discrimination complaint, A management in !leveland denied her

promotion, disciplined her for what she said, and su"#ected her to harassment, surveillance, close

1

Case: 1:14-cv-02810-DCN Doc #: 1 Filed: 12/23/14 1 of 39. PageID #: 1


2/39

supervision and a hostile wor$ environment. %he "rings this action against &efendant, the

%ecretar', o"ert A. Mc&onald, of the nited %tates &epartment of eterans Affairs

(&efendant or A), under *itle ++ of the !ivil ights Act of 1-, as amended(*itle

++), the Age &iscrimination in /mplo'ment Act (A&/A) and the 0histle"lower Protection

Act.

. Leligdon "egan wor$ing for the A in 22 in the %ocial 0or$ department. 3ver

the past ten 'ears, Leligdon ascended the ran$s at the A, and is currentl' a 4%51 %upervisor,

Ps'chiatr' %ocial 0or$. Leligdon supervises and manages a staff of eleven social wor$ers and

one assistant, and covers eight different ps'chiatric service areas. Among her m'riad of duties,

Leligdon wor$s closel' with each of her Program Managers and *eam Leaders to ensure that

veterans6 social wor$ needs are met7 she assists her staff to ensure compliance with all A

polices and training re8uirements7 ma$es personnel decisions regarding leave re8uests and

discipline7 provides hiring recommendations for open social wor$ positions7 participates in 9:

social wor$ supervisor' coverage for the A Medical !enter7 and is an active participant in the

/thics !ommittee and Ps'chiatr' Managers6 Meetings. 0hile performing each of these duties,

Leligdon has strived to ensure e;ceptional service to veterans. +n so doing, Leligdon has placed

primar' importance on the overall mission of the A to deliver e;ceptional mental health

services to eterans.


3/39

/%(is'icti"n an' #!n%!

>. *his civil action arises under *itle ++ of the !ivil ights Act of 1-, as

amended, .%.!. ? 222e, et seq., the Age &iscrimination in /mplo'ment Act (A&/A) and

the 0histle"lower Protection Act.Also, the defendant is an official of the nited %tates

4overnment sued in his official capacit'. Accordingl', this !ourt has #urisdiction over this action

pursuant to @ .%.!. ?? 1>>1 and 1>-.

. %ince 211, Leligdon has timel' filed complaints of discrimination with the A6s

3ffice of esolution Management (3M), complaining of the unlawful acts alleged herein.

. Leligdon satisfied all administrative and #urisdictional re8uirements for "ringing

the instant action to this !ourt.

-. At all times relevant to this action, the A committed all of the actions which

comprise the unlawful emplo'ment practices alleged herein within the #urisdiction of the nited

%tates &istrict !ourt for the Borthern &istrict of 3hio. *hus, venue properl' lies "efore this

!ourt pursuant to @ .%.!. ? 1>1(") (). enue in this district is also proper under .%.!. ?

222e5(f)(>).

Pa(ti!s

:. Leligdon is a resident of the %tate of 3hio, and she has "een an emplo'ee of the

A6s Louis %to$es !leveland, 3hio, Medical !enter since 22. +n 22, Leligdon "ecame a

mem"er of the Ps'chiatr' 4rand ounds !ommittee of the Medical !enter.

@. o"ert A. Mc&onald is the %ecretar' of the nited %tates &epartment of eterans

Affairs.


4/39

Facts

In 2010, when Leligdon disclosed information about the death of a client in an altercation at aVA Medical Center, and thereafter the destruction of eidence, the VA began sub!ecting Leligdon

to unlawful discrimination. Leligdon"s filing two ##$ com%laints, that, in turn, resulted in the

VA retaliating against her b& downgrading her %erformance and encouraging her staff to filecom%laints against her.

. +n April 212, a veteran was involved in an altercation with another veteran at the

Crec$sville A 3utpatient Mental


5/39

1>. &uring or around 211, %tephanie Martin and another provider told Leligdon that

&r. &avid Clan$, the Assistant !hief of Ps'chiatr', encouraged the staff to target a medical

provider whom the Ps'chiatr' %ervice9Medical !enter wanted dismissed. +n 21>, a A

ps'chiatrist told Leligdon that the ps'chiatrist was leaving the current practice area "ecause &r.

Clan$ had targeted the ps'chiatrist. Drom 211 to the present, the !leveland A Medical !enter

maintained a culture in which certain managers could target other staff mem"ers for hostile

treatment that could "e damaging to the careers of those targeted. *his cultural attri"ute is part of

a "roader culture of suppressing criticism "' engaging in reprisals against those who engage in

criticism or otherwise associated with such critics.

1. %hortl' after receiving the Eanuar' 211 disclosure a"out "eing targeted, Leligdon

informed 4oldstein that she was "eing maltreated and targeted. Leligdon disclosed that staff

were avoiding Leligdon, closing their doors, and refraining from wor$ing with Leligdon,

1. &uring or around Eanuar' 211, Eoe Pic$lo, the A Privac' 3fficer, issued a

memorandum to A staff.

1-. At a De"ruar' , 211, A /thics !ommittee meeting (which Leligdon attended

via conference call, while A8uilina was in the same room as Leligdon), an unidentified female

caller indicated that she discovered an emplo'ee was a"out to reveal information via social

media sites. *he female caller said that if the information had "een disseminated to the media

and pu"lic, it would have destro'ed the A Medical !enter. pon discovering the imminent

disclosure, the female caller said that she contacted Eoe Pic$lo, the A Privac' 3fficer, and as$ed

him to have the evidence destro'ed. According to the female caller, Pic$lo did, indeed, destro'

the evidence. 3n Eanuar' 1@, 211, the Privac' 3fficer (Pic$lo) sent an email to all !leveland

A staff reminding them to "e cogniGant of discussing patient and emplo'ee issues in areas that



6/39

are not conducive in maintaining auditor' privac'. *he email added, emem"er, an

inappropriate ver"al disclosure is no different than a ph'sical privac' "reach. 3n De"ruar' >,

211, the Privac' 3fficer6s department sent an email prohi"iting the dissemination of

information pertaining to personal activities occurring within the medical center to social

media sites.

1:. As soon as it "ecame $nown that Leligdon was present in the room with the other

persons attending the De"ruar' , 211 meeting via conference call, her presence was announced

on the call, which immediatel' terminated the female caller6s continued comments.

1@. +n April 211, Leligdon and other A personnel were su"poenaed to testif' in a

hearing regarding the veteran6s death. *he case settled "efore the hearing.

1. *he A6s unauthoriGed surveillance of Leligdon escalated in 211.

2. &uring or a"out March 211, Leligdon interviewed for a position as a !aregiver

%upport !oordinator. A management did not select her for this position even though Leligdon

had the superior 8ualifications.

1. +n April 211, Leligdon initiated contact with an //3 counselor, and filed a

formal //3 complaint in Eune 211, alleging age and gender discrimination (//3! !ase Bo.

>5215222:H). +n 212, A8uilina and 4oldstein had told Leligdon that the' are notified

immediatel' whenever an //3 complaint is filed which involves their service, and that the

&irector of %ocial 0or$ %ervices is first notified "' the //3 manager of //3 complaints.

Leligdon6s Eune 211 //3 complaint was ultimatel' dismissed.

. +n April 21, one of Leligdon6s emplo'ees told Leligdon he was aware that she

was "eing "ad5mouthed "' other A emplo'ees at the Louis %to$es Medical !enter, and he was

confused a"out what he had "een hearing a"out her.

