# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Burche v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385018_0866%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1985 - **Citation:** 474 U.S. 971 ## Text EDITOR'S NOTE THE FOLLOWING PAGES WERE POOR HARD COPY AT THE TIME OF FILMING. IF AND WHEN A BETTER COPY CAN BE OBTAINED, A NEW FICHE WILL BE ISSUED. m | Supreme Court, U.S, . a \y | FILED SEP LT 196g JOSEPH F. SPANTOL, JR. se CLERK : IN THE "aaa SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 1985 No. MAURA BURCHE, Appellant, Vv. CATERPILLAR TRACTOR CO., Appellee. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT CHICAGO, ILLINOIS MAURA BURCHE 5210 Division Street Davenport, IA 52806 Telephone: (319) 386-4736 Appellant Pro Se IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 1985 No. MAURA BURCHE, Appellant, Vv. CATERPILLAR TRACTOR CO., Appellee. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT CHICAGO, ILLINOIS MAURA BURCHE 5210 Division Street Davenport, IA 52806 Telephone: (319) 386-4736 Appellant Pro Se 2 QGUESTICN PRESENTED 1. Were the rights of Maura Burche under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Con- stitution of United States violated by the Trial Court's decision by not providing equal protection of law, denying her case, and accepting the employment discrimination? 2.In light of U.S. Court of Appeals Order when first considered the case, No.81-2580, of May 16, 1983 that: "Judging Plaintiff's complaint by less stringent standards, we find that she has successfully pleaded a Title VII claim,.."more informations necessary to defend the claim may be determined through discovery".."The District Court erred in dismissing Plaintiff's com- plaint;" considering also that Appellant is fighting in courts years long, illegal, perseverent, ruthless discrimination in employment, which caused Appellant substantial, irreparable emotional sufferances and material damages, did U.S. Court of Appeal erred in denying ee GE oe 26 oe Be oe Pee 3 her "Motion to Reinstate Appeal" without considering the evidence and circumstances . of Appellant's discrimination? 3. Having knowledge: that Appellant's - attorney, in fact is guilty of malpractice abandoning Appellant's case without any no- tice, that Appellant had no fault and that she dismissed her attorney, as soon she found out about such malpractice, did the above court erred in allowing techricali- ties to deprive Appellant of a judgement on her Appeal, knowing also that through such denial did encourage discrimination in employment, because of sex and national origin? 4 INDEX QUESTIONS PRESENTED... cess seceees 2 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... ..cceecceces 7 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT.......2.0. 10 OPINIONS BELOW... cc cevecererveveess 12 JURISDICTION... ccccecccerevecccvves 14 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND RULES 15 RAISING THE FEDERAL QUESTION....... 15 STATEMENT OF FACTS... ccceccccccccee 16 CONCLUSION... cc ccccccccccvcvecevecs 48 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE... ce eeee 55 APPENDICES: APPENDIX A (U.S.Supreme Court Order for Time Extention to File Docket of Appeal) Al APPENDIX B (Appellant's Credit Hours for Computer Class) Bi APPENDIX C (Denial of Action to Reinstate the Appeal to U.S. Court of Appeal) Cl APPENDIX D (Motion to Reinstate the Appeal to U.S. Court of Appeals ) D1 —_— 5 APPENDIX E (Dismissal of Notice of Appeal - by U.S.Court of Appeals) El APPENDIX F (Notice of Appeal to U.S. Court of Appeals) Fl APPENDIX G (Dismissal of Case by U.S. Dis- trict Court) GI APPENDIX H (Attorney's Retainer Agreement) Hl] APPENDIX I (U.S. Court of Appeals Order Remanding the Case to the District Court ) K] APPENDIX L (Appellant's Letter Sent to FEPC) Ll APPENDIX M (FEPC Letter for Conciliation)Ml APPENDIX N (Appellee's Letter Sent to FEPC) Nl APPENDIX O (FEPC Investigation Report) 01] APPENDIX P (Appellee's Letter to Dismiss Appellant After Her Refusal to Accept the Job Class II Clerk) Pl APPENDIX Q (Appellant Refusal to Accept 6 Job Cffer as Class II Clerk) 3 APPENDIX R (Appellee's Job Offer) Rl Appendix S (Information Sent to FEFC by Appellee About Some Employees Hired Between 10/1978 to 3/1979 S$] APPENDIX T (Appellant's Claim to FEPC) T1 APPENDIX U (Appellee's Letter to Various Departments of Its Plants) ul APPENDIX V (Appellant's Diploma in Chemi- cal Engineering) vl Sj rea —“ — ee wat Snr = — | led eg a ee eel TABLE OF AUTHORITIES I. CASES Brunetti v Wall Mart Store, Inc., D.C. Ark 1981, 525, F. Supp. 1363 Coble v Hot Spring School District No. 6, C.A. Ark. 1982, 682, F2d, 721 Fisher v Procter and Gamble Manufacturing Co., 613, F.2d., 527 / Sth Cir. 1980 Greve v Frostburg Nat. Bank, D.C. Md. 1982 549, F. Supp. 922 Henson v City of Dundee, C.A. Fla. 1982, 682 F.2d., 897 Katz v Dole, C.A. Va 1983, 709, F.2d., 251 Mack v W. R. Grace Co., D.C. Ga. 1983, 578, F. Supp. 626 Meyers v I.T.T. Diversified Credit Corp., D.C. Mo 1981, 527 F. Supp. 1064 Muldrew v Anhenser - Bush Inc., D.C. Mo 1982, 554, F. Supp. affirmed 728 F.2d. 989 Paterson v Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co., C.A. Ind. 1981, 659, F.2d. 736, certio- rari denied 102 S. Ct. 674, rehearing denied 102 S. Ct. 1494. 52 Richardson v Restaurant Marketing Associates, 53 Inc., D.C. Col. 1981, 527 F. Supp. 690 8 Rimedio v Revlon Inc, D.C. Ohio, 1982, 528, F. Supp. 1380. Schulte v Wilson Ind., Inc., D.C. Tex. 1982, 547, F. Supp. 324 Scott v Oce Ind., Inc., D.C. Fl. 1982, 536, F. Supp 141 Sorrells v Veterans Adm., D.C. Ohio, 1983, 576 F. Supp. 1254 Spagnuolo v Whirlpool Corp., D.C. N.C. 1982, 548 F. Supp. 104, Affirmed in part, re- versed in part on other grounds 717 F.2d. 114 Thompson v Sawyer, 1982, 678, F.2d., 257, 219, U.S App. D.C. 393 United Airlines v Evans, 431 U.S. 553 (1977) Whalley v Skaggs Companies, Inc., C.A. Colo. 1983, 707 F.2d 1129, certiorari denied 104 S. Ct. 349 Williams v Boorstin, 1980, 633, F.2d., 109, 213 U.S. App. D.C. . . . 345, certiorari denied, 102 S. Ct. 2319, 451, U.S. 985, 68 L Ed. 2d. 842 ‘Williams v Trans World Airline Inc., C.A. MO 1981,660, F.2d.1267.. Zabcovici v W. Bend Co.,D.C. Wis. 1984,589 F. Supp. 780. 35 35 52 52 35 25 22 50 45 51 30 SS -=- Ss SS eee: eg i ee 9 II. STATUTES Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964 U.S.C.A. 28,1254 (27), (65), (66) (73),(192), (206) U.S.C.A. 28,2680 (14), (57) U.S.C.A. 42, 2000e et seq. III. CONSTITUTION United States Constitution ArticleIII, Section2 United States Constitution Fourteen Amendment, Section 7 10 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 1985 MAURA BURCHE, Appellant, Vv. CATERPILLAR TRACTOR CO., Appellee. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT Maura Burche, the appellant pro-se, appeals from the order of United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois, dated May 22, 1985, denying appellant's "Motion to Rein- state the Appeal" holding that the denial is not oe a == sS - - -ae Ps aia | ge ee oe 11 constitutional as being violative of appellant's rights under Title VII Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2000e et seq. The Appeal 81-2580 was dismissed on November 27, 1984 for lack of prose- cution. The Appellant's case, which is a poignant case of employment discrimination, was poorly prosecut- ed, ignored and finally abandoned by Appellant's Attorney Paul Kuster of Peoria, who despite a writ- ten agreement to pursue the case, letters, and telephone calls, never contacted the Appellant from the date "Notice of Appeal" was filed in U.S. Court of Appeals on 5-12-1984. The Appellant's attorney is guilty of lack of prosecution and malpractice. Also in dismissing the case the court didn't take in consideration the history of this cruel case of discrimination and severe emotional and material damages. | U.S. Court of Appeal denying Appellant's "Mo- tion to Reinstate the Appeal" deprived Appellant of 12 her constitutional rights to seek equal protection of law guaranteed by Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 of U.S. Constitution, by Article III, Section 2 U.S. Constitution, Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. 2000e et seq. OPINION BELOW 1. The opinion of U.S. District Court at first consideration of case on September 17, 1981, enter- ed a Judgement dismissing the complaint of Plain- tiff-Appellant, with prejudice on all grounds pre- sented by Defendant-Appellee. 2. The opinion of U.S. Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois, at first consid- eration of case on Mar 16, 1983 (Appx. I) remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for reconsider- ation concluding that Plaintiff-Appellant succeeded in pleading a Title VII claim and that court erred in dismissing the case. 3. Opinion of U.S. District Court at second consideration of case on Apr. 12, 1984 "entered a ae A oes Ol eee OO ee ee ee ‘oy 13 verdict in favor of Defendant and against Plain- tiff" (Appx. G), was appealed on May 12, 1984 by Appellant (Appx. F). 4. Opinion of U.S. Court of Appeal at second consideration of case dismissed the appeal "for lack of prosecution" on Nov. 27, 1984, (Appx. E). Appellant contested the dismissal through "Motion to Reinstate the Appeal" on 5-13-85 (Appx. D). 5. Opinion of U.S. States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Chicago, Illinois, of May 22, 1985 (Appx. C) denying Appellant's "Motion Rein- state the Appeal", was contested by Appellant in U.S. Supreme Court, October Term 1985, through "Ap- plication For Extension to File a Notice of Appeal and to Docket Appeal" on Jul. 9, 1985. 6. U.S. Supreme Court ordered on July25, 1985 * “that the*time to file Writ of Certiorari and/or for Gocketing an appeal be extended to Sept 22, 1985 (Appx. A). ES 14 JURISDICTION U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Chicago, Illinois, denied Appel- lant's " Motion to Reinstate the Appeal” on May 22, 1985. Appellant filed in U.S. Supreme Court on July 3, 1985 an " Application for Extention to File a Notice of Appeal and to Docket Appeal ". Such application has been accep- ted by the U.S. Supreme Court, establishing Sept. 22, 1985, deadline for docketing of appeal. | The jurisdiction of this Court is in- voked under 28 U.S.C.A. 1254 (27), ( 65), (66), (73), (192), (206), and 28 U.S.C.A. 2680 (14), (57). 15 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND RULES Constitution of U.S. Article III, Section 2: "The judicial power of the federal courts includes all cases of law, criminal cases, Civil cases and cases of equity (cases con- | cerning asking for court action to prevent : Same wrong doing or end same wrong doing done) mentioned in the constitution". ' 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2000e - 5 Note 746: “Congress is enacting this subchapter out- lawing discrimination by employer on basis of race, sex, color, or national origin, intended federal courts to have resort to all of their traditional equity powers, direct and incidental, in aid of enforce- ment of this subchapter". RAISING THE FEDERAL QUESTION The decision of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Chicago, Illinois, dismissing Ap- pellant's "Motion to Reinstate the Appeal" was in fact an acceptance of Appellant's employment dis- crimination and acceptance of malpractice commit- ted by Appellant's attorney. 1 Through the above decision Appellant's consti- tutional rights guaranteed by Article III, Section 2, and Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 of U.S. Con- 16 stitution, have been infringed, therefore Appellant prays U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate full consti- tutional rights and dignity grossly infringed by the Appellee, and disregarded by inferior courts including U.S. Court of Appeal. STATMENT OF FACTS 1. At the earlier stage of this claim Appel- lant filed on 11-9-1978 with Fair Employment Prac- tices Commission (FEPC) a charge of harassment and discrimination in employment because of sex~femate and national origin-Romanian, and failure to recall from medical leave (Appx. T). 2. Appellant asked FEPC through a letter dated 11-1-1979 (Appx. L) that Appellee shoudl eliminate any defamatory report~ attached to her file. 3. FEPC conciliatory letter, dated 10-23-1979, (Appx. M) demanded Appellee to give Appellant a good reference letter with the purpose of being used exclusively when prospective employers reques- ted information about her; also "Expungement from — ee’ aa Hk hi kite m Se a a—t— xt OR £3 Zuaaaue=s a= (aml 17 complainant's personnel file of material relating to complainant's termination". This was a constant demand throughout the en- tire Appellant's claim. The concilatory efforts of FEPC failed. 4. On 10-1-1979 FEPC issued an "Investigation Report" (Appx. O) where it was found that Appellant was harassed and discriminated because of sex-fe- male and national origin-Romanian, but such harass- ment lacked jurisdiction because Appellant's com plaint was filed too late. FEPC erred in dismissing Appellant's charge of discrimination and harassment because of sex and national origin due to technicalities. 5. On 11-30-1981 the administrative judge, Linda Krueger MacLachlan, dismissed the case (Appx. J). The judgement erred by not taking in consid- eration FEPC findings, the considerable emotional sufferances and material damages caused to Appel- lant by not granting her relief, job and backpay. 18 In Judge’s Finding of Facts:J-6(3),J-7(4,5), 3-8(910), J-9( 13 )¢, J-10(16) are errors which disregard the truth ‘Tire Development Lab, Build- ing E is exclusively for rubber compounds testing where could work only qualified people. No one from other laboratories of Building E would have knowledge to work in this lab, or vice versa. Test- ing equipment for rubber was not scattered in all of Building E but only in four rooms,from thirty to forty rooms existent . Each of five to six labora- tories had his own supervisor and technicians from different lab did not interfere in work. Calton, Kapraun, Clemens never worked at proving grounds and Appellant could work in any of five to six labs in Building E without having contact with them. Statement J-8(9) is also false, Appellant wes released to work in August, 1978. J ] ] ] ] J J ] J J J J J L 19 6. On 11-17-1978, Equal Employment Opportun- ity Commission (EEOC), notified Appellant that her claim was found to be without reasonable cause. 7. On 5-4-1981, EEOC informed Appellant, pro- se at that time, about her "Right to Sue". 8. Appellant filed within 90 days, on Aug. 30, 1981, under Title VII, 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2000e et seq., a three counts complaint of: I) employment discrimination and harassment because of sex and national origin; II) failure to reinstate Appel- lant, after medical leave, in an equivalent job to her former job; III) preparation and dissemination of false, defamatory reports about Appellant's work, providing these reports to potential employ- ers, preventing Appellant of finding any equivalent job (Appx. K). 