NEWS RELEASE Mark Mausert 930 Evans Ave Reno, NV 89512 775.786.5477 mark@markmausertlaw.com FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Exorbitantly expensive cover-up further traumatizes claimants, who potentially saved the City millions

Mark Mausert, attorney for claimants, official statement: “The Reports found the original claims meritorious and outlined the toxic environment, notwithstanding the failure to interview my clients. Both investigations have cost the City taxpayers an exorbitant amount of money and neither were effective due to their incomplete and biased nature. Insufficient evidence, as found by Judge Wall, did NOT exonerate Clinger of sexual harassment. To the contrary, Judge Wall documented extraordinary misconduct.”

Reno, Nevada (January 11, 2017) – Pursuant to the right of fair reply, recognized by the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, I am replying to the release of the heavily redacted reports by the City of Reno. The public deserves to have a thorough understanding of the allegations against former City Manager Andrew Clinger, and the manner in which the work environment was polluted, and remains polluted. The missteps have and will continue to financially burden the Reno taxpayers. The original claims were reported by three highly accomplished, professional and intelligent women with the intent to protect the City and expose cronyism, misconduct, and unethical behaviors involving Clinger. These employees had an obligation to report. This is not the first time Clinger has been accused of sexual misconduct. In 2011, the City Council hired Clinger, who was the former state budget director under Governor Jim Gibbons. Clinger was hired notwithstanding the fact his conduct prompted an employee to accuse him of retaliating against her, after she complained of his alleged improper, sexually-oriented conduct on State premises. This accusation was not a consideration in either of the City of Reno’s Reports. The allegations against Clinger, based on his conduct while a State employee, should have been thoroughly investigated. City Attorney Karl Hall appears to have trivialized the complaints. Quotes like, “it is a witch hunt of disgruntled employees” and “it was only a touching of a leg,” demonstrate bias. The bias likely explains the restrictions Hall allegedly placed on the first and second investigations. That is, Hall appears to have compromised the independence of both Ms. Mercado and Judge Wall. Hall was recorded saying he deliberately did not tell the City Council of the complaints, even though City policy requires the immediate supervisor be notified. The City’s refusal to interview the claimants resulted in a biased and inconclusive second Report at significantly higher expense, while increasing the City’s liability. The first Report was biased and inconclusive courtesy of a deliberate refusal to investigate the bulk of the complaints, i.e., those sounding in ostracism and other forms of retaliatory hostility. My clients were repeatedly told those allegations were “beyond the scope” of the inquiry. The botched first investigation necessitated a second, which was attended by the same problems. At every turn, the City Attorney has undertaken ill-informed actions which served to morph what should have been internal complaints into much more formal allegations, which will necessitate litigation. This approach has traumatized my clients. They still have a hard time believing they have been forced into an adversarial relationship with a City they love. Although Clinger denies disseminating the “Hot Crazy Matrix” video to his executive staff, he did not intervene to cure its dissemination, despite its highly inappropriate nature. Instead, Clinger is accused of borrowing language from the video and referring to Jane Doe as his “Unicorn” – a sexualized and misogynistic reference to a women who is

attractive and only somewhat crazy. Judge Wall contends this had no negative effect on City staff, but the claimants viewed this as a clear example of the sexualized culture Clinger created. Clearly, they were adversely affected and offended. Clinger admits he instructed members of his executive staff to use applications which exploded, or destroyed encrypted text messages. Clinger sought to excuse this extraordinary behavior with a telling admission. He claims he did not cause the apps to be installed to facilitate sexual messages, but rather to defeat public records requests so you, the public, would not know what he was doing. This is no better a rationale. Not only does this subvert public records requests, it constituted an unethical, unprofessional and very dangerous approach to record-keeping – the antithesis of what a City Manager should do. This systemic spoliation of evidence could cost the city millions in other lawsuits. It still may. The claimants contend the real reason is Clinger wished to destroy sexual messages. Clinger’s excuse, at least insofar as the City’s financial exposure is concerned, is worse than the scenario posited by my clients. Any skilled lawyer involved in litigation against the City may seize on this deliberate spoliation of evidence and use it as a basis for sanctions against the City, e.g., a directed verdict which could cost the City millions. Clinger’s conduct is probative of a marked propensity for outright dishonesty, the type of dishonesty which the law punishes harshly. Clinger’s retaliatory behavior and statements such as, “payback is a bitch,” “I will find out who they are and I will fire them,” and “they are liars,” evidence a retaliatory mindset. These outrageous statements are probative of a fear-based culture. The results from the annual all city employee survey demonstrate a majority of the employees did not trust the City Manager and the Assistant City Managers. The findings of consultant Dave Childs’ focus groups of almost 80 employees evidence widespread fear, intimidation, dysfunction, cronyism, and favoritism. These results corroborate the women’s allegations, but were excluded from both investigations. The City did not require Clinger to take administrative leave until he voluntarily left weeks into the first investigation. Judge Wall’s report concludes “Hall couldn’t recall if he told Clinger the names of the complainants, but believes he might have done so to warn Clinger not to retaliate against them.” The claimants were forced to continue working under Clinger during the very time he was caustically threatening revenge, placing the City even more at risk for litigation. Most of the claims of retaliatory hostility, reported by the claimants as early as July 12, have not been investigated in spite of the City knowing the specifics and having a legal obligation to do so. The inference is disturbing. The City Attorney may have failed to interview my clients, not because of a legitimate evidentiary concern as to how the interviews would be used, but because the City Attorney believed the allegations to be accurate and did not want a thorough investigation. No doubt Mr. Hall will deny, but the inference will remain.

Judge Wall noted he could not make contextual conclusions without interviewing the claimants. Nonetheless, he did draw conclusions favorable to Clinger with insufficient evidence. Insufficient evidence is not the same as innocence or exoneration, and $225,000 is a steep price for an investigation. Further, Clinger succeeded in distracting Judge Wall with a conspiracy theory that turned the investigation into a question of motives rather than merit. This may have been an effort by Clinger to distract from his behavior and invalidate the claimants’ allegations. In doing so, Clinger appears to have co-opted the City’s investigation for the purpose of “payback.” Clinger’s admissions regarding routine and calculated destruction of evidence are incriminatory and mutually exclusive to exoneration. The claimants followed and trusted the City’s process—twice. My clients lodged complaints not for personal gain, or with an eye to becoming litigants. They complained because they wished to protect their City from misconduct. If they had not been possessed of the courage to come forward, the problems created by Mr. Clinger, and some of those closely associated with him, would have continued to fester. My clients thought they would be protected if they complained. The Mayor demanded any and all harassment or inappropriate behaviors be reported and expressly told my clients they would be protected. My clients believed, and still believe, this assurance was provided in good faith. They complied and were rewarded with disregard for City policy, breached confidentiality, retaliation, and two heavily flawed investigations.

