Jones v. Secretary, Dept. of Army
Citation | 912 F. Supp. 1397 |
Decision Date | 21 November 1995 |
Docket Number | Civil A. No. 92-1086-FGT. |
Parties | Alice R. JONES, Plaintiff, v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF the ARMY, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Kenneth G. Gale, Focht, Hughey & Calvert, Wichita, KS, for plaintiff.
Connie R. DeArmond, Office of U.S. Atty., Wichita, KS, Major James Macklin, Dept. of the Army, Office of Judge Advocate General, U.S. Army Litigation Center, Arlington, VA, for defendant.
Plaintiff Alice R. Jones brought this action seeking judicial review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board upholding her removal from federal employment. Plaintiff also alleges discrimination on the basis of sex. Trial to the court was held from May 16 through May 18, 1995. The court has received the parties' post-trial briefs and now makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law on the discrimination claim. The court has reviewed the administrative record and issues its decision on the appeal of the agency action.
Plaintiff, Alice R. Jones, was employed as Security Officer, GS-11, for the Kansas Army Ammunition Plant (KAAP) in Parsons, Kansas from May 1988 until her removal in April 1990.
Plaintiff had been employed full time by the government since 1980. Plaintiff worked for seven years at the Oklahoma Army Ammunition Plant in McAlester, Oklahoma, four years as a clerk/steno and three years as a Security Specialist Trainee. Plaintiff transferred to Fort Gordon, Georgia in 1987 to take the position of Crime Prevention Analyst. In 1988, plaintiff accepted the job at KAAP.
KAAP is an ammunition production and storage facility. KAAP is government owned and contractor operated.
KAAP employed two uniformed Army officers and a relatively small number of civilian government employees.
During the relevant time period, Lieutenant Colonel Samuel E. Cantey, Jr. was the Commander of KAAP.
Second in command, and plaintiff's immediate supervisor, was Captain Deborah J. Blanton, Executive Officer of KAAP.
As security officer, plaintiff's duties included preventing the loss of munitions and administering the security portion of the operating contract with the civilian contractor.
The day to day plant security functions were performed by the contractor's security staff.
Plaintiff's job duties required her to interact regularly with the contractor's security manager and members of the contractor's security staff. Plaintiff also served as the liaison between KAAP and local, state and federal law enforcement agencies. Plaintiff had access to firearms, was qualified to use a firearm, and held a "secret" clearance. Plaintiff also held the title of Provost Marshal. Plaintiff's position was not, however, classified as a law enforcement position.
Cantey testified that plaintiff performed adequately in her first year on the job, although plaintiff began to have problems interacting with the contractor's staff and others.
Cantey found plaintiff to be accusatory, paranoid and suspicious in dealing with members of the contractor's work force. Cantey knew plaintiff was bright and recognized that the Army had given plaintiff a great deal of training. However, Cantey felt that plaintiff lacked the real world experience needed to deal with the contractor's management.
Cantey instructed Blanton to provide plaintiff with assistance and to serve as an example to the plaintiff in dealing with the contractor's management. Cantey instructed Blanton to take personal charge of plaintiff's training. Blanton was instructed to take plaintiff to the production line to learn industrial security and how to deal with the workforce; to give plaintiff some caring advice and help plaintiff "chill out" a bit; and to bring plaintiff in as a team player. Plaintiff's Exh. 36.
Cantey's philosophy (reflected in Plaintiff's Exh. 36) was not based on any belief regarding the deficiencies of women as a group. Cantey testified that he implemented a similar type of program with regard to a white male employee who worked for Civilian Executive Assistant Carl Allen in another section at KAAP.
Plaintiff came to Cantey frequently with complaints about numerous individuals, both government employees and members of the contractor's staff. Plaintiff was suspicious of others and accused others of engaging in coverups. Plaintiff complained on various occasions, for example, that someone had stolen her keys, searched her office, or diverted documents intended for her from the mail room. Cantey initially investigated these complaints, but found them to have little basis in fact. Cantey found that plaintiff took a small problem and turned it into a major issue.
Cantey received complaints that plaintiff was very accusatory in her dealings with the contractor's security force.