9. U.S. District Court Judge Robert Morgan orally dismissed the case on 9/17/1981 after only 15 minutes of hearing. It was obvious that the | Judge didn't intend to hear the case and his de- | ON 20 cision to dismiss the case was made before he en- tered the court room, from the way he rejected any Appellant's attempt to plead her case. Appellant was deprived of her civil rights by not according her a relief. 10. On 9-24-1982 Appellant appealed her case of employment discrimination and obstruction of her constitutional rights to U.S. Court of Appeal. On May 16, 1983 the above court reversed U.S. Dis- trict's Court Judgement (Appx. I) in favor of Ap- pellee on Appellant Title VII claims, remanding the case for rehearing on two charges: A) Failure to reinstate Appellant in an equivalent job to her former job when she requested employment after her medical leave; B) Preparation of false, defamatory evaluations of Appellant's work by Appellee and furnishing them to employers, preventing Appellant from obtaining an equivalent employment to her old job. 11. The above charges were dismissed on Apr. ESE = = S| | SE ES Oe eS ee — ee I eS Eee 21 12, 1984, by U.S. District Court Judge Robert Morgan, (Appx. G) who denied Appellant's constitu- tional rights under Title VII and encouraged Appel- lant's discrimination by supporting Appellee's pre- texual explanations. ) 12. “Notice of Appeal” (Appx. F) was filed on May 12, 1984 in U.S. Court of Appeals which was dismissed on Nov. 27, 1984, for "lack of prosecu- tion" (Appx. E). 13. "Motion to Reinstate the Appeal" filed by Appellant pro-se, on 5-13-1985 (Appx. D) showed a flagrant malpractice done by Appellant's attorney, was denied on May 22, 1985 (Appx. C). 14. U.S. Court of Appeal erred in denying Ap- pellant's "Motion to Reinstate the Appeal" depriv- ing Appellant of her constitutional rights, in a ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ruthless case of employment discrimination, under J Title VII, as is stated herein. A such denial L should not have been made unless all discriminating charges, the totality of circumstances and Appel- ilies = 22 lee's history in discriminating Appellant have been considered. "Whether the harassment at work place is sufficiently severe and persistent to af- fect seriously pshychological well-being of employees is question to be determined with regard to totality of circumstances”. Henson v. on Dundee, C. A Pla., 1982, 682, F.2d. ‘ “(federal court) it properly might consid- er any action which took place as evidence of later discrimination" (Appx. I, p. 6). "The question of admisibility of discrimi- natory acts is left to the sound discretion of the trail court". United Airlines v. Evans, 431 U.S. 553 (1977); Fisher v. Procter and Gamble Manufacturing Co., 613 F.2d. 527 (5th Circ. 1980). The U.S. Court of Appeal through its ruling (Appx. I) inspite of its latitude to consider all acts of discrimination during Appellant's employ- ment, did choose to accept only those after April 1977, dismissing those prior April 1977. It would be unjust to accept, due to technicalities, only discriminatory acts after April 1977. The period prior Apt il 1977 presented below in a succinct way ae = FS FS SU SE |S SSSR ES ES] Eee a EE ee ee ee eee ee ee ee ee ee eo ee oe ee 23 and shown also in (Appx. K) did have a high contri- bution to severe pshychological sufferences of Ap- pellant. Consequently the Appellant prays the court to take in consideration the Appellant's dis- crimination for entire period of her employment and the error of inferior courts by not considering above discrimination. I. Errors of Previous Courts in Disregarding Appellant's Discrimination During Her Work. Appel- lant states as follows: | ieee 1. The Appellant is a U.S. Citizen, resident _. of State of Iowa, City of Davenport, female of Romanian origin, entitled to protection from eploy- ment discrimination under terms of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 2. Appellant was hired on 3-10-1975 by Appel- lee as Research Technician at Technical Center-Tire Development Laboratory, Bldg. E, Mossville, Illi- nois, with a pay of $287.20/week. Her duty was to design experimental rubber compounds and test them. 24 3. Appellee has its principal office located in Peoria, Illinois and has employees of such a number and for such a pericd as to be an "employer" within the meaning of Section 701(b) of the Act (42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2000e-(b)). 4. The unlawful employment practices alleged herein were commited by Appellee within State of Il- linois. 5. ‘The Appellant during a six year law suit against Appellee has followed all legal channels allowed by U.S. Constitution, and that the claim is now under the jurisdiction of this Court. 6. Appellant has therefore instituted this ac- tion under Title VII, 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2000e et seq. Viewing the above legislation concerning dis- crimination, the decisions of federal courts are very adamant to discourage wit practices and com- pensate the victims for their sufferances and loss- es. "Courts are to be guided by complimentary Pe i a i a a ee 25 aims: discouraging employers from discri- mination, and compensating discrimination's victim as fully as possible". Thompson v. Sawyer, 1982, 678, F.2d., 257, 219 U.S. App. D.C. 393. 7. The unlawful discrimination practices and harassment because of sex and national origin, com mited by Appellant's boss Marion Calton and co- workers Hank Kapraun and Larry Clemens, started a- bout 4 - 5 months from Appellant's employment and _ augmented to the point that became a harmful, scar- ing place to work as follows: a. Kapraun and Clemens wrote sexual words like "I fuck you" on the machines Appellant was working. b. They called her "Moose" and "Here comes the trouble". c. Clemens drew a moose on Romania's map in laboratory and on machines, and simulated moose's sounds when she was passing by. They brought a stuffed héad of a moose with a mortua.7 crown and told her they will bury the moose. dH.Kapraun menaced Appellant with fists 26 and screaming at her. e.Clemens cold her to go back to Romania and when she was passing by, he said: "Maybe I will kill myself”. f. Clemens made sexual, obscene comments to Kapraun about Appellant's 11 a 15 year old daug- ters without knowing them. g. They spread rumors that — is a drug and alcohol user, that she is a lesbian. A Laboratory technician asked her if she is a drug user when she took a medication for kidney and bladder infection; Appellant received at home many letters asking her to seek help against alcohol a- buse and drugs. Telephone was ringing at 2 A.M. and nobody was talking on the line scaring her children. The Appellant's life in such conditions was a nightmare. h. Appellant's work was sabotaged continuously to show that she is not able to work; The machines were unset after Appellant qualibrated them to use ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee 27 them. Such acts have been reported to Connie Fraser~Supervisor Personnel Department. Though the machines continued to be unset by Kapraun and Clem- ens, making Appellant's work almost impossible. i. The tensile machine located upstairs of la- boratory, had strong trepidations for months, only when Appellant worked with it, making impossible to read a diagram. Appellant informed Calton and Ka- praun but they said that was nothing they could do because probably Appellant was doing something wrong and therefore she was not able to work. After several months a technician, Ernest Steinert fixed the paperroll which was travelling back and froth horizontally because a bolt was missing. The department had a repair shop for machines, Kapraun was in charge with machine maintenance, though the bolt has been taken away every time Appellant was working with tensile machine and nobody seemed to . notice it for months. More, Calton was very angry when he found out Appellant was helped by Steinert. 28 j. It was very difficult for Appellant to ob- tain a machine to work. Calton told Appellant to write the date and hour when she needed the mach- ine. When she complied with this demand and start- ed to use the machine, Calton angerly told Appel- lant that even though she was scheduled to work with that machine, she had to give up always 4 mac- ‘ine when other co-workers needed it. k. Clemens made out of rubber an excrement and told Appellant "This is you". Nobody should be al- lowed to wrk in such humiliating conditions. Other examples of harassment and sabotage are presented in (Appx. K). 1. While the above harassment was repeating continuously, Clemens and Kapraun were praised by Calton, given merit increases while Appellant was demoted from research téchnician to the duties of technician under Calton's explanation that "was too much work or strain for Appellant". After 6 months merit raise, Calton eliminated the Appellant from ce eee ee oe ee ee eee es ee ee ee i e i i ee ee: hme, COU Oh Chl le le “— 29 any raise. m. Appellant informed her boss M. Calton about illegal ruthless harassment about 4 months from her employment and since then very often, but he told Appellant that co-workers are joking and she is the one who troubles their work. Appellant constructively informed Mr. Higgins, Chief of Personnel, Connie Fraser-Supervisor Perso- nnel, Manager Robert Untz and Grawey, through let- ters, meetings, conversations, telephone calls, confirmed by C. Fraser during trial. In his re- ports Calton acknowledged Appellant's claims but took them in a very light manner-as jokes. (Appx. o - 18). "Harassment that creates offensive work en- vironment, plaintiff must -emonstrate that employer had actual or constructive know- ledge of existence of sexual hostile work environment action and took no prompt and adequate remedial action". Katz v. Dole, C.A. Va 1983, 709, F.2d. 251. n. The Appellee never took any step in erradi- cating discrimination against Appellant, never dis- 30 cipled L. Clemens, H. Kapraun or her boss M. Cal- ton, Appellee never investigated this discrimina- tion. More it was encouraged by designating Kap- raun to investigate Appellant's discrimination, which gave him the opportunity to cover up the dis- crimination and continue it. "Female employee proved her claim of sexual harassment in view of evidence of unreason- able, sustained, malicious and brutal harass- ment by male employees, showing that although informed many times of the harassment, manage- ment never conducted an investigation or dis- ciplined a single employee until after repeat- ed complaints". Zabkovici v. W. Bend Co., D.C. Wis. 1984, 589 F. Supp. 780. ©. Appellant asked federal courts (Appx.K-54) for a full discovery of FEPC findings as: discus- sions, declarations, notes, reports, tapes or any other piece of evidence pertaining to Appellant's discrimination obtained during FEPC investigation, but it was refused by FEPC. p. Inferior courts greatly erred in disre- garding above cruel discrimination and letting tec- hnicalities to deprive Appellants of its constitu- ne nll ll mlLlrl ll ll a a ee 31 tional rights. Previous courts made an injustice and error against Appellant's civil rights by not considering the severe harassment and emotional da- mages that occurred during her work before April, 1977. The U.S. Court of Appeals erred also in dis- missing "Motion to Reinstate the Appeal" (Appx. D) by not considering the totality of circumstances. II. Errors of Previous Courts in Dismissing Appellant's Claim for Reinstatement in an Equiva- lent Job to the Previous Job. 1. As consequence of persisted, harmful dis- crimination, Appellant was under severe, emotional pain. 2. Despite of totally abnormal, harmful condi- tions at work Appellant wanted to continue to work, hoping that Appellee would erradicate discrimina- tion. She continued through sustained physical and emotional efforts to give a good work, as affirmed during FEPC investigation, her last two months sup- ervisor Eng. Thomas Leonard and Frasier of Personnel. 32 3. Appellee instead of erradicating discrimin- ation did continue it until the Appellant became ill , being forced to medicai leave on 4-22-77 by Appellee's physician Dr. Ashbury who sent her to Dr. Andri. Dr.'s Andri diagnosis was paranoia. 4. Appellant was under Dr. Andri's care at St. Francis Hospital-Psychiatry Department for a month until 5-22-1977. In the hospital Appellant start- ed to present severe psychological reactions, she couldn't keep eyes open, she couldn't speak and had bladder infection. Such severe reactions were caused by the inproper medication administered to Appellant, based on Dr. James Brown's diagnosis. Appellant remained in Dr. Andri's care, as outpa- tient, until May 1978, when she changed her doctor because of unbearable psychological reactions caused by medication, with Dr. James Brown from Iowa City. 5. Around Aug. 1978, Appellant was released to go to work by several doctors: Dr. Andri Emmi, Dr. == |= | | | | eee 2 oe a | ee 33 Ward James of Peoria, Illinois, Dr. James Brown and Dr. Duffi Owen of Iowa City, Iowa, without any men- tal or physical restriction in work, but only with recommendation do not work in presence of the em ployees she felt she was harassed, sabotaged and discriminated; co-workers Hank Kapraun, Larry Cle- mens and Marion Calton her boss (Appx. O -11 to 15). 6. Appellant demanded to return to work through above physicians (Appx. O - 11/15) .She made this demand to Connie Fraser-Personnel Depart- ment, also by presenting herself ready to work in Aug. 1978. As a result of Appellant's demands for work C. Fraser sent a letter on 11-2-1978 (Appx. U) to other Appellee's plants, inquiring for a job for Appellant. Appellant called also Mr. Grawey, R. Untz—Managers, Mr. Higgins-Personnel Chief demand- ing a place to work anywhere at one of Appellee's plants, but they referred her back to C. Fraser. She invariably told Appellant that can't find any job for Appellant. 