Court document excerpt regarding Dr. Jenkins and EPA fraud allegations

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document Jenkins v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 88-SWD-2 (ALJ July 10,1998) Page 27 of 34

within 3 months of reassignment, resulting in isolation

11/87 - 6/88: Imposition of IDP

12/88: Satisfactory rather than exceeds expectation performance rating

1989 - 1989: Period of no duties and isolation

Compl. brief at 177.

a. Reassignment to New Supervisor

The first alleged adverse action, reassignment to a different branch chief, was a decision to which Jenkins agreed. Barnes, the new director of the Character and Assessment Division, thought Jenkins might work more productively than she had under Scarberry if she was reassigned to Dellinger, who he believed was an excellent supervisor (TR 1732). While Jenkins testified that she did not believe that she agreed to this transfer, but rather that she "chose the lesser of two evils or three evils or four evils," the record reflects that Jenkins had input into this decision (TR 1138). In fact, Barnes offered Jenkins the option of working directly for him, but she turned that option down so she could continue with her listings work (TR 598-99). Hence, Jenkins was given a choice of whom to work for other than Scarberry and she chose Dellinger over Bames.

This reassignment was designed to remove Jenkins from working with a supervisor who she clearly did not respect and with whom she had difficulty working. It is not credible that Jenkins would want to continue working for a supervisor against whom she had made such serious accusations as sexual harassment and forgery. Bames took these accusations into account and no doubt also considered the stressful work situation that resulted between Scarberry and Jenkins when he decided to reassign her. Barnes' attempt to place complainant in a more amenable supervisory situation where it was hoped she could work more comfortably and productively clearly was not a punitive measure. Accordingly, I find that her reassignment to another supervisor was not an adverse action and in any event was not in retaliation for protected activity.

[Page 33]

b. Reorganization of Office Resulting in Isolation

Complainant next states that she was subject to an adverse action when tne listings section was removed from her branch and moved to another branch in 1988, which allegedly resulted in her isolation. During the time period in which the isolation was alleged, the office was reorganized as a result of an unanticipated medical waste crisis (TR 1803-04). ' 2 One of the results of the reorganization was that the listing section was removed from Dellinger's supervision and transferred to another branch within the division (TR 1805). Jenkins suggested that she be transferred to the branch where the listing section was located, but Bames denied this request because tire chief of that branch was in the process of leaving and it was anticipated that Scarberry would become the new branch chief (TR 1806). After this re-organization, Jenkins continued to work on listings projects (TR 1807-08).

Jenkins has failed to show that the removal of the listing section from her branch and the following denial of transfer to where the listing section was located was discriminatory. First, the reorganization

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

NYC-WTC_000140204