HALLOWELL — One corrections officer spread a false rumor that the new female officer at the state prison in South Windham was a stripper.
Another one called her “Genitalia,” instead of her real name, which also began with a “G.”
She was asked by a colleague if he could measure her buttocks. When she said no, he did it anyway. She was asked about her favorite sexual positions and to describe her breasts.
When her complaints were not taken seriously, she quit her job and filed sexual harassment and retaliation complaints against the Department of Corrections with the Maine Human Rights Commission, detailing her claims in a sworn statement.
The state settled the case. Cost to taxpayers: $20,000.
A beginning state trooper – a male – was placed under the supervision of a male sergeant, who took him on assignments to secluded locations, rubbed the trooper’s inner thigh and talked about skinny-dipping. The sergeant gave the trooper a rug and told him how good it felt to lay naked on it, according to the trooper’s sworn statement.
The trooper got a transfer, but the sergeant called him regularly, making comments about penises and oral sex and suggested they take a naked sauna together.
The trooper filed a sexual harassment complaint and the state settled the case out of court. Cost to taxpayers: $50,000.
A park manager said she was threatened with losing her job after she refused to move out of her state housing so her boss, the commissioner of conservation, could use it to entertain guests. He denied the whistleblower and sex discrimination complaint. The state settled out of court for $30,000.
A corrections officer was threatened on a website run by anonymous corrections staff after she complained of sexual harassment. Cost to taxpayers: $137,500.
Retaliation in the Human Services department, disability discrimination in Public Safety, sex discrimination in Corrections and on and on for a total of 45 such cases settled by the state in the past 10 years.
A Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting investigation is the first known full accounting of the extent and cost of employee discrimination cases settled by the state. (It excludes settlements made by the University of Maine System because they are not handled by state government.)
By analyzing documents obtained through the Freedom of Access Act from the attorney general’s office, the Maine Human Rights Commission and the state’s internal insurance office, the center has found:
• The cost to taxpayers for a range of alleged bad behavior by state employees towards their fellow workers in the past 10 years is almost $1.85 million.
• The state has spent about another $500,000 to defend itself in the cases.
• Forty-four percent of the cases came from two law enforcement departments – Corrections and Public Safety, home of the Maine State Police. Those 20 settlements cost taxpayers more than $1 million.
• The most common charges were sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and retaliation, the latter often in response to filing a previous charge.
• Of the 19 state employees who said they experienced sexual harassment or discrimination, two-thirds were women.
• In all of the settlements, the state admitted no liability.
State law requires that all new employees receive sexual harassment training their first year in the job, according to Assistant Attorney General Susan Herman.
Herman said her office does not track the claims to find out where there might be a chronic problem.
“We have not analyzed the data by department,” she said.
When it comes to punishment for employees found to have harassed a fellow employee, Herman said any action is up to the commissioner of the department involved.
Public records do not include any disciplinary action that may have been taken in the 45 cases.
David Webbert, an Augusta lawyer (and financial donor to the MCPIR) who specializes in employment cases – including representing state employees – said he doubts training alone would solve the problem.
“No amount of civil rights training can overcome discriminatory attitudes at the top of an organization,” Webbert said.
But, he added, “The state could greatly reduce lawsuits and money settlements – and improve workplace productivity – by basing the evaluation and promotion of managers in a significant part on their record of promoting civil rights and eliminating harassment and discrimination in the workplace.”
The settlement agreements – legally binding documents signed by the state and the employee – are often written in a way that prevents full public disclosure.
For example, in 34 of the 45 cases, in return for the settlement, employees and the state agreed not to disclose the terms of the agreements.
The secrecy goes even further in the 21 cases that have non-disparagement clauses. Typically, they state, “Both parties agree that they will not disparage the other.”
That means, for example, the park manager who received the $30,000 was forever barred from speaking badly about her boss, Patrick McGowan, the commissioner of conservation. (McGowan ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2010.) And no one in state government can disparage the park employee, either.
However, the Human Rights Commission and court files are public documents that often contain some details of the cases, although the attorney general’s office redacts from the commission reports the names of third parties under state confidentiality laws. That means, for example, that the names of supervisors are not public.
In 82 percent of the cases, the process began with the employee filing a complaint with the commission. (The others filed civil lawsuits.) The commission, a state agency established in 1971, investigates complaints of discrimination from public and private employees.
“This discrimination costs the state a lot in employee morale, time, and efficiency, and in money towards lawyers’ fees and recovery for the successful employee- litigants,” Amy Sneirson, the commission’s executive director, said in an email to the center.
“What the public could take away from this data is that bad behavior at work has a tremendous impact,” she said, “including an impact on the taxpayers who ultimately subsidize settlements by state agencies.”
Webbert, the employment attorney, said, “Based on representing many state employees … I have observed that the worst problems … are in the law enforcement areas. … These are the areas that most often have leadership that sends a message to the rest of the organization of hostility or indifference to civil rights requirements, especially equal treatment and respect for women and workers with same-sex sexual orientation.”
The settlement payments don’t come from traditional insurance; the state is self-insured for these cases. That means the cash comes directly from the state budget.
Each state agency is assessed an annual amount that goes into the state’s self-insurance budget, which is about $1 million.
The departmental assessment is based on the number of employees and the claims history.
The Department of Corrections, which runs the state’s prisons, is currently assessed $101,000, 10 percent of the total self-insurance budget, while it only has 6.8 percent of the state’s 18,500 employees. The reason is the disproportionate number of settlements in Corrections.
The department’s employee discrimination settlements were one reason the Legislature asked its investigative agency to evaluate Corrections in 2009. The Office of Program Evaluation and Accountability report was called “Organizational Culture and Weaknesses in Reporting Avenues Are Likely Inhibiting Reporting and Action on Employee Concerns.”
The report said intimidation, retaliation and distrust within Corrections kept a lid on exposing internal problems. Combined, the practices “appear unethical” and “expose the State to unnecessary risks and liabilities.”
OPEGA’s study went to the Legislature’s Government Oversight Committee, which directed Corrections to develop a “strategic action plan” that addressed the problems.
But OPEGA’s executive director, Beth Ashcroft, said from 2010 until this year “it was difficult to tell how much progress was being made and whether it made a difference.”
She said when the administration of Gov. Paul LePage took over in 2011, “We learned that wasn’t a whole lot of progress that had been made. The new administration took it on, and they’ve updated the action plan and reported to the Government Oversight Committee two or three times.”
According to two long-time state Human Resources officials, in the past two years there has been a push in state government to deal more effectively with discrimination and harassment.
Laurel Shippee, coordinator of the Equal Employment Opportunity office, said the attorney general’s office has added a trainer, and ensured that a legal expert conducts all of the training in harassment and equal opportunity.
She said the change was at least partially a reaction to the costly settlements.
She also praised a new attitude in Public Safety, which she traced to a new head of the state police, Col. Robert Williams.
Joyce Oreskovich, human resources director for the state, said “(Williams) is much more interested in fairness and equity” than previous management.
Oreskovich and Shippee trace the changes to a meeting with LePage early in his tenure. They told him their priority was fixing the problems that discouraged women from applying for state law-enforcement jobs.
Oreskovich said LePage “just looked at me and said, ‘Do it.’ ”
The two women said there’s been a shift in Corrections, also, under Commissioner Joseph Ponte, who took the job in early 2011.
“Very early on, Commissioner Ponte began talking about changing the culture in Corrections,” Shippee said. “I am definitely seeing an interest in swift and firm discipline that they’re not wavering on. That is one of the best ways to get across that we’re taking this seriously, if people are held accountable for these behaviors.”
One of the incidents that let to the OPEGA study was the 2008 case of Pamela Sampson, a corrections officer at the state prison in Warren.
In her lawsuit against the state, she said she was sexually harassed by a sergeant who was later fired for sexually harassing another officer.
When she complained to management, she said they retaliated by investigating her on charges of sexually molesting inmates.
She was later cleared, but she ultimately left the state job because of the stress and concern for her safety.
The state denied she was sexually harassed and that the sergeant was dismissed for harassment, but admits the charges against her “were not substantiated.”