34 7. Until 3-19-79, one month after FEPC Facts Findings Conference on 2-23-79, when FEPC asked Ap- pellee to find for Appellant a job equivalent to her former job, Appelle never offered Appellant a job. 8. The job offered to Appellant on 3-19-79 (Appx. R) was Class II Clerk Routine, requiring Ap- pellant to deliver computer prints to various of- fices, for a pay $251.20/week, lower than her pre- vious pay $287.20/week. 9. Appellant refused Class II job (Appx. Q) as being a continuity of her discrimination because of sex and national origin, a demotion from Appellant's former job, who has a degree in chemical engineering and was employed by Appellee as Research Technician. The job offered deprived Appellant of an equivalent salary, pension, raise, promotion, social security, equivalent to her old job and was not commensurate to her education, work experience and capabilities. Appellant's refusal is justified and can't be r “as fe — cee I een cee cee ce ee ee ee ee in... he UL Se ee ee Oe ll ee 35 considered as a quit, but a constructive dismissal of Appellant. "Position offered of national traveling salesman was essentially different" from Plaintiff's old job of regional super- visor, and common law principle of miti- gation, therefore did not require Plain- tiff to accept offer of reinstatement." sages v. Whirlpool Corp., D.C. N.C. 1982, 548 F. Supp. 104, affirmed in part, reversed in part on other grounds 717 F.2d., 114. "In order that she was constructively disitharged by defendant in violation of rignts protected under this subchapter, employee doesn't have to prove it was employer to force her to resign". Schulte v. Wilson Ind., Inc., D.C. Tex. 1982, 547, F. Supp. 324. "When an employer makes an employee's work conditions so intolerable that the employee is forced into an involuntary resignation, the employer has effected [ a constructive discharge". Rimedio v. - Revion, Inc., D.C. Ohio 1982, 528, F. Supp. 1380. Offering to Appellant Class II job, Appellee - was Only looking for a pretext to fire Appellant, = and escape FEPC requirements. 10. Appellant was terminated by Appellee on March 27, 1979 (Appx. P). a 36 il. Appellant's Qualifications: a. Appellant has a degree in Chemical Engi- neering (Appx. V). Appellant took during 5 years of college courses as follows: Calculus, Physics, Resistance of Materials, Technology of Materials, Electrical Circuits, Mechanics, Industrial Tech- nology, Electronics, Physical-Chemistry, Organic and Inorganic Chemistry, plus laboratories, Rub- ber and Petroleum Technology, Electrochemistry, Coal Gasification, etc. | Appellant worked -as engineer in Romania,from 1955 to 1969. when she left Romania, in Tire Ind. laboratory and Refinery laboratory wwhere she worked in chemical analysis and mechanical testing of products.She was research librarian. Coming to U.S.A. in 1970 she worked at Akron Equipment, Akron, Ohio, engraving metalic molds for tire industry with electrical tools, in accordance to the drawings. Appellant was also employed by Bandag, Inc. R & D, Muscatine, Iowa, a retreading [ L L L L L L L L l l qd 4 { | Fae = SSE ‘ _ Gos: Geet - Git 3 ened a 37 plant where she worked with testing machines and in chemical laboratory. _b. At the beginning of her employment, on 3-10-75 M. Calton wrote: “There is no question that (Appellant) is capable, hardworking, has excellent moti- vation, and initiative and can benefit our group. She is agressive and somewhat de- manding. These qualities are of course, laudable if properly controlled. If I had only technicians working for me, (she) might well be my choice." Also on 8-25-75 Calton wrote: "(Appellant) is perhaps the inmost devoted, hardest working technician that I have known. Her knowledge of work is impres- sive. In view of her progress and her excellent abilities and work output, I re- commend the pay increase noted above". (Appx. O - ( 15,16)) Therefore when Appellant was hired by Appellee, her work experience, background were highly recog- nized, but when she started to claim against dis- crimination, M. Calton prepared false, defamatory reports about Appellant's work, to the point that Appellant was considered incapable to occupy any of the positions for which people with no college or 38 at most 2 years college in biology, business, with work experience in farm, food store, teaching, were hired. Appellant was considered only for Class II Clerk "the only job she could perform without additional training for which she was qualified". Mastronar- di's letter 6-26-1979 (Appx. 0-21). c. In Fall 1984 Appellant took 3 month com puter operations course at Scott Community College Davenport, Iowa (Appx. B) and a Real Estate course at St. Mary's College, Davenport, Iowa where she obtained license No. F19845 - 1982. Between 1979 to 1982 she made drawings to build four duplexes and worked és general contractor for IJP, Inc. Pre- sently she is studying computer programming. 12. The above qualification and work experience show Appellant having technical versatility, work capability, possibility of learning in different fields due to her education and work experience. Therefore Appellee's refusal to give her a job in a wn Ce en ee ee ke rd baccateg SS —_- = = 39 a different plant, equivalent to her old jab be- cause "she has limited background to rubber test- ing” is false, a pretextual explanation of Appel- lee who hides discrimination and intention to con- structively discharge Appellant. (Appx. S-3 to 5). 13. The list of 11 positions of employees hir- ed by Appellee between Aug. 1978 to May 12, 1979, presented to FEPC(Appx.021)and employment file of people hired, (Appx. S) show that Appellee hired people with less education and work experience than Appellant, while Appellant was asking constantly Appellee for work. Appellant could have occupied any of the above positions due to her background. 14. Appellee's testimony presented tc FEPC, showed that Appellee hired less than 10% femeles as technicians therefore Appelle has a history in hir- ing males excluding females, which explains the re- jection of Appellant from all jobs available.( Appx 0-2¥11) 15. Appellee admitted that they have labora- tories at other locations ( Appx.06]))where Appellant 4O would not be in contact with the 3 employees men- tioned at paragraph 1(7) for example: General Chemistry Lab, Power Plant Lab, Gas Turbine Lab, Engine Testing Lab, also places of employment as Tire Manufacturing, Geo Department, the new Cat- erpillar Plarit in Davenport which started to hire people only few weeks before Appellant was fired, and two months from 5-12-79 the date Appellant would end her employment by Appellee and many other plants. At technical Center, Building E, Appellant's former place of work, there are at least 5 mechani- cal testing laboratories and one for general chemi- stry. For all of above, Appellent would have been qualified and wouldn't have been in contact with mentioned employees. 16. “Appellee refused to provide informations about vacancies"( Appx 0-61) at places of employment mentioned at paragraph 15 , pag.39. "It is reasonable to infer, based on Appel- ee ee ee oe El oe 41 lee's size that within the 221 days (in fact _ 270 days between Appellant's release for work ' Aug. 1978, and her normal termination 5-12-79) that there were vacancies in both Research Technician and En Level Technician 8 Ap- pellee's plants". (Appx. O-61 and 62). | "where teacher established that she belonged to protected group, applied for, was quali- fied for job . . . despite her qualifications, | she was rejected, and after her rejection, employer filled position with persons of her qualification, teacher establishes prima facies case of sex discrimination”. | v. Hot Spring Schocl District No. 6, C.A. Ark. 1982, 682 F.2d, 721. 17. Appellee filled positions with people with lesser qualification than Appellant, providing them training for months and in some instances for more than a year, while Appellee refused to train Appel- lant not even one single day for an equivalent job to her old job. Appellee provided training for Glen Bart for ai position "research compounder trainee” at Tire De- velopment Laboratory more than a year, though the = above technician didn't have any knowledge in rub- q ber technology, compounding or testing also any college education to support the training. L. ae 42 Clemens and H. Kapraun technicians with duty to test rubber compounds, had no knowledge in testing the rubber compounds, both had only two years of college, latest in business and administration, was promoted from janitor to research technician. Also were trained: Bryant Gail for about two years to Change her job from product assembler to laboratory technician C; Carmody Teala © change her job from stenographer to laboratory technician C; Berry Thomas to change job from product assembler to laboratory technician. None had any knowledge or background for the new job or education to support the training (Appx. S-3 to 5). Monthly were sent from Pioneer Park technicians with no knowledge or background or any college education, to Tire Development Laboratory to be ess SS Ss eS oe trained in mixing and testing rubber compounds as: Mel, Herb, Dick, Schoolman and others. All information presented at paragr.12to18 above were obtained from FEPC who gathered them from Appellee, during investigation (Appx. 0). “i oe ow a a 43 18. Appellee admitted that _in some exceptional circumstances they have required plants to accept employees from other locations -FEPC (Appx. O - 62) Appellee found employment for M. Calton at Tire Development Lab who was a mechanical engineer at another plant. He didn't have any background or knowledge in rubber technology-compounding or test- ing and was practically doing no work, no supervis- ing and wasn't capable of giving any technical ad- vise, Calton relied entirely on Eng. Henry Guay. It is right to infer that Calton had serious pro- blems which were greater than "personality problems” of which Appellant was accused, that he had to be transferred in a place where he couldn't work. Ap- pellant has seen Calton two times in impossibility to talk, keep eyes open as he would have been under alcohol influence and had to leave the work. Eng. H. Guay joked that Calton received "a shot in the mouth" and had to leave the work. H. Kapraun had also "problems" which were hidden by Appellee, who 44 refused to give any explanation about the cause of transferring Calton and Kapraun from other plant to Tire Development Laboratory. Appelle determined M. Calton to an early retirement only after the Appel- lant did present so many cases of mismanagement connected to him. In Appellee's view, the cruel, humiliating ha- rassment and discrimination, the hospitalization and years of unbearable psychological pain was not enough "exceptional circumstances” to reinstate her in an equivalent jab to her old job, in the same conditions which were offered to other employees, It would be impossible if not dishonest to dis- regard statements at paragraphs I and II based on Appellee's information, statistics and testimonies received by FEPC, and still conceive that Appellee made any honest effort to eliminate discrimination and reinstate Appellant in an adequate jab, or to admit that Appellee acted in its business interest, = = |= =| | | FF |S ee ell a — — —y —— — a . oe i a a ee oe ee eee ee 45 without any discriminatory intent. 19. Appellant fully proved prima facie case of . sex and origin discrimination, and pretextual offer of a job to Appellant with intention to disguise discrimination and constructive discharge Appellant. "In regard to civil rights cases relating to the discharge or failure to promote em ployee who have fought discrimination, em ployee must make out prima facie case of retaliation . . . employee may than show that employer’ reason is merely a "pretext" covering up unlawful retaliation through the guise of innocent business planning; issue of qualifications is relevant at each of the three stages of the analysis”. Williams v. Boorstin, 1980, 663 F.2d, 109, 213 U.S. App. D.C. 345, certiorari denied 102, S. Ct. 2319, 451 U.S. 985, 68 L. Ed. 2d 842. "Generally, an employer is liable for vio- lation resulting from the discriminatory practices of its supervisory personnel un- less the employer takes action to rectify the situation, or plaintiff fails to avail -herself of the internal procedure provided by defendant corporation". Meyers v. ITT Diversified Credit Corp., D.C. Mo. 1981, 527 F. Supp. 1064. It was never any question of Appellant infring- ing Appellees internal procedure in her claims 46 against discrimination. Same it is definitely no evidence of Appellee erradicating discrimination, but continuing it,therefore Appellee is liable for violation of Appellant's Civil Rights and Constitu- tional Rights. III. Previous Courts Erred in Dismissing Apel- lant's Claim Without Taking in Consideration that: 1. Appellee, through his supervisor M. Calton prepared false evaluation reports of Appellant's work, in retaliation against Appellant's claim to management of discrimination, and furnished employ- ers with these reports, preventing Appellant from finding other job. These defamatory evaluations were in contradiction to Calton's earlier excellent quotations of Appellant's work. Calton's false evaluation reports highly offensive and damaging to Appellant's work, were attached to Appellant's per- sonnel file and were distributed to other Appellee's plants, confirming C. Fraser's testimony at FEPC( Appx O -23;54) and her letter (Appx. U) to one of Appel- 47 lee's plants. Appellee's explanation that Fraser looked to other plants for employment, by circulat- ing Appellant's file is purely pretextual, to dis- guise the intention to prevent Appellant from find- ing any other job at Appellee's plant. Every employer's "Application for Job", even Appellee's "Application for Job" contains the ques- tion: “Reason for leaving previous employment?" Therefore each employer wants to know the circur- stances in which Appellant worked and was dismissed. No employer would hire Appellant who was quoted falsely in Calton's later reports as "a sloppy wor- ee ee ee ee ee ker", “lack in cooperation", “personality problems", "limited education and work experience to rubber _ = testing", "offer of a job Clerk II which doesn't * need any training, for which Appellant is quali- fied", "necessity to receive psychiatric help". | All the above statements are Appellee's false accusations which made impossible for Appellant to J find any job equivalent to her old job, despite to ee ee 48 repeated job demands to more than 100 companies from Quad City area and surrounding areas such as: John Deere, Caterpillar Tractor Co., Servus Rubber Co., Alcoa, Case, Rock Island Arsenal, Oscar Meyer, Job Services - Davenport, Bendix, Blackhawk Foundry, Ralston Purina, and others. "Employees confronting his supervisors with charge that, for discriminatory reasons, his work was made to appear unsatisfactory, is protected opposition to an unlawful employ- ment practice". Mack v. W. R. Grace Co., D.C. Ga. 1983, 578, F. Supp. 626. Appellee having constructive knowledge of severe, harmful employment discrimination of Appellant, and with the knowledge of her emotional sufferances and material damages, never agreed to withdraw the false defamatory reports from her file or restrain from informing employers, but continued to harass and discriminate Appellant. CONCLUSIONS 1. Appellee had 4 years (1975 - 1979) time to erradicate harassment and discrimination in employ- SS aa | 6 49 ment of Appellant and 270 days to reinstate Appel- lant in a job equivalent to her former jab. Appel- lant asked Appellee in that period to work’ in a different laboratory in quality control, to ee ee take computer courses, as she already did in 1980, - if Appellant needed such qualificaon to be rein- stated in another job, as Appellee claimed. 