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 21 of 34

illustrative of how out of control she was by that time (see TR 1206-19).

Other examples of complainant's character which deserve notice are illustrated by the following incidents:

-- Complainant was calculating enough to notify her supervisors when she was engaging in protected activity, believing that if they were aware she engaged in protected activity it would be more difficult to take action against her. She stated that "it was important in employee discrimination cases at all times to ensure that your management was aware of your protected activity." (TR 536; see TR 537-38).

-- In a May 17, 1989 memo to Dellinger summarizing the status of her work on the methyl bromide and UDMH listings (CX 241), complainant became extremely defensive. She complained she was being assigned an "inordinate work load" (id. at 3), lashed out at Dellinger for plotting against her, and offered a number of excuses why the work was not going to be completed on time. She added that, "[a]s I told you on May 12, my first priorities will not be any HSWA listing work, but instead pursuing my EEO and DOL complaints" (id. at 2). Conversely, at the same time complainant was alleging that she had little to do (TR 437).

--The adulation, attention, and publicity complainant received from the media, special interest groups, and Congress for her public criticism of her employer and disclosure of confidential information was very important to her, apparently more important than performing the job she was being paid to do at EPA. She was proud of being labeled a whistleblower. Complainant not only collected all the articles she could find criticizing EPA's regulation of dioxin and the wood preserving industry in which her name is mentioned (e.g., CX 6, 153, 154, 171, 178-80, 195-96, 199-201, 203, 205-07, 342, 345-64, 366-86, 388-89, 391), but usually she both starred and underlined her name in these articles. Several of these publications include her picture, and a report by the environmental organization Greenpeace regarding a wood treating pesticide is virtually dedicated to her (see CX 196, at 1-4). She even received an award from a Vietnam veterans' organization (TR 777). She exulted in her television appearances, and made sure everyone was informed of her media coverage (see, e.g. TR 474-82, 535-36, 546-47). It is also revealing that complainant referred to the wood preserving regulations as "my wood preserving regulations" (TR 127) ten years after being removed from the project.

--Complainant's refusal to acknowledge, let alone accept, criticism is astounding. Despite all the criticism complainant received for her work on the wood preserving listing, when she was asked to fill out her performance evaluation for the year October 1, 1986 through September 30, 1987 she gave herself a perfect rating, 500 out of a possible 500 points. On the other hand, her supervisors, Scarberry and Straus, rated her unsatisfactory, 190 out of 500 (see CX 66). In this performance evaluation,

[Page

complainant's supervisor, Scarberry, stated that he "had to rewrite a poorly written memo. . . that [complainant] would not deal with" (id. at 5). Complainant concedes that the memo had both grammatical and spelling errors but, noting that Spellcheck was not yet available, argued that "it was really an unreasonable thing to fault an employee for." (TR 840-41). Even more extraordinary testimony concerned the issue/options paper for the wood preserving listing that Scarberry instructed

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

NYC-WTC 000125957