-



7/39

>. +n the %pring of 21, Leligdon overheard two of her staff mem"ers (!open and

Lip$in) spea$ing derogatoril' a"out her while in an emplo'ee par$ing garage. A management

failed to ta$e an' actions to address the "ull'ing "ehavior against Leligdon.

. 3n or around Ma' 1@, 21, Leligdon applied for the position of Assistant !hief

of %ocial 0or$. Leligdon was deemed 8ualified, and she was one of three persons who

interviewed for the position. &espite Leligdon6 s "eing highl' 8ualified for the position, the A

Medical !enter selected Deli; !hristopher /smurdoc, who was considera"l' 'ounger and less

8ualified than Leligdon.

. 3n Eune 2, 21, &r. Clan$ informed Leligdon that she had "een removed from

the Ps'chiatr' 4rand ounds !ommittee, a committee Leligdon had "een involved in since

22. Bo other !ommittee mem"ers were removed at this time. &r. Clan$ initiall' told Leligdon

the reason for her removal from the committee was a restructuring of the committee.

%u"se8uentl', however, &r. Clan$ admitted to Leligdon that he headed up the committee, and he

simpl' decided to remove her from it.

-. Also in Eune 21, Leligdon was removed from the Mental


8/39

%ocial 0or$ position, a position which the A granted in Eune 21 to !hristopher /smurdoc, a

'ounger, less58ualified candidate. Leligdon also claimed the A was engaging in unlawful

harassment against her.

@. +n August 21, /smurdoc (who "ecame Leligdon6s first5line supervisor in Eune

21), ac$nowledged to Leligdon that he was aware of the rumors and gossip "eing spread

around the Louis %to$es A Medical !enter a"out Leligdon. /smurdoc encouraged Leligdon to

spea$ with /mplo'ment and La"or elations %pecialist &enise !ala"rese a"out the staff

mem"ers who were spea$ing derogatoril' a"out her, and to spea$ directl' with these staff

mem"ers a"out their conduct. 3ther than ma$ing these statements, /smurdoc did nothing to stop

the "ull'ing "ehavior.

. Leligdon spo$e with !ala"rese in %eptem"er 21. Leligdon reiterated to

!ala"rese that she was "eing treated inappropriatel', and how that mistreatment was negativel'

impacting her and her staff. !ala"rese also advised Leligdon to spea$ with the two staff mem"ers

who had spo$en derogatoril' a"out her in the par$ing garage, and to remind them that further

incidents of such conduct ma' "e cause for disciplinar' action.

>2. %haron /Ge$iel informed Leligdon in or around 3cto"er or Bovem"er 21 that

Eason 4atliff,


9/39


10/39

>-. +n Bovem"er 21, Leligdon met with a A p'schiatrist. *he' discussed the A6s

maltreatment of Leligdon. Leligdon "ecame emotionall' upset during the meeting. *he

ps'chiatrist suggested that Leligdon perhaps find another #o" outside of the A.

>:. /smurdoc rated Leligdon as Dull' %uccessful in her 211521 Performance

Appraisal. Leligdon had received 3utstanding evaluations since 22:. &uring a meeting with

Leligdon in Bovem"er 21, /smurdoc ac$nowledged that he failed to consider Leligdon6s self5

assessment, which, according to /smurdoc, did in fact show that she had wor$ed a"ove the Dull'

%uccessful level.

>@. Leligdon filed a grievance in Bovem"er 21 regarding her lowered performance

evaluation.

>. 0hen Leligdon met with Pic$lo in &ecem"er 21, he told her that the current

&irector, %ue Duehrer, was unwilling to address or reprimand upper management who violated

the A6s policies and procedures or participated in misconduct or mis"ehavior K despite his

urging her to do so. Pic$lo told Leligdon that as a result of Duehrer6s inaction, upper

management6s misconduct and mis"ehavior escalated, which was negativel' impacting the

Medical !enter, its staff, and the veterans6 care. Pic$lo advised Leligdon to pursue a civil law

suit against the A.

After Leligdon filed her %erformance a%%raisal grieance, the VA escalated its hostilities toward

her, with hostilities now coming from Calabrese, 'uehrer, the ##$ Manager, and the Chief of(taff.

2. +n Eanuar' 21>, Leligdon went to !ala"rese6s office to hand5deliver a document

regarding her grievance (as !ala"rese was involved in handling the grievance). !ala"rese6s staff

told Leligdon that !ala"rese would "e out after a meeting7 Leligdon waited thirt' minutes, then

12



11/39

was told that !ala"rese had left. !ala"rese participated in Leligdon6s //3 claims on "ehalf of

the A Medical !enter. Leligdon informed !ala"rese6s supervisor of the incident.

1. 3n De"ruar' 1, 21>, Leligdon sent a letter to the then5A %ecretar' %hinse$i,

stating that she had "een the target of unlawful actions "' the A, since she disclosed

information a"out the death of her client in an altercation in April 212. %he sent copies of her

letter to Attorne' 4eneral /ric


12/39

. &espite $nowing a"out 4atliff6s admissions, Duehrer and Altose failed to ta$e an'

action.

. 3n March 1@, 21>, &r. Altose issued a memorandum, upholding /smurdoc6s

performance rating of Leligdon as Dull' %uccessful, and den'ing her grievance "ased on a

finding of no violations on the part of the A Medical !enter.

-. +n the %pring of 21>, the A Medical !enter6s //3 Manager, Andrea Dreeman,

sent Leligdon insulting, vituperous emails. +n Eune 21, Dreeman had sent an email to the A

Medical !enter6s %ervice !hiefs, %upervisors, and %ecretaries of the %ervice !hiefs, regarding

the proliferation of harassment complaints against the A Medical !enter, and how the A could

avoid lia"ilit' "' ta$ing immediate and appropriate corrective action. +n her email, Dreeman

discussed in detail a case against the A, in which a former A emplo'ee had "een the su"#ect of

continuous, denigrating rumors, and the A was found lia"le "ecause it did not ta$e sufficient

action to stop the rumors. &espite her $nowledge of the potentiall' damaging nature of rumors

"eing spread a"out A emplo'ees, Dreeman did nothing to stop the tide of rumors "eing spread

a"out Leligdon. ather, Dreeman personall' participated in such harassment of Leligdon and

through her e;ample fomented the tide.

:. +n March 21>, Leligdon spo$e with the A6s 3M a"out possi"l' filing a

complaint against Dreeman. *he 3M encouraged Leligdon to spea$ with &arlene Mathes, the

//3 Lead !oordinator. 3n April 1, 21>, Leligdon spo$e with Mathes a"out Dreeman, who told

Leligdon she had spo$en with Dreeman regarding her inappropriate communications with

Leligdon. Mathes referred Leligdon to spea$ with Duehrer for appropriate management of the

situation. Leligdon did as Mathes recommended, sending supporting documentation to Duehrer

regarding her complaint a"out Dreeman. Duehrer, however, did nothing to correct Dreeman6s

1



13/39

"ehavior toward Leligdon and did not even repl' for two months, and onl' after Leligdon6s

insistence for a repl'.

@. Cefore meeting with Leligdon on Ma' 2, 21>, /smurdoc initiated a discussion

with Dreeman a"out conducting an investigation into Leligdon.