The second report found the original claims meritorious and outlined the toxic environment my clients experienced, in spite of my clients not being interviewed. Both investigations have cost the City taxpayers an exorbitant amount of money and neither was effective due to their incomplete and biased nature. The claimants were treated like criminals, forcing them to seek outside legal representation, not for financial gain, but rather for protection against a rigged system. My clients courageously opposed unethical, actionable, and very dangerous conduct. As a direct result, the practice of routinely destroying evidence was curtailed. My clients probably saved Reno tens of millions of dollars. My clients stopped what was arguably a conspiracy – which would have resulted in one Court after another imposing sanctions on the City. Instead of extending thanks and a “job well done”, the City allowed Clinger to vilify my clients, botched two investigations, questioned their motives, and indulged in speculation as to whether they are part of a conspiracy – after paying Clinger almost a quarter of a million dollars on his way out. If the City Attorney cannot muster the good grace to say “thanks”, you should. This community owes these courageous and talented women a deep debt of gratitude. To provide context to the information above a detailed letter addressing points at length is attached.

# # #

1

MarkMausertNevadaBar#2398930EvansAvenueReno,Nevada89512(775)7865477(775)7869658–fax

January11,2017DearReno:

TheRenoCityCouncilandtheRenoCityAttorneydecidedtoreleaseheavilyredactedreportsfromDavidWall,Esq.andAliceCamposMercado,Esq.regardingtheirinvestigationintoclaimsofmisconductbytheformerCityManager.Pursuanttotherightoffairreply,recognizedbytheNevadaRulesofProfessionalConduct,myclientsarereplyingtothereports.

Thisresponsewillcoversomeoftheinadequaciesofeachreport,detailthehostile

treatmentofmyclientsbytheCityandaddresstheoutlandishclaimofaconspiracy.Theeffectofthismaterialinwholewillshowtheconcertedcover-upattemptsbytheCityAttorney,failureoftheCityCounciltomanagetheiremployeesanddetailatremendouswasteoftax-payermoney.

Thisresponseisnotacomprehensiverebuttaltothetworeports.Ihavenotcovered

allpointsforthesakeofbrevity.Further,inkeepingwiththedesiretoprotecttheidentitiesofthoseinvolved,Ihaveavoidedidentifyingmostindividuals.

Issueswiththefirstinvestigationprocessandreport

Thefirstinvestigation,conductedbyMs.Mercadowasartificially,andimproperlyrestricted.Duringherinterviewswithmyclients,myclientsrepeatedlyinformedMs.Mercadoofthenatureoftheirmostimportantallegations,i.e.,retaliatoryhostilityemanatingfromsexualfavoritismandcorruptionasevidencedbytheMyRPDissuesandotherexamples.Ms.Mercadorepeatedlyputherheadintheproverbialsandandtoldmyclientssuchallegationswere"beyondthescope"ofherinvestigation–shewasonlyscopedtolookintodirectsexualharassment.Theaudiooftheseinterviews,recordedbymyclients,andthelimitedscopeofthefirstinvestigationreportdefinitivelyestablishthisfact.

Shouldtheallegationsofdailyostracism,hostilityandcorruptionhavebeeninvestigatedthoroughly?Youbet.TwoofmyclientsreportedtoHumanResourcesonJune29thandJuly1stthattheyworkedside-by-sidewithemployeeswhowouldnotspeakwiththemformonthsastheresultofhostilitywhichtheyallegecanbetraceddirectlytoClinger’ssexualfavoritism.Theestablishmentoftheverynarrow"scope"violatedbinding

2

NinthCircuitlawandinvalidatestheinvestigationandreport.1Ms.MercadoknowsbetterandtheCitytacitlyacknowledgedthiswhenoutsidecounselreviewedthefirstinvestigationandconcludedado-overwasnecessary.

ThenarrowscopecomeswithconsequencesfortheCity.Consequence#1:EnoughtimeelapsedsothesecondinvestigationmaybefairlycharacterizedasuntimelyandtheCitywilllosetheabilitytoinvokethecriticalEllerth/Faragheraffirmativedefense.Consequence#2:$10,000oftaxpayers’monieswerewastedonthefirstinvestigation.Consequence#3:Badfaithbecomespainfullyapparent.Consequence#4:ThecontentionMs.Mercadoactedinanindependentmannerisexposedasafallacy.

Giventheseconsequences,whywasthescopeofthefirstinvestigationkept

artificiallynarrowaftermultipleclaimshadbeenmadetoHumanResources?Theinferencesarenotfavorable:eitherthedecisionwasmadetolimitdiscoverytoensureClingerwouldbeexonerated(AKA,acover-up)orthedecision-makerhadaverylimitedunderstandingofemploymentlaw.

Whomadethedecisiontoartificiallylimitthescopeofthefirstinvestigation?All

signspointtotheCityAttorney,KarlHall.Itiswelldocumented—bymyclientsandbyJudgeWallinthesecondinvestigation—thatHalltookcontrolthedaythefirstclaimwasfiled,withlittleregardforCitypolicy,andbegantoexerthisinfluence.

1Thereisaovertlyconsiderablebodyofcaselaw,whichclearlyestablishesaninvestigationshouldnotbeartificiallylimitedtosexualconduct.InMorganv.NationalRailroadPassengerCorp.,232F.3d1008,1017(9thCir.2000),theCourtwrote:"A‘hostileworkenvironment’occurswhenthereisapatternofongoingandpersistentharassmentsevereenoughtoaltertheconditionsofemployment."Draper,147F.3dat1108(citingMeritorSav.Bankv.Vinson,477U.S.57,66-67,106S.Ct.2399,91L.Ed.2d49(1986)).AsthiscourtnotedinFielder,"[m]ostinstancesofhostileenvironmentsarenotcapableoffacileidentification.‘[I]nstead,theday-to-dayharassment[is]particularlysignificant,bothasalegalandapracticalmatter,initscumulativeeffect."Fielder,218F.3dat985(quotingDraper,147F.3dat1108).

Emphasisadded.TheSupremeCourthasheldthat"harassingconductneednotbemotivatedbysexualdesiretosupportaninferenceofdiscriminationonthebasisofsex."Id.

EqualEmploymentOpportunityCommissionv.NationalEducationAssociation,442F.3d840(9thCir.2005).InU.S.EqualEmploymentOpportunityCommissionv.ScolariWarehouseMarkets,Inc.,2007U.S.Dist.LEXIS

20719(2007);488F.Supp.1117(D.Nev.2007),theCourtquotedDraperfortheproposition,"[d]iscriminatorybehaviorcomesinallshapesandsizes,andwhatmaybeaninnocuousoccurrenceinsomecircumstancesmay,inthecontextofapatternofdiscriminatoryharassment,takeonanaltogetherdifferentcharacter,causingaworkertofeeldemeaned,humiliated,orintimidatedonaccountofhergender."Wehaveheldthatthis[TitleVII]notonlycovers"terms"and"conditions"inthenarrowcontractualsense,but"evincesacongressionalintenttostrikeattheentirespectrumofdisparatetreatmentofmenandwomeninemployment."MeritorSavingsBank,FSBv.Vinson,477U.S.57,64,106S.Ct.2399,2404,91L.Ed.49(1986)(citationsandinternalquotationmarksomitted)."Whentheworkplaceispermeatedwithdiscriminatoryintimidation,ridicule,andinsultthatissufficientlysevereorpervasivetoaltertheconditionsofthevictim’semploymentandcreateanabusiveworkingenvironment,TitleVIIisviolated."Harrisv.ForkliftSystems,Inc.,510U.S.17,21,114S.Ct.367,370,126L.Ed.2d295(1993)(citationsandinternalquotationmarksomitted).

