[ad_1]
During a staff video call the next day, Davidman asked Campbell to turn on her camera while she “laughed hysterically” and told the story, according to the lawsuit. Campbell said Davidman then called her after the video conference to continue mocking her, saying “You should have seen your face when I told this story!”
Schneider spokesman Matt Fried said in a statement that Campbell’s lawsuit “does not provide a complete or accurate portrayal of the problems or his treatment by office staff.” He added that the office had already taken “prompt and appropriate corrective action to deal with Ms Campbell’s initial complaint.”
“The Bureau looks forward to responding to the plaintiff’s allegations in Federal Court at the appropriate time and is confident that he will be exonerated in due course once all the facts are known,” Fried said.
The conduct was not limited to the March incidents, according to the lawsuit. Campbell said Davidman received few requests from voters in minority communities and, on the rare occasions that Davidman took charge of African-American cases, they were assigned to Campbell, which gave him the impression of being the “representative of blacks” in their office. The lawsuit alleges that Davidman also frequently made “flippant comments that are at best insensitive to race, if not outright discriminatory” and favored white employees over employees of color.
Davidman was given a week of paid administrative leave after the March incidents and was told she would no longer supervise Campbell, according to the lawsuit. But Davidman gave him his job anyway, said Campbell, the office’s district manager serving as the go-between.
Campbell’s wallet was also reduced to limit her interactions with her former supervisor, an arrangement she found unacceptable and described as a barrier to advancement in the office. Campbell was so disturbed by the incidents and the office’s response that she took a month of unpaid leave in April, then worked reduced hours in May and June, her complaint said.
On July 14, Campbell filed a complaint with the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, the independent House office responsible for reviewing complaints of harassment, discrimination, health and safety, and accessibility issues. Filing with this office is a required step under the Liability Act of Congress in order to file a civil complaint in court.
Lawsuits against lawmakers are most often brought by former staff members, rather than by employees still working for the member. Recent lawsuits against members by staff or former staff include a former staff member of Representative Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), Who alleged that the congressman had a “reckless and dangerous approach to COVID-19 ”and a former aide to Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) who said she was fired after telling her she was pregnant. The two former House staff have accused their bosses of breaking the Accountability of Congress Act, the 1995 law that governs complaints of harassment and discrimination in the workplace to Congress.
Every House office should have a policy on the books defining and prohibiting illegal discrimination, hostile work environments and counterparty situations. Schneider’s office is required to define a process for employees for a “fair, prompt and thorough investigation of any allegation of discrimination or harassment”. The rules should also prohibit retaliation against an employee for making “an objectively reasonable good faith complaint or objectively participating in good faith in an investigation.”
House lawmakers mandated anti-discrimination training for staff as part of a 2019 overhaul of the process for reporting discrimination and harassment. The changes also required a paper trail, meaning that if Schneider’s office had followed House workplace policies, Davidman would have signed an acknowledgment that she received, read and understood the anti-harassment policies.
[ad_2]
Source link