Richard Brown files complaint with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission…
Let’s flash back for a moment to when Richard Brown was indicted on the charges that are still pending, on September 22, 2007, Council President Michael Ashford is quoted in the Toledo Blade:
Council President Michael Ashford said he contacted the city’s law department to see how to proceed.
“He is an at-will employee for City Council and, upon his return, he will be suspended without pay immediately pending the outcome of these legal problems,” Mr. Ashford said.
I have been unable to verify what the City policy is on determining what ground rules exist when it comes to the decision of administrative leave with or without pay. The only reference to administrative leave that I was able to find listed in searching the Toledo Charter/Code is a reference specifically related to the union contract with Local 7. Initially I started searching for information on the whole issue of administrative leave related to the story about Police Chief Gulch to see if there was any kind of a set policy either in the state or the City of Toledo to use as a comparison. In this situation, the complaint filed with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission is based on what is felt is discrepancies in the decision of who receives administrative leave with pay and who receives administrative leave without pay is being done on a discriminatory basis. What additionally makes the scenario involving Richard Brown seem to be punitive is what the City has stated in response to his filing of an unemployment claim which is currently under appeal:
The claimant was given a disciplinary lay off from City of Division of Accounts for misconduct in connection with the work beginning on 9/21/2007:
In accordance with section 41.4129 ORC no waiting week may be served or benefits paid during the period of a disciplinary lay off. That has been determined to be just cause in connection with the work.
An individual is ineligible from Sunday of the week in which the issue started through Saturday of the week in which the issue ended. Therefore, claimant is ineligible from 9/21/2007 until this agency is provided evidence that issue no longer exists and claimant is otherwise elgible.
In Toledo, as well as Ohio, and in the nation, a person is innocent until proven guilty and the charges Richard Brown is facing have nothing to do with his job performance while employed by the City of Toledo. No disciplinary action was taken, there has been no misconduct related to his work and as the quote from Council President Michael Ashford, his suspension was “pending the outcome of these legal problems”.
It would be understandable for an employee to be placed on administrative leave without pay if they were facing legal issues related to their job performance, it would also be understandable if the administrative leave without pay was based on a disciplinary issue that an unemployment claim would be denied by that employer. That’s not the case in this situation and now that the complaint has been filed with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, perhaps part of this situation can be resolved. While I understand the concern about public perception to place a person on administrative leave with pay when they are facing criminal charges, of the options available relating to an at will employee in this situation in the absence of a set policy stating otherwise are: allowing them to continue working, terminate employment, place on administrative leave with pay, or place on administrative leave without pay, trying to now state this is the result of a disciplinary lay off when he has not been found guilty of anything is hard to see as anything but punitive and discriminatory.
YUP! That’s Toledo for ya, screw ‘em first, then do what’s legally right, but only after you drag it out for months on end and destroy a persons life in the process.
December 19th, 2007 at 2:19 pmOh Boy, here we go again! Carty draws lawsuits like picnics draw flies.
December 19th, 2007 at 7:51 pmCarty wasn’t the one who made the decision on the leave without pay aspect, that said, I have no idea who makes the decision on what type of reasoning would be used to fight an unemployment claim. All I do know, is whoever did? There is a huge difference between a disciplinary lay off and administrative leave without pay pending the outcome of a legal situation…The first time his unemployment claim was rejected I thought it was just an error, but it’s clear, if this is an error? Someone keeps making it…
December 19th, 2007 at 7:54 pmI should clairify, Carty & his Administration. My understanding is that Bob Reinbolt makes all the “Staffing” decisions.
December 19th, 2007 at 7:57 pmBut then…”Council Prez” makes council staff decisions?
December 19th, 2007 at 7:59 pm“Mr. Brown’s work as a deputy auditor entails overseeing the city’s sewer overhaul project.
His boss, Scott Wheelock declined to comment.
Council President Michael Ashford said he contacted the city’s law department to see how to proceed.
“He is an at-will employee for City Council and, upon his return, he will be suspended without pay immediately pending the outcome of these legal problems,” Mr. Ashford said.”
Confusing. He is a deputy auditor and is an at will employee of city council?
At will says it all. Nothing special about being in Toledo. And I get called a naysayer.
At will is common for most of us. Sneeze in a way a boss does not like and he or she can toss you to the curb.
An employer has an expectation that an employee will show up for work.
This gentlemen has legal troubles of some sort and the reporting is vague as to what the problem is, with regards to his employment.
