Home, Asia, Europe, North America, Latin America and Caribbean, Oceania, News, Sitemap
loading map..

UNITED STATES

Male to Male relationships: Legal
Punishments for male to male relationships: No law
Female to Female Relationships: Legal
Age of consent: Equal for heterosexuals and homosexuals
Marriage and Substitutes for Marriage: Marriage laws vary in this country depending on area
Is it possible to change your gender on official documents?: Only in some areas
Gay or lesbian able to serve in the armed forces: Yes

Your Views

Are you LGBTI? We want to hear from you! Help us inform other users of the site with your views on this country. Below is a random question about this country. If it is relevant to you please answer it.

Are you married to your same-sex partner in UNITED STATES?

The majority of people visiting this site have said No

Yes, I married here (25%) Yes, I was married in another country (0 %) No, but we have a civil partnership (0 %) No (74%)

The Your Stories section is all about you! Please take a minute to tell visitors of the ILGA website about what LGBTI life is like in reality. Please submit your personal story and share your experience!

YOUR STORIES
Post a new story to this section

Readers Experiences

This is what people are saying about life for LGBTI people in UNITED STATES...
Jeff Wood (user currently living in UNITED STATES) posted for gay readers on 01/08/2012 tagged with at the work place
link
My suit is currently in the MCAD and will hopefully be moving forward in August. Discrimination and allowing a hostile work environment is horrible. I lived it for almost a year before US Airways accused me on writing the comments and firing me without even doing an investigation. I hired my own handwriting expert who sliced US Airways handwriting expert to pieces. It is foolish to think that companies today still discriminated against GLBT person. Help me speak out against this company and let them know enough is enough!


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination


________________________________
)
Jeff, )
Complainant, )
)
v. )
)
US AIRWAYS, INC., )
Respondent. )
________________________________)


COMPLAINANT’S STATEMENT IN REBUTTAL

In accordance with correspondence from the MCAD, and as discussed at the Investigative Conference held on February 22, 2012 before Investigator XXXXX, the Complainant (“Mr. Wood”) hereby submits his Rebuttal to the Position Statement of the Respondent, US Airways, Inc. (“US Airways”), which he received on Friday, February 17, 2012.
For the reasons set forth below, Mr. Wood has established the requisite probable cause that he was subjected to a hostile work environment, and that he was later subjected to willful and unlawful retaliation.
I. Facts
There is no need to recount all the facts, as alleged in the Amended Complaint and the company’s response thereto. With regard to the company’s Position Statement, however, Mr. Wood notes the following.
In fn. 2 on page 2 of the Position Statement, US Airways states it lacks sufficient information about the statements attributed to The Director. Mr. Wood, however, has alleged there was a witness to the statements. See Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl.”) ¶ 5.
In paragraph 2 on page 3 of the Position Statement, US Airways denies knowledge of two instances of graffiti (found in August and September 2011, Exhibits 8 and 10 of the Am. Compl.). Mr. Wood did inform and advise HR representative XXXX and Managing Director about all the instances of graffiti, by either telephone or emails.
In the fifth paragraph on page 3, US Airways states that it “involved” Mr. Wood in the installation process. Mr. Wood responds that he was advised and directed by Station Director XXXXX with regard to where the cameras would be installed.
In the sixth paragraph on page 3 of the Position Statement, US Airways denies Mr. Wood’s allegation that he raised certain issues with The Director of HR in a conversation Mr. Wood had with on or about September 7, 2011. As alleged in the Amended Complaint, ¶ 19, this conversation was witnessed by another Manager, who could confirm that these issues were discussed at that meeting. In addition, Mr. Wood did inform Ms. XXXX from HR and the station directors of the comment made by fleet service agent XXXXX Further, the comment itself was overheard by Ramp Shift Manager XXXXXXX.
In fn. 3 on page 4, US Airways acknowledges that Mr. Wood informed Mr. XXXXX about the comments made by two union representatives. Mr. Wood hereby alleges that he also informed a HR representative about these comments, and also spoke with HR about the xxxxx matter around the same time. At the bottom of page 4 of the Position Statement, US Airways states that Mr. Wood never raised the issue of the interaction between Mr. XXXXX and Agent XXXXX. Mr. Wood, however, did mention to Mr. XXXXX , in a conversation in Mr. XXXXX office, the exchange between Mr. XXXX and Ms. XXXXX, as well as the comment made by Ms. XXXXXX.
In fn. 7 on page 5, US Airways denies any knowledge about the graffiti found on or about January 3, 2011 (exhibit 27 of the Am. Compl.). In rebuttal, Mr. Wood states that US Airways employees were aware of, observed, and/or photographed that graffiti, including XXXXX and XXXXX (who was referred to by name in this graffiti).
Finally, as for the company’s retention of a handwriting expert, Katherine Koppenhaver, and her January 19, 2012 letter, which is addressed in the Position Statement and was discussed at the Investigative Conference held on February 22, 2012, Mr. Wood offers the following in rebuttal. Mr. Wood has retained his own independent handwriting expert, Dr. Richard S. Fraser. Dr. Fraser has reviewed Ms. Koppenhaver’s letter, as well as the materials she used in forming her opinion, and found that her conclusion was flawed and unwarranted. See Exhibit 1 (March 4, 2012 letter report of Dr. Fraser). Among other things, Dr. Fraser questions Ms. Koppenhaver’s methods, and points out numerous shortcomings with her analysis and conclusion.



