EPA response to NYC Health Commissioner on asbestos, March 2002

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

Claimant's credibility is the key issue in this case, botli because there is frequent conftict betwem 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. Acer -dingly, much of this part of the decision will address claimant'^ S credibility. Getting right t; the point, Cate Jenkins is the most disingenuous, evasive, and self-serving witness T‘'5’t .;? 1 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, dr ' 4^ 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 "lie public Interest and everyone else is selling out to the industries regulated by EPA. Accordingly, rae irrationally assumes that every criticism of her job performance, no matter how obviously valid. ;s part of a plan to impede her efforts to protect the public and tlie 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 cr^ibility 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.- 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 finrly 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. Complainant's utter lack of credibility could only truly be appreciated through personally observing her cix days of testimony. I do not often rely solely on demeanor in determining a witness's credibility, but the complainant's demeanor was so disquieting that it is dispositive here by itself. Complainant often appeared to be in her own world, divorced from reality. She frequently answered questions with long discourses that quickly became unfocused. During her period on the witness stand complainant lied with impunity and did not appear the least embarrassed when she was caught in these lies (e.g., TR 968-82, 1014-17). She bragged about her bizarre behavior which she seemed to have no idea was in any way aberrant or unusual (e.g. TR 1245-55). In addition, she had alleged lapses of memory on unfavorable points so frequently that it was obvlvus the problem was one of honesty rather than memory. She has her own moral standards which are not in accord with those of the rest of society. She has no concept of team or organization, refuses to

lof 1 12/21/2001 3:05 PM

NYC-WTC_000140193