2. Appellee's excuses of Appellant's lack of qualification for another job, impossibility to find her a jab in other Appellee's facility, exist- ence of only 7. entry level technician positions available during 270 days in facilities of thou- SS ee ee eee sands of employees, refusal to provide any informa- « tion about all technician entry level positions to all Appellee's plants, were dishonest, pretextual excuses, unworthy of credence, completely lacking a legitimate business reason. 3. Appellant fully proved her prima facie » Charge of employment illegal discrimination because of sex and national origin, severe emotional and ST EE —— — «es the wens at a poem nations. ¢.%° @ ne’ 4% --h oO -0 © abese eg o* Sets ao 6 6G A > Ri @s F de om ces ees ees ee ee ee a | . a | —— —— | as _— | j4 ANALYSIS In a public hearing convened pursuant to the FEPA or the HRA where the complainant has failed to make out a prima facie case, i.e., where he has not presented at least some evidence of every element essential to his cause of action, the respondent is entitled to judgment in his favor as a matter of law. Jonathan Taylor and Illinois Gulf Central R.R., Charge No. 1980SF-0249 (HRC, Aug. 27, 1981). During the course of such a hearing and at the close of complainant's case, if the respondent moves orally on the record for a directed verdict the administrative law judge must first determine, as a legal matter, whether the complainant has made out a prima facie case. Id. If he has not, the administrative law judge may, without more, grant the motion, announce that dismissal will be recommended, and close the hearing record without, requiring that the respondent present a defense. J-15 At my request respondent has now submitted its motion in written form, along with proposed findings of fact, determinations and legal argument. See Commission Rule 7.6. Both the complainant's attorney and the complainant herself have filed written responses to this motion which do not persuade me that my initial ruling from the bench was erroneous. The FEPA requires employers to reasonably accomodate handicapped individuals upon request. Mary DeCarlo and City of Chicago Bd. of Ed., Charge No. 1978CN-0553 (HRC, June 19, 1981). Here the nature of complainant's handicap caused her doctor to ask that she be placed in a different job. Complainant reasonably expected the alternative position offered to be one which utilized her significant technical education and experience to the greatest extent possible. The clerical positicn which respondent offered her did not es fete | CT ee | _ Which it can be inferred that respondent could have offered her.a position which utilized her. background more. In an employment discrimination case alleging failure to hire it is normally the complainant's _ to make a prima facie showing that he met the minimum qualifications for the job sought 5/ 5/ Respondent contends that the U.S. Supreme Court in Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, U.S. , 49 U.S.L.W. 4214, (1981) has imposed on Title VII complainants the additional burden of showing that the person hired was less qualified. I find nothing in Burdine to support an inference that it modified the prima facie burden of Title VII Complainants first enunciated in McDonnell-Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Accord, Aiken v. United States Postal Services, F.2d , 26 FEP Cases 1151 (D.C. Cir. 1981). applied. International Bhd. of Teamsters v.United “States,, 431 U.S. 324, n.44 (1977); A.P. Green | Services Liv. of Bigelow-Liptak Corp., 19 I11.App.3d 375, 312 N.E. 2d 312 (1st Dist. 1974). The same should be true for . protected employee alleging failure to place in a suitable alternate position pursuant to a request for accommodation. Complainant failed to establish such a prima facie case with regard to the salaried technicial positions available at respondent's Peoria area facilities prior to her discharge. Complainant's attorney argues that dismissal is too harsh a sanction where respondent did not fully comply with his subpoena duces tecum; it seems clear, however, that fuller compliance would not have produced any more documentation of non-union vacancies in technical positions at respondent's Peioria area facilities during the time period in question. Complainant herself argues that her attorney did power i = aati 4 Permareng prowteng keane prewe oe ciate | — EE ow HEL nen HEE soe HE soees SE soe HOR coms EE anes BE ee, oe EE con Ee ee ee ST ll 0606060 J-18 Clear on this record, however, that this attorney could have done better. only with anpatsonal discovery time and that it was complainant heneeie who insisted prior to hiring him that this hearing proceed without it. In view of the foregoing I hereby recommend that this Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION BY: LINDA KRUEGER MacLACHLAN Administrative Law Judge Administrative Law Section ENTERED ON THIS 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1981. ” ° UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, FOR THE CENTRAL “~ ° MAURA BURCHE |. .:«Cy. Plaintiff .- pro se _ - Tractor Co. (or Cat) Defendants K-1 DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION vs. Case No. 81 C 1130 Larry Clemens, Hank Robert D. Morgan, Kapraun, Marion Judge Calton and Caterpillar FILED AUG 3 1981 ROBERT J. KAUFFMAN, Clerk U.S. DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS COMPLAINT COUNT I Comes Now Plaintiff, Maura Burche and for Count I of her Complaint against Defendants, Larry Clemens and Hank Kapraun, states as follows: 1. That a Complaint against Defendants, was filed in Nov 9th, 1978 with Fair Employment Practices Commission, No. 79SF0220. 2. That FEPC found: Lack of jurisdiction in the Claim based on harassment because of sex and 8 a ES oe oo oe oo eo oe oe K-2 ' “national origin.’ Substantial evidence ‘for failure to recall from medical leave the Plaintiff . because : of . ‘SEX. and national as ars a also handicap. — | ~substantial evidence in termination because of in mental handicap. However the case was unjustly dismissed by an ‘administrative law judge, in Feb 1981. The Claim was forwarded to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, charge No. 051790455. The Commission dismissed the Claim because "No reasonable cause was found to believe that the allegations made in Plaintiff's charge are true". 3. That Plaintiff received a NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE, from EEOC on May 4th 1981, allowing her to file a claim in US DISTRICT COURT, within 90 days from the receipt of this Notice. 4. That at all times material hereto, the Defendants Larry Clemens and Hank Kapraun were employed as laboratory technicians by Caterpillar Tractor Co. at Tire Development Laboratory- K-3 “echnical Genter ‘Building £;, Mossvitie, fifinois.”” “ 5. That Defendant Marion Calton, at all times 7 Sreewenenteenh ayes as. sapexeteny mare ~ - -* of tire Develcouant Lebeuatenty, Bldg. E at Technical Center, Caterpillar Tractor Co., Mossville, Illinois. | 6. That Plaintiff Maura Burche was employed from March 10, 1975 to Mar 22, 1979, as laboratory technician at the Tire Development Laboratory, Technical Center, Caterpillar Tractor Co. in Mossville, Illinois, in the same Building E. 7. That Plaintiff is of the female sex, born in Romania and actually a U.S. citizen. 8. That Plaintiff was forced against her will, by Cat's doctor, to go to St. Francis Hospital for nervous treatment, on April 22, 1977 where she remained for almost a month, May 1977. 9. That from May 1977, the date she was dismissed from hospital up to March 22 1979, the day she was dismissed by Caterpillar, Plaintiff was = = : a or or on medical leave. 10, That during the period March 10th 1975 up smear mod AptLL a2 A587 bya _*. me" a) ~ 20 @e go ‘to the hospital - Conemneaten s Qater, the Defendants Larry Clemens and Hank Kapraun, individually and jointly, were engaged in ‘outrageously, beyond any limit of decency harassment and criminal conduct against the Plaintiff. The harassment and the criminal conduct of the Defendants against the Plaintiff, were deliberately done with the purpose of damaging and destroying Plaintiff's health and life, family relationship, possibility to work by transforming her in a handicap for the rest of her life. Through their connections, the Defendants damaged and disrupted the health and life of Plaintiff's children causing Plaintiff severe emotional stress, and severe suffering and emotional stress to the children. 11. The Plaintiff alleges the following K-5 am by aforesaid Defendants: ener mete oats PPE. PERE RIS ELINS pee ange Recess te. aes “upstairs, aidan" t work correctly, which occured for months, almost any time when the Plaintiff had to - o-~ use it. The machine was under a strong | trepidation, that she couldn't read the results of her tests. The Defendant Kapraun, who was in charge with the maintenance and the repairing of the machines in the laboratory, told Plaintiff that he couldn't do anything about it. However, he would fix the machine when other people needed it, to show that the Defendant was not capable of working with a machine. Any time the Plaintiff worked with this Instron, a bolt from the cylinder which holds the diagram paper, was taken away. When the paper was unrolling during the test, the paper would break and it was imp-esible to use the machine. Both Defendants Calton and Kapraun have been informed by | Ks ' the Plaintiff, but they said that is nothing which ; they could do, and that it is something wrong with | fo 08 RAR BLA RBELE Foch SS LDG- EDR MACHIDC gO. nome. a ae ~'4 we Finally the Plaintiff got help from a technician from the mechanical department. He just put a bolt to stop the cylinder to travel horizontally, and the paper didn't break anymore. Defendants Kapraun and Calton were very upset that their trick, which was set only when the Plaintiff had to work the Instron, was discovered. B. Other traps were set for Plaintiff, very frequently, by Defendants Clemens and Kapraun. They would take turns in using for several days the Rheo and Mooney machines from upstairs, while Hank Kapraun was saying that he couldn't fix the other Rheo and Mooney machine downstairs. For this circumstance they would manage to have both | machines downstairs broken down. During these daye Plaintiff would accumlate samples which she should run on the Rheo and Mooney a | K-7 - | | ent CN ice NS URE HEE Eis? She WOOT wee Het em wi name on a note, to reserve the Instron machine downstairss. beacause the. .Qne .upstairs Aen: t E WOK: Par When the Plaintiff was ready to work on the : Instron, one of the Defendants, would come to the Plaintiff to let her know that the Mooney and Rheo “machines upstairs could be used because they did not need them anymore. The Plaintiff having a lot of samples to be tested, accumulated for more than 10 days, had to leave the Instron machine, and Defendants would take the machines for other 10 days. In this time Defendant Kapraun would fix the two machines Rheo and Mooney from downstairs. After they arranged this trap, they would call the peovle to show that the Plaintiff was lazy and didn't do her work for days, also that she reserved the Instron machine and didn't use it, stopping them to work with it, that she is the one who L L L L L marry wp to catch up with the tests, before the ‘a a b L L erased her name from the Instron note and changed be : | ] K-8 the date, instead them, as is shown in subparagraph C, that she is nervous ly sick and wants to isolate _herslef upstaixs « dBSteag PRURFLSMSEALES., wath. oe ee the Rheo and Mooney machines, which in fact were broken down when the Plaintiff needed them. When Plaintiff told Defendant Calton, her ‘former boss, about these traps, he said that these are her imagination and that she should goto a pyschiatrist because she troubles the people and does not let them work. In fact Defendant Calton was persuading her constantly, specially when the Plaintiff was working upstairs in laboratory, that she is nervously sick and that she should go to a psychiatrist for treatment. C. When Plaintiff needed the Instron, she would write on a Note attached to the Instron, the time and date when she needed it for example 2 o'clock. Clemens would change the time by adding in frent of 2, the number one and the time would become 12 o'clock. At 12 o'clock, Plaintiff by not K-9 knowing anything about this change, did work with .., another machine. Defendant Clemens complained to .. Defendant Calton and to other: people that he needed the machine and he couldn't work because the Plaintiff reserved it for 12 o'clock and didn't use © it. When Plaintiff would want to use the machine at 2 o'clock, the time she reserved the machine, - someone else was working with it, because was no —— reservation at that time. This happened daily, with other machines, Mooney, Rheo, curing press. As for ecs. Plaintiff's reservation for 1 o'clock was changed in 11 o'clock or 10 o'clock or viceversa. Defendant Clemens changed the reservation dates also. A technician Goeppinger from the mechanical department was the witness of a such change. When Plaintiff informed Defendant Calton about this continuous harassment and traps, Defendant Calton accused Plaintiff that she is imagining things and that she is nervously sick, that she K-10 troubles the people at work. , D. The micrometer was broken down and. didn't hold zero. .Plaintiff asked Defendant . Kapraun to repair it, because it was his duty, iat he said that he couldn't repair it and that she should bump the little arm to bring it to zero. The Plaintiff wouldn't agree to work in this manner because is was not recommended, but the work was pressing and she had to use it in this way. Also she had to follow Kapraun's advice because Defendant Calton pointed out that the Plaintiff had the duty to do exactly what Defendant Kapraun said when it came to the machines, because they were his responsibility. After Defendant trapped the Plaintiff in this way, he called the Defendant Calton and other people to show them that the Plaintiff doesn't know to work with a machine or an apparatus and is capable of deteriorating them. When technician Goeppinger asked her why she Kil works in this manner, she explained him that — _ Defendant Kapraun instructed her to wrk in_this _ way: ‘because the Micrometer -courdn't. be wepairedh. | The sniewnasi traps and lies of Defendants Clemens and Kapraun caused extreme emotional stress to the Plaintiff because she was blamed and ecitinte by her boss, Defendant Calton who wrote blaming reports to the management, without Plaintiff's knowledge. Also Plaintiff could never get a machine when she needed one because Defendant Clemens and Kapraun would manage, as in the aforesaid cases, to stop Plaintiff in using any machine. Consequently Plaintiff had to work many times late at night to finish her work. The aforesaid traps, and harassement caused Plaintiff to be upset and cry every day, and to work under severe emotional stress. E. The Plaintiff received cured samples from Defendant Clemens, to be pulled on the instron for tensile test. The Defendant Clemens had not L . r K-12 " cured enough’ the samples. The tensile values were _ ‘unusual low for these samples. which intrigued the . cee te find anything, Defendant Clemens hid very often the dye to cut the rubber for tensile test, and the he put it back. When the Plaintiff asked where the dye was, he would show her that it was in the drawer where she looked before but she was not capable of finding it. The secretary of the dentist Moon R. in Peoria, told Plaintiff that she can't give Plaintiff any appointment because Plaintiff had a personality problem, which puzzled the Plaintiff. The Defendants spread the rumors that Plaintiff is a lesbian or has unnatural sexual drive, because the ladies at the church, as Mrs. Leona Millen looked horrified when Plaintiff would touch her Children's hand or her hand. 12. Due to the aforesaid unhuman, outrageous harassment, beyond any decency or human limit, jee PR MING C—Tc——a > oe K-28 '- “plaintiff was under sévere emotional stress, under fear and horror that she might be beaten by the -.» +, Defendants ,.. she. was, coptinuoysly-humiliated, she...,. .. was under great worry and terror that the Defendants would succeed through their criminal acts and their connections to get Plaintiff ill and handicapped, which they in fact succeeded. The Plaintiff was under extreme worry, and emotional stress that she might lose the job, that she will be incapable of finding another one due to the blames and lies which were spread by Defendants and their connections to people and other companies. 