BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
X-WR-CALNAME:www.indybay.org
PRODID:-//indybay/ical// v1.0//EN
BEGIN:VEVENT
UID:Indybay-18687724
SEQUENCE:18772143
CREATED:20110815T150500Z
DESCRIPTION:SF city workers will speaking out about the systemic discrimination against 
 SF City planning department workers and Micki Callahan, director of the San 
 Francisco Human Resources Department who has engaged in a cover-up of the 
 discrimination and now wants to investigate herself for wrong 
 doing.\n\n\n\n8/15 SF City Hall-Speak-Out At SF Civil Service Commission 
 Against Age Discrimination By San Francisco Planning Department and Micki 
 Callahan Director Of SF Human Resources\n\nSpeak-Out Against Age 
 Discrimination By San Francisco Planning Department and Micki Callahan 
 Director Of SF Human Resources\n\nMonday August 15, 2011  2:00 PM San 
 Francisco City Hall rm 400 San Francisco Civil Service 
 Commission\n\n\nPublic workers and supporters of the San Francisco civil 
 service merit system will be speaking out against the blatant 
 discrimination by the San Francisco City Planning Department managers  and 
 Micki Callahan, Director of Human Resources on Monday 2:00 PM at San 
 Francisco City Hall. The Planning Department management in a prima facia 
 act of discrimination targeted five senior planners in the department. The 
 agency said that they were terminatedor harassed out because of the 
 circulation of alleged porno email. The Department has admitted that they 
 did not investigate the use of the circulation of the email by younger 
 employees despite requests. The department is seeking to eliminate many of 
 the long term IFPTE Local 21 staff in an effort to terrorize the staff in 
 order to kowtow to developers in San Francisco. The discrimination and 
 destruction of protections of public workers in San Francisco is a direct 
 threat to the public and communities in San Francisco who face a Planning 
 Department that is ignoring the planning rules and procedures in their 
 effort to push through billion dollar speculative developments and the 
 developers who fund members of the Board Of Supervisors and the 
 Mayor.\nMicki Callahan has also violated a sealed arbitration agreement by 
 releasing information publicly in order help buttress her Department's 
 case\nagainst the age discrimination charges.\nThe United Public Workers 
 For Action UPWA is calling for the rehiring of all the retaliated employees 
 and an independent investigation of both the San\nFrancisco Planning 
 Department and the Department of Human Resources. We also call for the 
 removal of Micki Callahan for a cover-up\nof the illegal discrimination 
 against San Francisco City Workers.\nWe also demand that IFPTE Local 21 
 stand up for the victimized workers instead of working in complicity and 
 collusion with management. The failure of the top union officials of the 
 Local  to oppose the discrimination against the members of the local is a 
 clear case of  malfeasance and failure to represent the members.\nCallahan 
 has also had ethics charges filed against her for using San Francisco City 
 resources to illegally lobby to change the pension and healthcare\nbenefits 
 of San Francisco City workers. Micki Callahan, the board of Supervisors and 
 the Mayor are pushing a reactionary attack on the retirement benefits and 
 the restructuring of the Health Board to take away the right of City worker 
 representatives to have any control of increased costs for 
 retirees.,Callahan has also sought to eliminate city wide bumping if there 
 were layoffs. This also was a violation of the San Francisco City Charter 
 which prohibits city staff from proposing changes in the charter of the 
 City and County of San Francisco. These measures which were stopped in part 
 by a campaign of the United Public Workers For Action when dozens of San 
 Francisco workers attended meetings of the commission to oppose these 
 proposals.\n\nAdditional information 
 at\nhttp://blip.tv/laborvideo/prima-facia-case-in-discirminatory-firings-of-senior-employees-at-sf-planning-department-and-commission-5329688\n\nSan 
 Francisco Senior Planner Report On Discriminatory Practices, her 
 termination and Age Discrimination At SF Planning Department\nStatement on 
 8/18/2011 by Cecily Jaroslawski\n\n\nPRE-STATEMENT;\nGood Afternoon 
 Commissioners, C.J. appealing HR Directors denial of my age discrimination 
 complaint.  Given the last minute, unexplained changes of the HR staff 
 report, I am not sure which staff report has been submitted to the 
 Commission for review, but both reports include testimony and information 
 that was required to be confidential and privileged and on the advice of 
 union counsel am requesting this information be stricken from the record 
 and removed from public access.  In the most recent staff report, I refer 
 to the unsubstantiated statement on page 2, that the CAO Investigator, 
 according to Exhibit B of the staff report, found me to be one of the most 
 prolific senders of inappropriate email content.  Exhibit B makes no such 
 statement or inference.  This continued violation of the arbitrator’s 
 order by referencing disputed testimony from arbitration is malicious.  
