Town Hall has received a rebuttal from Leigh Gomez to its Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities response.

In the rebuttal, Gomez, an African American and former executive assistant to First Selectman Janet McCarty, denies Town Hall’s insistence that poor job performance led to her losing town employment. Gomez further states her claim that she faced racial discrimination and retaliation at Town Hall, providing e-mails, photographs, and job descriptions as exhibits.

Gomez lost town employment on July 1, 2009.

Town Hall responded to the CHRO in July after Gomez accused McCarty in May of removing her from employment in a roundabout manner so that the First Selectman would not have to directly terminate a minority. Gomez also alleged that McCarty promised and then denied her several Town Hall positions, and that she subsequently faced retaliation.

Poor job performance and discrimination

In the rebuttal, written by attorney Eugene Axelrod, Gomez claims that McCarty never specifically instructed her that her job performance was suffering. Instead, Gomez alleges that McCarty stated that she was “just not working out” because Gomez did not act in a political manner. The rebuttal claims that McCarty’s “exact words” to Gomez were “You went out to eat with Angela [a town employee] and that’s not good. She’s a Republican and they hate us [Democrats]. You didn’t ask Miriam Brody [a Republican] what she was going to do with the Boards and Commissions documents she requested. It’s just not working out.”

Additionally, the rebuttal claims of the reprimand that “Ms. McCarty further advised [Gomez] that it had nothing to do with [Gomez’s] work ethic or ability to perform her job.”

The Town Hall CHRO response stated that despite Gomez’s alleged poor job performance, McCarty “offered to give favorable references to help [Gomez] secure another Town position.” The rebuttal alleges that Gomez “would not have been advised that she would be relocated into another Town position with the recommendation of First Selectman McCarty if in fact [Gomez] was incapable of performing her job or was performing her position poorly.”

The Town Hall CHRO response claimed that Gomez was made aware “as early as May 28, 2008,” that her performance in writing press releases was unsatisfactory. Gomez’s rebuttal alleges that the Town Hall response “provides no explanation on why Ms. McCarty continued to employ [Gomez] for over a year if in fact [Gomez] was performing poorly.”

The rebuttal alleges that Town Hall’s argument of inadequate job performance “could be believable if… [Town Hall] could provide a single document, warning, evaluation, or written indication of poor work performance by [Gomez] throughout her employment.”

The rebuttal claims that Gomez went “above and beyond” her job duties. The rebuttal offers a Dec. 3, 2007, job description of the First Selectman’s executive assistant which reads, “thorough knowledge of the principles/practices of office management and record keeping. Considerable ability in oral/written communications. Thorough ability to deal with confidential information. Thorough ability to operate/maintain an executive level office. Duties include word processing, making appointments, arranging meetings, screening and routine telephone skills. Organizational skills a must.”

The rebuttal alleges that Gomez completed many projects which demonstrated that she outperformed her position’s expectations. These projects include that she “organized a team and acted as the town liaison for the 2008 Relay for Life of Hamden/North Haven; organized the United Way of Greater New Haven fundraiser for town employees; wrote many Eagle Scout certificates; helped organize the Columbus Day Parade of Greater New Haven and served as the Italian Heritage Dinner Ticket co-chairman.”

Gomez had claimed that McCarty promised her a town position without application. The Town Hall response stated that Gomez did not apply to one of these jobs, and therefore it made little sense for her have been hired. The rebuttal alleges, “why wouldn’t [Gomez] apply for the position unless she was advised not to?”

Gomez’s rebuttal expands her allegation of racial discrimination. The rebuttal claims that “Ms. McCarty hired [Gomez] not to perform a job, but to provide Ms. McCarty with a false image of equality and diversity.” Additionally, the rebuttal alleges that “McCarty verbalized her pleasure in having gained positive recognition for her diverse political team and advised [Gomez] that one of her acquaintances said it looked favorable that Ms. McCarty hired a Black Executive Assistant.”

The rebuttal also claims that on the first day of Gomez’s employment, McCarty told her that she was hired because “you’re young. All the people here [at town hall] look the same. Let’s face it – we don’t need another white face here like mine.”

Exhibits

The rebuttal includes a dozen pieces of evidence in an attempt to discredit allegations from the Town Hall’s response and to bolster discrimination charges.

The Town Hall response claimed that Gomez was mistaken in believing that she was promised future town hall employment and that internal applicants receive preferential treatment for town positions. The rebuttal includes an e-mail sent by Gomez to McCarty. In the e-mail, dated Feb. 21, 2009, Gomez writes “It is unclear to me after our Friday, Feb. 20 conversation if I still have a position with the Town of North Haven. I understand there’s a hiring procedure that must be followed, and that I have to formally apply to the position with the Department of Community Services & Recreation. It was assured in our Friday, Jan. 16 conversation that I had a position working with community services. Will I definitely begin the position on March 2, 2009?”