. 3n Ma' 2, 21>, /smurdoc met with Leligdon to discuss complaints which

Leligdon6s staff had made against her. /smurdoc told Leligdon that Lip$in and others had made

these complaints, and, in an attempt to intimidate Leligdon, told her that Lip$in had "een

documenting her interactions with her. /smurdoc further chastised Leligdon "ecause she had

as$ed for more specifics regarding his Ma' 1:, 21> re8uest to meet with him on Ma' 2,

21>. /smurdoc told Leligdon that re8uesting more specifics regarding meetings he re8uested

was not appropriate and will "e viewed as insu"ordination.

2. /smurdoc revealed on Ma' 1, 21>, that he was offended "' what he perceived

as Leligdon6s "latant disregard and lac$ of respect for him. /smurdoc pre#udged the

complaints against Leligdon, assuming them to "e true without the "enefit of a fair

investigation reasona"l' designed to discover the true facts.

1. 3n Eune >, 21>, A8uilina and /smurdoc met with Leligdon, and issued to her

four 3!s from Lip$in, !open, Iasidonis, and &r. Clan$, dated Ma' 1, Ma' 2, Ma' 1, and

Ma' , 21>. A8uilina told Leligdon that he had personall' encouraged completion of the

3!s "' the staff, two of which he wrote himself on their "ehalf. A8uilina and /smurdoc also

advised Leligdon that the' intended to provide to the //3 investigator the names of the

providers with whom Leligdon wor$ed. Leligdon reminded A8uilina and /smurdoc of the issues

she previousl' had with Lip$in and !open, she had a retaliation claim against &r. Clan$,

Iasidonis wor$ed under &r. Clan$.

1>



14/39

. /smurdoc met with Leligdon on Eune 1, 21>, and informed her that he had

concerns a"out the amount of annual and sic$ leave she was using, and that he wanted her to

increase her wor$load. Leligdon communicated to /smurdoc that her increased use of annual and

sic$ leave was due to the stress she was e;periencing as a result of the A Medical !enter6s

retaliation against her. Leligdon also informed /smurdoc that her wor$load was alread' higher

than an' other supervisor who had held her position.

>. 3n Eul' , 21>, /smurdoc met with Leligdon, and threatened her that if she did

not compl' with his re8uest to increase her clinical hours, he would withdraw his approval of her

as continuing on as a Professional %tandards eview Coard mem"er. %ince the inception of the

%upervisor of %ocial 0or$ position, clinic time had "een e;cluded from the %upervisor6s duties.

/smurdoc was attempting to unilaterall' impose this additional dut' on Leligdon.

. 3n Eul' >1, 21>, /smurdoc issued to Leligdon a Botification of unaccepta"le

conduct9opportunit' to improve. +n his Botification, /smurdoc stated that he had provided

Leligdon with feed"ac$ regarding 'our lac$ of respect and argumentative approach and 'our

lac$ of cooperation and collegialit', and that she had responded with aggressive and "latant

attempts to disrespect me as 'our supervisor. , 21>. &uring his meeting with Leligdon on Eul'

>1, 21>, /smurdoc snic$ered, laughed at Leligdon, and moc$ed her as he issued the Letter of

!ounseling.

. Also on Eul' >1, 21>, /smurdoc presented Leligdon with a reminder of polic'

regarding her re8uests for annual leave. &eviating from the A Medical !enter6s annual leave

polic', /smurdoc re8uired Leligdon to provide him with :5hours advance notice of her intent to

1



15/39

ta$e annual leave. *he A Medical !enter6s polic' merel' re8uired that re8uests for annual leave

will "e made in advance e;cept in unusual situations. 1, 21>

Letter of !ounseling /smurdoc issued to her. +n her letter, Leligdon e;plained that since 22,

her manner of re8uesting annual leave using emails, voicemails, and direct communications had

alwa's "een approved7 she had never "een denied use of annual or sic$ leave7 she had never

"een mandated to provide advance notice within a specified time frame (per /smurdoc6s

re8uested :5hour advance notice)7 that at the two meetings with /smurdoc in which he had

e;pressed concern a"out the amount of annual and sic$ leave she was using, Leligdon had

e;plained to him that her increased usage was due to the A Medical !enter6s retaliation against

her7 that "oth /smurdoc and A8uilina were directl' involved in her 21 //3 claim and her

grievance7 and that /smurdoc and A8uilina had encouraged her staff to su"mit 3!s against her.

:. +n August 21>, /smurdoc denied Leligdon6s re8uest to remain on the

Professional %tandards eview Coard. Leligdon was the onl' Coard mem"er who had ever "een

denied permission to continue as a Coard mem"er.

After Leligdon filed her third ##$ com%laint in August 201), and after she was cleared of all theallegations against her, the retaliation and harassment against her intensified &et again, with

#smurdoc issuing another Letter of Counseling regarding her leae usage, *r. +ond interfering

with Leligdon"s attem%t to meet with a staff member concerning a famil& com%laint, and#smurdoc giing Leligdon another 'ull& (uccessful- %erformance rating des%ite her

$utstanding %erformance.

1



16/39

@. 3n August >2, 21>, Leligdon filed her third //3 complaint against the A

Medical !enter, alleging discrimination, reprisal, harassment, and hostile wor$ environment.

. 3n %eptem"er , 21>, the //3 Manager issued a report, e;onerating Leligdon of

the hostile wor$ environment allegations against her. A8uilina met with Leligdon to deliver the

results of the report to her. All throughout the meeting, A8uilina avoided e'e contact with

Leligdon and did not offer an' words of congratulations regarding her e;oneration.

-2. 3n 3cto"er >, 21>, /smurdoc issued a third Letter of !ounseling to Leligdon,

asserting she violated leave polic' when she re8uested si; hours of sic$ leave for 3cto"er @,

21>, 'et failed to ma$e an advanced re8uest for annual leave for the remaining two hours on

3cto"er @, 21>, and when she failed to re8uest 1 minutes of annual leave in advance on

3cto"er 1-, 21>, to cover the 1 minutes she was running late to the office. /smurdoc charged

Leligdon with A03L for two hours on 3cto"er @, 21>, and A03L for 1 minutes on 3cto"er

1-, 21>. /smurdoc met with Leligdon on 3cto"er , 21>, to present the Letter of !ounseling

to her. A8uilina was also present at this meeting, and he supported /smurdoc6s accusations and

decision to charge Leligdon with A03L. /smurdoc was aware that the A03L charge would

lower Leligdon6s wages. *he decision to charge Leligdon with A03L is a deviation from normal

!enter polic' and practices that permit the use of annual leave to cover une;pected a"sences due

to traffic, medical appointments or other circumstances "e'ond the emplo'ees control.

-1. +n response to /smurdoc6s 3cto"er >, 21> Letter of !ounseling, Leligdon wrote

a letter to Duehrer (and provided a cop' to Altose, A8uilina, and /smurdoc) on Bovem"er ,

21>. Leligdon e;plained that when she told /smurdoc a"out her need to ta$e sic$ leave on

3cto"er @, 21>, she also advised him that she might need to use "oth sic$ leave and annual

leave to cover the eight hours, due to her low sic$ leave "alances. %he entered her re8uest for two

1-



17/39

hours of annual leave the ver' ne;t da' she returned K 3cto"er , 21>. Leligdon e;plained in

her letter that during her meeting with /smurdoc on 3cto"er , 21>, she stated the foregoing

to him. /smurdoc responded that his recollection of their conversation was different than

Leligdon6s, and that he had sent himself a te;t regarding their conversation. egarding the

3cto"er 1-, 21> A03L charge, Leligdon e;plained in her letter that she arrived to wor$

appro;imatel' 1 minutes late due to unavoida"le traffic dela's, and that rather than operating a

telephone in the middle of rush5hour traffic to call /smurdoc and re8uest annual leave in

advance, she entered her re8uest for 1 minutes of annual leave when she arrived at the office.