 Thank you.\n \n \nSLIDE #1 – COVER SHEET\nOn May 18, 2010, I was 
 terminated from employment as a Planner III with the City/County of San 
 Francisco, after almost 11 years of exemplary service.  I was fired, 
 according to the City, for violating city policy regarding misuse of the 
 email system.  I contend and have documented that while I was disciplined 
 for violating city policy, I was terminated for budgetary reasons, to 
 protect less-costly employees from pending layoffs during the FY 2009-10 
 budget deficit, effectively circumventing seniority provisions and 
 violating CSC Rule 121.  I further argue that the Director engaged in 
 discriminatory and disparate treatment in terminating me, and four other 
 employees over age 50, without due process or progressive discipline.\n\n 
 \nRather than repeating what is already in my Appeal before you, as 
 contained on pages 19 – 36 of the June 20, 2011 HR staff report, I’d 
 like to address the continued misinformation by HR, in their staff reports 
 and as presented at the last Commission meeting, which clearly disqualifies 
 HR as an objective party and invalidates the HR Director’s actions to 
 date.  Since HR has presented distractions from the issue, I feel I must 
 address these, unfortunately, making for a much longer presentation than 
 planned.\n \nPursuant to section 103.4 of the Civil Service Rules, this 
 commission has the discretion to override or depart from any provision of 
 the CSC Rules in order to effectuate an appropriate remedy for 
 discrimination in an appeal. \n \n \nBased on presented facts, I 
 respectfully will be requesting the following remedy:\n \n1.    Uphold my 
 appeal;\n\n \n\n2.    Require a full investigation not by DHR but an 
 independent third party; and,\n\n \n\n3.    Reinstate me, on an interim 
 basis if necessary (CSC Rules § 103.4).\n\n \n\n \n \n \nSLIDE #2 –  DHR 
 VIOLATIONS OF CONFIDENTIALITY\n \nThe HR Director, at the last meeting, 
 spoke of the need to maintain “confidentiality” to protect the privacy 
 of separated and other disciplined employees.  However, my privacy has been 
 repeatedly violated.\n \n1)    Previously mentioned, the initial DHR Staff 
 report violated the arbitrator’s “Protective Order:”  It disclosed 
 sealed confidential records from my closed arbitration hearing.\n \nAll 
 that I wish to add regarding DHR’s violation, is that they were selective 
 in what information they presented for the Commission to review.  Most of 
 the arbitration evidence and testimony, including the missing pages of one 
 witness testimony, had been omitted from the initial staff report and that, 
 under cross examination, DHR’s chart was shown to be substantially 
 flawed.  As such, both staff reports are missing a substantial amount of 
 information vital to my case that only a full investigation would 
 disclose.\n \nI would also like to add that the latest DHR staff report 
 remains in violation of the arbitrator’s protective order as mentioned 
 earlier.\n \n I refer to the unsubstantiated statement on page 2 of the 
 staff report, that the CAO Investigator, according to Exhibit B of the 
 staff report, found me to be one of the most prolific senders of 
 inappropriate email content.  Exhibit B makes no such statement or 
 inference.  This continued violation of the arbitrator’s order by 
 referencing disputed testimony from arbitration is unacceptable.\n \n2)    
 Contrary to DHR policy, confidential information in June 20th DHR staff 
 report was NOT redacted:\n·      On pg. 7 – My home address & personal 
 email address - NOT redacted\n·      On pg.  59 – My home address & 
 phone # - NOT redacted\n·      Names on my email chart were not redacted 
 by HR\n \n3)    During the earlier email investigation, my name was 
 released to the press as well as the general public;  Confidentiality 
 during DHR email investigation was often used as a threat to intimidate 
 employees into maintaining silence; and HR Investigative Interview process 
 for me was totally secretive, conducted under threat of discipline to keep 
 confidential, unlike later interviewees.\n \n \n \n \n\n \n\n\n \nSLIDE #3 
 – INVALID TERMINATION\nI maintain that the City’s pretense for my 
 termination, is totally unsubstantiated and based on corrupted and missing 
 data and other disputed factors, as discussed in my Appeal. \n \nMy 
 termination, purportedly, for sending more emails than others is:\n \n1.   
