Myla Hoffman-Hite, the
former Human Rights Investigator for the City of Tacoma, has filed a tort claim
against the city for sex discrimination.
In the claim, which asks for unspecified monetary damages, Hoffman-Hite
charges that the city has engaged in a pattern of disparate treatment for women
managers and women generally.
Hoffman-Hite
was placed on administrative leave in January, 1999, following an incident with
one of her subordinate employees, Lela Fishe, an African-American.
According
to the tort claim, Fishe attended a two-week diversity training class in July,
1998. Afterwards, she shared many
personal issues that had been raised by the training with Hoffman-Hite. Hoffman-Hite referred her to counseling and
committed to continue listen to her concerns, as an attempt to be supportive.
Throughout
this period, Fishe was often emotional and frequently came into Hoffman-Hite’s
office to vent about her husband for various reasons. According to the tort claim, during one session, “She stated
that she had come to realize that part of the reason she married her husband
was because as a black female living in a predominantly white culture, white
was more valued.” Fishe continued to
express dissatisfaction with her marriage, and at a different session, she, “…stated
the realization she was going to divorce her husband.”
According
to the claim, Hoffman-Hite countered, offering friendly advice, attempting to
calm her, stating her belief that, “The reason she married her husband and
continued to be married to him was because some of her needs were being filled.” She went on, telling Fishe to ask herself questions
like, “Are you with him because you love him?
What was it about him you loved?
Do you stay with him for financial security? Are you with him to provide a role model for your daughters by a
previous marriage?” And, “Is part of
the reason you’re with him because he’s white?”
According
to the tort claim, she counseled Fishe, “Not to decide whether to remain
married or divorce until she did some serious soul searching and identified
what needs of hers were being fulfilled, and whether or not this was a
temporary state of affairs.”
Not
long after this, Hoffman-Hite found the need to have some performance
counseling sessions with Fishe, and shortly thereafter, Fishe complained to
another staff member. At that point, the then-acting Human Resources Director
Mary Brown, became involved, and on behalf of Fishe, implemented a race discrimination
investigation against Hoffman-Hite.
When
asked, Fishe repeatedly refused to comment on the race discrimination charges
or any other aspect of the case.
One
well-placed source has speculated that the race discrimination charges were
contrived and that Brown took the action out of personal animosity against
Hoffman-Hite. Brown had been in
contention for the permanent Human Resources Director position, and according
to the source, may have felt Hoffman-Hite had damaged her chances for the permanent
appointment by giving a negative recommendation to the Civil Service Board.
Following
the charges of race discrimination, Hoffman-Hite was placed on paid
administrative leave. She was directed
to have no contact with city staff while Brown investigated the charges alleged
to have been made by Fishe. Hoffman-Hite
contends the city refused to consider evidence during this period that was
favorable to her, as well as shredded stacks of documents from her office files. The city also told other senior managers that
it wasn’t very likely she would be returning.
In
an attempt to maintain the appearance of fairness, the city hired the Bellevue
law firm of Sebris and Busto – which coincidentally also advises the Tacoma
Public Library on labor relations matters – to independently investigate the
charges. Subsequently, the investigation
was then later expanded to include nearly all aspects of her job.
On
March 1, 1999, Hoffman-Hite filed the tort claim with the city, and at about
the same time, filed a sex discrimination complaint with the federal Equal Employment
Opportunities Commission. About a month
later in April, at the conclusion of Sebris and Busto’s investigation, the city
ordered Hoffman-Hite to return to work.
She refused.
“Ms.
Hoffman’s representatives have made every effort to resolve this matter without
filing a lawsuit,” said Artis Grant, of Grant and Grant, Hoffman-Hite’s
attorney. “However, the city has
totally ignored efforts to resolve this short of a lawsuit, and so it appears
this will inevitably result in a lawsuit.”
According
to Grant, the conditions of Hoffman-Hite’s return to work required by the city were
unacceptable, and further, were intentionally designed to be unacceptable. Through it’s investigation of the race
discrimination charges, the city had so severely damaged Hoffman-Hite’s reputation
with co-workers and associates, it would have been impossible for her to return
and do an effective job. This served,
said Grant, as a constructive discharge.
A
constructive discharge is where the conditions of employment are untenable;
where the employer virtually drives the employee to quit. In this case, said Grant, the real reason for
termination is a pattern of gender-based discrimination.
Following Hoffman-Hite’s
departure on administrative leave, the city tried to hide what had been going
on, and then later took action to insure future employees in her position would
be easier to remove.
Going before the Tacoma Civil
Service Board, the city told the Board variously that Hoffman-Hite was on
vacation or an extended leave of absence. No mention of the real reasons were made.
The Civil Service Board
members were all familiar with Hoffman-Hite, because one of her duties had been
to act as liaison to the Board. As
such, many members were concerned at her prolonged absence, and didn’t really
buy the story of an extended vacation. The news that Hoffman-Hite wasn’t coming back finally came out at
a Civil Service Board meeting, where a dispute ensued with city officials, with
some of the Board members questioning the city for it’s handling of the case.
Shortly afterwards, Philip
Knudsen, the new Human Resources Director, approached the City Council,
requesting the council make the Human Rights Investigator position exempt from
civil service. Two Civil Service Board
members, Amy Hoglund and Board Chair Jacquie Hyde learned of this, and testified
at City Council meetings opposing the exempt status. The proposal was eventually dropped.
To
a public employer, the value of making a position exempt is that exempt positions
have no civil service protections and can be fired at will, for any reason with
no showing of cause.
Slightly before that time,
Hoffman-Hite filed the tort claim with the city.
In addition to disputing her
own constructive discharge, the tort claim also alleges the city engaged in a
pattern of treating women differently than men. The claim lists a number
of examples where males were treated differently than females who committed
similar infractions. According to the
claim, the common pattern was to fire or severely discipline women, where in
similar offenses, males might instead be given counseling or a written
reprimand. In her claim, she lists
about a dozen examples which she says illustrates her case. According to Grant, as the former Human
Rights Investigator for the city, Hoffman-Hite is in a unique position which
will substantially help in proving her claims. Or put more succinctly, she knows where all the bodies are buried.
According to Grant, he is waiting
for approval to sue from the EEOC, and expects to file suit in federal court
some time in the near future.
City Councilman Dave De
Forrest, believes the case will be settled out of court. “My impression is she will probably come to
some settlement because that’s what we do, for whatever reason. These cases cost a lot to defend.” He went on, “The city is responsible to see
the workplace environment is healthy, safe and equal. I admit our track record is poor, and I don’t know if it’s
getting better. I think maybe we need
to make some changes, particularly in the reporting procedures for sexual harassment.”
Commenting about the charges
of a general pattern of sexual discrimination, De Forrest said, “I don’t think
it goes all the way to the top. I don’t
see Ray [Corpuz] tolerating discrimination.”
However, he does take issue
with Corpuz’s handling of a case involving three employees at the sewage
treatment facility. In that case, two
women alleged sexual harassment involving a male employee. The male countersued. In the end, all three split a settlement of
about $160,000.
“In the sewage treatment
case, the City Manager did nothing. I
thought something should have happened.
Someone should have been fired.”
De Forrest discounts the
possibility that Hoffman-Hite’s removal was an act of spite done by Mary
Brown. “I don’t think Mary Brown was
really a serious candidate or wanted the Human Resources Director job. I don’t follow that line of thought.”
The
person who was eventually hired as the new Human Resources Director, Philip
Knudsen is upbeat. “I believe the City
of Tacoma has a credible record of treating people fairly without regard to
their gender, race or whatever.” Added
Knudsen, “Are we perfect? No. Are we trying to get better? Yes.”
He
wouldn’t comment about the specifics of Hoffman-Hite’s tort claim. “I have not seen a list of specific
allegations. I’ve only seen the general
charges. Even if I were supplied that,
those matters are under litigation, and it’s our policy not to comment.”
Attorney
Grant believes his client will prevail.
“It is unfortunate that the taxpayers will have to continue to pay for
the city’s misconduct and errors in judgment.”
When
asked exactly how much he thinks his client will win from the city, Grant replied,
“We don’t discuss figures. In fact,
when we invited the city in a lengthy letter to mediate the dispute, we did not
make a demand. We wanted to engage in
the process of trying to resolve the complaint. However these cases typically are in the mid six figure range,
and attorney’s fees can result in awards of several hundred thousand dollars. So there is significant risk should this
matter proceed to trial.”
The
law firm of Grant and Grant has represented a number of employees in discrimination
cases against the City of Tacoma.
Notably, the firm represented police officers Loretta Cool who was
awarded $150,000 in a settlement last January, as well as officers Barbra Justice,
Wendie Harper, Ardith Schrag and a civilian police employee, Sandra Manchester,
who won a $575,000 settlement from the city based on a suit filed in 1996. The city’s court costs in that case were
reported to be around $250,000.
The
firm has also won a discrimination complaint for six Tacoma School District students
totaling around $450,000 in 1998. Prior
to that there was another case with an award to students totaling around
$489,000 in 1996.
***** 1788 words ******