Oncalev.SundownerOffshoreServices,Inc.,532U.S.75,118S.Ci.998,140L.Ed.2d201(1998).

3

CityPolicy607“ProhibitedDiscrimination,HarassmentandRetaliationPolicy”governssexualharassmentandretaliation.ThepolicystatesclearrolesandresponsibilitiesthatwereviolatedwhenHallsupplantedKellyLeerman,DirectorofHR,inhandlingthecomplaintprocess.2TheCityAttorneydoesnothaveexpertiseinemploymentlawanditisclearfromJudgeWall’sinterviewswithMs.LeermanshedisagreedwithHall’shandlingoftheprocessfromthestart.3WhatauthorityallowedHalltounilaterallydecidetobreakwithpolicyandputhimselfinchargeoftheinvestigation?Shouldn’ttherationaleforthisdecisionhavebeendocumentedandapprovedbyCouncilasadeviationofpolicyandprocess? TakingcontrolofthecomplaintprocessallowedHalltogivepreferentialtreatmenttoClingerinanumberofways.

Theverydaythefirstcomplaintwasfiled,HallbreachedconfidentiallyandtoldClingertheidentityofthecomplainant.InhisinterviewwithJudgeWall,HallclaimsthiswasinordertopreventClingerfrominadvertentlyretaliatingagainsttheclaimant.Inreality,thebreachallowedClingertoalert[redacted]ofthecomplaintandcomplainant.ClingeradmittedtothisbreachofconfidentialityinhisinterviewwithJudgeWall.Webelievethebreachallowed[redacted]toretractherownclaimsofsexualharassmentbyClingerthatshehadsharedwithCouncilmemberDuerrproceedingClinger’sJune21streview.Webelieve[redacted]alsofosteredretaliatoryhostilityagainsttheclaimantbyspreadingrumorstoherstaff.

CitypolicywasnotfollowedwhentheCouncilwasdeliberatelykeptinignorance

abouttheinvestigation.WhenquestionedbyoneoftheclaimantsonJuly18th,Hallstated,“Ididn’tthinkIhadanobligationtotellthem,”4showingacompletelackofunderstandingofPolicy607.5CouncilwasonlyofficiallyinformedonJuly20th,afterthefirstinvestigationwasoverandaftermyclientshadenduredretaliatoryhostilityforweeks.Asthesupervisorsoftheaccused,CouncilistheonlybodyabletodisciplinetheCityManagerintheeventofretaliationandmakethecalltoputhimonleaveduringaninvestigation.

2Policy607designatestheHumanResourcesDirectorasthemainpoint-personforhandlingclaims.Forexample,SectionVIIB.8.statestheHumanResourcesDirectorshallcontactthepersonaccusedtonotifythemofthecomplaint.3“LeermanwascriticalofHallfortellingClingerthenatureof[deleted]complaintandgivingClingerheridentity.ShehadpreviouslydiscussedwithHallthattheyoughtnottodothat,butHalldiditanyway.”WallReport,p.45;and,“[deleted]isnow‘ontheouts’withtheCityAttorney’sofficeaftercriticizingKarlHallfordisclosing[deleted]identitytoClinger.”WallReport,p.53. 4Asmemorializedinanaudiorecordingbytheclaimant.5Policy607isclear:

• SectionVI.C.statesthatsupervisorsmustmonitortheday-to-dayconductofemployeestoensurenoviolationsofpolicyoccur

• SectionVII.B.Step4.statesthatonceacomplaintismade,“departmentheadswillreceivecopiesofanycomplaintsfileddirectlywithHR”

• SectionVII.B.Step7.statesthatoncethecomplaintisdeterminedtobeappropriatelyaddressedunderthepolicy,“theHRDirector,atthedirectionoftheCityAttorney’sOffice,shallimmediatelynotifythedepartmentheadofthecomplaint”

• SectionVII.B.Step13.statesthat“intheeventthecomplaintinvolvesthedepartmenthead,theCityManagerorhisorherdesigneeshallbesubstitutedfordepartmentheadbeginningatStep2”

WhilethepolicydoesnotspecifyprotocolsintheeventtheCityManagerisbeingtheaccused,itisclearthattheintentofthepolicyisforthesupervisortobenotified,inthiscase,theCouncilandMayor.

4

EvenwhentheCouncilwastoldabouttheallegations,theCityAttorneydidnotinformthemofthefullextentoftheproblem.Theystillaremostlyunawareoftheextentoftheallegations(aminorityhavetakenthetimetoreadmycorrespondencetotheCityAttorneythatpresentsthefullstory)andhavelittleawarenessoftheretaliationexperiencedbymyclients.LookattheexampleofCouncilmemberMcKenzielearningnewinformationfromCouncilmemberDuerr:

Additionally,McKenzierelatedaconversationhehadwithDuerrduringthe[first]investigation,duringwhichshetoldhimthatshehadspokenwithClingerandthathevehementlythreatenedrevengeontheclaimants.ForMcKenzie,thiswasthefinalstrawthatledhimtobelieveClingercouldnotcontinueasCityManager.

November21,2016ConfidentialInvestigationReport(hereinafter"WallReport")authoredbyJudgeDavidWall,p.34.

WhatifallCouncilmembershadbeeninformedaboutClinger’sconduct?Would

CouncilmemberJardonstilldemeanmyclientstoJudgeWallbycharacterizingtheirclaimsas“highschool”typecomplaints?ItistheCityCouncil’sresponsibilitytotakethesemattersseriouslyandrespondswiftlyandappropriately.Themembersaresworntoupholdthelawbutarenotabletoholdemployeesaccountableiftheyhavenotbeenproperlyinformed.

WhatisClinger’sattitudetowardretaliation?Ishecapableofunderstandingrunningaboutlikeanadolescent,andreferringtoan[redacted]ashis"unicorn"hemightberesponsibleforgeneratingasexualharassmentcomplaint?Onepossibleanswerisfoundatpage26oftheWallReport.