13. Plaintiff suffered unbearable physical and emotional pain due to her continuous illness. 14. She was under terror, fear, despair, severe emotional stress when she saw that her children had severe physical pain and symptoms: VOM- itting,heart .Deating, flashes, indigestions, pulmonary infections, skin infections, allergies, eyes swollen, swollen fingers, sleepiness, K-29 " “"~ péadachés, sé. sation to fly “" “ ° * None of the many doctors who have seen the . . Childrey.qowld Sind any, cause which, would. provoke . ... ; all those illnesses. 15. She was under tremendous emotional stress, pain, despair, that she cried and lost her sleep ‘because she had daily quarrels with her children and parents, who couldn't understand that it was possible to exist such a criminal harassment which continued for years, and still Caterpillar didn't make any serious ard honest attempt to eliminate it. Her relationship with her children was destroyed, the children lost their confidence in their mother and they were convinced that she was nervously sick, and all what she was telling them were only her imagination. 16. She lost her job with Caterpillar, she was incapable of finding any other jab because of the blames spread by Defendants and their connections to any people or company the Plaintiff would = fo ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee eee K-30 17. She was disabled and incapable of. working . for mare.than one year. and. was through unbearable .. sufferings due to the harassment and criminal conduct of the Defendants and their connections. 18. Plaintiff lost a substantial amount of money being unemployed, losing her job with Caterpillar, spending money to care for her health and her children's health, spending money with lawyers in claims and law suits against Defendants, in real estate business, in the period of time she was incapable of working or taking any decision. 19. Damages in this case exceed the amount of $950,000.00 for each Defendant. 20. That in addition to the foregoing Defendants engaged in the aforesaid cruel and unhuman harassment, wilfully and with the purpose to destroy Plaintiff's health and life,her family health and life, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages in amount of $500,000.00. K-31 ° ‘vas "3" “Wherefdre Plaintiff prays for jlagment’ against” * ~~~ Defendants Clemens L. and Kapraun H. in the amount bry er aforesaid. ta compensate.at. least.in,part the... ee 2 ee damages, the injury and Plaintiff's sufferings which in fact could never be compensated by any amount of money. COUNT II Comes Now the Plaintiff Maura Burche, and for Count II of her Complaint against Defendant Marion Calton states as follows: 1. - . Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 18 of Count I as Paragraph 1 - 18 of Count II as though set forth herein in full. 19. That Plaintiff informed the Defendant Marion Calton, her boss, very often, verbally and in writing about the extreme outrageous harassment and criminal conduct aforesaid, against Plaintiff by the Defendants Clemens and Kapraun. 20. That Defendatn Calton didn't make any K-32 harassment at work. Q. teat Tha, he. did pot eliginate. “siden... serious attempt to eliminate the harassment of “ Defendant by Defendants co-workers. 22. That he kept Plaintiff permanently in ‘contact with her harassors, being informed that she had severe physical pains, that she was under severe emotional stress, that she was humiliated, sabotaged, sexually harassed, menaced by Defendants Clemens and Kapraun as aforesaid. It was a permanent exchange between the workers from the laboratory and Cat's Plants with other location, but Defendant Calton never attempted to exchange the Defendants Clemens and Kapraun or Plaintiff, to eliminate Plaintiff's harassment. Moreover, Plaintiff proposed to work in the second shift, to be protected of the Defendants’ harassment and to have the possibility to work with the machines. Defendant Calton refused, with the mm SHGHESE” ESETGSTION” OF PIRIfeif rs Claim wbout her“ K-33 we ee ss at ee = = > i See Se Ae ee oe ee ke ae oe fo 2 o intention’ to keep Plaintiff under the cruel and q crminal harassment conducted by Defendants Clemens 7 ; o~ ~ «and Kapraun, with the puxpose. to destroy:-her: +..* 6-0 health, and life, to transform her ina =m handicapped. 23. He covered up the harassment against ‘plaintifé, by Defendants Clemens and Kapraun telling her that the boys are joking and there [ l isn't any harassment but her imagination and [ nervous sickness. 24. Defendant Calton wrote behind Plaintiff's | back reports to the management, without informing the Plaintiff. In these reports he lied and L unjustly blamed the Plaintiff that she was not capable of working because of her nervous illness, , and that she troubled the people and do not iet { them to work. That Defendant lied in his reports, is the affirmation of the Engineer Thomas Leonard, L who supervised Plaintiff's work in the last months before she was forced to go to hospital, his ee ee ee ee ee K-34 testimony and others workers testimony that she never troubled anyone at work. In her effort to inform Defendant Calton about the extreme outrageous harassment, Plaintiff asked for a meeting with all the co-workers and Defendant Calton, to find out if anybody had any complaint against her. When she put this question at the meeting, no one brought any complaint and the answer was negative, including Defendants’ Clemens Kapraun answer. However, the naresnniont continued and became even worse. 25. That the entire harassment was hidden by Defendant Calton from the management and Plaintiff through his lies as follows: He informed the Plaintiff, that the Manager R. Untz wanted to have a meeting with Plaintiff and Defendant Calton, to give her an assignment. At the meeting Plaintiff noticed that the manager R. Untz didn't have any intention of giving her any assignment, but to discuss with her certain K-35 complaints brought to him by the Defendants. The manager started to give her advices about how to behave at work and asked Defendant Calton if he told anything to the Plaintiff. Defendant Calton answered affirmative, which was a lie. The only thing he told the Plaintiff was about an assignment. Plaintiff was confused and couldn't understand why she was receiving advices from the manager about how to behave. The same lies were repeated by Defendant Calton in other meetings with Manager Untz in his office at Pioneer Park and at Technical Center. Another example of Defendant Calton lying and covering up the cruel harassment and the criminal activity of the Defendants, is the meeting which had place several days before the Plaintiff was forced to go to sitesi In the meeting was * manager” ‘R. “Untz;" betendant Galton’ and pidintitt. The meeting took glace: at Plaintiff's request, trying to find out which were the complaints and K-36 how it was possible that she troubled the people, as Defendant Calton was blaming her. At her question, Defendant Calton answered that no one had any complaint against defendant and that no one was harassing her, and he dismissed her. When the Plaintiff was at the door, manager Untz asked the Plaintiff if she was satisfied with the answer. Plaintiff answered that she was not, because as usually when she tried to find out which were the complaints against her, Defendant Calton covered them up. 26. That Defendant Calton used his position to intimidate the Plaintiff, menacing her that he will fire her if she will complain any mre. He told her a lie, that the manager Untz was very angry that she complained to him last time and that she should not do it again, because she will be fired. 27. That Defendant Calton kept the Plaintiff ~ without any work for weeks and that Plaintiff had to ask him repeatedly for work. Plaintiff had to K-37 ask co-worker Schoolman to share his work with her because she didn't have any assignment. In this time Defendants Clemens, Kapraun and Calton were supervising her, spreading the rumors that she doesn't work because she can't. Plaintiff informed Mrs. Conny Fraser, Personnel Supervisor and Mr. Higgins, the Chief of the Personnel at the Technical Center about her harassment that the Defendant Calton doesn't give her any work. The Personnel Supervisor told Plaintiff to go back to Defendant Calton and ask him for work, which Plaintiff did but without any success. 28. That Defendant Clemens hid tensile samples. for days in the drawer in the press room, and gave them to the Plaintiff only when everyone had the duty to clean the laboratory. In this way at * @. ie Ae ae ee ee ee oe OL em hee: qo." *.. % w.. pO 2 PF: ‘ ‘Plaintiff either didn't have any work or had so much that she couldn't finish and had to stay late to finish her work. Also when she had to clean c — ey i) | iii} eee > , | — —. eo — —— ll | ca ‘ ‘ . » K-38 the laboratory, Engineer Henry Guay asked her to test the samples which were hidded by Clemens, in the same time Defendants Calton, Clemens and Kapraun blamed her that she doesn't do her work and that she doesn't clean the laboratory. 29. That Defendant Calton encouraged Defendants Clemens and Kapraun giving them raises praising them, while he proposed Picintiff to be layed off because she troubled the people. 30. That Defendant Calton was seen by Plaintiff at work when he couldn't talk or keep his eyes open and he had to leave. Eng. Henry Guay told Plaintiff laughing that Defendant Calton received a shot in the mouth from the dentist and he had to leave several times. Plaintiff alleges that Defenda it Calton had a drug or drinking problem which was the reason of leg ale obew. es see west tote Se beta C - bt ed ay Bee 4 his transfer from the mechanical Department to Gn rubber testing laboratory at Tire Development - without having ‘any ‘background or expertence in the K-39 rubber technology. Any time when Plaintiff asked for technical advice,Defendant Calton would send her to Engineer H. Guay because he didn't have any knowledge to make a decision. 31. That Plaintiff wrote a letter on Apr. 21st 1977 to Caterpillar's management and to Defendant Calton that she was drugged by criminal people from laboratory. Next day, Defendant Calton wrote a report to the management that Plaintiff is nervously sick and that she can't work any longer. He sent her to Cat.'s Dr. Ashbury telling her that the doctor wanted to see her for a reason the Defendant Calton would not know. 32. Dr. Ashbury recommended that Plaintiff should go to the Dr. pSychiatric Emmi Andri. He gave her the name of the doctor, the address and ay sie ly bates s galt 2 Gh. meet ote OR ap! det Bee Tt, OR Ie Fie. the time of the appointment Plaintiff reported to Dr. Andri the harassment -. and. the. illnesses Plaintiff: had. continuously. . - -————» ‘ere Ke" ee ee ee eee SS ee ee ee ee ee ee ee @ K-40 Without making any investigations about the Plaintiff's conditions at work and her allegations, or any laboratory test or psychiatric test, Dr. Andri decided that Plaintiff was nervously sick, paranoid and told her to go to hospital for nervous treatment, which the Plaintiff refused, and returned to work. Defendant Calton sent Plaintiff, the same day, again to Dr. Ashbury. Doctor Ashbury told Plaintiff that she had to go to hospital and got angry at Plaintiff's refusal. He told her that he would put her on medical leave and take away her identification card so she couldn't enter Technical Center and come to work. Plaintiff didn't have any choice but to accept going to hospital. 33. That when the Plaintiff went to hospital, ¢* 4.4 “QP tory the was capable “of working and performing ‘all ‘her’ duties. That during the treatment at St. Francis Hospital, . Plaintiff. became extremely sick. She soe 9: wee. K-41 couldn't speak and keep her eyes open, she had urinary infection and blood in the urine, she started to walk for hours in the hospital's hall, because she couldn't sit still on a chair and she was very tense also and couldn't see very well. She was seen in this condition when she had difficulty of talking and in the impossibility of keeping her eyes open by Caterpillar's employee Doris Johnson and brother Eugene Phillips. 34. As a result of the harassment at Cat. and of the medication, Plaintiff was disable for more than a year and in impossibility of working. She became afraid of the knife, her muscles were very tense, when she sat on a Chair she had to move continuously her legs, she walked for hours in the room not being able to sit still on a chair, she threw herself on the floor screaming anu scratching ee 81 0%4 pa t .¢¢ % are the floor’ with th Her Tails. Her psychological” and a on emotional eutferings were unbearable. ..... 