Leligdon also stated that all of her previous re8uests for annual leave to cover her late arrivals K

up until 3cto"er 1-, 21> K had "een approved "' ever' one of her previous supervisors,

including /smurdoc, and that she had used the same procedure since 22 without an'

complaints. Prior to issuing Leligdon the Letter of !ounseling on 3cto"er >, 21>, neither

/smurdoc nor an' other supervisors or management had advised Leligdon that she needed to

handle her re8uests for annual leave to cover late arrivals in a manner other than which she had

"een doing since 22.

-. +n 3cto"er 21>, one of the social wor$ers supervised "' Leligdon and assigned

to wor$ with &r. Cond, Eohn McIinne', refused to attend a meeting re8uested "' Leligdon to

discuss a complaint asserted against him "' a veteran6s famil' mem"er. McIinne' told Leligdon

he was not a"le to attend the meeting "ecause &r. Cond told him his other staff duties too$

precedence over attending the meeting with Leligdon. *he meeting was necessar' for Leligdon

to respond to a famil' complaint a"out McIinne'6s conduct with a veteran6s famil'.

1:



18/39

->. 0hen Leligdon su"se8uentl' re8uested &r. Cond6s assistance in managing the

issue with McIinne', &r. Cond accused Leligdon of harassing her. &r. Cond also refused

Leligdon6s repeated re8uests to issue a 3!.

-. +n a meeting later in 3cto"er 21>, /smurdoc presented Leligdon with a 3!

completed "' /smurdoc on McIinne'6s "ehalf. +n the 3!, McIinne' accused Leligdon of

"ull'ing him, and he mentioned the three previous 3!s against Leligdon which other staff

mem"ers on his team had su"mitted. +n Eul' 21>, however, McIinne' had denied an' issues of

harassment or hostile wor$ environment "' Leligdon during the //3 investigation of such

claims against Leligdon.

-. 3n &ecem"er , 21>, /smurdoc issued Leligdon another Dull' %uccessful

performance rating, despite her self5assessment which showed an outstanding performance in all

elements, and which was compara"le to previous 'ears in which she had received an

3utstanding performance rating. A8uilina approved the Dull' %uccessful performance rating.

A8uilina and &r. Altose had denied Leligdon6s grievance regarding her 211521 performance

appraisal. A polic' and practices provide for "onuses to those who get outstanding ratings,

and support such individuals in future career advancement.

--. 3n Eanuar' , 21, /smurdoc and A8uilina met with Leligdon, and presented her

with a memorandum from &r. Altose. &r. Altose ordered Leligdon to increase her clinic time,

though Leligdon had provided documentation showing that her staff was "eing underutiliGed and

had a low wor$load, and thus the' could handle an' increased need for clinic time. &r. Altose

also ordered Leligdon to meet in person with /smurdoc and A8uilina, although he was 8uite

aware of her discomfort in their ph'sical presence due to their reprisals against her, and despite

the fact that Leligdon had //3 claims against "oth /smurdoc and A8uilina. Durther, &r. Altose

1@



19/39

prohi"ited Leligdon from cop'ing her attorne' on emails, even though the emails were directl'

related to Leligdon6s claims of harassment and retaliation. &r. Altose threatened Leligdon with

formal administrative action and potential disciplinar' action.

-:. Also on Eanuar' , 21, Dreeman informed Leligdon that her re8uest for official

time to prepare for her //3 claim would "e limited to 1- hours, a decision that Dreeman

admitted to ma$ing. *his limitation was in contradiction to esta"lished A protocol, polic', and

the //3! regulation, !.D.. ? 1-1.-2-(").

-@. 3n Eanuar' , 21, Dreeman responded to Leligdon6s email re8uesting

clarification of the A polic' allowing Dreeman to limit her official time to 1- hours, stating that

Dreeman was updating A polic'. Dreeman also told Leligdon that, 'ou are starting to harass

and "ull'6 me as usual so + will no longer respond to 'our email on this su"#ect. Duehrer was

copied on the emails e;changed "etween Leligdon and Dreeman. Duehrer is Dreeman6s

supervisor, and had "een made aware "' Leligdon of Dreeman6s other acts of disrespect toward

Leligdon. Dreeman was involved in all of Leligdon6s //3 complaints. Duehrer6s failure to ta$e

corrective action against Dreeman allowed Dreeman to continue her "ull'ing, retaliator' and

disrespectful "ehavior toward Leligdon.

+eginning in March 201, the VA Medical Center ste%%ed u% its attac/s on Leligdon, issuing one

disci%linar& action after another, den&ing her essential training, and escalating its unlawful

sureillance of Leligdon.

-. 3n March 12, 21, /smurdoc issued Leligdon another Letter of !ounseling for

calling an emplo'ee, McIinne', at home after he had left a voicemail message for her and &r.

Cond re8uesting sic$ leave on De"ruar' , 21. Leligdon was calling McIinne' pursuant to the

A6s polic' and practice of addressing patient care concerns. /smurdoc cited to a provision in

the 211 Master Agreement "etween the A and the American Dederation of 4overnment

1



20/39

/mplo'ees, Article >, which provides that an emplo'ee ma' use voicemail to notif' a

supervisor of the t'pe of leave re8uested, in the event the supervisor is not availa"le. +n contrast,

as discussed in Paragraph a"ove, /smurdoc told Leligdon that it was not sufficient for her to

leave a voicemail message for him7 rather, she had to ver"all' spea$ with him or A8uilina.

:2. /smurdoc met with Leligdon on March -, 21, to deliver the March 12, 21

Letter of !ounseling. &uring the meeting, /smurdoc snic$ered at Leligdon when she told

/smurdoc she would not have ade8uate time to respond to the Letter of !ounseling within the

short >5da' period he had given to her.

:1. Eust five da's later, on or a"out March >1, 21, /smurdoc and A8uilina issued a

3! against Leligdon, claiming she violated &r. Altose6s order not to include her attorne' on

emails, and that she was inappropriatel' using the restricted option in her 3utloo$ we"mail.

:. 3n April 1, 21, /smurdoc and A8uilina prohi"ited Leligdon from using the

restricted option in 3utloo$ for all her email communications, even though this option is

availa"le for all A emplo'ees6 use. /smurdoc denied Leligdon6s re8uest for an e;planation of

this prohi"ition.

:>. 3n April , 21, /smurdoc and A8uilina each issued Leligdon a 3! regarding

the situation referred to in the March 12, 21 Letter of !ounseling. *he 3! also noted that

Leligdon told /smurdoc and A8uilina that she would not have time to respond to the March 12,

21 Letter of !ounseling within three da's.

:. 3n April and April :, 21, /smurdoc denied Leligdon6s re8uests for an

authoriGed a"sence so she could attend training that would ena"le her to maintain her %tate

licensure and Medical !enter training re8uirements. /smurdoc provided no rational "asis for his

denial.

2



21/39


22/39

+nclusion, and Bo Dear policies. A8uilina 8uoted Leligdon6s sentence in her email stating that, +

have learned a great deal a"out civil rights and li"ert'6s NsicO the past several 'ears. A8uilina

wrote that, NtOhis sarcasm is e;tremel' inappropriate, especiall' when the highest chain of

command in our Medical !enter is included.