II. Legal Argument
Turning to the applicable law, Mr. Wood responds to the Position Statement of
US Airways as follows:
A. Mr. Wood’s Work Environment Was Sufficiently Hostile and Offensive
The factual allegations demonstrating the hostile work environment that Mr. Wood was subjected to are described in his Amended Complaint. “A hostile work environment is one that is ‘pervaded by harassment or abuse, with the resulting intimidation, humiliation, and stigmatization, and that poses a formidable barrier to the full participation of an individual in the workplace.’” Cuddyer v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., 434 Mass. 521, 532 (2001) quoting College-Town, Div. of Interco, Inc. v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 400 Mass. 156, 162 (1987).
The hostile work environment consisted of vulgar and offensive homophobic graffiti directed specifically at Mr. Wood, over approximately nine months, and the corresponding failure by US Airways to timely and adequately respond to that graffiti. Under applicable case law, this was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment. For example, in Salvi v. Suffolk County Sheriff’s Dept., 67 Mass. App. Ct. 596, 603-606 (2006), a hostile work environment was demonstrated by homophobic verbal statements made to the plaintiff and about the plaintiff, together with one instance of out-of-work harassment. In Belanger v. Sant-Gobain Industrial Ceramics, Inc., 1999 WL 1324190 *3-4 (Mass.Super. Feb. 24, 1999), two comments by a coworker about the plaintiff’s sexual orientation, made within one week after the plaintiff’s return to work following an absence stemming from sexual harassment by a different coworker, were sufficiently severe and pervasive for the jury to have concluded they created a hostile work environment. Accordingly, the Superior Court denied the defendant’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial, leaving intact the jury’s damage award of $634,000, consisting of back pay ($102,000), front pay ($372,000), emotional distress damages ($52,000) and punitive damages ($108,000). And in Messina v. Araserve, Inc., 906 F.Supp. 34 (D.Mass. 1995), two months of name calling and sexually suggestive gestures were enough to constitute a hostile environment. See also Modern Continental/Obayashi v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 445 Mass. 96, 115 n.23 (2005) (assuming that graffiti constituted a form of harassment). In Rolando Cano v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 2332538 *10-*12 (E.E.O.C 2006) the hostile environment consisted of unwelcome comments, rumors and graffiti. The graffiti there was similar to that directed as Mr. Wood, including: “Cano swallows,” “Cano sucks dicks” and “Cano’s a queer.” Id. at *12. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission concluded that:
the sexually explicit comments and graffiti directed at complainant, after he expressed that he found them offensive, were sufficiently severe and pervasive to create an intimidating, hostile, and offensive work environment. The Commission notes that, evaluated from the viewpoint of a reasonable person in complainant’s circumstances, the sexually explicit comments and graffiti were extremely offensive and we not the record shows that complainant, a veteran supervisor with the agency, had his authority undermined by the offensive conduct.