December 19th, 2007 at 9:49 pmNC, there is no problem related to his job, he was put on leave because he’s facing criminal charges totally unrelated to his job. The link to the Blade article points that out.
The issue is the clear statement that this was related to the legal situation then the City stating in the unemployment claim that this was a disciplinary lay off, which it’s not. I realize the “at will” employee aspect of this, but he was not disciplined for anything related to his job, he has not been found guilty of anything related to his job or unrelated to his job at this point in time.
December 19th, 2007 at 10:22 pmTo blame Carty is outrageous. Simply put, the city of Toledo is doing what is in its own best interest, agree with it or not. This decision was not made by Carty, I can assure of that Chad. Yes, he was an at-will employee, as all employees should be, meaning without union representation.
Did you ever think, NC, that showing up for work is not enough? I think that. I’ll show up for work and do my job, and then some. Go to work, do your job, and go above and beyond. That is the true american spirit. We work hard and we work well, we are Toledo.
December 20th, 2007 at 1:56 amOops, that posted to the wrong thread. My apologies.
December 20th, 2007 at 2:04 am“The issue is the clear statement that this was related to the legal situation then the City stating in the unemployment claim that this was a disciplinary lay off, which it’s not.”
But there is this; “The claimant was given a disciplinary lay off from City of Division of Accounts for misconduct in connection with the work beginning on 9/21/2007:”
It’s not a discinplinary lay off? The report states that it is. It also fails to state that there was a tribunal of sorts that found for him or against him.
He is an at-will employee and the employer can, and they do, find reasons to lay off the person.
Is it right?
I, personally, cannot make a judgment on the basis of what there is written given that the reporting does not state that he contested the unemployment claim. He would have started there, I would suppose. It’s all discussion.
But this issue now resolves around a claim with the Civil Rights Commission which is a bit different than an employee being terminated.
It’s all discussion.
December 20th, 2007 at 6:38 am“Did you ever think, NC, that showing up for work is not enough? I think that. I’ll show up for work and do my job, and then some. Go to work, do your job, and go above and beyond. That is the true american spirit. We work hard and we work well, we are Toledo.”
This is where the American Spirit hits reality.
Employers lay off or dismiss people each and every day for any number of reasons, hard workers and slackers are let go.
Sure we go to work, if I had a job still looking, and these things happen and there is little if any recourse for an alleged unjustly treated worker, unless we consider union contracts and there are many that find that unpalatable.
This is really not a Toledo issue as it is an employer, employee issue, to me at least.
December 20th, 2007 at 6:42 amThat’s why I posted what was stated on the unemployment claim, because it’s not accurate or true. The date given for when the disciplinary problem started was the date he was indicted…
December 20th, 2007 at 8:54 am“because it’s not accurate or true.”
We know it is not true or accurate, because?
I think until the tribunal has commented and ruled, the issue is open to debate as to the validity of claims by both sides, but there is no decision as of yet, I believe.
He is not covered by a union contract and the grounds for dismissal or termination can be broadly written.
It happens.
December 20th, 2007 at 9:02 amRichard Brown was not disciplined for bad work he did as a deputy auditor. The speculation, which is why Richard is filing a complaint, is that he was suspended without pay as a way to punish him for personal/political reasons connected with the charges he is facing; thereby, he is guilty until proven innocent.
Even at-will employees can being wrongfully terminated (i.e., firing somebody because she gets pregnant or because the employer finds out he/she is homosexual). That’s not to say that Richard’s case is one such as those (it’s not) but he still has rights.
I’m sure some evidence will be brought against him to validate their claims, but there is certainly something rotten going on behind the scenes here.
If this case EVER actually makes it beyond the “come to court and we’ll set another date to actually go through the case” delays (right to a fair and speedy trial? definition?) then we will FINALLY see all the details, and if it’s truly a fair trial… Richard will have the chance to put back together his life.
December 20th, 2007 at 9:08 am“The date given for when the disciplinary problem started was the date he was indicted”
I’m sure that’s just a delightful coincidence!
December 20th, 2007 at 9:09 amNC, I know it’s not true because I have a) personally spoken with Richard Brown and b) personally spoken with others who confirmed he did not have any disciplinary problems related to his work. Then the public statement that was made by Michael Ashford who was the one who the decision of what was to be done was made by.