In response to Gomez, McCarty writes “Yes, my dear you do. I apologize for being oblique but it was so busy yesterday (like everyday). The drill will be this: [Director of Community Services Gerardo Sorkin] will post the job (Dan’s former position) internally, which means that folks who work for the town get first dibs. When I get a copy of the posting to sign, you can fill out an application and submit your resume. I assume there will be other internal apps (Gerry? Angela? Lynn Cole). [Sorkin] will interview and we’ll see how long that takes.”

The rebuttal alleges that McCarty was directly involved with the hiring of the secretary of community services, one of the positions allegedly “promised” and then denied to Gomez. The rebuttal includes an e-mail sent by Sorkin to the First Selectman. In the e-mail, sent Feb. 18, 2009, Sorkin writes, “Regarding the secretary position, I am checking references and I think I should be able to make an offer tomorrow or Friday the latest.”

The Town Hall response claimed that Gomez was demoted from executive assistant to executive secretary in July 2008. The rebuttal offers an e-mail sent by Gomez to McCarty, dated June 12, 2009, in which Gomez’s personal e-mail signature lists her position as “executive assistant.”

To substantiate retaliation charges, the rebuttal includes a May 20, 2009, letter from Axelrod to town attorney Christopher Duby regarding an instance in which Gomez was asked to move heavy boxes. Axelrod alleges that Gomez was “required” to spend time “moving transfiles weighing approximately twenty-five (25) pounds.” Axelrod also claims that Gomez “was refused the use of a ladder and told to stand on a stool when reaching over her head for the heavy boxes.”

Additionally, Axelrod claims that “Gomez is of slight physique and weight – the risk of physical injury to Ms. Gomez was obvious.” The attorney further alleges that McCarty and the other executive assistant “seldom if ever make any use of this room in the ordinary course of business and refer to the room as a dangerous area.”

The rebuttal also includes a May 20, 2009, photograph of Gomez’s name plate upside down upon her Town Hall desk. Gomez alleges that she found the plate in such fashion on the morning of May 20, and that it was not turned upside down when she left work on May 19. The rebuttal claims that Town Hall received the original letter claiming racial discrimination from Axelrod on May 13, 2009.

The rebuttal contains a June 10, 2009, letter from Gomez to Axelrod in which Gomez accuses McCarty of publicly embarrassing her and violating union rules. Gomez writes, “Although I’m not in a union, the First Selectman’s Office does follow union guidelines.” Gomez quotes several union guidelines, including, “In the Employer has reason to reprimand an employee, it shall be done in a manner that will not embarrass the employee before other employees or the public” and “Transfers shall not be made for disciplinary reasons.”

In detailing the embarrassments, Gomez alleges that McCarty handed her a letter of termination “in front of Executive Assistant Barbara Feinberg.” Gomez also states that on the same day, “McCarty instructed me to go to North Haven Memorial Library,” where she was relocated to a desk in the room behind the check-out counter.

Regarding her move to the library, Gomez includes a June 24, 2009, photograph of several large binders she allegedly was “required to read through” for a special project. Gomez writes to Axelrod, “I have to write another affidavit. The projects get longer and goals unrealistic each time. I have less than four days to complete it.” Additionally, Gomez alleges, “Special projects have never been part of my job description. This is retaliation because I have such little time to complete the project, and do not have the proper tools to successfully complete it such as my own computer, phone, pads and pencils, paper, etc.”

Attached with the photograph is a letter sent by Gomez on June 30, 2009, to McCarty. Gomez claims “this… 22 bullet-point project requires someone (preferably a team) to read through more than 35 huge, white binders to fact check information and not a mere three-and-a-half days to complete it.”

Gomez further alleges in the letter, “I requested the following items from you on June 10, 2009 – a telephone… a list of internal town hall employee telephone numbers; a computer and a town e-mail account which was not tampered with. I previously had all of these items provided for me prior to your knowledge of the CHRO complaint. I was provided with none of the above.”

The rebuttal also includes a June 18, 2009, letter from Gomez to Bill Bennett, North Haven Information Technology, in which she claims that “e-mails dated June 9, 2009, to the present have been deleted” from her town e-mail account. “I did not delete these e-mails,” Gomez alleges. Additionally, she claims that “there are certain e-mails pulled up dating from 2008 and numerous have been deleted.”

McCarty has continually denied all allegations, labeling them “patently false.”

“It still doesn’t make any sense,” she said of Gomez’s argument. “They contradict themselves.”

“In the end, it will be shown for what it really is – a frivolous lawsuit,” McCarty added.

The CHRO will decided now whether to grant Gomez a Merit Assessment Review, during which both sides would provide further evidence and witness testimony to substantiate their claims.