Id. Mr. Wood submits that offensive verbal comments are equivalent to offensive written graffiti, and perhaps more so as they are anonymous and can be seen by many people.
The company’s failure to effectively stop the graffiti contributed to and exacerbated that hostile environment. This environment was severe and pervasive enough to alter the conditions of Mr. Wood’s employment. He suffered severe emotional distress as a result of the repeated instances of graffiti, as well as the company’s lackadaisical response to it. The totality of these circumstances are indeed enough to be offensive to a reasonable person, and were experienced as such by Mr. Wood. See Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993) (“whether an environment is ‘hostile’ or ‘abusive’ can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct”); Ruffino v. State Street Bank & Trust Co., 908 F.Supp. 1019, 1038 (D.Mass. 1995) (“hostile environment discrimination typically is not confined to one act, directed at one individual, one time; rather it is a composite of workplace action and inaction”); Belanger, supra at *4, citing Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc.
B. The Company’s Response Was Not Reasonable
Furthermore, the company’s response was not reasonable in these circumstances. The response was clearly not prompt, as US Airways acknowledges that surveillance cameras were not fully installed until September, six months after Mr. Wood’s initial complaint about inappropriate graffiti and vandalism of company property, and only after Mr. Wood had made repeated requests. Nor was appropriate training of all employees promptly undertaken or completed. As of the filing of the company’s Position Statement in February 2012 — nearly one year since Mr. Wood’s initial complaints — they concede that not all employees have completed anti-harassment training, but that it “will be completed shortly.” See Modern Continental, 445 Mass. at 111 n.17 (noting that a plaintiff’s claim survives summary judgment where there was a “protracted delay before taking any remedial action”).
Statements made by Mr. Wood’s superiors at US Airways also demonstrate the company’s unreasonable response to his repeated complaints. See Am. Compl., ¶¶ 5, 8, 10-11, 18-19. “An employer who passively tolerates the creation of a hostile working environment implicitly ratifies the perpetrator’s misconduct ….” Modern Continental, 445 Mass. at 105. The SJC continued:
Moreover, acquiescence on the part of the employer effectively communicates to the victim of harassment that her employer does not care about the hostile environment in which she must work, a message that can only operate to exacerbate the adverse effects of that hostile environment. In this context, an employer who is not part of the solution inevitably becomes part of the problem.

Ibid. See also Salvi, 67 Mass. App. Ct. at 606; Barbot v. Hapco Farms, Inc., 19 M.D.L.R. (1997) (MCAD ruled that where an employee who was called names, the employer’s response of telling the employee to “ignore the situation and get back to the job,” and promising she would be “on the lookout” and would be calling a meeting of employees in which she would condemn the name calling, was ruled an inadequate response by the employer). Commentary in this area of the law notes that “reported MCAD cases reveal a tendency of employers to underreact to claims of antigay harassment in the workplace.” Massachusetts Employment Law, MCLE, Vol. 1, Ch. 12, § 12.7.2 (2009).
With regard to the investigation of Mr. Wood’s complaints, the company’s initial response was inadequate and ineffective. Later, the company apparently began investigating whether perhaps Mr. Wood was himself responsible for the homophobic graffiti directed at him. Accusing the victim of being the perpetrator cannot possible qualify as having conducted a reasonable investigation — especially where Mr. Wood’s own handwriting expert has undermined and refuted the company’s handwriting expert’s report and conclusion. See Exhibit 1. The company’s resorting to an investigation of Mr. Wood, let alone relying on the inadequate and inconclusive report of their expert, buttresses the evidence that the company’s response was not only unreasonable but retaliatory.
C. Retaliation
With regard to Mr. Wood’s claim of unlawful retaliation against him by the company, this is demonstrated by, inter alia: the company’s delayed and ineffectual response to his initial complaints; various statements made to Mr. Wood by his supervisors; the company’s lack of legal support when Wood was falsely accused of harassment in December 2011 by fellow employee XXXXX, after Mr. Wood has filed his charge with the MCAD in October 2011; the company’s accusation that Mr. Wood himself was responsible for the offensive graffiti; and the company’s reliance on the handwriting expert’s flimsy findings as the basis for ultimately terminating his employment. The investigation of Mr. Wood, the victim of the hostile work environment, and later termination of Mr. Wood based on an inadequate and inconclusive handwriting report, constituted willful retaliation by US Airways.
Conclusion
Having offered the handwriting analysis of Dr. Fraser in rebuttal to the company’s own handwriting expert, which demonstrates the ample shortcomings with Ms. Koppenhaver’s methods and conclusion, Mr. Wood has established the necessary probable cause that he was both subjected to a hostile work environment and retaliated against.