::. egarding charge in the Ma' , 21 Botice of Proposed %uspension, A8uilina

stated that Leligdon6s continued use of the restricted option in her 3utloo$ emails creates

hostilit'.

:@. egarding charge > in the Ma' , 21 Botice of Proposed %uspension, A8uilina

referred to the emails which Leligdon sent on April and April 11. %umming up his charges

against Leligdon, A8uilina wrote that N'Oour actions are distur"ing, unwarranted and a"usive.

Fou are prompt to "ull'6 and e;aggerate responses to minor da' to da' disagreements.

:. 3n Ma' >, 21, /smurdoc and A8uilina issued Leligdon a Letter of eprimand

dated Ma' , 21. +n the Ma' , 21, Letter of eprimand, A8uilina charged Leligdon with

Dailure to Dollow +nstructions regarding her cop'ing a non5A attorne' (her undersigned

counsel who was her counsel of record for her //3 complaints) on emails she sent on Ma' 1,

21, to Ievin Croussard from 3M, Mr. Paul &epompei, and Mr. Antonio %uareG from , 21 email

alleged illegal practices and unlawful and "iased decisions on the part of the A. A8uilina

also charged Leligdon for +nappropriate se of /mail and !onduct n"ecoming of a

%upervisor related to her s$ipping the chain of command "' not including /smurdoc and

A8uilina in her Ma' 1, 21, emails, and cop'ing Duerher instead.



23/39

@2. 3n Eune -, 21, /smurdoc and A8uilina issued Leligdon a Botice of eprimand

dated Eune >, 21, and a Botice of >5da' %uspension dated Eune , 21. +n the Botice of

eprimand, A8uilina claimed that Leligdon inappropriatel' discussed during a performance mid5

term appraisal meeting with McIinne' his participation in an Administrative +nvestigator'

Coard (A+C), where he was a witness. According to A8uilina, McIinne' claimed Leligdon6s

discussion of his participation in an A+C was threatening. Leligdon had no such discussion

with McIinne' and had no such $nowledge of his A+C involvement.

@1. +n the Eune , 21, &ecision letter suspending Leligdon for > da's, A8uilina

stated that he sustained charges 1, , and > in the Ma' , 21, Letter of Proposed %uspension.

A8uilina stated that he considered Leligdon6s written repl' to the proposed suspension, and noted

that 'ou neither e;pressed remorse over the incidents nor apologiGed for 'our "ehavior. Fou

also mention 'our 'ears of service to this medical center. Although + appreciate 'our 'ears of

service to this medical center and recogniGe that 'our actions were perhaps not with malice, 'our

conduct is ine;cusa"le.

@. 3n Eune 1>, 21, Acting %ecretar' of eterans Affairs %loan &. 4i"son issued a

memorandum to all staff stating, *he &epartment of eterans Affairs (A) is strongl' and

une8uivocall' committed to e8ual emplo'ment opportunit', diversit' and inclusion, and the

protection of emplo'ee rights in the wor$place.


24/39

eterans is ine;trica"l' lin$ed to sustaining an organiGational culture that

protects and empowers the voices of all emplo'ees and leverages the

diverse talent of all of our human resources. *his includes creating aclimate that em"races constructive dissent, welcomes critical feed"ac$,

and ensures compliance with legal re8uirements.

An essential component to this is the clear demonstration of AQs !orealuesJ +ntegrit', !ommitment, Advocac', espect, and /;cellence.*hese enduring values create the foundation for an environment that

fosters diversit' and inclusion. 0e must "e vigilant in ensuring that our

words and "ehaviors congruentl' promote a culture that facilitatesemplo'ee engagement and hears all voices.

/;ecutives, managers, and supervisors "ear a special responsi"ilit' for

enforcing the policies summariGed "elow and promoting the imperatives

of e8uit', diversit', and inclusion in the wor$place. +t is m' e;pectationthat supervisors share this Polic' %tatement with their wor$force to ensure

full understanding of its content. *he 0histle"lower Protection Polic'

%tatement can "e found at the following lin$JhttpJ99vaww.va.gov9opa9pu"lications9BoRD/ARAttachments.pdf

@>. 3n Eune 1:, 21, Dreeman contacted the assigned //3 investigator and

reviewed Leligdon6s //3 claims, there"' violating Leligdon6s confidentialit' rights and privac',

and interfering with Leligdon6s protected activit' of participating in the //3 process. +n so

doing, Dreeman overstepped her role as the //3 &irector and detracted from the independence

re8uired for the federal //3 program.

@. 3n Eune 2, 21, Leligdon delivered a letter to Duehrer, &r. Altose, and Pic$lo,

as$ing them to step forward and ta$e responsi"ilit' for the wrongdoing "eing perpetrated "' the

A Medical !enter against Leligdon and for the cover5up of the A6s unlawful destruction of

evidence, which she had communicated to A %ecretar' %hinse$i in De"ruar' 21>. Leligdon

also delivered copies of this letter to /smurdoc and A8uilina.

@. 3n Eul' >, 21, /smurdoc and A8uilina issued a Letter of !ounseling to

Leligdon, claiming that she inappropriatel' sent an email to Lisa !lar$, the egional !ounsel

%taff Attorne', in which she re8uested !lar$6s legal assistance concerning her su"ordinate



25/39

emplo'ee McIinne'. McIinne' had re8uested that the 3! and other documents filed against

him concerning the complaints from a veteran6s famil' mem"ers "e destro'ed. Cecause these

documents also pertained to Leligdon6s //3 claims and thus could not lawfull' "e destro'ed,

Leligdon sought the advice of !lar$ on how to respond to McIinne'6s re8uest. Durther, "ecause

McIinne' had "een coordinating efforts with the A Medical !enter6s upper management to

target Leligdon, and "ecause he had alread' filed several 3!s against her, Leligdon felt the

need to protect herself and her decision5ma$ing with regard to McIinne' "' see$ing the advice

of legal counsel. Bevertheless, Leligdon6s re8uest for legal advice from !lar$ went unanswered.

@-. Prior to receiving the Eul' >, 21 Letter of !ounseling, Leligdon had never "een

advised, warned, or prohi"ited from re8uesting legal advice from !lar$ or an'one else in the

3ffice of egional !ounsel. +ndeed, Leligdon had wor$ed independentl' and amica"l' with the

3ffice of egional !ounsel on various matters without incident or the need for approval for the

previous ten 'ears.

@:. 3n Eul' , 21, Leligdon sent /smurdoc an email, re8uesting that he endorse

her as a candidate for the +%B 12, %ocial 0or$ Professional %tandards eview Coard. +n her

email, Leligdon emphasiGed her 8ualifications to serve on the "oard, including her current

position as a mental health clinician, %upervisor, and Manager for %ocial 0or$ ps'chiatr', as

well as her previous involvement as a "oard mem"er for the A6s local %ocial 0or$ Professional

%tandards eview Coard.

@@. 3n Eul' >, 21, /smurdoc denied Leligdon6s re8uest for an endorsement to

serve on the +%B 12 %ocial 0or$ Professional %tandards eview Coard, stating, NiOn light of

recent conduct issues that we are wor$ing to correct, + cannot support 'our re8uest to appl' for

this opportunit'.



26/39

@. *he so5called conduct issues which /smurdoc used as a rationale for den'ing

Leligdon6s re8uest for an endorsement had "een included as events in Leligdon6s //3 claims.