OnJuly21,2016,DuerrattendedanalreadyscheduledlunchmeetingwithClinger.Bynow,Hallhadbriefedheronthestatusoftheinvestigation.DuerrtoldClingerthatshewasawareoftheclaimsandhopetheinvestigationwouldgowellsothateveryonecouldmoveforward.DuerrsaidatthatpointClinger"goesballistic,"proclaiminghisinnocenceinanangryoutburstthatlastednearlyanhour.Duerrdescribedhimas"furious".Nocomplainants’nameswerementioned,butClingerthreatenedvengeanceagainstthem,sayingthingslike,"they’reevil,"and"they’llpay."HetoldDuerrthatit’saconspiracyagainsthim,whichhedeclaredwasafelony,andhevowedtoholdthemaccountable.DuerrsaidthatClingerwentontosaythingslike,"Payback’sabitch,"and[deleted].Duerrexplainedthatshewas"freakingout"atthispointandtriedtocalmClingerdown.Shetoldhimheshouldn’tbeatworkandshouldtakeafewdaysoff.Clingeragreedtodothat.Butthefollowingday,July22,2016,DuerrsawClingerataCityfirehousededicationevent.Shealsosaw[deleted]asshespokewithCouncilwomanNeomaJardonandMayorSchieve.Duerrtold[deleted]sheshouldleavebecauseClingerwasthere.Thatafternoon,DuerrsaidshehadaconversationwithKarlHallandrelayedtohimClinger’slunchconversationwithher,includingthethreatsabouttakingrevenge.Duerr’smessagetoHallwasthatClingeroughtnottobeintheoffice.DuerrsaidHalltoldherthatClingerhadmadethesametypeofcommentstohim.

Emphasisadded.

5

CouncilwomanDuerrandHallarejoinedintheirallegationsregardingClingeropenlyexpressinghisintenttoexactvengeance.

LikeNaomiDuerr,MayorSchievesaidthatClingermadederogatorystatementsaboutthecomplainantstoherandthreatenedtotakerevengeagainstthem.ThosestatementsgreatlyconcernedtheMayor.

WallReport,p.42(emphasisadded);alsosee,p.53(Clingerthreatenedtofirethewomen).

Clingerusedhisbullypulpittocallthecomplainants"liars".WhatsortofreactiondoesthatinvitefromemployeesloyaltoClinger?Thesamesortwhichthecomplainantsactuallyallegetheyexperiencedformanymonths.Iftheseallegationsaretrue,Clinger’sdeparturewasmandatedbyPolicy607andFederallaw.TheCitywaspossessedofanobligationtopreventfutureharassment.Retaliatoryhostilityisawell-recognizedformofsexualharassment.Seebelow,i.e.,Draperv.CoeurRochester,147F.3d1104(9thCir.1998).Clingerapparentlyexpressed,atlength,acrystallineintenttoexactvengeanceonwomenwhocomplained,ingoodfaith,ofhisactivities.Clinger’sunfitness,ifnotestablishedbyevidenceregardingtheoriginalallegations,isestablishedbyhisreactiontothecomplaints.Clinger’sunalloyedragemaybeseenasprobativeoftheallegations.OneinterpretationisClingerwasveryangrybecauseheisinnocent.ThatinterpretationisrenderedlesscrediblebyClinger’sparticipationinthe“HotCrazyMatrix”nonsense.Another,morecogentinterpretationis:Clingerwas,andis,indenial.Evenwhenconfronteddirectlywiththeconsequencesofcreatingasexualizedworkenvironment,Clingercouldnotseehisculpability.Inhismind,heisinnocent.Hence,theragereaction.

CitypolicywasagainbreachedwhenHallgaveMs.Mercado’sreporttoClinger.ThisallowedClingertospringboardoffthefalseconclusionof“innocence”andemboldenedhimtoretaliateagainstmyclientsbybrandingthem“liars”inthepressandtoCouncilmembers.TheCityAttorney,despiterepeatedrequests,refusedtoreleasethefirstreporttomeandstillhasrefusedtoprovideanunredactedcopythereport.

HowareweconfidentHallviolatedCitypolicyandprocessinallthesewaystobenefitClinger?Hallhimselfmadeitclearthathedidnottaketheclaimsseriously.JudgeWall’sinterviewofCityCouncilmemberPaulMcKenziereadsinpart:

CityAttorneyKarlHalltoldhimaboutthecomplaintsaftertheywerefiled.Hallalsomentionedatsomepointbeforethecompletionofthe[first]investigationthathethoughtitwas"likelyawitchhuntbydisgruntledemployees."McKenziefoundthiscommentbyHalltobeinappropriate.

WallReport,p.33(emphasisadded).JudgeWall’sinterviewofCouncilmemberDuerrreadsinpart:

[Duerr]believesHalldidn’treallytaketheallegationsseriously,sayingthingslike,“it’sjustalegbeingtouched.”

WallReport,p.26(emphasisadded).

6

ThesearegrosslyinappropriatestatementsbyHall.6Hallshouldhaverecusedhimself,early.ItisprobativeofthepropositionHall’sbreachofconfidentialitytoClingerwasnottheproductofinadvertence.Hetherebycommunicatedawillingnesstotrivializesexualharassment,andexacerbatedextanthostility.And,ofcourse,thissortofremarkillustratesthegenderanimusunderlyingtherefusaltoproperlyinvestigate7andsetsthestageforClinger’sconspiracyclaims.IintendtodeposeCouncilmembersMcKenzieandDuerrandexploreatlengththequestionwhethertheactionsandstatementsofClingerwereexacerbatedbytheCityAttorney.

TheCityAttorneyhasrepeatedlyresortedtoattemptingtotrythiscaseinthepress,andwhiledoingsohasmanifestedignoranceofthelaw.HallstatedtothemediathepurposeofaninvestigationistoprotecttheCity.False.Theprimarypurposeofasexualharassmentinvestigationistogatherinformation,soastoallowtheemployertodotherightthing,i.e.,ifsexualharassmenthasoccurredtheemployeristofashionremedialactionsufficienttoredresspastharassmentanddeterfutureharassment.Iftheemployerperformsapromptandthoroughinvestigation,andthenproperlyaddressespastharassmentanddetersfutureharassment,inmostsituationstheemployerisentitledtowhatiscalledanaffirmativedefense–pertwo1998UnitedStatesSupremeCourtcases,i.e.,Ellerth&Faragher.ItwaspartandparceloftheCityAttorney’sdutytoensureapromptandthoroughinvestigationoccurred,andifappropriate,adequatemeasuresweretobetakentocleanupanyproblem.TheCityAttorneydroppedtheballonallcounts.

Thefirstinvestigationwasbotched(ormoreaccurately,probablysabotagedpertheimpositionofartificialparametersbyHall),and$10,000oftheCity’smonieswerewasted.Worse,enoughtimeelapsedsoastoimpairtheabilityoftheCitytosuccessfullyinvoketheEllerth/Faragheraffirmativedefense,increasingtheCity’sliability.

Oncehired,outsidecounselAttorneyGreggKamerreviewedthefirstinvestigationreport,Ms.Mercado’snotes,andtheletterssentbymyselfandBillPetersononbehalfoftheclaimants.Mr.KamerapparentlytoldMayorSchieve(astheMayorrelatedtotwoofmyclientsviatelephone)thefirstinvestigationwasbadlydoneandapparentlyadvisedherthatinspiteofthefirstinvestigation’sattempttocoverupthetruth,itnonethelessshowedmyclients’claimswerelikelyvalid.WearefurtherinformedMr.KamerwasclearClingerneededtogoandinitiatedthesecond,“independent”investigationtoremedythefirst.

