DOH/DEP asbestos fact sheet draft, 105 Duane Street

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

Jenkins v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 88-SWD-2 (ALJ July 10, 1998) Page 18 of 34

complainant for publicly revealing the ongoing investigation of Monsanto (TR 742). The EPA's Office of Enforcement also addressed Jenkins' violation of EPA policy and requested that appropriate administrative action be taken (CX 326). However, no formal personnel action was taken.

Jenkins' performance standards for FY 1991 included "Agency policies concerning communicating with the public are followed" as a criterion required for an outstanding or fully successful rating (CX 334 at 6). Petruska, complainant's supervisor, testified that he believed she was the only person in the office who had this criteria listed on her performance rating (TR 1632-33). Jenkins believed that her performance rating of "fully successful" rather than "outstanding" for FY 1991 was based on the "follows agency policies on communications" criterion (TR 737). However, Petruska testified that he used many different criteria in determining Jenkins' performance evaluation for that year and not just "one thing" (TR 1600-01).

b. Discussion

1. Complainant's Credibility

Claimant's credibility is the key issue in this case, both because there is frequent conflict between her version of events and that of other witnesses and because her

Page 22]

perception of events is the principal component in her belief that she has been discriminated against for her protected activities. Accordingly, much of this part of the decision will address claimant's credibility.

Getting right to the point, Cate Jenkins is the most disingenuous, evasive, and self-serving witness I have ever observed. She is an intense woman who believes that any means are acceptable if, in her view, the ends are desirable, including lying (even under oath), searching through co-workers' personal effects, and leaking confidential information. She further believes that any person, rule, or law which stands in her way can be ignored. She has acted and continues to act as if she believes she is the only person at EPA who is concerned with the public interest and everyone else is selling out to the industries regulated by EPA. Accordingly, she irrationally assumes that every criticism of her job performance, no matter how obviously valid, is part of a plan to impede her efforts to protect the public and the environment. It does not appear to have entered her mind that proposals which differ from hers may nevertheless be meritorious or even worthy of consideration, nor does it appear to have occurred to her that her "ends justify the means" philosophy may compromise both her credibility and that of the EPA. Dr. Jenkins' sanctimonious, condescending, and distrusting attitude toward her colleagues made it inevitable that serious problems would develop in her employment relationships.8

What makes the foregoing particularly lamentable is that Dr. Jenkins is without doubt an extremely intelligent woman and a capable chemist. Her near photographic memory was demonstrated repeatedly at the hearing (when it suited her convenience) through her uncanny ability to instantaneously identify the exhibit numbers of documents and to locate particular passages in these documents. This was all-the-more impressive when it is considered that complainant had marked almost 400 documentary exhibits taking up five loose-leaf binders. Moreover, she firmly believes in the mission of the EPA, and in that respect is well-intentioned. But she is so lacking in judgment that she actually has made it more difficult for EPA to accomplish its mission.

file://A:\Dismissed.html 12/21/01

NYC-WTC 000125954