 INCONSISTENT and UNSUBSTANTIATED :\n \n\na)    Chart 1 – Appellant’s 
 “Chart” (discussed in later slide):\n\n•       The City selected 
 which emails to include, spanning over four years showing the widespread 
 participation of many others who received and/or sent the very same email 
 and does not contain any comprehensive comparison of email activity.\n\n 
 \nb)    Chart 2 – “CPC Investigative Summary”:\n\n \n\nThe CPC 
 Investigation Summary that HR presented at my union arbitration and 
 included in the latest HR staff report is another piece of hugely 
 incomplete and manipulated information, which was totally refuted by my 
 union attorney.  While DHR has already breached the confidentiality of 
 arbitration, I am not interested in doing the same.  What I can say about 
 the Chart, without violating the confidentiality of arbitration, is the 
 following:\n\n \n\n·      This particular chart continues to be falsely 
 presented as evidence used in my termination, which is NOT possible, given 
 that it contains activity that did not occur until well after my 
 termination.  The Chart was prepared as an after-the-fact justification of 
 illegal actions already taken by the Planning Director to meet the 2009/10 
 budget deficit that required 6 layoffs.  Further, DHR now claims for the 
 first time, that I was fired because my email activity was greater than all 
 others in my class because I sent 20 or more emails.  This threshold of 20 
 emails as a measure for termination never before existed before arbitration 
 and was disputed.\n\n \n\n·      There is no evidence OR analysis in any 
 of City’s formal pre-termination documents that my email behavior was 
 compared to any others.  Email comparison could not have been known because 
 the City terminated me and four others well before most of the email 
 investigation was completed.  The CPC chart was completed many months after 
 termination.\n\n \n\n·      Omitted from the Chart and staff report are 
 dates that the chart was prepared and time period for the email quantities. 
 All of this was discussed and disputed at arbitration, but due to 
 confidentiality cannot be revealed unless an investigation is ordered by 
 the Commission.\n\n \n\n·      DHR has NOT provided any evidence as to 
 what standards were used to collect and prepare the information in the 
 Chart and is inconsistent with my termination binder.\n\n \n\n·      While 
 the chart shows the widespread employee participation in the email culture, 
 it does not address the age of persons disciplined.\n\n \n\nThe Chart is 
 labeled “CPC Investigation Summary” which I contend stands for the City 
 Planning Commission (CPC), suggesting that the Planning Commission has 
 played a role in the email investigation and/or terminations.\n \na)    At 
 the time of my termination, the City claimed sending and receiving emails 
 was an equal offense.\n\n \nb)    Since my termination, City officials have 
 presented conflicting, evolving explanations for my termination and 
 additional unsubstantiated, post-termination explanations were presented at 
 arbitration\n\n1.     Violation of City policies regarding 
 computer/emails\n\n2.     No difference in offense in terms of sending or 
 receiving\n\n3.     Most egregious (email quantity and duration)\n\n4.     
