In the report of his investigation of Fire Chief Matt Schmitt and Deputy Fire Chief Joe Glover, Russell Van Sickle devoted Section V to “Glover’s Race and Retaliation Claims.” Schmitt’s name is blacked out because, presumably, the federal government had made no determination on his complaint at the time of the report.
However, the attorney went into detail, and provided court documents, regarding the civil right lawsuit by Glover and other firefighters that dates back to 2005. He also included prior discrimination claims made by Glover before City Administrator Eric Olson and Chief Human Resources Office Ed Sisson went to work for the city. Read Report_Redacted_Glover.
This addition is another odd section to have, except Inweekly has been told that Mayor Hayward had been upset about the lawsuit, even though it incurred before he was elected.
In a previous conversation with Inweekly, Deputy Chief Glover said he had been told by the mayor’s office that Mayor Hayward would never appoint him fire chief because he had once sued the city. Matt Schmitt had been Hayward’s interim fire chief since 2010. In October 2013, I asked Mayor Hayward, during a “Morning with the Mayor” session, about his job search for a fire chief. The mayor said that he would not appoint anyone currently in PFD and planned to go outside the department for the new fire chief. Nothing happened.
Under Section V, Van Sickle wrote about Glover’s EEOC complaint: “On December 30, 2015, Glover filed another charge of discrimination against the City. (Exhibit V-5) In the charge, Glover alleged that in 2012 he became aware that prior white employees in the deputy chief position were paid more than Glover and that Glover’s pay was not equal to his predecessors’ pay because of Glover’s race. Glover further alleged that race discrimination was the reason that Deputy Chief Glover (black male) was paid less than Interim Fire Chief Schmitt (white male). That charge of discrimination was dismissed by the EEOC on March 31, 2016. (Exhibit V-6)”
The attorney failed to give the reason why the complaint was dismissed or state that no finding was made.
The reason given for closing the file was: “The EEOC issues the following determination: Based upon its investigation, the EEOC is unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes. This does not certify that the respondent is in compliance with the statute. No finding is made as to any other issues that might be construed as having been raised by this charge.”
See V_EEOC.