C' Eul' >, 21, Leligdon had su"mitted >2 events as part of her //3 complaint, all of which

had "een accepted for investigation. (ee the A 3M6s Acceptance of Leligdon6s /leventh

Amendment of //3 !omplaint, dated August 1, 21.1

2. 3n Eul' >1, 21, /smurdoc and A8uilina issued Leligdon another Botice of

Proposed %uspension, this time for an email which Leligdon sent to Duerher on Eul' >, 21, in

response to the Letter of !ounseling she received the same date. +n the Eul' >1, 21, Botice of

Proposed %uspension, A8uilina criticiGed Leligdon6s characteriGation in her email to Duerher of

the Letters of !ounseling and e;pectation she had received as "eing adverse actions. According

to A8uilina, NtOhree da' suspensions and reprimands are discipline and not adverse actions, and

Leligdon, who had ta$en A5provided classes from /mplo'ment and La"or elations on

&isciplinar' S 4rievance Processshould understand these terms and use them correctl'.

1. +n the Eul' >1, 21, Botice of Proposed %uspension, A8uilina also cited to

Leligdon6s Eul' 11, 21 email to /smurdoc, in which she copied Duerher and &r. Altose,

regarding the Eul' >, 21 Letter of !ounseling. A8uilina opposed Leligdon6s going up the chain

of command and including Duerher and &r. Altose on the email, since Mr. /smurdoc was the

onl' appropriate recipient during this first interaction "etween 'ou and Mr. /smurdoc. A8uilina

added that, N'Oour email is "ased on 'our opinion and not on an' protected activit' 'ou needed

to disclose or elevate to the entire Medical !enter chain of command.

. A8uilina further claimed in the Eul' >1, 21, Botice of Proposed %uspension that

Leligdon should not have insisted on spea$ing to a A egional !ounsel attorne' a"out a

1Per the August 1, 21, Botice, the A6s 3M accepted a total of >> events for investigation.

/vent >2 occurred on Eul' >, 217 /vent >1, Eul' >, 217 /vent >, Eul' >1, 217 and /vent

>>J continuous surveillance from 212 through August , 21.

-



27/39

su"poena issue7 rather, according to A8uilina, she should have gone directl' and solel' to her

supervisor, /smurdoc. A8uilina found that Leligdon6s telling the A attorne' that she followed

the procedures he had communicated to her regarding su"poenas was angr', irrational,

#udgmental and accusative, and "erating to 'our senior management. Four "ehavior is

disrespectful, and lac$s the deference owed to senior management.

>. +n the Eul' >1, 21, Botice of Proposed %uspension, A8uilina told Leligdon that

she is e;pected to a"ide "' the A6s Medical !enter Polic' regarding /mplo'ee esponsi"ilit'

and !onduct, which provides that, /mplo'ees are e;pected to o"serve the highest possi"le

standards of honest', integrit', impartialit', compassion, courtes', and ethical "ehavior towards

patients, visitors, and cowor$ers. A8uilina further admonished Leligdon, stating, NiOn spite of a

previous disciplinar' actionissued to 'ou, 'ou continue to demonstrate a pattern of

irresponsi"ilit' and disregard, there"' serving as the "asis for 'our suspension. +t is sad that 'ou

have not ta$en the man' opportunities + have given 'ou to deter an adverse action.

. 3n a continuous "asis from 212 through August , 21, Agenc' officials had

harassed Leligdon and deprived her of privac' through the unauthoriGed and unlawful

surveillance of her home and elsewhere, as well as her private communications. Leligdon

personall' witnessed and documented this surveillance.

. 3n August , 21, A8uilina issued to Leligdon a Botice of %uspension

regarding the Eul' >1, 21 Botice of Proposed %uspension, sustaining the two charges contained

A8uilina listed the previous disciplinar' actions issued to Leligdon since March 21,

specificall' the March -, 21 Letter of !ounseling concerning Leligdon6s failure to receive

prior ver"al approval for her leave re8uest7 the three5da' suspension which Leligdon served in

Eune 21 regarding emails she had sent7 the Ma' >, 21 reprimand regarding emails she had

sent7 the Eune -, 21 reprimand for discussing an A+C during a performance feed"ac$ session

with McIinne'7 and the Eul' >, 21 Letter of !ounseling regarding Leligdon6s re8uesting legal

advice from A egional !ounsel !lar$.

:



28/39

therein.>+n sustaining the two charges, A8uilina wrote that he found Leligdon6s conduct to "e

ine;cusa"le.

-. 3n 3cto"er 1:, 21, the A6s 3M issued to Leligdon a Botice of Advisement

of ights regarding her //3 complaint (which was received "' her undersigned counsel on

3cto"er 2, 21), providing her with the right to, inter alia, withdraw the su"#ect //3

complaint within thirt' (>2) calendar da's of her receipt of the Botice.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

DISCRIMINATION

:. All other allegations of this pleading are incorporated here "' reference.

@. 3n Eul' >, 21, Leligdon filed a formal //3 complaint, alleging discrimination

and retaliation for her prior Ma' 211 //3 complaint when the A removed her from the

Mental 1, 21 Botice of Proposed%uspension contains two charges, rather than three, and "ecause Leligdon had alread' served her

suspension time for the Ma' , 21 Botice of Proposed %uspension, it is assumed that A8uilina

erred and should have referred to the Eul' >1, 21 Botice of Proposed %uspension as the "asisfor the August , 21 Botice of %uspension. +t is apparent that even A8uilina had some

difficult' $eeping up with all the disciplinar' actions he and /smurdoc were issuing against

Leligdon.

@



29/39

. 3n August >2, 21>, Leligdon filed her third formal //3 complaint, alleging

reprisal and hostile wor$ environment. Duehrer, A8uilina, /smurdoc, Altose, Dreeman and 4atliff

were the responsi"le management officials.

122. 3n 3cto"er @, 21>, the A charged Leligdon with A03L for two hours when

she did not ma$e an advanced ver"al re8uest for two hours of annual leave to supplement the si;

hours of sic$ leave she had re8uested. Leligdon had, however, informed /smurdoc in advance of

her possi"le need to ta$e annual leave to supplement her sic$ leave.

121. 3n 3cto"er 1-, 21>, the A charged Leligdon with A03L for fifteen minutes

when she did not ma$e a ver"al advanced re8uest for annual leave to cover the fifteen minutes

she was late in arriving to her office due to unavoida"le traffic pro"lems. /ven though it would

not have "een safe for Leligdon, who was in heav' vehicular traffic, to place a call to her

supervisor to o"tain his prior ver"al approval of her re8uest for 1 minutes of annual leave, and

though Leligdon immediatel' re8uested 1 minutes of annual leave upon her arrival at the office,

the A charged her with A03L. %ince 22, and up until 3cto"er 1-, 21>, Leligdon had relied

upon and used the same manner of re8uesting annual leave for the times she was running late to

the office, all without complaint.

12. 3n 3cto"er >, 21>, the A issued a Letter of !ounseling to Leligdon, claiming

that she violated the A6s annual and sic$ leave polic' regarding the incidents on 3cto"er @,

21> and 3cto"er 1-, 21>. . 3n &ecem"er , 21>, the A issued to Leligdon an adverse performance

evaluation, rating her at Dull' %uccessful, though her self5assessment demonstrated an



30/39

3utstanding performance, and her performance was compara"le to previous 'ears in which she

had received an 3utstanding performance rating.

12. 3n April and April :, 21, /smurdoc denied Leligdon6s re8uest for an

authoriGed a"sence on April and April 11, 21, so she could attend essential training

pertaining to her state licensing re8uirements and the A6s medical center. Coth /smurdoc and

&r. Altose provided no rational "asis for den'ing Leligdon6s re8uest for an authoriGed a"sence so

she could attend this training. *his was the first time Leligdon6s re8uest for an authoriGed

a"sence to attend training had "een denied in the ten5'ear period of time Leligdon wor$ed for the

A Medical !enter.

12. 3n Ma' >, 21, /smurdoc and A8uilina issued a Letter of eprimand to

Leligdon, claiming she violated &r. Altose6s specific instructions for her not to cop' her non5A

attorne' in emails she sends, and that she inappropriatel' disregarded the chain of command "'

including Duehrer on her emails to Croussard from 3M, Mr. &epompei, and %uareG from ) +nappropriate se of /mail. +n the Ma' , 21 Botice, A8uilina claimed

that Leligdon sent an inappropriate email to her entire chain of command on April >, 21, in

which she detailed si; items that accused the A Medical center of illegal practices and unlawful

and "iased decisions. A8uilina6s Ma' , 21 Botice stated that Leligdon had also sent

inappropriate emails to her chain of command on April , April , and April 11, 21 regarding

/smurdoc6s denial of her re8uest for training, and on March 1, 21, regarding Dreeman6s

>2



31/39

response to Leligdon6s email of that same da', in which Leligdon stated that, +6m sorr' that 'ou

feel the need to "e so rude, defense NsicO and accusator'. A8uilina also too$ issue with an

email that Leligdon sent to her su"ordinates, Duehrer, and &r. Altose on April , 21, in which

Leligdon stated she had learned a lot a"out civil rights in the past several 'ears. A8uilina stated

that Leligdon6s sarcasm if e;tremel' inappropriate, especiall' when the highest chain of

command in our Medical !enter is included. !harges two and three in the Ma' , 21 Botice

of Proposed %uspension referred to the same emails discussed in the first charge.

12:. 3n Eune -, 21, A8uilina issued Leligdon a Letter of eprimand dated Eune >,

21, claiming that she inappropriatel' discussed her su"ordinate emplo'ee McIinne'6s

participation in an A+C during a mid5term performance evaluation meeting, which McIinne'

viewed to "e threatening. A8uilina6s claim is false. Also, at the encouragement of the A Medical

!enter6s management, McIinne' had previousl' su"mitted several 3!s against Leligdon.

12@. 3n Eul' >, 21, /smurdoc and A8uilina issued Leligdon a Letter of !ounseling

for re8uesting legal advice from the A Medical !enter6s 3ffice of egional !ounsel !lar$.

Leligdon6s su"ordinate emplo'ee McIinne' had re8uested that a 3! and other documents

filed a"out him regarding a complaint from a veteran6s famil' mem"er "e destro'ed. Cecause

McIinne' had filed several 3!s against Leligdon at the "ehest of A management, and

"ecause his re8uest would have impacted documents under consideration in Leligdon6s //3

complaint, Leligdon properl' felt it appropriate to see$ legal advice concerning her response to

McIinne'6s re8uest, which advice was never received.

12. 3n Eul' >, 21, /smurdoc denied Leligdon6s re8uest for an endorsement as a

candidate on the +%B 12 %ocial 0or$ Professional %tandards eview Coard.

>1



32/39

112. *he events set forth in Paragraphs @512 were accepted "' the A6s //3 3ffice

for investigation as independent claims of discrimination. (ee the August 1, 21, Botice of

/leventh Amendment of the //3 !omplaint of Paula Leligdon, page .

111. +n the Botice of /leventh Amendment, the //3 stated that the following events

were accepted for investigation as Leligdon6s overall hostile wor$ environment claim "ased on

reprisal for prior //3 activit'J

1) +n August 21, !hristopher /smurdoc (!/), Assistant !hief of %ocial0or$ and immediate supervisor ac$nowledged that he was aware of the rumors

and gossip going around the Medical !enter a"out the complainant NLeligdonO

and he failed to act after the complainant advised him that she was "eing harassed

"' her su"ordinates.

) +n Bovem"er 21, Eason 4atliff (E4), , %usan Duehrer, &irector, failed to act after thecomplainant advised her a"out E46s admission that he had difficult' wor$ing with

her and his participation in spreading rumors, gossip and negative tal$ a"out her.

) +n Ma' 21>, #ust prior to the Ma' 2thmeeting, Eoseph A8uilina (EA),

!hief of %ocial 0or$ %ervices, and !/ initiated a witch5hunt6 on the complainant

"' soliciting reports of contact (3!s) from her su"ordinates, and contacting , during a meeting, !/ threatened to discipline the

complainant for alleged insu"ordination.

:) 3n Eune >, 21>, !/ and EA issued the complainant four different 3!s,

which were dated Ma' 1, 21>, Ma' 2, 21>, Ma' 1, 21>, and Ma' ,21>, respectivel'.

>



33/39

@) 3n Eul' , 21>, !/ threatened to remove the complainant from the

Professional %tandards eview Coard (P%C) if she refused to assume increased

duties.>.

) 3n Eul' >1, 21>, !/ issued the complainant two !ounseling Plans.

12) Drom Eul' 21 to 3cto"er 1-, 21>, EA and !/ failed to support and9or

have undermined the complainant6s supervisor' position and responsi"ilities.

1) 3n Eanuar' , 21, Andrea Dreeman (AD), &irector of //3, provided

advice and recommendations which caused the complainant6s official time to "e

limited to 1- hours.

1-) 3n Eanuar' , 21, AD demeaned and disrespected the complainant "'

accusing her of harassment and "ull'ing, and refused to communicate with the

complainant a"out official "usiness, including her pending //3 complaint.

1:) &uring a period from 3cto"er 21> thru Eanuar' , 21, &r. Linda Cond

(LC), Manager, Acute +npatient Ps'chiatr' nit, undermined the complainant6ssupervisor' duties "' interfering with her investigation of a complaint from a

eteran6s famil' mem"er a"out the treatment received, influenced the

complainant6s su"ordinate to not meet with the complainant, and refused to actregarding the complainant6s complaint a"out her (LC) interference.

1@) 3n Eanuar' , 21, &r. Murra' Altose (MA), !hief of %taff, issued the

complainant a memorandum, %u"#J Letter of /;pectations.

1) 3n March -, 21, !/ and EA issued the complainant a !ounseling Plan.

2) 3n or a"out March >1, 21, !/ and EA issued the complainant a report of

contact (3!).

1) 3n April 1, 21, !/ and EA prohi"ited the complainant from ever using

the restriction option in 3utloo$ for all email communications.

) 3n April , 21, !/ and EA issued the complainant two additional 3!s.

) 3n April 11, 21, MA failed to act and supported !/6s decision to den'

the complainant6s re8uest for authoriGed a"sence to attend training and has notprovided an' via"le rationale.

Dor ease of reference, the num"ering herein corresponds to the num"ering in the Botice of

/leventh Amendment of the events which were included as part of Leligdon6s overall claim ofhostile wor$ environment. +n the Botice of /leventh Amendment, the remaining events

num"ered 11 through 1, >, - through @, >2, and >1 were accepted for investigation as

discrete acts. (ee Paragraphs @5112 herein.

>>



34/39

) 3n Ma' 1, 21, !/ and EA issued the complainant a notice of proposed

suspension.

) 3n Eune 1:, 21, AD violated the complainant6s confidentialit' rights and

privac' when she interfered with the complainant6s //3 protected activit' "'

contacting the assigned //3 investigator and reviewing her //3 claims.