35. As a result of .the cruel: and unhuman. L L L L a L L L L L L ~~; L L " ey ey PP . mae K-42 harassment at work by Defendant Calton who encouraged, covered up and joined in harassment also, the Defendants Clemens and Kapraun against Plaintiff, she had severe emotional stress, severe physical suffering. She had to work while her knee was painful, her back was painful, she couldn't cut samples because her elbow was painful, she had to run 20 times a day to the restroom because of her extremely shell wirliiess' tabietion, she was coughing and had severe chest pain, though she didn't miss work and stood late to work up to 9 P.M. and then up to 2-3 A.M. at home, very often, to finish her work. Her life was a long torture. She was scared of the harassment at her work, she was worried and horrified that she would become permanently sick as a result of the criminal harassment by Defendant Calton, she was continuously humiliated, ‘and persecuted by ce re Defendant Calton. ] - 36. Plaintiff was sent to-the hospital against ... K-43 her will, by Caterpillar's doctor in connection with Defendants Calton, Clemens and Kapraun, without any laboratory or psychological test or any investigation. 37. She became disabled and very sick for more than a year due to the treatment in the hospital, as a result of forcing her to go to hospital by Defendant. 38. She lost her job with Caterpillar because was considered as a handicapped by Caterpillar, and couldn't find any other job or keep a job because of the humiliating, unjust reports of Defendant Calton and because of the lies he spread in connection with the other Defendants»when a company would ask information about the Plaintiff. 39. Plaintiff lost a great amount of money, being without job for more than four years, L arden Qe BRAK. o2 atha oe’ a8 th ‘the’ do@tors" to°& : eA) oat har ‘Pee es health and children's health, spending money with _ attorneys for.her claim against Defendant, and... | - losing money in the real estate because of her disablement. 40. Plaintiff had severe emotional stress, worry, despair because her relationship with her family and specially with her children were destroyed. They didn't have any trust in their mother and considered her as a sick person. They couldn't believe that it was possible that a such criminal harassment to go on for years and no one would attempt to eliminate it. $950,000.00. 42. That in addition to the foregoing Defendant engaged in the aforesaid cruel beyond any decency, unhuman harassment, wilfully and with purpose to destroy Plaintiff's health and life, her family health and life, Plaintiff is entitled to Cowie weaee oi Eee Canbges in amount SE°SS00 000-007 St Wherefore Plaintiff prays for judgement against -- =». Defendant. Marion. Calton, inthe amount. aforesaid to . J J J J J ] | 41. Damages in this case are in amount of ] ] ] J ] ] K-45 compensate the Plaintiff for her suffering, damages and injuries. — —— eee “personnes oe == COUNT III Comes Now the Plaintiff Maura Burche and for Count III of her Complaint against Caterpillar Tractor Co. states as follows: t 1. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 - 18 of Count I, as Paragraphs 1 - 18 of Count a III as though set forth herein in full. 19. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs : 19 to 40 of Count II as Paragraphs 19 to 40 of = Count II as though set forth herein in full. - | 41. That during the aforesaid acts of the ad Defendants employees aforesaid, Defendant hada L duty to the Plaintiff as its employee to honestly : investigate and eliminate aforesaid outrageous, L tenia teeeienieaaaeienmanemm em enaantemimmenall was destroying Plaintiff's health and life, her . ‘og possibility to work in the future, her children's § ey 3 Sere SE qeee Pte Se we le ye Meee BEM et WR A Peewee tee. vo *s" me — “2.6 Ks K-46 health and life and her family relationship, causing the Plaintiff severe emotional stress, pain, despair, worry for health of her children. Defendant failed its duty to eliminate the outrageous harassment. 42. Defendant was fully informed by Plaintiff, about the cruel] and criminal harassment by the aforesaid employees, verbally, in meetings and through letters sent to the Manager Grawey, Untz, Defendant Calton, Personnel Department Supervisor Fraser and Chief of the Personnel Higgins. From her hospital bed Plaintiff called Manager Grawey and told him that she believed that she was drugged at work and that she believed that she was drugged — continuously in the hsopital, by the medical personnel, the nurse who gave her the medication at noon. "gee Gee ee ata #t 3. ‘Defendant harassed Plaintiff by keepiig” > _* he in wank with Deteninets eiphenuee, instead of -eliminating- the harassment by transferring: to. sas*? saedeaet pacer never pone i disabled nn a, K-47 another place of work, the Defendants or the Plaintiff. 44. Defendant knew that Defendant Calton had problems with drugs or drinking, and despite Plaintiff's claim Defendant continued to keep him as chief of laboratory. 45. Defendant knew about serious problems Defendant Kapraun had at his former employment, and was expected to continue to have the same problems and still Defendant allowed him to work in the same place with Plaintiff despite her complaint. 46. Defendant told Plaintiff to go to hospital, abusing its power. Following this harassment, Plaintiff was disabled for more than a year because of the medical treatment she received in the hospital. If the Defendant would have insured to Plaintiff normal conditions of work Se Oe. Be were ‘ “Instead of forcing f her to = bed “hospital, the” » would, never: suffered-~for. years. horror,.fear,--. .....-- oe | a. So: ee SOO K-48 humiliation, harassment which caused her strong emotional stress. 47. Defendant refused to receive the Plaintiff back to work after the doctors released her to work and continued to consider her as a handicapped, incapable of working in the same position or in a Similar position. 48. Defendant failed to require an other Caterpillar Plant to hire the Plaintiff. Defendant can require in special cases as they did in Defendant's Calton case, to hire the Plaintiff, because Plaintiff was a special case created by the Defendants themselves. 49. Defendant released informations about Plaintiff's work and behavior which were unjust and were derived from Defendant's Calton reports, to all the companies who were contacted for a possible employment of the Plaintiff. As a result of these informations, the Plaintiff couldn't find a job up to the present time. K-49 50. Defendant refused to offer Plaintiff a technical job, on probation basis, to investigate if Plaintiff was capable of working, after she was released by the doctors to work without any restriction. The only restriction the doctors recommended was the Plaintiff should never work again together with Defendants Calton, Clemens and Kapraun. 51. That Defendant offered Plaintiff a clerk II position in Mar 1979, considering that Plaintiff = = = eel was a handicap incapable of doing any technical job, and that the only job she could perform was to | carry the mail and the prints to different offices. Plaintiff refused the job which constituted a moral in degradation and a continuance of her harassment. a 52. Defendant used Plaintiff's refusal as an ~ excuse to fire her on Mar 22, 1979, only several | , fe. ty 2 we lee “en. ¢ gO= ‘5 0°" weeks before the new Caterpillar 1 Plant” in "Davenport atexted to hire —— of vaaianninie er had a -s large laboratory... Defendant-..continued.to harass.-. -. - 5k ~T4 K-50 Plaintiff, by avoiding its obligation to find a job for the Plaintiff at the new Caterpillar plant in Davenport, which had large possibilities of employment. 53. Defendant's argument that they couldn't find any job for the Plaintiff because she has a limited speciality, rubber testing, had no ground. coal gazeification speciality. She had courses of chemistry, rubber technology, mechanics, mathematics, coal distillation, eletrochemistry, general technology, and electricity. She worked more than 25 years in different industries: rubber industry, oil industry, mechanical industry - tire | | engraving. Plaintiff's background and work shows that she could work in any rubber or mechanical le eiocen- sei or plant at Caterpillar. Ph ae Soe ‘. Defendant refused Ay disclose the “list of J J paste ten ‘tapi in cannon engtnoectan, | J | J ] Sg % » Jo we fO o%s te * 2 he o “®t 98H, Pgte.0% ® & fe Fo. 40%, *® 1 all ‘the pacino hired ie catensi Tide, atver kit . of K-51 Defendant hired people with lower education thatn the Plaintiff who were trained while they were working, though Defendant refused to offer Plaintiff any job. 56. Plaintiff has several laboratories in building E, including a chemical laboratory. The people whowOrkKin these laboratory have absolutely no connection or contact with the people who work in the rubber testing laboratory - Tire Development. Plaintiff could work in any of these laboratory, without having any contact with the Defemiants Clemens, Calton and Kapraun. Besides the laboratory at Technical Center Tire Development is an exclusive a rubber testing laboratory. Only — very few people with special assignments co to work from another department in this laboratory. - &, Bo. fe eee eae. ee ee ee eee The chances that Defendant would have been in ieee ContaCE LE Detendants ff she Swag have”? nai | | al o.° ff °sae.4 “worked in ‘en F que hewn aiden sauieaeee, iow. She yDefendant-had possibélitées fry «2 dee my toys - i. [ $ K-52 Plaintiff's employment at its rubber testing laboratory at downtown Plant in Peoria, at East Peoria Plant, Water treatment Plant, and mainly at the new Davenport Plant. Defendant continued to harass the Plaintiff by refusing her any of these places of employment, considering Plaintiff as a handicapped. 58. That as a result of aforesaid harassment, allowed and conducted through its employees, Caterpillar caused Plaintiff severe emotional stress, fear, horror, humiliations, and a great concern about her health and her impossibility to work. Also Caterpillar made impossible for the Plaintiff to find any job or to keep a job, causing her to lose a big amount of money. Caterpillar refused to offer Plaintiff any job and than dismissed her causing also a"loss of ~ As a result of .the unhuman, outrageous —————oOww ooo eereeorerrrrrr-rrrrereoereorereeeeeeeeeeee K-53 harassment Defendant was frequently sick, and disable for more than a year causing her severe sufferances and loss of money that she spent with the doctors. Plaintiff lost money spending for the lawsuit she had against Defendant and also while she was disabled and in impossibility to make any decision she lost money in the real estate business. Defendant caused great emotional stress, worry and despair to Plaintiff because of the damage of her relationship with her family and the daily quarrells she had with her family. 59. Damages in this case are $950,000.00. 60. That in addition to the foregoing, Defendant engaged in the aforesaid cruel and unhuman harassment, willfuly and with the purpose of damaging Plaintiff's health and life and her eee ee ee ee ee, Cae oe |) ee Oe Fe ile ~f family's life. | e, | Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages in min. “@MOUNt OE-$500,000.002-6 5 dk tet eee ¢ ee a K-54 Wherefore Plaintiff prays for judgement against Defendant Caterpillar Tractor Co. in the amount aforesaid to compensate the damages, the injury and Plaintiff's sufferings. Plaintiff prays also the Court to supoena FEPC to present the cases of outrageous harassment because of sex and origin which they found during their investigaiton of Plaintiff's conditions of work at Caterpillar. The investigator Blaser from FEPC found more than 24 cases of harassment against Plaintiff, by the Defendants which can be disclosed only on the Court's Order. M. Burche Pro se | 1* ee ee ee eee. Te Pk et Et Oe me A oe ere - d 3. eel Back pay in the amount she would have earned a had she beans recat led from med toet eavete-een meee: 5 M-3 when first released by her physician in August 1978, with any increases which would have accrued to her, minus social security benefits, the amount of which she will provide within the next few days (she received no unemployment compensation, and although looking for work is currently unemployed) Marilyn T. Kuhr Staff Attorney Se ee Ce eo er ea See he ee ee ee be tars a ee ee ea ae her? Tas ee aR ares oe. ot ee Bree ats & wa ay: jah, N-1 CATERPILLAR TRACTOR CO. Peoria, Illinois 61629 October 12, 1979 Mr. Steven Blaser Fair Employment Practices Commission #3 West Old State Capitol Plaza 2nd Floord, Myers Bldg. Springfield, IL 62/01 Re: Maura Burche vs. Caterpillar Tractor Co. Dear Steve: Enclosed are the applications of persons hired into the Class XI job from August 1, 1978 through March 30, 1979 per your request. We wish to emphasize the following to avoid any misunderstanding or misinterpretation by FEPC: 1. Mr. Tenhaeff was placed in an opening in an area which places him in contact with Messrs. Colton and Kapraun. This is the area where Ms. Burche mae — would — - ~ er various in es 3 s** ” ~@ ams doctors uteiens she nae not a r= |= |= | = SF luc | N-2 See ane URES SERVI GaY ana TySTs “on engine este" P35 Or Ms. Burche clearly is not qualified for. oe ite 0? 8 amelie MIR Sy. does .ptabistical analysig, wOrk.0N 26 wnt: 0 engine tests also. 4. Mr. Montgomery was placed in Ms. Burche's former work area. 5 & 6. Mr. Parrish and Mr. Matzke are both involved in engine testing and have educational background for that area. Ms. Burche does not. 7, 8& 9. Mr. Leavers, Mr. Riebschlager and Mr. Minter are all in electronics/controls and have the educational background for such jobs. Ms. Burche does not. 10. Mr. Bruell is in vehicle structure testing and has extensive related military training and experience. Ms. Burche does not. I trust this additional information will enable you to complete your recommendation on this matter. Very truly yours, N-3 Assistant to Manager _. ,Equal Opportunity Programs _ WEMastronardi Telephone: (309) 675-4932 tiw Encls s | r —_— Tr TK ee ee Te ee | FEPC No. 1979SF0220 O-1 INVESTIGATION REPORT EEOC No. 051790541 COMPLAINANT RESPONDENT Maura Burche Caterpillar Davenport, Iowa Tractor Company Mossville I. Recommendation II. III. 1. Lack of Jurisdiction 2. Substantial Evidence 3. Substantial Evidence Action/Basis/Section 1. Harassment/sex(female), national origin (Romanian) /3 (a) 2. Failure to recall from medical leave/sex (female), national origin (Romanian), mental handicap (Paranoia) 3. Termination/mental handicap (Paranoia) /3 (a) Steve Blaser/drn M. Tasch/MTK Marilyn Kuhr 10/9/79 0 L Alleged Violation 1. 3/75 - 4/22/77 2. 8/18/78 - 3/26/79 3. 3/26/79 Charge Filed 11/9/78 Fact Finding Conference 2/23/79 Stipulation 10/23/79 V. Resondent's Type Of Operation Provide test and evaluation support to all domestic Engineering Department and conduct fundamental long-range research for L L anaes L L L L Respondent. VI. Union Involvement ’ Employees in Complainant's category are not represented by a union at this location. - VII. Employment Data From EEO-1 Dated 9/25/78: Total Employees: 2,323 { Female 232 (10%) Total Employees in Complainant's class, O-3 a ee ee ee VIII. Allegations Respondent she was harassed by co-workers, who wrote sexual terms on a machine she used in her work and joke about her being from Romania. She informed Respondent of this but Respondent refused to take corrective action. Complainant alleges this harassment aggravated mental health problems, resulting in a medical leave from which Respondent would not recall her, despite releases from several physicians. Respondent finally recalled Complainant to a lower - paying clerical position, rather than a technical position, and terminated her when she refused on grounds it was inappropriate accomoda- tion of her handicap. IX. *° Response toAllegations: Respondent denies that the Complainant was harassed. Respondent denies that the Complainant O-G was not recalled from Medical Leave because of her mecca Sen UL tmacicieE e) Mille —-/% 09 @.— aititaliis Clic the Complainant's mental handicap is related to her alpha RPREOID cle By RA SIPS Winer ne nine | recalled for this reason. Respondent maintains that Complainant was term L inated for refusing a job offer under the terms of ‘Respondent's Medical Leave Policy. X. 4 3/10/75: Complainant was hired by Respondent as a Research Technician. She was assigned to the : designing and testing of synthetic rubber com pounds. Complainant's salary was $287.20 per week | at the time she went on medical leave. 4/22/77: Complainant went on a Medical Leave | for psychiatric care. an 8/18/78: Complainant was released by her doc- I tor, Dr. Brown, to return to work.Respondent did not allow the Complainant to return to work. 3/19/79: Complainant was offered the position I of Class II Clerk Routine by Respondent. The L — O-5 duties of this position would have consisted of delivering computer print outs to various labora- tories. The salary for this position was $251.20 per week. 3/26/79: Complainant refused the Class II Clerk Routine job offer. 3/27/79: Complainant was terminated by Respon- dent. XI. First Issue Was Complainant harasses at work because of her sex, female and national origin, Romanian? Staff Observation Complainant alleges on-the-job harassment, which one must infer ended on 4/22/77, when she went on a medical leave. Complainant first con- tacted the Fair Employment Practices Commission on 11/9/78, 566 days after the ending of the harass- ment. Section 8 of the Fair EMployment Practices Act requires the filing of a charge of discrimination . oe os L within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory ac- if | tion. Complainant charge was filed 386 days be- yond the 180-day filing period. r Conclusion This issue is not within the jurisdiction of the ” Fair Employment Practices Commission. XII. Second Issue: Whether the Complainant was not recalled from medical leave because of her sex (female), nation- al origin (Romanian), or because of her mental handicap (paranoia) . l | A. First Contested Point: Reason for not allowing the Complainant to return to work from | Medical Leave in August 1978. 1. Witnesses: ott Complainant In 1977, Complainant began to receive Pee ee” ee ee ee ee ee ee eee ae ne ie psychiatric treatment for problems she alieges re- Lies. sulted from severe harassment by her co-workers. , woe 8m Apri? 1977) Compiainant wert. on»ility to work with her previous co-workers.Because of this, Respondent requested the Complainant to be examin- ed by their consulting doctor, Dr. Ward, Psychia- trist. Fraser said she received a letter from Dr. Ward on 10-2-78 which recommended that the Com- plainant not be returned to the same work area where she originally worked. Based on the recom mendations from the Complainant's doctors and the recommendation of Dr. Ward, Respondent kept the Complainant on Medical Leave. B. Second Contested Point: Is Complainant's Handicap-paranoia related to her ability to do the job? OPE ty awe at sp a i me ep ee a” @ ~ rf Se en nn eee 1. Witnesses: a. Complainant Complainant stated that she had no problem per- forming the functions of a Research Technician and that she had a Masters of Chemical Engineering De- gree and had 13 years of experience working in lab- oratories. Complainant stated that no one had ever complained about her performance. Complainant stated that her problem was working with three specific people. She said that two of her co-workers, H. Kaprun and L. Clemins, harassed her and that this harassment led to her hospitali- zation for psychiatric treatment. Complainant said that the third person was her supervisor, M. Calton who let the harassment continue even though she asked him to stop the harassment. Because of the harassment she had received in the past, Complain- ant believed that she would be harassed again if she had to work with them. b. C. Fraser (Female), Manager Personnel Ser- vices Fraser said that there were no questions con- cerning the Complainant's technical abilities to perform the job of Research Technician, her origi- nal job. Complainant's problem was her inability to work with two of her co-workers, H. Kaprun and L. Clemins; and her supervisor, M. Calton. Fraser said that the rubber testing laboratory where the Complainant worked consisted of several large rooms which all of the employees in the laboratory share. Because of this it was not possible to assign the Complainant to a position where she would not come into contact with H. Kaprum or L. Clemins. Addi- tionally if the Complainant was assigned to the Rubber Testing Laboratory, she would still be re- sponsible to the same supervisor M. Calton. Fraser stated that Complainant's inability to work with her supervisor, M. Calton and with H. Kaprun and a. Clemins, was established by the various doctors who ‘had treated Complainant. Co 0-45 2. Documentation a.Lett R ndent_ from An M.D. Psychiatrist - Exhibit A - On 6/1/78, Dr. Andri states,"..(Complain- ant) is free of overt psychiatric symptoms, but still has the strong belief that she was singled out and "“sabotaged"..She does not ex- press any delusional trends unrelated to this area..I believe she cannot work in the envir- onement that she did prior to her hospitali- satien«..* b. Letter to Dr. Ashbury (of Respondent) from Dr. Andri_ - Exhibit B Dated 8/17/78, the letter was written at the Complainant's request. Dr.Andri weeke:, ",.(Complainant) expresses 2 strong desire to return to work....in the past (she) developed delusional preoccupations to some of her co- ‘ ‘workérs. ‘However, présently “she” séems to eva-"” luate circumstances, more JOPZOShtVOr:.: a _* pe, Se os ee ae ~ %"- ~° =e" re £ gr Jeet ~ 7 0-46 promising to make whatever personal adjust- ments are necessary to counter act whatever difficulties might arise..." c. Letter to Respondent from Complainant's Doctor, J. Brown, M.D., Psychiatrist - Exhibit C- Dated 8/17/78 this letter states that Complain- ant was a patient of Dr. Brown for follow-up treat- ment after her hospitalization, in April of 1978, for psychiatric treatment. Dr. Brown stated that the Complainant had been free from any illness for a year and was capable of returning to work at any job she was capable of performing. g. Third letter to Dr. Ashbury from J. Ward M.D., Psychiatrist - Exhibit G- Dated 3/7/79 this letter, concerns the result of a second evaluation of Complainant on 3/7/79. Ward states that "(Complainant) could work, however I would state very strongly that shw should not spare in cies presence of the three — need a en a a ie tae. Ce re te L.. be, » %> inotd.* ennes Clemins, Hank Kaprun ‘a eddie 7 ane *s- Supervisor ,;~ Buck Caltone) + foctec: ce tet gM: Lae” L L or L [ t i . ‘ 0-47 ee eet ta Nia) Renta BNR? ae _ tion (Exhibit H, 2 Pac | ee wes, ie i oo) ee oe Sf 2) eee Dated 4/10/75 this evaluation is signed by M. R. Calton, Complainant's supervisor, which shows: Quantity of work-Excellent Quality of work-Between Excellent and Above Average Safety Performance—Between Above Average and Good Initiative-—Between Excellent and Above Average Attendance-Excel lent Under the heading of "Comments on your Recomm mendation to Retain or Separate this Employee" Cal- ton wrote the following: "There is no question that (Complainant) is capable, hard-working, has excellent motiva- tion and initiative and can benefit our group . . . If I had only one technician working for me (Complainant) might well be my Choice." Calton qualified the above by stating that the Complainant might have too much aggression and am > send 0-48 . bition Y which could’ lead to to problems with the "late, larger nets Hail a Complainant’ 8. Performance Evaluation, dated rarer SS 8/25/75. (Exhibit I, 2 Pages): In this evaluation written by Calton, Complain- ant's supervisor he recommends Complainant for a q merit increase. Under the heading of "Reasons for the above ac- 5 . tion" Calton stated in part the following: : ". . - (Complainant) is perhaps the most devot- PR tie ed hardest working technician that I have known - « e in view of (Complainant's) progress and her excellent abilities and work output, I - + - recommend the pay increase noted above." Examination of the section on performance eval- ee uation shows the following: -- Quantity of work-Excellent Quality of work-Above Average Safety-Between Good and Below Average Initiative-Above Average Job Conduct-Between Average and Good Attendance-Between Excellent and Above Average f ae _@ O-49 ee al “aries oe ae ee cubist Additional documents in file indicate that Come ae . + elem had. problems ontinn along, we. and relat=_ ing to her co-workers as early as April, 1975 (Exhibits Complainant also was of the belief that some- ene," . « « a Criminal person puts drugs in my food or drink at my job." (Exhib _) Letter Complainant gave to Mr. Calton. C.. Third Contested Point: Could Respondent have accomodated Complainant by placing her elsewhere in the Company? 1. Witnesses: a. Complainant: Complainant stated that after she had been re- leased in August, 1978 she informed C. meesee, Man- ager Personnel Services, by phone that she was wil- ling to relocate if that was necessary for her to return to work. She also told Fraser that she was willing to take a lower paying position as an entry 0-50 vowe*evel technician tf aricttidé laboratory ff that” was > , ~ PRR, Se tae te te ee Oe ee ee from H. Kaprun, L. Clemins and M. Calton. Com plainant stated that Respondent has approximately 16 laboratories in the Peoria area and also has a plant in the Davenport, Iowa area where she was willing to relocate. Complainant stated that she was not offered a position with Respondent to return to upon being released by her doctors. Complainant said that there were no job offers made to her between 8/18/78, date of release, and 3/19/79. Complain- ant said that on 3/19/79 she was offered a Class II Clerk Routine position. This was done verbally by phone by C. Fraser, and was confirmed by letter. She was informed that the duties she would have to perform would be to deliver computer printouts to the various laboratories at the pay of $251.20 per week, Complainant said that this position was not an ay es 0-51 TN * Saeaite’ ascGisdattin’ Por Rerhandiéap:” ‘the trass* °°" * EE a Rs re ee i not in line with her education, training and work experience as the work could be done by someone with a high school degree and she had a Master of Chemical Engineering degree and 13 years of labor- atory experience. The position aiso paid less than what she had been making 2 years previously, $251.20 per week, for the Clerk Routine position as compared t/> $287.20 per week as a Research Techni- cian in 1977. Complainant alleged that if she had been returned to a Research Technician position she would have been paid a substantially higher salary. b. William Mastronardi (Male), Assistant to the Manager of Equal Opportunity Programs. Mastronardi stated that he was involved in the attempt to find Complainant a position which would accomodate the Complainant's mental handicap. He said that Respondent was aware that the Conmplain- ant was willing to transfer to a different plant or i .. actions would he against Respondent's established _ 0-52 ‘accept’ a lower paying ‘position. wet fie"satd that both deel policies. Mastronardi said that the only time Re- spondent would require another plant to accept an employee was under exceptional circumstances, such as if there was a mass lay-off. Complainant was not offered a lesser position than Research Technician even though she was will- ing to accept a lesser position. Any offer of a position, other than Research Technician, would have been a demotion. Respondent's policy is to demote an employee only if he/she were unable to perform his/her job. Complainant's problem was not related to her Technical abilities to perform the duties of a Research Technician. Mastronardi said that after the Complainant had been examined for the second time by Dr. Ward, in March of 1979, it was decided that the Complain- ant's condition was not likely to improve. It was decided that the Complainant would not be able to een BE eos BE on A, ces: A i | . j i a ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee ee 0-53 was decided to return the Complainant to a position which she coiild perform without ‘any additional training. At the time when the decision was made, the only position available that the Complainant could perform without additional training was the ‘Class II Clerk Routine position. This position was offered to the Complainant on 3/19/79. b. C. Fraser (Female), Manager Personnel Ser- vices Fraser states that there is no position at the facility where Complainant worked, that is equiva- to her position of Research Technician, and does not require contact with Kaprum, Clemins, and Cal- ton. Fraser further states that there have been no openings at their other facilities for comparable positions, for which Complainant is qualified. For these reasons Complainant was kept on Medi- cal Leave until the position of Class II Clerk be- came vacant in 1979; this position was offered to oye O-54 *” Complainant’on 3/19/79." when Complainant’ refused’ * ‘this position, she was terminated in accordance with Respondent's personnel policy. Fraser stated that Respondent did attempt to accomodate the Complainant by finding an equiva- lent position in another plant for her by sending ‘the Complainant's personnel file to the other plants with the request that they consider her for employment if there was an opening. Fraser said that the other plants were not required to take the Complainant if there was an opening, as each plant dic its hiring separately. Fraser said that the response she received were negative. She admitt- ed that the personnel file sent to the various plants included memorandum dealing with the Com plainant's hospitalization and the events which led up to it, though Fraser felt that this did not af- fect any of the various plants decision not to hire the Complainant. Fraser provided a list of openings for the pos- SB « ret e~ oe —~ Fo. a — 0-55 ition of Research Technician (Complainant's classi- fication) for the period 8/18/78 - 3/19/79; the openings are as follows: _ Date of Opening Division Salary 10/23/78 Engine Development 356.00 10/16/78 Applied Mechanics 326.80 10/30/78* Engine Component Testing 290.80 2/19/79 Excavator & Tractor 273.20 1/1/79 Excavator & Tractor 337.60 1/15/79 Vehicle Components 356.00 2/5/79 Engine Components 320.00 1/3/79* Power Plant Lab 273.20 1/8/79 Engine Component Testing 284.00 1/8/79 Vehicle Testing 306.00 1/8/79 Engine Component Testing 284.00 Fraser maintains that these positions are in specified areas, such as Vehicle Components, Elec- 0-56 tronics, etc., which require a mechanical back- ground, which Complainant lacked. c. Entry Level Technician Positions filled be- tween 8/18/78 and 9/13/ (Exhibits L1 - L7) Respondent has filled 7 Entry Level Technician Positions since Complainant was released to return to work. 3. Staff Note: Respondent would not supply any information concerning available openings for Technician posi- tions at plants other than Complainant's place of employment. The reason given was that each plant is a separate hiring entity and could not be forc- ed to accept an employee from another plant except | in exceptional circumstances. C. Fourth Contested Point: Whether Respondent discriminated on the basis of Sex and National Origin in the hiring of indi- viduals into entry level Research Technician posi- tions. Ne ee ee 0-57 1. Witnesses: a. Complainant Complainant contends that Respondent discrimi- nates against hiring female and individuals of non- American origin into entry level technician posi- tions. She based this allegation on the following: 1) She was the only female technician in the laboratory where she worked. 2) Respondent would not let her return from medical leave into an entry level technician posi- tion. 3) Respondent has hired males, Kaprun and Clemins, into entry level technician positions with only a high school degree, where as she has a Mas- ter of Chemical Engineering degree. b. C. Fraser (Female), Manager of Personnel Services Fraser denied that Respondent discriminates against applicants for entry level Research Techni- cian positions, on the basis of either sex, female, O-58 or on the basis of National Origin. Fraser maintained that Respondent does not con- sider National Origin during the hiring process with two exceptions. The first exception is to verify that if a person is not a U.S. citizen that they have the appropriate visa to allow them to work for Respondent. The second exception is that Respondent keeps track of the number of Spanish sur-named individuals for Equal Employment Oppor- tunity Commission compliance requirements. She further maintains that Respondent had a good pro- portion of females, as five (36%) of the 14 entry level technician positions are filled by females. Fraser agreed that Kaprun and Clemins were hired into entry level technician positions without a college degree. She maintained that a college de- gree is not necessary for an entry level position but that some college is required. She said both Kaprun and Clemins have some college experience. 2. Documentations _ pst | —— co c— eee ee ee eee eee ee 0-59 a. Personnel Histories for Incumbent Fntry Level Laboratory Technicians (Exhibit Ml - Mi4) Respondent submitted as evidence the personnel - histories of all individuals presently employed as entry level technicians at Complainant's former work site. Examination shows that Respondent employs 14 entry level technicians. Of the 14 technician pos- itions five (36%) are filled by females. b. Employment Applications for Kaprun and Clemins Examination of Clemins' and Kapruns' employment applications for education experience shows the following: Clemins 3 years college Subject: Industrial Tech. Kaprun 3 semesters college Subject: Business Managment Staff Notes While Respondent does not maintain a list showing 0-60 the national origins of entry level technicians, three individuals listed have names implicating foreign origin, including one individual with a name which indicates slavic descent. Romanians are not of Slavic origin. D. Conclusions: Complainant was released to return to work by her two physicians on 8/18/78. After examining Com- plainant, Respondent's physician also released Com- plainant to return to work with one restriction that the Complainant should not work with dues employees, Kaprun, Clemins, and Calton. Respondent admits that the Complainant was will- ing to relocate or except a lower paying job, to satisfy the medical restriction, if that was nece- ssary for her to return to work. Respondent stated that Complainant was kept on medical leave after her release because of her men- tal handicap, paranoia until a job offer was made to Complainant on 3/27/79. Complainant was offered ce meme = oi ee someneie M ed! sects a ‘areca Keven sect eel econ Neeson ee eee 0-61 a Class II Clerk Routine position on 3/27/79, 221 days after Complainant's original release to return to work. The Class II Clerk Routine job offer did not satisfy Respondent's policy in returning an employee from a leave of absence. Respondent's policy requires returning an employee to their ori- ginal job or one of equivalent pay and status. The Class II Clerk Routine position was not the equiva- lent of Complainant's Research Technician position. Respondent could have offered the Complainant a suitable position prior to their offering the Com plainant the Class II Clerk Routine position. At Complainant's work site Respondent filled an entry level technician position on 1/8/79 that they were aware Complainant was willing to accept. Addition- ally, Respondent admits that they have numerous laboratories at locations other than Complainant's work site. Respondent refused to provide informa- tion concerning vacancies at these other laborator- ies. It is reasonable to infer, based on Respon- 0-62 dent's size, that within the 221 days, between Com- plainant's release and a jab offer being made to her, that there were vacancies in both the Research Technician and Entry Level Technician positions at these other laboratories. Respondent admitted that under exceptional cir- cumstances they have required plants to accept em- ployees from other locations. Because of the above it is recommended that a finding of Substantial Evidence be entered on this issue. XII. Second Issue: Termination A. Contested Point: Reason for Complainant's termination. 1. Witnesses: a. Complainant Complainant said she was informed of a Class II Clerk Routine position, which Respondent was offer- ing her as an accomodation, on 3/19/79 and that she 0-63 refused this position on 3/26/79 as an insufficient accomodation. Complainant stated that when C. Fraser offered her the Class II Clerk Routine posi- tion by phone on 3/19/79 she was told that the pos- ition would require her to deliver computer print- outs to various laboratories at $251.20/wk. Com plainant said that she was called by C. Fraser on 3/26/79, the date Complainant was scheduled to re- port back to work. In this conversation Fraser told her that if she did not report to work she would be terminated. Complainant told Fraser that she was not going to accept the Class II Clerk Routine position. She told Fraser that she felt that Class II Clerk Routine position was not an adequate accommodation. Complainant stated that when she was terminatec on 3/26/79 by Respondent she was told that the reason was for her failure to report back to work. Complainant felt that she was terminated because of her handicap, paranoia, as there were alternatives 0-64 to offering her a Class II Clerk Routine instead of terminating her. She said Respondent kept her on medical leave for eight months after she was re- leased to work (8/18/78) and could have her on med- ical leave until suitable position became avail- able. Complainant stated that such a position could be a position equivalent to her original position either at the Tech Center where she worked or at a different location. She also said that an entry level position would have been suitable . if “this °° was necessary to get her back to work and away from her old co-workers whom she could not work with. b. Matronardi (Male), Assistant to the Manager of Equal Opportunity Programs Mastronardi said that when it was decided to offer the Complainant the Class II Clerk Routine position it was also decided to terminate the Com- plainant, in accordance with company policy, if she refused the position. He said this was told toC. vr ° —— +E ee ee ee 0-65 Fraser who made the job offer. c. C. Fraser (Female), Manager Personnel Ser- vices Fraser said that Complainant was offered a Class II Clerk Routine position on 3/19/79. Complainant was contacted by her on the day that Complainant was scheduled to report to work. Complainant told Fraser by phone that she was not going to accept the Class II Routine position. Fraser said that she informed Complainant that failure to report to work would result in termination effective 3/26/79. Since Complainant did not report to work she was terminated effective 3/26/79. Fraser said a let- ter was sent to the Complainant ee her ter- mination. 2. Documentation a. Letter to Complainant from Respondent Con- cerning a job offer, (Exhibit 0) Dated 3/19/79, this letter states that the Com plainant was being offered a Class II Clerk Routine O-66 position; Complainant was expected to report for work on 3/26/79. The salary for this position was $251.20/week plus a $44.00/month cost of living ad- justment. b. Letter to Complainant from Respondent Con- cerning Complainant's termination (Exhibit P) Dated 3/27/79, this letter confirms a phone con- versation between Respondent and the Complainant concerning the Complainant's refusal of the Class II Clerk Routine position on 3/26/79. The letter stated that since the Complainant failed to re- port to work on 3/26/79, she was terminated and should return corporate property and keys, in her possession, and pick up her personal belongings. B. Conclusions: Respondent admits that the Complainant was termi- nated for refusing to accept a Class II Clerk Rou- tine position on 3/26/79. This position was offer- ed to the Complainant as an accommodation to the Complainant's mental handicap, paranoia so that the 0-67 Complainant could return to work from medical leave. Complainant refused this position as being an insufficient accommodation as it was lower pay- ing and unrelated to her education training and work experience. Respondent kept the Complainant on medical leave for eight months, after her doctors released her, in this period Respondent filled at least one pos~ ition for which the Complainant was qualified that was related to the Complainant's background and paid more than the Class II Clerk Routine position. Respondent has refused to provide date on Techni- cian position filled at other locations than where Complainant worked. Considering the size of Re- spondent's operation it is reasonable to infer that Respondent filled positions similar to Complain- ant's original position at other plants. Respon- dent was aware that Complainant was willing to re- locate if it was necessary for her to return to work. 0-68 Because of the above it is recommended that a finding of Substantial Evidence be entered on this issue. XIII. Third Issue: Harassment Complainant alleges on-the-job harassment, which one must infer ended on 4/22/77, when she went on a medical leave. Complainant first contacted the Fair Employment Practices Commissior: on 11/9/78, 566 days after the ending of the harassment. Section 8 of the Fair Employment Practices Act requires the filing of a charge of discrimination within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory action. Complainant's charge was filed 386 days beyond the 180 day filing period. qa= rw lm ’ .] Pl CATERPILLAR TRACTOR CO. TECHNICAL CENTER - PEORIA, ILLINOIS 61629 March 27, 1979 Ms. Maura Burche 1710 West 52nd Street Davenport, IA 52806 Dear Ms. Burche: This letter confirms our phone conversation of Mon- day, March 26, 1979, in which you stated you would not accept the open Class II Clerk Routine position wiiich was offered to you in my letter of March 19, 1979. As stated in that letter, and as I reiterated in our phone conversation of March 26, failure to re- turn to work to the open job by March 26, 1979, Can-~ cels your leave of absence and terminates your employment with Caterpillar Tractor Co. Accord- ingly, this is notification that your employment with Caterpillar is being terminated effective today. Please return your identification pass, Company P=2 keys and any other Company property you may have in the enclosed stamped self-addressed envelope. We will hold your personal belongings left at your former work station until we hear from you as to their disposit on. If you have any questions, please call me. Very truly yours, Connie J. Fraser Supervisor Personnel Department DJFraser Telephone (309) 578-6124 kjr Enclosure a " = i )hl(iéiR emmemeed = Fase! acme!) eee! Pra ee ae ee ee ee Q-1 3-22-79 Caterpillar Tractor Co. Connie Fraser Personnel Service Supervisort Technical Center Dear Mrs. Fraser, I received your letter dated on March 19, 1979 con- cerning the job offered to me as Class II Clerk Routine in the Printing Room, Building A- Technical Center. With deep regret I have to refuse such offer due to the following motives: 1. Based on all medical reports I am capable to perform any job equivalent to that held before my illness. | 2. I held a ja as laboratory technician at Re- search Laboratory - Techn’ ~al Center, Tire Devel- opment Building E and I can't see any reason to be transfered to another job lower paid ané not in line with my education. 3. I mentioned before that I could perform Q-2 physico-mechanical tests, chemical analysis in any metalurgical laboratory or rubber testing labora- tory. I could work as librarian research, I can translate very well from french and Italian and moderate from Russian languages into English from any technical literature subject. I think that after 17 years of education I could form superior jobs than that held in the past; at least to get an equivalent jo it isa modest desire. By offering me a lower paid job the dis- crimination against me continues. I suffered morally alot during my employment at Caterpillar Tractor Co., due to continuous harass- ment — M. Calton, Clemens and Kapraun, and also financially during my illness and therefore an equivalent job and adequate treatment I think it is well deserved. Such job could be in Peoria or Davenport where I live now and where Caterpillar Tractor Co. has an- [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385018_0866%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.