The state settled her claim in 2007 for $66,000. Only six of the 45 claims were settled for a higher amount.
Although Sampson’s settlement has a non-disclosure and non-disparagement clause, she was willing to be interviewed.
“If you speak about anything against these guys (in Corrections), it’s not good,” she said. “They use a lot of retaliation. That’s why everything was thrown out in my case: They tried to create a false investigation against me.”
Sampson now lives in Bangor and is looking for a job in security.
“I wanted to continue working at my job, and I miss it very much,” Sampson said. “It’s just really hard right now.”
Examples of discrimination charges from court documents and complaints filed with the Maine Human Rights Commission:
Charles Graten was a customer service representative in the secretary of state’s Division of Motor Vehicles who said the office was not making accommodations for his disability. He cited neck, back and leg pain due to his work station.
Records show the state made numerous attempts to modify the work station for Graten, who they noted weighed 320 pounds. He took a leave of absence; when it was over, the department told him to return to work or provide a doctor’s note. When that was not provided, he was dismissed.
A commission investigator concluded that Graten’s physical problems did not constitute a legal disability. His supervisors, according to the report, responded promptly at times, other times were “genuinely confused” by the situation and the doctors involved “presented starkly contrasting opinions.”
In the end, the commission found no basis that Graten was illegally discriminated against.
Nevertheless, the state settled the case for $9,000.
Andrea Lani worked in the state Department of Environmental Regulation, running the program that educates the public about toxic chemicals.
According to her retaliation lawsuit against the state, in 2011 she was demoted by top appointees of Gov. Paul LePage because she testified against a bill supported by the administration. Lani believed the bill would weaken the Kid-Safe Product Act.
Lani, who said she took a vacation day to testify, said state law prohibits taking action against an employee based on testifying before a legislative committee.
EPA Commissioner Patrica Aho ordered an investigation into whether Lani used department resources to develop her testimony, according to a story by the Bangor Daily News.
The lawsuit states Lani was cleared of that allegation, but was later reassigned to a clerical job and her old job was filled by a less-qualified person.
The settlement not only paid Lani $65,000, but also required the state to provide training to supervisors about the state law barring retaliation for giving testimony.
The corrections officer was hired in 2001, one of the few females in that job. (The employee is not being identified because of the salacious nature of the allegations.) Among the claims in her sexual harassment lawsuit:
• Some fellow officers “had a betting pool about whom and when (she) would sleep with first,” including inmates.
• Rumors circulated that she “was willing to perform fellatio for $20.”
• She claimed her supervisor was trying to force her out because she had complained about the sexual harassment. One example she cited involved a report she said was designed to undermine her: that she witnessed a male officer demonstrate how he could touch his nose with his tongue.
According to the report, she said: “I can’t believe he can do that. I think I’m in love.”
In her court filing, she claimed she never made the remark. Instead, she said the officer was ordered by the supervisor to fabricate the comment. In the state’s response to that charge, it agreed that the officer admitted he did not hear the offensive comment, but denied that he was ordered to make up the claim.
The female officer eventually quit the department when she said behavior and comments by officers and a supervisor created “a hostile work environment.”
While the state contested some of her allegations, it eventually paid a lump sum cash settlement to her for $65,000.
From 2007-2008, Trish Smith was a juvenile program worker at the Department of Corrections Mountain View Youth Development Center in Charleston. Her lawsuit against the department for creating a hostile work environment and retaliation details the case of a supervisor known for his advances towards female employees.
The suit, citing Smith’s allegations and also affidavits from other employees, is unusual in that the state admits some of the behavior.
Some examples of what the state admitted:
• The supervisor “made inappropriate comments and jokes of a sexual nature, inappropriately touched and hugged and attempted to kiss” Smith and demonstrated similar behavior with other employees.
• In March 2004, the supervisor “intentionally snapped” the bra of an employee.
The state denied some of the other claims by Smith, including that management failed to keep her supervisor away from her, as they had promised to do after she complained.
Smith’s suit said she felt forced to resign because of the unwanted contact with the supervisor.
The state settled for $69,500.
There is no public record of what happened to her supervisor.
— Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting