Guest Posted by MAXIMUS
I am pleased to provide the blogosphere with an exclusive about racist activity at the Virginia State Board of Elections. The full story about racial discrimination, retaliation for filing said complaint, and hostile work environment at the State Board of Elections under former Director Jean Jansen and current Director Nancy Rodrigues---this TEN PAGE story can be found by clicking on this link: http://www.edr.state.va.us/searchhearing/2008-8658%20Decision.pdf
But Maximus, how can we have racial discrimination and then retaliation for filing the complaint under two Democrat Governors? And MAXIMUS, why hasn't the mainstream media reported on it? Because my plebes, the Dems turn a blind eye when folks engage in this activity in a Democrat Administration. We will have none of that...the MSM has been scooped by the benevolent MAXIMUS who is fearless about sharing the facts with you.
The above document link is a TEN PAGE document...so don't just stop reading at page one...it gets interesting. This is what we have learned about the leadership of Jean Jansen and Nancy Rodrigues. Here is an excerpt:
Issue: Retaliation (grievance activity participation and hostile work environment; Hearing Date: 09/17/07; Decision Issued: 10/02/07; Agency: State Board of Elections....
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Decision Issued: October 2, 2007
"On December 9, 2005, the Grievant filed a grievance alleging race discrimination, failure to receive the same opportunities to provide input as other employees, preferential treatment for certain employees and a request that the Agency’s organizational structure be reviewed by an outside entity.
The Grievant’s position in these grievances was substantially upheld. On April 9, 2007, the Grievant filed a grievance alleging that, since the prior two (2) grievances, she has been subject to a hostile work environment and also subject to retaliation.
Subsequent to filing this grievance, the Grievant requested that the Director of EDR issue a ruling that her grievance qualified for a hearing. Such a ruling was issued by the Director of EDR on July 2, 2007 and the issue of hostile work environment and retaliation was qualified for a hearing. On August 10, 2007, EDR assigned this appeal to a Hearing Officer. On September 17, 2007 a hearing was held at the Agency’s location. APPEARANCES Grievant Grievant Representative Agency Party Designee Agency Representative Witnesses ISSUE Whether the Agency, since an earlier grievance filing by the Grievant, has subjected the Grievant to a hostile work environment and retaliation.
Page 3 of 10
BURDEN OF PROOF In claims of hostile work environment or retaliation, the burden of proof is upon the Grievant to present her evidence first and prove her claim by a preponderance of the evidence. A preponderance of the evidence is evidence which shows that what is sought to be proved is more probable than not. 1 FINDINGS OF FACT After reviewing the evidence presented and observing the demeanor of each witness, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: The Grievant filed a timely grievance asserting that she had endured a hostile work environment and that, because of the filing of prior grievances on her behalf, she was subject to retaliatory treatment from management. 2 The Agency declined to qualify the grievance for a hearing and the Grievant requested a compliance ruling from EDR. On July 2, 2007, the EDR Director ruled that the grievance was qualified for a hearing. The State Board of Elections (“The Agency”) has employed the Grievant for approximately twenty (20) years. Her current position is that of the Virginia Election and Registration Information System (“VERIS”) Operational Manager. On December 8, 2005 and December 9, 2005, the Grievant filed grievances alleging race discrimination, failure to receive the same opportunities to provide input as other employees, preferential treatment for certain employees, a request that the Agency’s organizational structure be reviewed by an outside entity and the issuance of an arbitrary or capricious performance evaluation. 3 The Grievant’s allegations and position in these grievances were substantially upheld. It is of particular importance that in one (1) of these grievances, the phrase “As recently as late July, she was still clinging to the familiar VVRS” was deemed by the reviewer to be inaccurate and was, pursuant to the grievance, removed from the Grievant’s performance evaluation. 1 Grievance Procedure Manual (“GPM”) Section 5.8 and Section 9 2 Agency Exhibit 1, Tab 1 3 Grievant Exhibit 1, Tab 4 and Tab 1 The Hearing Officer heard testimony from many witnesses and all indicated that the Agency had difficulties as it transferred from the Virginia Voter Registration System (“VVRS”) to the new VERIS program. The Hearing Officer heard testimony from the Deputy Project Manager for the implementation of the VERIS program that she had been told by various employees of the Agency that the Grievant was difficult to work with, and that she did not want to implement the changeover from the VVRS program to the VERIS program. In point of fact, she found her to be a wealth of information and very easy to work with...."
click on the above link for more on this story of racial discrimination and retaliation at the hands of management of the Virginia State Board of Elections.