>) 3n Eul' >1, 21, !/ and EA issued the complainant a notice of proposed

suspension.

11. +n the Botice of /leventh Amendment, the following event was accepted as an

amendmentJ 0hether the complainant was su"#ected to a hostile wor$ environment "ased on

se; (female) and reprisal for prior //3 activit' when on a continuous "asis "eginning in 212

through August , 21, agenc' officials and agents have harassed the complainant and deprived

her privac' through the surveillance of her home, elsewhere, and private communications.

11>. Drom August 21 through Eul' 21, Leligdon made disclosures to the

management at the A Medical !enter a"out the harassment and retaliation she was

e;periencing.

11. Leligdon filed three formal //3 complaints against the A Medical !enter, the

first in Eune 2117 the second complaint, on Eul' >, 217 and the third complaint, on August

>2, 21>. +n these complaints, Leligdon alleged age discrimination, reprisal, hostile wor$

environment, and gender discrimination.

11. *itle ++ prohi"its an emplo'er from discriminating against an' of its emplo'ees

"ecause the emplo'ee has opposed an unlawful discriminator' practice, or "ecause the emplo'ee

has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in an' manner in an investigation,

proceeding, or hearing under *itle ++.

11-. Ma$ing disclosures to management a"out harassment and retaliation is protected

opposition activit' under *itle ++. Crawford . Metro%olitan o"t of ashille and *aidson

>



35/39

Count&, .%. :1 (22). *itle ++6s prohi"ition against retaliation e;tends to for"id

discrimination against emplo'ees who attempt to protest or correct allegedl' discriminator'

conditions of emplo'ment.earn . 3.3. *onnell& 4 (ons Co., -2 D. %upp. -, @ (B.&. +ll.

1:@) (citingMc*onnell *ouglas Cor%. . reen, 11 .%. :, :-, > %. !t. 1@1: (1:>)).

11:. *he A Medical !enter engaged in unlawful age and gender discrimination and

reprisal when it selected /smurdoc as the Assistant !hief of %ocial 0or$. /smurdoc was

significantl' 'ounger than Leligdon, and was less 8ualified for the position. *he non5selection

occurred in Eune 21, #ust a few months after Leligdon "rought to the attention of the A

Medical !enter6s management the "ull'ing to which she was "eing su"#ected, and less than one

'ear after she filed her first formal //3 complaint in Eune 211.

11@. *he A Medical !enter engaged in unlawful reprisal discrimination when it

su"#ected Leligdon to multiple, unwarranted disciplinar' actions, most of which were "ased on

Leligdon6s emails to her superiors disclosing the unlawful cover5up and destruction of evidence

"' A management in De"ruar' 2117 Leligdon6s emails to her superiors opposing the "ull'ing

and unlawful harassment to which she was "eing su"#ected7 Leligdon6s failure to follow the

chain5of5command "' including &r. Altose and Duerher in her emails opposing the A Medical

!enter6s discriminator' practices7 Leligdon6s insistence on cop'ing her non5A attorne' on

emails pertaining to the wrongful discipline she was receiving7 and Leligdon6s insistence on

see$ing the legal advice of A attorne's pertaining to matters concerning her su"ordinate

emplo'ee who was "eing encouraged "' A management to file multiple, unwarranted 3!s

against Leligdon.

11. *he A Medical !enter engaged in unlawful reprisal and gender discrimination

when it su"#ected Leligdon to invasive surveillance of her home, her communit' and elsewhere,

>



36/39

and her private communications. *he unlawful surveillance "egan in 212 after the death of a

veteran at the A Medical !enter, and escalated, and after she discovered and disclosed the A6s

cover5up of its unlawfull' destro'ing evidence. *he unlawful surveillance further increased in

intensit' and fre8uenc' after she filed a second, formal //3 complaint in Eul' 21, and the

third formal //3 complaint in August 21>. *he A6s targeting Leligdon for surveillance was

"ased not onl' on reprisal for Leligdon6s //3 activit', "ut also on her whistle"lowing and

deviation from the stereot'pe of women "eing su"missive.

12. Leligdon has met all #urisdictional prere8uisites for filing this action, and this

action is authoriGed to "e filed here pursuant to .%. !ode ? 222eK1-(c).

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

0HISTLEBLO0ER PROTECTION ACT

11. All other allegations of this pleading are incorporated here "' reference.

1. Leligdon6s activities are protected "' the 0histle"lower Protection Act, .%.!.

? >2.

1>. Leligdon6s disclosures, participation and other protected activities were a

contri"uting factor in the defendant6s personnel actions ta$en or to "e ta$en against Leligdon.

1. At all relevant times, defendant6s officials $new of Leligdon6s disclosures and

other protected activities.

1. &efendant6s personnel actions occurred within a period of time such that a

reasona"le person could conclude that the disclosures or other protected activities were a

contri"uting factor in the personnel action.

>-



37/39

1-. &efendant6s adverse actions against Leligdon caused her damages including loss

of pa' and promotion, loss of reputation, an;iet', upset, mental anguish, humiliation and

emotional distress.

1:. Leligdon6s claims of reprisal in violation of the 0histle"lower Protection Act

(0PA) can "e appealed to the Merit %'stems Protection Coard (M%PC). .%.!.A. ? 11(a)

(>).

1@. Leligdon6s claims are mi;ed in that the' include "oth discrimination and

whistle"lower claims.

1. Leligdon satisfied all administrative prere8uisites to institute this action here.

1>2. Leligdon is authoriGed to "ring this action here pursuant to .%.!. ? ::2.

1>1. Pursuant to the 0PA, .%.!. ? 11, Leligdon is entitled to corrective action,

including "ut not limited to "eing placed, as nearl' as possi"le, in the position she would have

"een in had the prohi"ited personnel practices not occurred, "ac$ pa' and related "enefits,

medical costs incurred, travel e;penses, an' other reasona"le and foreseea"le conse8uential

damages, and compensator' damages (including interest, reasona"le e;pert witness fees, and

costs).

DEMAND FOR RELIEF

1>. Leligdon see$s the following reliefJ

A. &eclarator' relief that the acts and practices descri"ed in this

complaint are unlawful in violation of the !ivil ights Act and the 0histle"lower

Protection Act.

>:



38/39

C. Preliminar' and permanent in#unctive relief to restore her as nearl'

as possi"le, in the position she would have "een in had the prohi"ited personnel

practices not occurred.

!. +nstatement into the position of Assistant !hief of %ocial 0or$ that

was wrongfull' denied to her.

&. Preliminar' and permanent corrective action to a"ate the

defendant6s violations, to prevent future violations and directing defendant to ta$e

such affirmative action as is necessar' to ensure that the effects of these unlawful

emplo'ment practices are eliminated and do not continue to affect plaintiff6s

emplo'ment and advancement opportunities.

/. Cac$ pa' and related "enefits, medical costs incurred, travel

e;penses, an' other reasona"le and foreseea"le conse8uential damages.

D. !ompensator' damages (including interest, reasona"le e;pert

witness fees, and costs).

4. !osts of this action, including reasona"le attorne's6 fees.

@



39/39

espectfull' su"mitted "'J

9s9 ichard . enner

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

ichard . enner, T22>@1Attorne' for Plaintiff

Iali#arvi, !huGi, Bewman S Ditch, P.!.

121 L %t. B0, %uite -120ashington, &! 22>-

(2) --5@-- direct

(2) >>15-2 office

15@::5:52- fa;rrennerU$cnlaw.com

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

va whistleblower alleges discrimination for exposing evidence

Documents