IssueswiththeSecondInvestigationandReport Unfortunatelythesecondinvestigationsufferedfrommanyofthesamedefects:itwasnotindependentfromtheCityAttorney,hadadeliberatelynarrowscopeand

6Anumberofcasesrepudiatethissortofknee-jerkreaction.InEllisonv.Brady,924F.2d872,879-80(9thCir.1991),theCourtobserved,"[b]yacknowledgingandnottrivializingtheeffectsofsexualharassmentonreasonablewomen,courtscanworktowardsensuringtheneithermennorwomenwillhaveto"runagauntletofsexualabuseinreturnfortheprivilegeofbeingallowedtoworkandmakealiving."Citing,Hensonv.Dundee,682F.2d897,902(11thCir.1982).7FromDominguez-Curryv.NevadaTransportationDept.,424F.3d1027,1039-40(9thCir.2005): Where,ashere,thepersonwhoexhibiteddiscriminatoryanimusinfluencedorparticipatedinthedecision

makingprocess,areasonablefactfindercouldconcludethattheanimusaffecttheemploymentdecision.Monderov.SaltRiverProject,400F.3d1207,1213(9thCir.2005)....

7

continuedtoshowpreferentialtreatmentandbiasinClinger’sfavor.Inaddition,orperhapsbecauseitwasnotindependent,itfailedtoinvestigateHall’sbias. Thesecondinvestigationwaspurportedtobeindependentandneutral.ThediscussionbytheCouncilattheAugust4thSpecialMeetingtoapprovethecontractwithMr.Kamerconfirmsthis(emphasisadded):

CouncilmemberBobzien:Iamverycomfortablewithdelegatingthistoyou.Understandingthat,yes,therewillbequestionsthatcomeaboutastothescopeandtheperformanceofwhatevertheengagementisandthosequestionswillbeansweredinduetime.Buttheideathatwewouldcreateacalendaredladderthatpushesoutactionthatisneededonthisimmediatelymakesmeveryuncomfortable,sowiththat,IwouldmovetoauthorizetheappointmentofspecialcounseltomanageaninvestigationofthecomplaintsallegedmisconductofCityManagerAndrewClingerandtodelegatetoMayorHillarySchievetoselectcontractwithanddirectthespecialcounselinanamountnottoexceed$50k.MayorSchieve:Tobecompletelytransparentandtobeabletomakesurethatthepubliccanfollowtheprocessaslongaswearefollowingtheprocessandmakesurewearedoingthisabsolutelycorrectly,soI'dagreewithyou.CouncilmemberBobzien:Justsomeclarifyingcommentsonmymotion,Iunderstandthescopetobeverybroad,asmuchasitneedstobeandasthoroughasitneedstobe.Ialsowouldhopeandrecognizeduetothespecialcircumstancesheregiventhepartiesreportinglinesandeverythingelse,Mayor,youshouldselectsomeoneonstafftoassistyouwiththecontractandexecutionintermsofinvoices,billables,etc.andthatyoukeepusapprisedbecausewearedelegatingthisauthoritytoyou.I'mveryconfidentthatyouwillkeeptheentireCouncilapprisedaswellasthepublic.

TheCitytookthestepstocreatetheappearanceofindependencebutinrealityHallcontinuedtobedeeplyinvolvedinthesecondinvestigation,undoubtedlyinfluencingtheoutcome.

Hallwasincludedonallcommunicationsandwasclearlypartofthedecisiontonot

interviewmyclients.Hall’simproperinvolvementinthesecondinvestigationwasevendiscussedpubliclyattheNovember16thCouncilmeetingwheretheMayorberatedHallfornotmanagingthecosts.Inresponse,CouncilmemberMcKenzierightlypointedoutHallshouldnotbeinvolvedatallgiventhatthewholepointofhiringexpensiveoutsidecounselwastogetindependentadvice(emphasisadded):

CouncilmemberMcKenzie:Mr.Hall,Iappreciatethesituationyouareinbecausewearetheoneswhodecidedtohireanoutsidecounselandnowwearelookingatyouandaskingwhyitcostussomuch.Thatprocedureissomethingthatweshouldbedevelopingascounselbecausewhenwegotooutsidecounselit'susuallybecausewehavesomethingthatwedisagreewithyouaboutandweputyouinareallystrangepositionwhendisagreewithyouandwehavehiredsomeoneelsetogiveusanotheropinion,weaskyoutobethemediator,soIthinkthatissomethingthatifweevergetthoseCouncilpoliciestogetherthatwe'vebeenworkingonsinceI'vebeenonthisCityCouncilthatwedosomething.It'squalified

8

incodehowweseekoutsidecounselbutthisCouncilhastobetheonetoestablishthatpolicy,wecan'texpectKarltoestablishthatprocessforus.

Thisdiscussionwaslimitedtomattersofbillingandraisesthequestion:istheCouncilawareofHall’scriticalinvolvementinthesecondinvestigationotherwise,especiallyregardingthedecisiontonotinterviewmyclients?

JudgeWallacknowledgedthedifficultiescreatedbythefailuretointerviewthewomen.ThattherefusaltointerviewthecomplainantsdidnotarisewithJudgeWallisobvious.Hewrote:

Notablyabsentfromtheforegoinglistarethethreecomplainants,...Ihavenotinterjectedmyselfintothosenegotiations[thenegotiationsbetweenmyselfandtheCityAttorney’sOfficeretheinterviewsofthecomplainants]andtakenopositionastothevalidityofanypositiontakentherein.....Theinabilitytospeakwith[thecomplainants]madethecompletionoftheinstantinvestigationfarmorechallenging.Accesstothecomplainantswouldhaveallowedmetoaskcogentquestionsregardingtheirclaims,tofurtherattempttoseekcorroborationthereof,torequestaccesstocertaindocumentsandpersonalinformationtheypossessandtotakenormalinvestigatorystepstodeterminefactsandassesscredibility.Credibilityassessmentisnormallyconductedinone-on-oneinterviewsorotherwisedeterminedintheexistenceornon-existenceofcorroborativeevidence.Additionally,ininterviewstheclaimantswouldhavehadtheopportunitytosupporttheirversionsofevents.ItisthereforeafaircriticismofthisReporttoallegethatitwascompletedwithouthavingspokenwiththeverycomplainantswhonecessitateditinthefirstplace.

WallReportp.2-3(emphasisadded).

Theoffertoallowthecomplainantstobeinterviewedremainedopen,buttheCityneveracceptedthatoffer.8Atanypointduringtheexpenditureofthismassive

8WhatarethetermsIputoninterviewsofmyclients?Myclientshavealreadybeeninterviewed,absentrestrictions,byMs.Mercado.Despitetheissueswiththefirstinterviews,Iofferedtoallowmyclientstobeinterviewedwithtwoconditions:Iofferedtoforegofromattackingthethoroughnessoftheinterview,butwantedastipulation,totheeffectDavidWall,Esq.wouldnottestifyineventoflitigation.Thatis,IdidnotwanttobeturnedintoawitnessifMr.Walldecidedtotestifyoneofmyclientssaidsomethingwhichperhapsshedidnotsay.Theinterviewsweretobelengthy.Memoriesdifferastowhatmayhavebeensaidduringafivehourinterview.NordidIwanttheinterviewsrecordedasthatwouldamounttotwodepositionsineventoflitigation–anunfairadvantagefortheCity.Thelegitimatepurposeoftheinterviewswastoinvestigateallegationsofsexualharassment–nottoobtaintacticaladvantageinfuturelitigationviahavingaretiredJudgeavailabletoparticipateinanevidentiarycontestoverwhatwassaidorextratimedeposing.Inotherwords,Iofferedtocooperate,andtoprovidetheCitywithasecondchancetodotheinvestigationwiththeprohibitiontheinterviewswerenotgoingtobemorphedintosomethingthatcouldbeusedagainstmyclients.