 Most far-reaching (arbitration)\n\n5.     Greatest volume on day of 
 forensic profile (arbitration\n\n \n\nSLIDE #4 – DHR NEUTRALITY INVALID\n 
 \nDHR’s claims of impartiality and/or neutrality are untrue.  DHR has 
 played a leading role in my email investigation, interrogation 
 (investigative interview), termination, age discrimination complaint and 
 appeal, all resulting in heavily biased, negative outcomes.  DHR has been 
 anything but objective.\n \n\nThis slide cites just a few examples 
 including: \n\n \n\n1)    EEO Programs Sr. Specialist/EEO Investigator 
 acting as a “neutral fact finder” while reporting to the HR Director; 
 and\n\n \n\n2)    Untrue statements and intentional distractions of the 
 issue within the staff reports as well as conflicting statements by HR, see 
 on this slide.\n\n \n\n \n\nPage 6, June 20, 2011 DHR staff report:\n\n     
 Appellant’s “chart shows that younger planners only received 
 inappropriate email but did not send such.”\n \n     “Significantly, 
 Appellant’s chart shows that employees over 40 years old and under 40 
 years old were not terminated for conduct she alleged was similar to 
 hers.”\n\n \nSLIDE #5 – INCONSISTENT DISCIPLINES\n \nAt the top of this 
 slide is a quote from Director Callahan made at the last meeting, which I 
 argue is an untruth.  There was no consistency whatsoever in the 
 disciplines meted out by the Planning Department.\n \nDirector Callahan 
 (June 20, 2011): “It is our belief that the City was entirely consistent 
 in discipline that was administered, and it was based on the nature of the 
 transgressions and the involvement of the individuals.”\n \n \n \n \n \n 
 \n\nDespite my limited access to disciplines of other employees, colleagues 
 report that disciplines have been entirely inconsistent.  Many were NOT 
 disciplined at all.  The inconsistency has bred enormous uncertainty in the 
 Department and because of this, combined with the ongoing intimidation and 
 forced secrecy about disciplines by senior management, many current 
 employees fear they could be just as easily terminated next for no rational 
 reason(s).   \n \nThis slide cites a few other examples.\n \n\nSLIDE #6 – 
 Email Chart\n \nPer the last meeting, the next two slides include the 
 missing piece of information, linking the involvement of younger planners, 
 which HR has had.  This slide contains what DHR has referred to as one of 
 my two “Charts,” included on pages 30 and 61 of the June 20, 2011 DHR 
 staff report.  This chart is based on the information from the City and 
 shows how widespread the email participation was within the department, 
 including the former Planning Director.\n \nFACTS:\n1)    46 other 
 employees (including 12 managers) in my termination binder alone received 
 or sent 1 or more of the very same City policy-violating emails:\n\n 
 \n\n•       Only 4 were terminated – all over age 50\n\n•       At 
 least 2 employees were actually promoted! – both under 40\n\n \nPlease 
 note, I did not redact the names because HR had previously included them in 
 their staff reports.\nTABLE EXPLANATIONS\n \nThis Chart represents 33 
 emails, over a period of greater than 4   years, selectively placed by City 
 in my termination binder as pretense for termination\n \nEach email is 
 numbered from left to right in order by sequence in my termination binder 
 and shows that 46 other employees, sorted by rank, who also received or 
 sent the very same emails.  Also provided are total # of emails per 
 employee on the right side of table and total employees per email along the 
 bottom\n \nThe table also identifies the email sender, when known, as the 
 City mysteriously withheld this information for over 50% of the emails.  
 One of the emails is not connected to me and three others represent 
 duplicate images.  Most significantly, as I previously mentioned, none of 
 the emails came from my computer.  All of this raises serious doubt as to 
 the integrity of the information presented by the City.\n \nü = DENOTES 
 FIRED OR FORCED TO RETIRE (ALL OVER 50).\n \nTABLE CONCLUSIONS\n \nDHR 
 falsely claims in its latest staff report that this Chart shows that I sent 
 more emails than others.  To the contrary, it shows that 46 OTHER EMPLOYEES 
 (12 MGRS), ABOVE AND UNDER AGE 40, WHO RECEIVED OR SENT one or more of THE 