On one occasion, Cantey received a complaint from the contractor's plant manager about some actions the plaintiff had taken. Plaintiff and another person had gone to a particular area of the plant and had thrown some items over a fence to demonstrate that the area was not secure. Cantey verified that this incident occurred as reported to him. Cantey testified that he was embarrassed by this incident and apologized to the contractor's staff.
Cantey heard comments regarding plaintiff's work attire ("flowing muumuu dresses") from production workers. On one occasion, Cantey instructed Blanton to tell plaintiff how to fit in on the production line. Plaintiff later complained to Cantey about Blanton's criticism of her attire. Cantey subsequently saw plaintiff wearing jeans on the line. Cantey heard no additional complaints from plaintiff on this topic.
In July 1989, there was an explosion at KAAP. Two workers were killed and a number of others were injured. An investigation of the incident began almost immediately. The contractor's security force responded immediately and secured the area for the investigation.
Plaintiff was not at the plant when the explosion occurred. Plaintiff subsequently complained that she was not notified about the explosion soon enough. Cantey testified that plaintiff had no official duties regarding the explosion and that plaintiff was not needed, since the contractor's staff responded appropriately to the situation.
On September 5, 1989, Blanton provided plaintiff with a list of "Helpful Hints" that Blanton thought would help plaintiff in communicating with other personnel. This list reads as follows:
Plaintiff construed this document as a warning of less than satisfactory job performance.
In October 1989, KAAP took part in a military readiness exercise named "Proud Eagle." Neither the specifics nor the significance of this exercise was explained to the court. Plaintiff was placed in charge of KAAP's participation in this exercise. Cantey testified that plaintiff was to respond to the messages that were sent to KAAP, e.g., a request for 100 mortars within a week. Cantey testified that any reasonable response would suffice. This exercise was not intended to interfere with normal plant operations. Cantey testified that plaintiff overemphasized the importance of this exercise.
Plaintiff's uncle died on October 22, 1989. On Monday, October 23, 1989, plaintiff submitted a request for leave for the remainder of the week. Plaintiff's Exh. 8. Plaintiff did not inform Blanton of the reason for the requested leave.
Blanton denied plaintiff's request for leave because of the ongoing Proud Eagle exercise of which plaintiff was in charge.
Plaintiff became upset at the denial of leave and went to Cantey. Cantey discovered that Blanton did not know that plaintiff had a family emergency. Cantey told plaintiff that she could leave immediately. Plaintiff responded that she had not decided whether to take leave. Plaintiff eventually went on leave.
Cantey was scheduled to be away from the plant the week of October 30, 1989. Approximately Friday, October 27, 1989, plaintiff met with Cantey in his office. During this meeting, plaintiff requested permission to work at home. Cantey understood her to ask for permission to take work home with her, which he granted. He did not understand her request as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tran v. Standard Motor Products, Inc., 97-2188-JWL.
...1997); Mason v. Mercy Hosps., Inc., No. 94-4076-SAC, 1997 WL 109975, at *7 (D.Kan. Feb.13, 1997); Jones v. Secretary, Dep't of Army, 912 F.Supp. 1397, 1409 (D.Kan.1995) (Theis, J.). 12. Because plaintiff has failed to offer any evidence whether any Vietnamese individuals applied for positio......
-
Fitzgerald v. Caldera, 97-CV-0710-EA.
...747 F.2d 1442, 1445 (Fed.Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1054, 105 S.Ct. 1759, 84 L.Ed.2d 822 (1985)); Jones v. Secretary, Dep't of the Army, 912 F.Supp. 1397, 1415 (D.Kan.1995). In Jones, the court upheld the termination of an employee for conduct unbecoming a federal employee despite th......
-
Saum v. Widnall
... ... Elizabeth K. SAUM, Plaintiff, ... Dr. Sheila WIDNALL, Secretary, United States Air force, ex officio, et al., Defendants ... Civil ... that the judiciary be as scrupulous not to interfere with legitimate Army matters as the Army must be scrupulous not to intervene in judicial ... ...
-
Burciaga v. West
...because this cause would have contained a mix of discrimination and non-discrimination claims. See, e.g., Jones v. Secretary, Dept. of Army, 912 F.Supp. 1397, 1413 (D.Kan.1995). Otherwise, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals would have been the proper forum for a purely non-discrimination ca......