On or around May 5, 2020, Plaintiff was notified that Sandmeyer was conducting a Rule 27 investigation into his alleged conduct. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Sandmeyer’s spouse had previously worked for Kotek, the person who made the complaint to the LEO. Neither Sandmeyer nor Kotek disclosed this relationship to Plaintiff and Sandmeyer did not recuse from this matter.Hernandez also finds objection to the length of time that the investigation took, which was about 200 days. "Rule 27" refers to the rule in the Legislative Branch Personnel rules, titled "Harassment-Free Workplace." Hernandez
Pursuant to Rule 27 (6)(h), the investigator has 60 days from appointment to conduct the investigation and present a draft finding of fact and recommendations to the Human Resources Director, the Office of the Legislative Counsel, the complainant, and the person alleged to be involved with the harassment. The person alleged to be involved with the harassment has a right to be promptly informed of any extensions granted to the investigator and must be provided with the reason for any delay. That did not occur during this investigation....
Fahey, Noble, Sandmeyer and Kotek delayed Plaintiff’s investigation by nearly 200 days for improper purposes, did not notify Plaintiff of the reasons for the delay, failed to give Plaintiff the final findings of fact within 10 days of its submission, only provided Plaintiff with seven days to respond to the allegations, prevented Plaintiff from presenting evidence at the fact finding hearing, prevented Plaintiff from testifying without forfeiting his right to counsel, required Plaintiff to present his defense first, and precluded Plaintiff from questioning other witnesses or providing rebuttal evidence and testimony.
Sandmeyer redacted dates, how Plaintiff knew the subjects, multiple pages of text message threads and Facebook posts, any reference to the fact that two of the subjects were sisters, any reference to the fact that the subjects wanted to rekindle a romantic relationship with Plaintiff, and any reference to Kotek.Hernandez is requesting non-economic damages in the form of emotional distress against Fahey, Noble, Sandmeyer and Kotek in the amount of $1,000,000, along with reasonable attorney fees, expert witness fees, costs, and interest. Insiders attribute the source of Speaker Kotek's anger and retaliation against him to his no vote on Speaker Kotek's PERS reform bill from the 2019 session, SB 1049 which required public employees to pay some of their own retirement. The bill passed by one vote under heavy pressure from the speaker, including a pause during the voting in which several Democrat House members were taken into the back office and "encouraged" to vote for the bill.
|Post Date: 2021-02-12 14:01:38||Last Update: 2021-02-12 16:06:13|