 VERY SAME EMAILS USED BY THE CITY AS PRETENSE TO FIRE ME.    However, only 
 4 others were terminated or forced to retire, all over age 50.\n\n \nSLIDE 
 #7 –EMPLOYEES UNDER AGE 40* WHO RECEIVED OR SENT THE VERY SAME EMAILS  
 WHO WERE NOT TERMINATED\n \nIn response to false statements made by HR at 
 the last meeting and in the staff reports, this slide demonstrates evidence 
 of younger planers participation who were not terminated and instead, 
 promoted.  One employee was promoted twice, both times during the DHR email 
 investigation to ZA, the other to Assistant ZA, two very senior positions 
 within the Planning Department.  HR attempts to argue these two employees 
 sent fewer emails, however, many of the persons terminated also sent fewer, 
 but were over the age of 50. \n \nThis slide alone meets the final criteria 
 for a prima fascia case.\n \n\n \nSLIDE #8 – DHR MISINFORMATION – ROLE 
 OF PLANNING COMMISSION:\n \nAt the top of this is a comment by Ms. White 
 made at the last Commission meeting, in which she denies statements made by 
 Commissioner Moore, and on the bottom half are the actual statements by 
 Commissioner Moore as provided in the DHR staff report:\n \nThis slide 
 shows that Commissioner Moore did, in fact, utter the phrase “value for 
 the dollar” at the infamous Planning Commission meeting when discussing 
 the benefits of younger planners.\n \nMs. White’s presentation on June 
 20th:\nCommissioner Moore did not “state that younger employees offer 
 more bang for the buck or value for the dollar as Ms. Jaroslawsky misquotes 
 her”\n \n“I hope it is not just last in, first out, because you have 
 spent quite a bit of time in getting some very talented young people and 
 it’s also for us together to look at where we’re going as we move into 
 the future.  I hope that it is not only the younger and most recent 
 planners who are being targeted for these layoffs.”\n \n“I’d just 
 like to make a comment that I’ve seen a lot of talent in new, younger 
 people.  I’ve seen a lot of ability for hands-on rising to the occasion 
 across disciplines and across the somewhat always implied silo thinking, 
 which happens in any organization.  I’d like to at least express to the 
 unions….., that there is indeed being paid attention to value for the 
 dollar.”\n\nAdditionally, Ms. White had incorrectly stated at the last 
 meeting that the Planning Director had “sort of cancelled out” 
 Commissioner Moore’s statements by saying he cannot consider age in 
 layoffs.  I argue that the Director’s comment had no such cancelling 
 effect on Commissioner Moore’s statements, given alone the sequencing of 
 these public statements. Commissioner Moore had continued to praise the 
 abilities and talents of younger planners and uttered “value for the 
 dollar” not before but after… and in spite of… the Director’s 
 comment. \n\n \nSLIDE #9 – DHR MISINFORMATION: ROLE OF PLANNING 
 COMMISSION\n \nAt the top of this slide is another quote from Ms. White 
 made at the last Commission meeting, incorrectly describing the limits of 
 authority of Planning Commissioner Moore:\n \nMs. White said that 
 Commissioner Moore’s “role is limited to deciding matters relating to 
 the City Planning Code.”\n\n \n\nThe bottom half of this slide shows 
 excerpts of Sect. 4.102 of City Charter, titled “BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS 
 – POWERS AND DUTIES.”  This Section of City Code, which is applicable 
 to all City Commissions, provides at least three instances, contrary to the 
 statements by Ms. White, where the authority of the Planning Commission 
 extends beyond the Planning Code:\n \n\n1)    The Planning Commission 
 approves the Department budget as a recommendation to the Mayor\n\n \n\n2)  
   The Planning Commission is involved in the appointment of its Department 
 Head, in that it submits a list of 3 applicant’s names to the Mayor for 
 consideration.\n\n \n3)    The Planning Commission plays a role in a 
 mayoral termination of the Department Head.\n\n \nContrary to HR’s 
 statements, the Planning Commission does approve the Planning Department 
 budget and participates in the hiring and/or firing of the Planning 
 Director, per City Charter.\n\n \nSLIDE #10 – DHR MISINFORMATION: ROLE OF 
 PLANNING COMMISSION\n \nAt the top of this slide is another quote from Ms. 