December 20th, 2007 at 9:16 amProgressive Toledo, well it’s good to see that Carty has a loyal fan! Your statement that the City of Toledo is doing what is in its own best interests is simply not true! How can they be doing what is in its own best interest when their response to the Unemployment office was false! I smell a lawsuit…thanks to the wonderful tactics of the City of Toledo!
I believe you said, “we work hard and we work well, we are toledo!” right? The true American Spirit? I think not! Now the taxpayers may have to fork out a settlement…thanks to Toledo! Way to go boys and girls you’ve done a bang up job with this one!
December 20th, 2007 at 10:25 am“NC, I know it’s not true because I have a) personally spoken with Richard Brown and b) personally spoken with others who confirmed he did not have any disciplinary problems related to his work.”
Well, that changes things.
If I was in the media or wrote about such things, I would then pose the question to the employer and ask to confirm or deny the statements.
The city could, but not without resistance, release the disciplinary steps taken and why the steps were taken.
As it is now, it is a he said, they said. People making claims about this or that and do not misconstrue what I write, with out facts to back up the statements from both sides it is all just a dispute and opinion.
If he did nothing wrong then it will come out and if there are other problems that have not reached the light of day, then when they do we can look at them.
December 20th, 2007 at 11:01 amNC, that’s exactly what appears to be happening, the media is asking questions…
December 20th, 2007 at 12:14 pmAnd the media should be asking questions…tough questions! This type of blatant discrimination has gone on long enough, especially with the Finkbeiner administration! Enough is Enough already!
December 20th, 2007 at 12:15 pmThere is no distinction between Carty/ City Of Toledo/ Council, when it comes to suing the “City”. Though it is Reinbolt that makes staffing choices as “Chief of Staff”, Kroma gets muddy here, as do Ashford and any/all elected/employed City of Toledo people. Though Finkbeiner may not know at the time of a decision, he is made aware. I have never met a man who has more information about his “staffing” than Carty.
I don’t blame “Carty” for this. Mr. Ashford made the decision to suspend Brown. The question is, who made the decision to not allow him pay/un-employment? Why? And the standard answers are not flying.
In the end, if Brown wins in court, we all pay. “The City” will be paying for it ….that’s all of them and all of us. Considering the magnified number of this type of case in recent history, pending and closed, The City’s chances are sad.
Since Mr. Brown has not been convicted of any crime, it was not right to suspend him w/o pay. Yes, it seems it was an option, but a poorly chosen one. I would have suspended him or any employee that were to be charged as Brown is, but not w/o pay. You must await the outcome of the court proceedings before penalizing someone. His is “Innocent” until proven guilty.
December 20th, 2007 at 3:44 pmMr. Brown was suspended from his work for City Council on the same day that the COURT system handed down an indictment of him.
That pretty much says it all about the ‘machine’ here in Toledo.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:14 pmExactly my point! There are games being played here and the number of people involved in this entire charade will truly shake One Government Center when the truth really comes out!
I feel sorry for Richard because he has to go through this nonsense and hasn’t received a dime since September. But he does have a lot of support from the community and the black churches are all behind him. I hear that he’s been threatened by the establishment since June because he wanted to help kids and he’s paying because he would not bend to their tactics. Chad you are right. When he’s either acquitted or the charges are dropped for lack of evidence, we, the taxpayers are going to be paying BIG TIME for the ineptitude of the powers that be that think it’s okay to treat people in this regard and think they can just get away with it.
My sources tell me that this is only the beginning…expect for Tim Braun from the Prosecutor’s office and Eugene Kutz of the Toledo Police Department to get very desperate in the next month before the trial and start throwing mud just so that they can try to lighten the blow when it comes to light that all of this was a charade! Our taxpayer dollars at work…what did progressive toledo say earlier??? “THAT IS THE TRUE AMERICAN SPIRIT. WE WORK HARD AND WE WORK WELL, WE ARE TOLEDO.” Yeah right!!!
December 20th, 2007 at 4:36 pm“Though it is Reinbolt that makes staffing choices as “Chief of Staff”, Kroma gets muddy here, as do Ashford and any/all elected/employed City of Toledo people.”
City Council is a separate entity and in the Charter; ” Section 33. Officers and employees.
The Council shall choose a Clerk and such other officers as are necessary, who shall serve at the pleasure of the Council. The Clerk and employees shall hold over until the new Council is organized.”
The issue with Brown and the city council are separate from the staff positions in other departments.
December 20th, 2007 at 5:29 pm