STOP THE SPITWADS
NOW PLAY NICE KIDS!!
INTEROFFICE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
MEMO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Date: September
25.,
2003
To: Barbara Ginsberg, Planning Technician
From: David Lee, Assistant Planning Director
Subject: Response to Complaint regarding Hostile Work Environment
On June 17th, in an
EMAIL to me, you described an incident with a co-worker that caused you to
start shaking. You indicated that this person had lied to you and that she was
trying to cause you problems at work. You stated that you have a right to a
non-hostile work environment, and that it was up to management to ensure it was
provided. On June 24th, 2003, I began an investigation into the
allegations. In response to your complaint, we met on two occasions, on June
24thth, and again on September 9th. We also had several
other brief conversations.
In addition to interviewing you, I also
interviewed eight other employees, reviewed applicable County policies, and
reviewed several EMAILS. I have
concluded my investigation, and outlined below are my findings.
Background- Summary of Complaint
In our interview on June 24th,
you indicated that you were having problems with three employees: Holly
Hartranft, Claire Machado, and Jim Davies.
Specifically, you allege that 1) these individuals are giving you
“dirty” looks; 2) these employees are approaching other co-workers,
individually and collectively, and saying bad things about you and asking them
not to be your friend or to socialize with you; 3) that one or more of these
individuals asked you to stay out of the Code Compliance work area; 4) that a
co-worker told you that Claire Machado had called you a “slut” and that you
could not be trusted; and 5) that Holly Hartranft had grabbed you and
confronted you in mid May in the code compliance work area about a personal
matter and spoke so loudly that other co-workers could hear her remarks.
In our interview, you indicated
that this all started following an incident last October where your ex-husband,
Mark Ginsberg, contacted Claire Machado on her cell phone outside of work, and
told her that she was a “target.” You explained that you were with Ms. Machado
when she received that call. You also disclosed that you had a previous
relationship with Jim Davies, a co-worker, and that Claire was now with Jim.
Because of that, you felt that there was competition between the two of you,
and that tensions have since escalated as a result. Further, you believe that
because Holly is Claire’s friend, and Jim’s friend, that she is siding with
Claire.
In a subsequent memo to me dated
August 15th, in response to my request for your suggestions on the
actions that needed to be taken to resolve the problems in the workplace, you
indicated that “in the last month Holly and I seem to have figured out how to
deal with each other effectively at work in a positive way…” You further indicated that interactions with
Jim had improved to some degree. However, you indicated that you were
continuing to have problems with Claire. You indicated that Claire: 6)
continues to give you hostile glares and will walk right into you if you do not
yield to her in the hallway; 7)has lost her temper with you, 8) shared your
confidential apology regarding the head lice comment with two co-workers and 9)
shrieked at you for interacting with her child, which was uncalled for, as you
have cared for Brianna in the past, and you felt you had a well-established
relationship with her.
Findings
The County of Santa Cruz has adopted a policy
prohibiting harassment in the workplace against a County employee on the basis of
race, color, creed, religion, national origin, ancestry, disability, medical
condition, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, age, pregnancy, gender,
veteran status, or any other non-merit factor.
(Personnel Regulations Section 191.1). Harassment includes, but is not
limited to, verbal harassment, physical harassment, visual harassment, and/or
sexual advances.
The allegations that you have
described in your EMAIL of June 17th, your memo of August 15th,
and that you discussed with me on a few different occasions do not constitute
harassment/hostile work environment, as defined under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act. There is no evidence that any of the events that have occurred are
being directed against you because of race, color, creed, religion, national
origin, ancestry, disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, sexual
orientation, age, pregnancy, gender, veteran status, or any other non-merit
factor. Rather, their origins are completely outside of the workplace and are
the result of personal relationships between yourself and other co-workers,
including Claire Machado, Holly Hartranft, and Jim Davies. Although a hostile
work environment is not found, the County takes seriously all matters where an
employee is faced with conflict in the workplace. Accordingly, the department has looked into
each of your allegations as outlined below.
Allegation 1: Claire, Jim, and Holly are giving you “dirty”
looks.
A co-worker indicated that she
witnessed these individuals giving you “dirty” looks on several occasions.
The rift between you and Claire
in particular is well known in Office. However, this is a professional office,
and employees are to treat each other with respect. These individuals will be
counseled and advised that we expect all employees to deal with each other in a
business-like manner.
Allegation 2: These
employees are approaching other co-workers, individually and collectively, and
saying bad things about you and asking them not to be your friend or to
socialize with you.
Two of your co-workers did indicate that they have
been approached in the past at different times by Claire and Holly and either
cautioned about being your friend, or asked about their friendship with you.
Some negative comments were made about you-but at least one of these co-workers
indicated that you also made negative comments to her about Claire.
In the course of my
investigation, I discovered that the Section Manager, David Laughlin, had
determined over a year ago that you were spending too much time in the code
compliance work area and that your behavior was disruptive to the work
environment. (too much socialization) At that time, he spoke with Mr. Deming,
your direct supervisor, and requested that you limit your interactions with the
code staff. Mr. Laughlin also advised several of his staff to be direct with
you, if necessary, if you were attempting to engage anyone in conversation or
distract them from their work. Other individuals I interviewed indicated that
you are very social, at times loud, and at times discuss uncomfortable details
about your personal life.
When questioned about this, one of the co-workers
cited the directive from their manager as the basis for cautioning her
co-workers about socializing with you. The other indicated that she did not
initiate the contact, but if asked, would offer her feelings about you.
Again, this is a professional office, and employees
are to treat each other with respect. All parties are expected to refrain from
“bad-mouthing” a fellow employee, and will be so counseled. This applies to you
as well.
Allegation 3: That one or more of these individuals asked
you to stay out of the Code Compliance work area.
This is consistent with the
directive given by the Code Compliance manager, Mr. Laughlin. He expressly
empowered his staff to be forceful, if necessary, in communicating with you
about not disrupting the work of the Code Compliance staff.
Allegation 4: That a
co-worker told you that Claire Machado had called you a “slut” and that you
could not be trusted.
I could find no evidence that
anyone referred to you in this derogatory manner.
Allegation 5: That Holly Hartranft had grabbed you and
confronted you in mid May in the code compliance work area about a personal
matter and spoke so loudly that other co-workers could hear her remarks.
A witness to this episode
indicated that the interaction was indeed loud, that it occurred in the Code
Compliance area, was about non-work matters (going to the Strawberry music
festival), that you were trying to end the conversation but Holly persisted,
but she did not witness any physical contact between the two of you.
Ms Hartranft indicated that this
incident started because you had come into the cubicle area and began talking
about the upcoming concert, which men were going, and that she couldn’t take it
any more. She agreed that she was forceful and emphatic in her communications
with you, consistent with the instructions from Mr. Laughlin. She admitted that
others probably overheard her remarks, some of which were about your personal
life. She apologized to one co-worker.
This incident should not have
occurred in the workplace. It was not about business, but an event outside the
office. Again, the underlying hostilities erupted in an inappropriate manner.
This is a professional office. Staff needs to
conduct themselves in a business-like manner. Personal matters should not be
discussed openly in the workplace. Intimate details about relationships and
other personal matters have been shared with co-workers who do not always
welcome such information.
6) Claire continues to give you
hostile glares and will walk right into you if you do not yield to her in the
hallway.
While I did not find any
independent evidence to validate this allegation, it is clear that there are
still tensions between the two of you that continue to exist and that are
counter-productive to a positive work environment.
7) Claire has lost her temper
with you.
The only incident I am aware of
where Claire raised her voice in the workplace is the one involving her child.
This is discussed below.
8) Claire shared your
confidential apology regarding the head lice comment with two co-workers.
When you and I met with you in June, I told you that
it was completely inappropriate for you to make that comment about Claire to
Mr. Cleary. You asked whether you should apologize, and I indicated that I
think you should do so. That day you sent you an EMAIL offering an apology.
Below is the string of EMAILS that resulted.
Hello Claire:
With regards to a brief conversation I had at the GID Thursday
6/19/03 with our mutual friend Steve, I would like to apologize for a comment I
made which was inappropriate. I'm sorry
I said what I did. In the future I will
make sure to strive to keep my behavior at the GID and at work in general, as
always, as professional as possible.
Most Sincerely,
Barbara
Barbara,
You may consider my ex-roommate and friend Steve Cleary a mutual
friend, however, this is an assumption on your part. He only considers you to
be an aquaintance. He was highly offended by your comments regarding me because
he knows the truth about the situation to which you referred. I suggest you
also apologize to him and any other member of the public that heard your
comments. I also suggest that you do not talk about subjects that you do not
have full information about.
While I will accept your apology, I will not tolerate any further
offensive behavior of this nature and if I find out you are continuing to
spread or make untrue or incorrect comments to anyone about me, it will
continue to be immediately reported to management.
Claire
Claire,
Most people who have an open invitation to my home retain the
title of 'friend' as far as I am concerned.
If that is a misnomer where Steve is concerned he can feel free to
correct me. I am very sorry if I
offended Steve. It certainly didn't seem
that way as he was smiling and laughing with me as he usually does. The next
time I see him I will speak to him about it.
There were no other members of the public in the area.
In the future, if you have a problem with me that you feel you
can't bring to me personally, by all means feel free to bring it to my Manager,
Mark Deming or Assistant Director, David Lee.
I agree its the best way for the quickest resolution, except of course,
for the problem not to occur at all.
Barbara,
I will
only continue to have contact with you on this matter and others similar
through management. I do not want any direct contact from you unless it
is 'strictly' work related.
Claire
At that point, I intervened and
asked both of you to stop trying to get the last word in.
Subsequently, I discovered that Claire had shared
this string of EMAIL with two co-workers.
It was inappropriate for you to
make that comment to Mr. Cleary, and it was inappropriate for Claire to
distribute the EMAIL’s to her co-workers. As both of you have been counseled
regarding this incident, no further action is required at this time.
9) Claire shrieked at you for
interacting with her child, which was uncalled for, as you have cared for
Brianna in the past, and you felt you had a well-established relationship with
her.
In the Email above, Claire makes
it very clear to you that she wants to limit the interactions between the two
of you to “strictly work related” matters. In my investigative interviews with
both of you, I requested that each of you limit your interactions to the
minimum extent necessary. Mr. Deming and Mr. Laughlin gave similar directions
to both you and Claire. In light of this, engaging Claire’s daughter was
completely inappropriate. You may not have intended to provoke Claire, but you
clearly did, and I think her reaction under the circumstances was
understandable. A parent has the right to set boundaries for their child, and
as adults, we need to respect those. You need to avoid contact with her
daughter in the workplace, and we expect that you will.
Conclusion:
While I have found that there are
no violations of the County’s policies regarding harassment or violence in the
workplace, there is definite tension and ongoing hostility, especially between
you and Claire, which has spilled into the work place. This rift is well known
by co-workers, and it is very disruptive to a harmonious office environment.
Actions and Expectations
In response to my request, you prepared a list of
specific actions that you asked management to take to resolve your complaints
regarding a hostile work environment. After reviewing your requests, and after
reviewing the information gathered in interviews, EMAILS, and applicable County
policies, I have arrived at certain conclusions about what needs to be done to
address the current problems in the workplace.
This is a professional office,
and all of our employees need to conduct themselves in a professional manner,
both in dealing with the public and with each other. To this end, both you and
Claire need to be able to interact with each other on a working basis. We do
not expect employees to like each other, but we do expect all employees to be
able to deal with each other on business matters in a business-like manner.
Personal matters should not be
discussed openly in the workplace. Intimate details about relationships and
other personal matters have been shared with co-workers who do not always
welcome such information. If a friendship develops, the appropriate place and
time to discuss personal affairs is outside the office, not in the workplace.
There is too much discomfort in the workplace and it needs to stop now.
Making negative remarks about
another employee in the workplace is inappropriate, and this too needs to stop.
If there is a problem with a co-worker, bring it to the attention of your
supervisor.
Claire has the right to set
parameters for interactions with her child, and you need to respect these and
avoid contact with Brianna.
We encourage interactions between
co-workers, and like to foster a friendly and positive work environment. Joking
with each other, laughing, and having a little fun while working hard is part
of our office culture. There is obviously a balance- as these can be disruptive
to others-but we do not want to stifle positive interactions between
co-workers. Our jobs are stressful, and laughter is a good tonic. But the
workplace should be a quiet, professional area in which employees complete
their work. All employees in Planning
are expected to be respectful, professional, and considerate of the noise
levels.
You have an outgoing personality, but sometimes you
can be ‘over-the-top”- a bit too loud, laugh too much, make unsolicited remarks
to co-workers, and so forth. This can be distracting and annoying to others,
and this is an area you need to address. Minimize your contact with the Code
Compliance staff, and do not socialize in their work area. I know that you take
breaks with one of the Code Compliance employees- meet this person in the hall
or downstairs to respect the boundaries that have been requested by Mr.
Laughlin. Respect Claire’s work area and her stated desire to be left alone.
The Personnel Department has
offered to arrange for professional assistance on a limited basis to help with
conflict resolution if the two of you are willing to participate in such a
process. This is completely voluntary. Please let me know if you are open to
this idea and I will make the necessary arrangements.
Our expectation from this point
forward is that the two of you will interact on a professional basis, and in a
professional manner, to the extent necessary as your job duties require.
Departmental expectations will also be provided to Ms. Machado and other
employees as appropriate. Failure to comply with these directives and
expectations will result in disciplinary action.
Cc Ajita Patel, Equal Employment
Opportunity Officer
Alvin James, Planning Director
David Laughlin, Principal Planner
Mark Deming, Principal Planner