 White made at the last meeting, which incorrectly describes the authority 
 of Planning Commissioner Moore:\n \nMs. White said that Commissioner Moore 
 “lacks authority to decide personnel matters for the Planning 
 Department.”\n\n \nFACT: Planning Commission budget decisions directly 
 affect personnel (staffing levels)\n \nThis slides shows an excerpt of PC 
 minutes for February 18, 2010, when the last Department budget was 
 approved.  As indicated in the excerpted minutes, the Planning Commission 
 modified the budget to affect staffing levels in historic/cultural 
 preservation; evidence of the Commission’s direct influence over 
 personnel matters.\nShould the question be asked why then didn’t the 
 Commission also specify in its approval that the 6 pending layoffs, as 
 discussed, be applied more equitably, i.e., to include older employees, 
 which is what Ms. Anita Sanchez had actually alluded to at the last 
 Commission meeting, the very simple answer is: “BECAUSE IT’S 
 ILLEGAL!”\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n\nSLIDES #11 – DHR MISINFORMATION: 
 ROLE OF PLANNING COMMISSION\n \nTRUTH: THE PLANNING DIRECTOR DOES SERVE AT 
 THE PLEASURE OF THE COMMISSION\n \nThis slide contains Section 2, titled 
 “Director of Planning,” as excerpted from the Planning Commission’s 
 Rules and Regulations.  While this may not be an ordinance, it is the 
 official operating policy for the Planning Commission and clearly 
 describes, by definition, that the Planning Director serves at the pleasure 
 of the Commission…”\n \nWhile this role is policy and not ordinance 
 driven, as a reminder to the Commission, I was purportedly fired for 
 violating policy, not any ordinance or laws.\n \nSummary\n \nThe purpose of 
 the three previous slides (#12 thru #14) is to show, contrary to statements 
 by Ms. White, that:\n \n1)    Commissioner Moore does, in fact, have the 
 authority which extends beyond Planning Code;\n2)    Commissioner Moore 
 does, in fact, have the authority to directly influence the Department 
 budget and to affect staffing levels;\n3)    Commissioner More most 
 certainly does have influence over the Planning Director’s 
 decisions.\n\nSLIDE #12 – AGE DESCRIMINATION\n \nI Contend that:\n\n 
 \n\n1.    Planning Commissioner Moore:\n\n \n\na)    There was unequivocal 
 preference by Commissioner Moore that age should be a consideration in 
 layoffs during the budget discussion that included the layoff of 6 
 employees.\n\n \n\nb)    Not before…but after…and in spite of Director 
 Rahaim’s explanation that layoffs must occur by seniority, Commissioner 
 Moore persisted with her praise of younger planners, and the need to pay 
 attention to “value for the dollar.”  One of the talents referenced by 
 Commissioner Moore was that of younger people to rise above “the somewhat 
 always implied silo thinking,” which she apparently believes is lacking 
 in older employees.  Silo thinking is often considered old-fashioned and 
 traditional, associated with old school thinking. \n\n \n\nIf asked to 
 provide a definition:\n\n“silo thinking” - simplistically means 
 “vertical thinking, or the way in which people in a large organization 
 tend to think first of the needs of their departments before the needs of 
 the organization as a whole.”\n\n \n\nc)    The Commissioner’s 
 viewpoint was not a solitary opinion.  According to SF Bay Guardian (as 
 indicated on pages 22, 23 and 29, original DHR staff report), not one, but 
 “…several commissioners expressed hope” that younger planners 
 wouldn't be the first to go.\n\n \n\n2.  Age-based, fiscally-coordinated 
 terminations – the fact is, that 3 months after it was determined that 
 six layoffs were required, 4 of the terminations were completed before the 
 FY ending June 30, 2010 (1 on very last day!).  The last termination and 
 one, forced retirement were completed less than 6 weeks into new FY.  A 
 total of six employees.\n \n\n3.  The Planning Director concealed the 
 age-based terminations by exploiting and distorting the involvement of 5 of 
 these employees in the Department’s longstanding, permissive email 
 culture, which at the time had received not only local but national 
 exposure.\n\n \n\n4.  Termination under the ruse of sexually explicit 
 emails also satisfied the Mayor’s Office public declaration for 
 “maximum disciplinary action...” and other needs, as noted in the 
 appeal.\n\n \n\n \n\n    \n\n\n \nSLIDE #13 –  IF THE COMMISSION ORDERS 
 AN INVESTIGATION; DHR INCAPABLE OF IMPARTIAL INVESTIGATION\n \nThis slide 
 shows a flow chart of the HR Department and the extensive involvement of 
 DHR staff, who participated in every aspect of my case, proving their 
