Green complaint dismissed

Green alleged he had a medical condition that created a disability and he contended the district did not try to accommodate him, and he alleged the district treated female employees with similar conditions differently.

“The evidence gathered failed to establish discriminatory working conditions based upon complainant’s protected class,” states a May 16 complaint dismissal memo from the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI).

Green, who has 90 days from the date of its issuance to appeal the decision, did not return a call for comment.

The district “offered a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for discharge,” the memo states. Green “could not provide any evidence linking his termination with his disability or the fact that he took a medical leave of absence,” it stated. For that reason, it stated, it was recommended the case be dismissed for lack of substantial evidence.

The Chronicle sought documents of the case from BOLI, and received a heavily redacted version in late June. One of the reasons cited for redaction was personnel discipline actions.

In a letter from the parks district contained in the BOLI documentation, the parks district contended Green was terminated due to performance deficiencies that surfaced during his annual performance review, and there was no mention of a medical condition until he was scheduled to appear before the board to address the deficiencies.

The parks letter stated Green went on two and a half weeks of medical leave, was subsequently fully released to work by his doctor, and then immediately put on administrative leave because the district received a tort notice alleging Green had sexually harassed a female employee and retaliated against her after she complained about him and another employee.

The district contended Green “never requested an accommodation other than leave, which was granted, and he was subsequently fully released to return to work without restriction.”

Green said he didn’t ask to be accommodated for his disability because he was put on leave, then terminated before he had a chance to.

He was terminated on Aug. 28 during his administrative leave. According to the parks letter, a consultant hired by the district issued a report in November 2014 with findings that “Mr. Green had engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct toward [the complainant] and other female employees, including unwelcome touching, in 2008 and 2009.

The report also found that Mr. Green had retaliated against [the woman] for her complaints about him by imposing a work improvement plan on [her.]”

Had those findings been known “while Mr. Green was still employed, he would have been subject to termination for that conduct as well,” the parks letter stated.

The sexual harassment claim is still pending, according to the parks district’s attorney, Tom Peachey.

Green told the BOLI investigator that board member Travis Dray provided the tie-breaking vote in the 3-2 decision to terminate him only because board chair Catherine Whalen “kicked him under the table.”

Dray said that didn’t happen, noting it was “physically impossible” for Whalen to kick him because another person was seated between them.

Whalen said, “Needless to say, I totally deny that and that’s ridiculous and I think the board gave due diligence to the way they voted and I respected each and every vote.”

Green also alleged he was treated differently than other similarly situated women at the district. The parks district responded that the only other person who had been identified as having a performance deficiencies in that period was another male.

“Mr. Green was terminated because he failed to meet his performance expectations,” the parks letter stated,” and his gender had absolutely no relevance to that decision.”

In May 2014, a staff survey was circulated as part of Green’s annual evaluation. The board “had difficulty getting the staff members to respond to the survey,” the parks letter said, but some staff complained directly to Whalen, the board chair.

One employee called Whalen to say “he felt harassed by his supervisor, and that his efforts to discuss the problem with Mr. Green had been ignored. He also stated that another employee of the district was in the process of resigning because of similar issues.”

According to the parks letter, another employee contended to Whalen that Green was “engaging in unethical practices regarding use of the district’s credit card and reimbursement requests; abusing sick leave and vacation policies; ignoring complaints from staff members; allowing another employee to violate the district’s timekeeping policy and drug and alcohol policy; and retaliating against [an employee] for her prior complaints about” Green and another employee.

At a June executive session evaluating Green, there were many favorable comments about Green from board members, but also concerns about difficulty in staff communication, lack of follow through on grievances and chain of command and that he “needs to comply with receipt submission policy,” the parks letter stated.