TheCityAttorney’sattempttocharacterizemyclients’positionassoundingindishonestyisitselflessthancandid.Theinterviewswouldhavebeenlengthy.Manyincidentswouldhavebeendiscussed,involvingmanyactors.Mr.Hallisaveryexperiencedattorney.Heknows,justasIdo,andjustasMr.Walldoes–ifawitnessisinterviewedforfivehoursaboutacomplexfactpattern,andtheninterviewedatlengthayearlater,andthenthesameinterviewisdonetwoyearshence,threeslightlydifferentversionswillexist.Everyexperiencedlawyerknowsthisforafactbecausewehaveseenthephenomenonagainandagainandagain.Memoryisabitmalleable.Thisphenomenonhasnothingtodowithhonesty.Thisanalysiswasspelledoutto

9

amountofmoney,theCitycouldhavefixedtheproblem.IfindithighlyunlikelyMr.Kamer,highlytrainedinemploymentlaw,wouldallowtheCitytotakesuchanindefensibleposition.9TheCityAttorneyapparentlyreservedtherighttoarrogatecontrolofatleastthiscrucialaspectoftheinvestigation.Why?TheonlyapparentreasonistheCityAttorneywasintentonusingtheinvestigationasanoffensiveweaponagainstvictimsofsexualharassment,insteadofasamechanismtofixtheproblem. WhywereHall’sactionsnotinvestigatedbyJudgeWall?WesentalettertoJudgeWallonNovember1stdetailingissueswithHall’sconduct.JudgeWallnotesHall’sinappropriatenessseveraltimesinhisReport,butdeclinestoinvestigatefurtherorletitaffecthiscredibilityassessmentofHall.

JudgeWallopenedhisreportwithhisgivenscope:“Neutralfactfindingasathird-partyinvestigatorconcerningallegationsofallegedmisconductbytheCityManagerandrelatedallegationsofretaliatoryactions,inclusiveofanyallegationsnotaddressedintheinitialinvestigator’sreportandthosewarrantingfurtherfactualinquirybasedonexerciseofindependentprofessionaljudgment.”Wallcontinuestosayhewas“giventhelatitudeto‘gowherethefactsleadyou.’”10YetJudgeWallengagedinlimitedfact-findingeffortsrelatedtomyclients’claims.Incontrast,hewenttheextramiletoinvestigate,andevenspeculateon,Clinger’sself-servingcontentionaconspiracywasatwork.

Absentinterviewswithmyclients,JudgeWallwasforcedtousetheMercadointerviewsasthebasisforthesecondinvestigation.JudgeWallcitesthefactheinterviewedsomeofthepersonswhomMs.Mercadointerviewedand"askedintervieweeswhethertheyhadinfacttoldMs.MercadocertainthingsthatwerecontainedinherReport."11Theproblemis:Ms.Mercadodeliberatelyavoidedthemostimportantaspectsofthiscase.Shedidsowiththecomplainants,asmemorializedbythetapesofthoseinterviews.Ifshedidsowiththecomplainants,itisafairbetshealsodidsowiththewitnesses.Inotherwords,byusingthefirstinvestigationasthebasisforsecondinvestigation,JudgeWallwentdownthesamerabbitholeasMs.Mercado,i.e.,theveryonewhichnecessitatedhisinvestigation.

OnNovember7,2016,twoweeksbeforeJudgeWallcompletedhisReport,Iprovided

himwithacopyofaletterIwrotethatdaytoHall.IwrotebecauseIcametobelievetheCitydidnotwanttothoroughlyinvestigatemyclients’allegations.ThatthisisapparentlytrueisindicatedbytheNovember21,2016Report.Thatis,theWallReportdoesnotaddressmostoftheconcernsarticulatedintheNovember7thletter,ormysixpreviousletters.12Amongthoseconcernswasthemannerinwhich[redacted]cametobepromoted,notwithstandingglaringproblemssuchasthefivemilliondollarsexpendedontheADPpayrollsystem(itturnedintoaboondoggleandwasabandonedwhentheCityrecentlyreturnedtothe

Mr.HallinaNovember1,2016,letter,aswellasearlierletters(adddates).Hefailedtorebuttheanalysis.Mr.Hallhasconfinedhimselftothecontentionthewomen’spositionisunreasonable.Wrong.WhatisunreasonableisMr.Hall’sunseemlyinsistenceonusingaprocedureintendedtoprotectvictimsofsexualharassmentto,inhisownwords,defendtheCity.9"Thefailuretointerviewwitnessesisevidenceofinadequateremedialaction.Fullerv.CityofOakland,47F.3d1522,1529(9thCir.1995)."Mocklerv.MultnomahCounty,140F.3d808,813(9thCir.1998).10WallReport,p.111WallReport,p.312OnSeptember15th,September20th,September28th,October11th,October17th,November1st,andNovember7thIsentlettersdirectlytoJudgeWall,orCCingJudgeWall,thateachdetailclaimsthatwerenotultimatelyadequatelyaddressedinthesecondinvestigation.

10

originalsystem).[redacted]wasinstrumentalinhiringanumberofpersons,includingpersonswhodidnotmeettheminimumqualificationsfortheirpositions,whosubsequentlyalignedthemselveswithherandClinger,i.e.,theyallegedlyostracizedmyclients.Mostimportantly,Clinger’salliancewithaprominentlobbyistwasraised.ThatrelationshipisdirectlyrelevanttothecircumstancesunderlyingClinger’shiring,andthemannerinwhichhisindiscretionswereignored.Priortowriting,IcalledJudgeWallandverballyraisedtheseconcerns.JudgeWalltoldmethoseconcernswerebeyondthescopeofhisinvestigation.Thatis,JudgeWallrepeatedjustaboutthesamerefrainMs.Mercadoarticulatedwheninterviewingthecomplainants.Theostracismandhostility,whicharetheheartofmyclients’complaints,aresomehow,insomewaynoonehasexplained,"beyondthescope."

Myclientsmadeclaimsingoodfaith.13IfJudgeWallhadnotbeenforestalledfrominterviewingmyclientshewouldhavelearnedtherewasnoactionableconspiracywithouthavingtospendagoodpartofhisinvestigationlookingintotheclaimants’motivesinsteadoftheirclaims.Thisredherringhastheeffectofdistractingfromthemeritsofmyclients’claimsandflirtswithmorphinganinvestigationintosexualharassmentintoaformofretaliatoryhostility.14

ThesecondreportbyJudgeWallconcludedmyclients’primaryclaimsweremeritoriousbuttherewasnotenoughevidencetoestablishthesexualnatureofClinger’srelationshipwith[redacted]soastofindasexualharassmentviolation.Consequently,manynewspaperheadlineshavereportedthetwoinvestigationreportscleartheformerCityManagerofcharges.Let’sbeveryclear:insufficientevidenceisnotthesameasbeingclearedofsexualharassmentcharges.

Wall’sReportincriminatesClinger.MyclientsbelieveClingerdisseminatedthe“HotCrazyMatrix”video.Clinger

apparentlydenieshavingdoneso.Thepointisfairlyminor.Clingertooknoremedialaction,notwithstandinghisabilityandobligationtodoso,inthefaceofthedisseminationofthe“HotCrazyMatrix”video.Thisvideoissexist.Itisoffensivetowomen.Itsintendedhumordoesnothingtomitigateitsinherentlymisogynisticcharacter.Insteadoftakingremedialaction,Clingerisaccusedofroutinelyreferringto[redacted]ashis"unicorn."Aunicorn,perthevideo,isaveryattractivewoman,whoisonlyafouronaone-to-tencrazyscale.Regardlessofwhodisseminatedthevideo,Clingerappearstohaverunwithit.Ifhedidnotdisseminateit,butheroutinelyreferenceditwithapprovalbydesignating[redacted]ashisunicorn,hemayaswellhave.Theeffectwasthesame.Repeatedreferenceto[redacted]asClinger’sunicornwouldhaveservedtosexualizetheworkplaceandsendanimproper

13Thewomen’scomplaintsweregoodfaith,protectedactivity:Hernandezv.SpacelabsMedical,Inc.,343F.3d1107(9thCir.2003).

TitleVIIprotectstherighttobefreefromcertaintypesofforbiddendiscrimination,aswellastherighttospeakoutagainstsuchdiscrimination.Italsoprotectsagainstretaliationfortheexerciseoftherighttospeakoutagainstdiscrimination.

14InSarrov.CityofSacramento,78F.Supp.2d1057(E.D.Ca.1999).ViewingtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletoSarro,areasonablefactfindercouldconcludethatthemannerinwhichtheinvestigationwasconductedwoulddeterreportingofharassment,andthus,wasnotreasonablycalculatedtodeterfutureharassment.MuchoftheinvestigationintoSarro’sbackgroundfocusedonthemostpersonalandprivateaspectsofherlife,includingherformermarriage,hercurrentrelationshipandhersexualhistory.Sarrowasclearlyawareofandoffendedbytheextentoftheinvestigation.

78F.Supp.2dat1064

11

message,towit,womenarevaluedontheirsexualattractiveness(andbyimplicationontheirwillingnesstoparlaythatattractiveness),asopposedtocompetency.

Werethecomplainants’perceptionsout-of-line?TheywereinsyncwiththoseoftheMayor.

RegardingtheallegationsagainstClinger,MayorSchievesaidshebelievesthattherewashostilityintheworkenvironment,atleastinpartduetotheactionsofClinger.ShebelievesClinger"playedonewomanoffonanother"andpointsto[deleted]asanexample.

WallReport,p.42.

Inotherwords,theMayor’sperceptionsmirrorthecomplainants’allegations.Towit,thecomplainantsaccuseClingerofcreatingasexualizedworkenvironment,andshiftingjobduties,basedonsexualfavoritism,andthendissemblingabouthowthosedutiescametobeshifted.Theresult,theyallege,wassystemicostracismandhostility.So,whenJudgeWallreceivednoticeofthecomplainants’allegationsfromme,andwasalsotoldhowMs.Mercadoignoredthoseallegations,heknewthecomplainants’allegationswerecorroboratedbyaverycrediblesource–theMayor.

IfClingerisresponsibleforthismessbyplayingonewomanoffagainstanother,whichinturnresultedinahostileworkenvironment,asthecomplainantsallege,wasanactionableworkenvironmentcreatedperTitleVII?PerDraperv.CoeurRochester,Inc.,147F.3d1104(9thCir.1998),theanswerisintheaffirmative.

Discriminatorybehaviorcomesinallshapesandsizes,andwhatmightbeaninnocuousoccurrenceinsomecircumstancesmay,inthecontextofapatternofdiscriminatoryharassment,takeonanaltogetherdifferentcharacter,causingaworkertofeeldemeaned,humiliatedorintimidatedonaccountofhergender.SeeMeritorSavings,477U.S.at65,106S.Ct.2399(notingthatemployeeshavethe‘righttoworkinanenvironmentfreefromdiscriminatoryintimidation,ridicule,andinsult").....DraperhasdescribedanoccurrencethatcanbeunderstoodonlyinlightofthecircumstancesthatprecededitandthenatureoftherelationshipthatexistedbetweenDraperandhersupervisor.

147F.3d1109.

TheactatissueintheDraperwasderisivelaughter.Thereisnothinginherentlysexualregardinganactofderisivelaughter.However,thelaughterwaselicitedbyMs.Draper’scomplaintofongoingsexualharassment.Sotoo,ifClingerassigneddutiestomyclients,becauseforinstance,hewasattemptingtoprotecthis"unicorn",i.e.,hissexualfavorite,andthendissembledtotheunicornastohowthedutiescametobereassigned–andtheresultwasprotracted,orchestratedhostility–theresultisaworkenvironment,

12

actionableperTitleVII.BothReportsskirtthisanalysis.Draperisnotanobscurecase.15Moreimportantly,theanalysisstatedthereinsoundsincommonsense.Evenmoreimportantly,thewomenrepeatedlystatedthisanalysistoMs.Mercado,whoassiduouslyignoredthem.ThesamewasstatedinthesevenletterswhichJudgeWallreceivedacopyof,asnotedearlier.Whyhavetheostracismandhostility,whicharecentraltothiscase,receivedonlypassingnoticeinJudgeWall’slengthyreport?IfthatReportdevotedasmuchattentiontothemannerinwhichthecomplainantswereisolatedandderided,asitdoestothechimericalconspiracytheory,itwouldcontainatleastonemeaningfulanalysis.

Furthermore,theobservationsoftheMayorofClingerplayingonewomanoffanotherneatlyestablishthegoodfaithcharacterofthecomplaints,andconcomitantly,thegrosslyinappropriatecharacterofClinger’sretaliatoryrants.

Thentoo,thereisthematterofClinger’schicaneryinhavingemployeesdownload

appswhichwoulddestroytextmessagesamongCityemployees.OneofthecomplainantsallegesClingerdidsotofacilitatesexualmessages.Clingerdeniesandapparentlyclaimshedidsotoavoidcompliancewithpublicrecordsrequest.So,thecharitableinterpretationistheCityManagerwentoutofhiswaytodestroymessages–sothepublicwouldnotknowwhathewasdoinginhiscapacityasCityManager.See,e.g.,WallReport,p.87.Ithinkthisisaformofdishonestyandanabuseofpower,butmaybeMr.Clingerhasamorecogentexplanation.Ofcourse,thissortofmoveisentirelyconsistentwiththepropositionClingerwassendingsexualmessages.Heisnotnecessarilyentitledtothecharitableinterpretation.

NearlyeverywitnessinterviewedonthesubjectagreedthatClinger’suseoftheSlackandTelegramtextingplatformswasentirelyinappropriateforCitygovernment.Clingersaidhenowappreciatesthattheuseoftheseapplicationswasinconsistentwithtransparencyingovernment.

WallReport,p.94.

WhenmyclientscomplainofthesexualizedworkenvironmentClingercreated

throughsuchvenuesas"TheHotCrazyMatrix",theyareoutrightliarsandshouldbepubliclyvilified.WhenClingerhuntsaroundontheinternetandfindsmechanismswherebyhemaydeliberatelyandsystematicallycoverhistracks,whileworkingastheCityManager,henow"appreciatesthattheuseoftheseapplicationswasinconsistentwithtransparencyingovernment."Clingersureisakindguy–tohimself.

TheWallReportout-of-handdismissesthereportofClingerengaginginaliaisonon

thefifteenthfloorwithafemaleemployee.TheReportisrifewithspeculationastoaconspiracy,butthefirsthandearwitnessreportofhuffingandpuffing,etc.issubjecttosummarydismissal.

JudgeWallfailedtoconsiderClinger’sallegedhistoryofsexualharassmentandworkplaceaffairs;oneleadingtoasettlementin2008.16ThishistorywasbroughttotheattentionofCouncilduringtheAugust4thCouncilMeetingbyKimWallin17andshouldhave15DraperisbindinginNevadaandhasbeenaroundsinceJune,1998.See,e.g.,Zunigav.UnitedCanCo.,812F.2d443,450(9thCir.1987)(absentacountervailingfederalstatuteoraUnitedStatesSupremeCourtOpinion,theDistrictCourts,locatedintheNinthCircuit,areboundtofollowthelaw,asinterpretedbytheNinthCircuit).16https://www.newsreview.com/reno/harassment-charged/content?oid=2162109717Testimonyoccurs9:42intorecordingofAugust4thCouncilMeeting:http://bit.ly/2hZ8RUu

13

beenknowntoJudgeWall.WhywasthisnotconsideredinhiscredibilityassessmentofClinger?

Wall’sReportevidencesClinger’sunfitnessforthepostheheld.Clinger,atleastapparently,tosomeextent,celebratedthe“HotCrazyMatrix.”Clinger,astheMayornotes,playedonewomanagainstanother–andtherebycreatedincredible,long-termhostilityintheworkplace.Worse,whencomplaintswerefinallyforthcomingregardingClinger’spropensityforsexualizingtheworkplace,Clingerreactedwithdeepanger–andanattempttodiscovertheidentitiesofwitnesses.Thatangerevidencesasenseofextraordinaryentitlement.Apparently,Clingercouldnotseetheerrorofhisways.Heranted,atlength,tohighlyplacedofficials,astohowhewasgoingtoexactvengeance.TheevidenceofClinger’sreactionistheantithesisofexoneration.Clinger’sreaction,standingalone,shouldhavedisqualifiedhimfortheofficeheheld–itmayhave.

Conclusion

Thereisanugly,synergisticeffectbetweenthebotchingofthefirstinvestigation,thelengthydelaysattendanttothesecondinvestigation,andthecalculatedrefusaltoconductathoroughsecondinvestigation.

Themostsignificantimmediatemeasureanemployercantakeinresponsetoasexualharassmentcomplaintistolaunchapromptinvestigationtodeterminewhetherthecomplaintisjustified.Aninvestigationisakeystepintheemployer’sresponse,seeSwentekv.USAIR,Inc.,830F.2d552,558(4thCir.1987)(employerobligedtoinvestigatecomplaintandtopresentareasonablebasisforitssubsequentaction),andcanitselfbeapowerfulfactorindeterringfutureharassment.Byopeningasexualharassmentinvestigation,theemployerputsallemployeesonnoticethatitwilltakesuchallegationsseriouslyandwillnottolerateharassmentintheworkplace.Aninvestigationisawarning,notbywordsbutbyaction.Wehaveheld,however,thatthe"factofinvestigationaloneisnotenough.Fuller,47F.3dat1529.Aninvestigationthatisriggedtoreachapre-determinedconclusionorotherwiseconductedinbadfaithwillnotsatisfytheemployer’sremedialobligation.Seeid.

Swensonv.Potter,271F.3d1184,1193(9thCir.2001)(emphasisadded);alsoseeLopezCoronav.LesSchwabTireCentersofNevada(3:06-cv-0330-RAM)(March26,2008)

TheCity’slackofunderstandingofTitleVII(JudgeWallastutelyrefrainsfromtaking

apositionsoastonotoffendMr.Hall)hascompromisedtheCity’sabilitytoassertthecriticalandoftendispositiveEllerth/Faragheraffirmativedefense.TheCityforfeitedtheopportunitytointerviewallthreewomenatlength,anddetermineexactlytheCity’sexposureandhowtominimize,orevennegate,thatexposure.TheCitywasted$235,000oninvestigations,conductedwithoutthebenefitofthecriticalknowledgewhichwouldhavebeensuppliedbythewomen.Ifthissoundslikeacontinuingdisaster,whichwillbefundedat$550perhour,well,yougotit.$235,000willturnintoamillion,whiletheCityAttorneypostures,andwhiletheCitylosestheservicesofthreeverycompetentemployees.

Further,byadoptingthepositionhewillnotinvestigate,unlesshemayusetheinvestigationagainstTitleVIIcomplainants,theCityAttorneysentastrongmessage,to

14

thesepotentialplaintiffs,andtootherpotentialcomplainants.Complain,andyouopenyourselfuptobeinginvestigated.18Anydoubtaboutthismessageisconfirmedbytheextensive,andveryinappropriateideationcontainedinJudgeWall’sReport–astowhethermyclientsareengagedinsomesortoffeloniousconspiracy.

Itisagainstthisbackgroundthereportsmustbeconsidered.Giventhefailureto

interviewthecomplainantsandproperlyinvestigatetheirclaims,thereportsareanythingbutdefinitive.TheCityhasexponentiallyincreaseditslitigationexposurethroughthelossofanaffirmativedefenseandhasinitiatedatrialinthepress.Myclientshavedonenothingwrongandwillnotbeintimidated.

18McCawv.Potter(2006U.S.Dist.LEXIS61774):

Basedontherecordbeforeit,theCourtfindsthatajurycouldreasonablyinferthatthesexualharassmentchargewasnotpursuedinanattempttoretaliateagainstPlaintiffforbringingtheclaim.Ifso,itisreasonablylikelythatanindividualwouldnotfileasexualharassmentcomplaintifshefeltthathercomplaintwouldnotbethoroughlyinvestigatedorthatshewouldnotbebelieved.Accordingly,theCourtwillnotdismissthisclaim.