 inability to be unbiased.\n \nDHR staff and, in particular, the Director 
 are much too involved in my case and biased against it, as documented in my 
 submitted Appeal and subsequent presentations.  The obvious influence of 
 the Director over her subordinate staff, despite any presumed claims that 
 the EEO or other divisions within the Department can function 
 independently, eliminates any opportunity for objectivity from within the 
 Department.  The HR Director has already denied my complaint AND 
 recommended denial of my appeal, while fully aware of the involvement of 
 younger planners.  To expect any other outcome from the Director or 
 elsewhere from within the HR Department, should an investigation be 
 ordered, is unrealistic. \n\n \n\nAny further investigation by any DHR 
 staff would:\n\n \n\n•       Be equivalent to Department investigating 
 itself\n\n•       Assure that the truth will never be brought to 
 light\n\n \n\nI therefore request that an investigation be conducted by an 
 independent, outside third party \n\n\n \nSLIDE #14 – SUMMARY\n \nMy 
 appeal documents the City’s efforts to falsely portray me as one of the 
 most unregretful and unrepentant email offenders of all time as an effort 
 to cover-up the true explanation for termination, that of age 
 discrimination. \n \nI have never denied that I violated city policy and 
 did not deserve to be disciplined, however, my termination was extremely 
 excessive and unwarranted.  I maintain that while I was disciplined for 
 violating city policy, I was terminated because the Planning Department 
 sought to circumvent seniority provisions, and avoid laying-off younger 
 less-costly employees, in order to balance the FY 2009-10 Department 
 budget, effectively violating CSC Rule 121. The City exploited and 
 distorted my involvement in the Department’s then-permissive and 
 pervasive email culture to conceal the Planning Director’s decision to 
 balance the Department’s budget deficit by eliminating older, higher paid 
 staff.\n \nIn closing:\n \nA.   I have met the requirements for a prima 
 facie case:\n \n1.    Appellant is a member of a protected category;\n\n 
 \n\n2.    Appellant has suffered an adverse employment action; and\n\n 
 \n\n3.    Appellant has suffered an adverse employment action because of 
 membership in a protected category as documented by age discrimination by 
 an appointed City official and City employee, and demonstrated that at 
 least two other employees in an unprotected (age) class were not treated 
 the same while participating in the same activity.\n\n \nB. Based on 
 presented facts, I respectfully request the following remedies:\n \n4.    
 Uphold the appeal;\n\n \n\n5.    Require a full investigation not by DHR 
 but an independent third party; and,\n\n \n\n6.    Reinstate Appellant, on 
 an interim basis if necessary (CSC Rules § 103.4).\n\n \n \n \nOffer up 
 suggestions for investigation request on next slide\n \n \n\nI thank you 
 for your time.\n\n\nSLIDE #15 – INVESTIGATION REQUEST\n \n \nFull 
 investigation not by DHR but an independent, outside third party of the 
 City’s email investigation procedures followed, identifying the 
 following:\n \n1.    Where/If complaint was filed and whether promoted.\n\n 
 \n\n2.    Standards/criteria/procedures and date established, followed for 
 selection of each employee investigated, interviewed, and discipline level 
 applied, regardless of rank or Department.\n\n \n\n3.    Age, job 
 classification, extent/type of email policy violation, extent and outcome 
 of investigation and interviews conducted per employee*, regardless of rank 
 or Department.\n\n \n\n4.    Email quantities sent and received and period 
 of email activity investigated per employee*.\n\n \n\n5.    Source and 
 method of emails gathered per employee* and period represented.\n\n \n\n6.  
   Investigations and disciplines for activity other than sexually explicit 
 emails.\n\n \n\n7.    Beginning and end dates for email investigation.\n\n 
 \n\n8.    Cost of email investigation to taxpayers.\n\n\n         *includes 
 any contractor, advisor, other adjunct support staff, who had access to a 
 City computer\n\nUnited Public Workers For 
 Action\nwww.upwa.info\n(415)867-0628\n 
 https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/08/15/18687724.php
SUMMARY:SF City Hall-Speak-Out At Civil Service Commission Against Age Discrimination By City
LOCATION:San Francisco City Hall rm 400 San Francisco Civil Service Commission
URL:https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/08/15/18687724.php
DTSTART:20110815T210000Z
DTEND:20110815T230000Z
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR