ERIC GARRET: THE CASE AGAINST METRO CONTINUES

You may recall my earlier stories on the case of Metro employee Eric Garrett against Metro Public Works. For more read here:Louisville News and Politics: Search results for eric garrett

The case of Eric Garret gets better and better folks. Garrett as you may recall is the subject of harassment based on a whistleblower lawsuit he filed against Metro and the Abramson regime. This story is just one more part of the saga in this ongoing investigation.

On August 27 Mr. Garrett will appear in Judge Shake's courtroom at 9:00 a.m. for a hearing over this case so the story needs to be taken to the next level. I spoke with Eric Garrett's attorney, Shane Sidebottom to see if this was just a preliminary hearing on procedures, and was informed this was a regular hearing and witnesses will be called.

The purpose of the hearing is to determine if Metro Public Works can Order Garrett to undergo a psychiatric mental examination with a criminal profiler before he can be reinstated. There is no Metro policy that allows it and the exam was not ordered until three days after Garrett filed his very publicly reported whistleblower lawsuit.

I have searched everything I can, and can find no precedent whatsoever, or anything in writing, that would allow Metro the right to order this exam myself. The hearing should be short and sweet, but will not be if I know the Abramson regime, so I will be there anyway.

First a background on Metro employee players involved:

Betty Younis was promoted by and works for Ted Pullen and were together at some point working at the Louisville International Airport. Ms. Younis is also good friends with Ted Pullen's wife Susan Neumayer.

Susan Neumayer was appointed by Abramson to work with Rick Johnstone to handle about $450 million in ARRA stimulus money. Susan Neumayer used to run Public Works and had influence in the hiring of her husband Ted, who became the Director of Public Works.

Rick Johnstone is the father of Jennifer Maupin, a legal administrative liaison at the Department of Human Resources. Why would Johnstone's name be mentioned? Everyone knows Rick Johnstone's history with Abramson. This is the link that ties the Abramson regime together in this.

On 2-11-2010 Mr. Garrett filed an Ethics complaint against Betty Younis and Ted Pullen. Garrett also specifically named these two in the June 7th lawsuit that alleged they were engaging in gross financial mismanagement in the Department of Public works. Who was the only employee listed to speak with the psych about Mr. Garrett’s work history and attitude during the evaluation? None other than Betty Younis.

Who is in charge of this investigation? Johnstone's daughter Jennifer Maupin.

Additionally, as of 6-11-2010, the Network (company handling the Ethics Tipline http://www.louisvilleky.gov/InternalAudit/ethicstipline/ ) reported no input whatsoever from Jennifer Maupin on any investigation resulting from the 2-11-2010 complaint filed by Garrett against Betty Younis and Ted Pullen. No big surprise here either.

Jennifer Maupin has also been assigned as point person for HR to handle the current disciplinary actions against Eric Garrett.The suit is against Metro so of course Abramson's people will handle it.

Jennifer Maupin signed a contract on 6-9-2010 with Psybar LLC in Minneapolis to conduct a forensic psychiatric exam of Eric Garrett , two days after he filed a whistleblower lawsuit, at the cost of $3,370 for a 4 hour assignment. Kind of pricey if you ask me and to an out of towner at that? Do we not have qualified LOCAL psyches in Louisville at a more affordable price? But I digress.

On Thursday 6-10-2010 Mr. Garrett was served with a letter to report to the psyche on Monday 6-14-2010. Considering the weekend he had only 1 day to prepare any medical records or any other documentation that would be necessary for this eval. Can you get medical records from your personal Dr in a day?

This was an unreasonable request at the very least. Of course obviously it was retaliatory one.

Considering that Younis is the one who had a complaint filed against her by Mr. Garrett, how could she be the only employee called to speak against him? No conflict or bias there, huh?

I keep asking myself how this could be handled so blatantly wrong by Younis considering her position and this may help explain why. There is a history here that would make one think Younis should be removed from this situation because of a personal conflict.

In January 2010, Garrett complained about management's treatment of another maintenance worker still under probation, who was Betty Younis' assistant's son, whom Younis hired. This worker was allowed more rope than anyone could imagine. Management was informed of such conduct that included disabling his portable radio so that he could slip away from work early, riding his girlfriend around downtown in Metro vehicles which he did not have to sign out for his own use, releasing tear gas on other workers, reporting an imaginary boa constrictor in the Hall of Justice parking garage (Younis hired an exterminator to investigate and set traps and paid overtime for Metro workers thus costing the taxpayers unnecessary money), as well as threatening violence against Eric Garrett himself (signed statements by two maintenance workers reporting this threat were provided to Betty Younis).

I know I know. While a probationary employee? Are you kidding me? Nope I am not kidding you.

Was there anything done to reign in this behavior? Apparently not, even though Younis herself was made aware of it.

Some of the accusations now lobbied against Eric Garrett?

Garrett is accused of having "gained access to the entire HVAC system at Metrosafe" in 2009, but Younis failed to mention that he was assigned access by Facilities Management to the system to collect readings on equipment at Metrosafe. He was given "read access" only by Ryan LeGaspi, an IT specialist for Johnson Controls, which means that he could not affect the system's operation.

Garrett is accused of asking a Metro horticulturalist for her password into the Hansen computer system yet doesn't disclose that Younis herself had asked Garrett to instruct the horticulturalist in the use of the system.

Younis claims Garrett "frightened" Loretta Broadnax while Broadnax was yelling at Garrett in the LMPD HQ basement on 4-7-2010, although it doesn't say how. Younis then refers to the statement of the only witness to the event, another maintenance worker, to "confirm the hostile nature of the engagement".

The witness stated in writing that all of the hostility was on the part of Ms. Broadnax. Loretta Broadnax has a rumored history of such conduct, even reportedly threatening to "cut" a coworker with a knife once at the Urban Government Center, which is rumored to be the reason she was transferred downtown in the first place.

Here's an obvious question.

If Broadnax was the aggressor, as verified by the witness, and Broadnax was doing all the yelling while Garrett stood there, just exactly what could she have been frightened of? Another idiotic statement.

Younis writes, "Over a period of a year, and approximately one year ago, Mr. Garrett has expressed interest in, and been given the opportunity to, perform work beyond that of a Maintenance Worker. He was asked to assist with data collection and entry for the work order system, he was asked to assist with MS4 permitting information-gathering, he collected for FM's public art portfolio. Each time, he had to be removed from the project because he was completely unable to take direction, to complete the tasks without veering off into the purely intellectual aspects of each of those systems…"

Excuse me but huh? "...veering off into the purely intellectual aspects of each of those systems…" I don't know about you but details are important in projects. Though apparently Younis would like to live in a dream world, where you say "do this" and it magically happens, I personally would want someone to pay attention to the "intellectual aspects" and details of any project. You know so we avoid potential problems. Common sense must prevail here and Younis statement makes one believe she may have none.

Additionally, according to sources Garrett was not "removed" from these projects. Unable to complete projects?

He completed the primary phase of creating a workable HVAC preventive maintenance work order system that is operational today should anyone choose to use it. Upon completion the project ended. So much for removal huh?

Garrett apparently finished the public arts portfolio to the extent that he completed all work that was asked of him. Again another finished product.

The MS4 (Municipal Separate Sewer System) protocols he was asked to write turned out badly because Garrett quit the project due to a conflict from Younis' inability to understand the guidelines established by the EPA.

Younis later apologized to Garrett in front of witnesses. Of course that wasn't mentioned by Younis either.

Why would you as a boss apologize unless you were, you know, dare I say it, um wrong? Not that we aren't used to Metro Abramson cronies being wrong. Garrett also never received an increase in pay for any of this extra work.

And, um, Ms Younis? There is a difference between being "removed" from a job and "completing" a job. Most non bosses even know this.

In regards to Garrett, Younis also wrote, "you stated that you believed that you would not receive a fair hearing from either Betty Younis or Ted Pullen. This statement is disturbing and frightening due to the veiled hostility it represents against Management" - (this is a direct quote from a response (dated 4-26-2010) to Eric Garrett's grievance of the personnel action taken against him on 4-8-2010. The response was never provided to Eric Garrett or A.F.S.C.M.E (the union) and was received on 7-5-2010 during discovery. It has been sent to the Union and is currently making its way through Public Works channels .

For starters I don't see a "veiled threat" in making the statement that you do not believe you would receive a fair hearing. In fact, based on the information available, and the way this has been handled so far, I find it very probable Garrett would not be treated fairly.

I have been told Younis herself received $1.15 Million from her own whistleblower lawsuit against the Louisville Airport Authority. That adds an interesting twist eh? Especially since the rumored witness who testified on behalf of Younis is none other than, yep you guessed it, TED PULLEN who testified/provided the info supporting Younis’ case and aided in the settlement.

Meanwhile Garret has been off of work since April, will win this case easily, and it will cost us more tax money from the failed leadership of Abramson and his crew.

But that is no problem to folks in the Abramson regime like Younis and Pullen. These folks typically think they can do anything they want with no regard to our tax money. They feel it is theirs for the taking and manipulation apparently.

In the case of Younis she got her tax money payoff the good old fashioned way. She sued the City. Ironically by using the same whistleblower status against Louisville Airport Authority that Public Works is abusing today retaliating against Mr. Garrett. I wonder if her getting a Metro job was part of her whistleblower agreement.

Funny how things work out.