I swear or affirm, under the pains and penalties of perjury, that I have read the above Rebuttal Statement and that it is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.


__________________________
Jeffrey R. Wood, Complainant
Dated: ____________________


On this ___ day of March, 2012, before me, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared __________________, and proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification, which was ___________________, to be the person whose name was signed on the within document in my presence.

__________________________
Notary Public
Commission Expires:_________




Respectfully submitted,
Complainant,
Jeffrey R. Wood,

By his attorneys,


_____________________________
add response to story
Jeff Wood (user currently living in UNITED STATES) posted for gay readers on 01/08/2012 tagged with at the work place
link
My suit is currently in the MCAD and will hopefully be moving forward in August. Discrimination and allowing a hostile work environment is horrible. I lived it for almost a year before US Airways accused me on writing the comments and firing me without even doing an investigation. I hired my own handwriting expert who sliced US Airways handwriting expert to pieces. It is foolish to think that companies today still discriminated against GLBT person. Help me speak out against this company and let them know enough is enough!


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination


________________________________
)
Jeff, )
Complainant, )
)
v. )
)
US AIRWAYS, INC., )
Respondent. )
________________________________)


COMPLAINANT’S STATEMENT IN REBUTTAL

In accordance with correspondence from the MCAD, and as discussed at the Investigative Conference held on February 22, 2012 before Investigator XXXXX, the Complainant (“Mr. Wood”) hereby submits his Rebuttal to the Position Statement of the Respondent, US Airways, Inc. (“US Airways”), which he received on Friday, February 17, 2012.
For the reasons set forth below, Mr. Wood has established the requisite probable cause that he was subjected to a hostile work environment, and that he was later subjected to willful and unlawful retaliation.
I. Facts
There is no need to recount all the facts, as alleged in the Amended Complaint and the company’s response thereto. With regard to the company’s Position Statement, however, Mr. Wood notes the following.
In fn. 2 on page 2 of the Position Statement, US Airways states it lacks sufficient information about the statements attributed to The Director. Mr. Wood, however, has alleged there was a witness to the statements. See Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl.”) ¶ 5.
In paragraph 2 on page 3 of the Position Statement, US Airways denies knowledge of two instances of graffiti (found in August and September 2011, Exhibits 8 and 10 of the Am. Compl.). Mr. Wood did inform and advise HR representative XXXX and Managing Director about all the instances of graffiti, by either telephone or emails.
In the fifth paragraph on page 3, US Airways states that it “involved” Mr. Wood in the installation process. Mr. Wood responds that he was advised and directed by Station Director XXXXX with regard to where the cameras would be installed.
In the sixth paragraph on page 3 of the Position Statement, US Airways denies Mr. Wood’s allegation that he raised certain issues with The Director of HR in a conversation Mr. Wood had with on or about September 7, 2011. As alleged in the Amended Complaint, ¶ 19, this conversation was witnessed by another Manager, who could confirm that these issues were discussed at that meeting. In addition, Mr. Wood did inform Ms. XXXX from HR and the station directors of the comment made by fleet service agent XXXXX Further, the comment itself was overheard by Ramp Shift Manager XXXXXXX.
In fn. 3 on page 4, US Airways acknowledges that Mr. Wood informed Mr. XXXXX about the comments made by two union representatives. Mr. Wood hereby alleges that he also informed a HR representative about these comments, and also spoke with HR about the xxxxx matter around the same time. At the bottom of page 4 of the Position Statement, US Airways states that Mr. Wood never raised the issue of the interaction between Mr. XXXXX and Agent XXXXX. Mr. Wood, however, did mention to Mr. XXXXX , in a conversation in Mr. XXXXX office, the exchange between Mr. XXXX and Ms. XXXXX, as well as the comment made by Ms. XXXXXX.
In fn. 7 on page 5, US Airways denies any knowledge about the graffiti found on or about January 3, 2011 (exhibit 27 of the Am. Compl.). In rebuttal, Mr. Wood states that US Airways employees were aware of, observed, and/or photographed that graffiti, including XXXXX and XXXXX (who was referred to by name in this graffiti).
Finally, as for the company’s retention of a handwriting expert, Katherine Koppenhaver, and her January 19, 2012 letter, which is addressed in the Position Statement and was discussed at the Investigative Conference held on February 22, 2012, Mr. Wood offers the following in rebuttal. Mr. Wood has retained his own independent handwriting expert, Dr. Richard S. Fraser. Dr. Fraser has reviewed Ms. Koppenhaver’s letter, as well as the materials she used in forming her opinion, and found that her conclusion was flawed and unwarranted. See Exhibit 1 (March 4, 2012 letter report of Dr. Fraser). Among other things, Dr. Fraser questions Ms. Koppenhaver’s methods, and points out numerous shortcomings with her analysis and conclusion.



II. Legal Argument
Turning to the applicable law, Mr. Wood responds to the Position Statement of
US Airways as follows:
A. Mr. Wood’s Work Environment Was Sufficiently Hostile and Offensive
The factual allegations demonstrating the hostile work environment that Mr. Wood was subjected to are described in his Amended Complaint. “A hostile work environment is one that is ‘pervaded by harassment or abuse, with the resulting intimidation, humiliation, and stigmatization, and that poses a formidable barrier to the full participation of an individual in the workplace.’” Cuddyer v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., 434 Mass. 521, 532 (2001) quoting College-Town, Div. of Interco, Inc. v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 400 Mass. 156, 162 (1987).
The hostile work environment consisted of vulgar and offensive homophobic graffiti directed specifically at Mr. Wood, over approximately nine months, and the corresponding failure by US Airways to timely and adequately respond to that graffiti. Under applicable case law, this was sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment. For example, in Salvi v. Suffolk County Sheriff’s Dept., 67 Mass. App. Ct. 596, 603-606 (2006), a hostile work environment was demonstrated by homophobic verbal statements made to the plaintiff and about the plaintiff, together with one instance of out-of-work harassment. In Belanger v. Sant-Gobain Industrial Ceramics, Inc., 1999 WL 1324190 *3-4 (Mass.Super. Feb. 24, 1999), two comments by a coworker about the plaintiff’s sexual orientation, made within one week after the plaintiff’s return to work following an absence stemming from sexual harassment by a different coworker, were sufficiently severe and pervasive for the jury to have concluded they created a hostile work environment. Accordingly, the Superior Court denied the defendant’s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial, leaving intact the jury’s damage award of $634,000, consisting of back pay ($102,000), front pay ($372,000), emotional distress damages ($52,000) and punitive damages ($108,000). And in Messina v. Araserve, Inc., 906 F.Supp. 34 (D.Mass. 1995), two months of name calling and sexually suggestive gestures were enough to constitute a hostile environment. See also Modern Continental/Obayashi v. Massachusetts Comm’n Against Discrimination, 445 Mass. 96, 115 n.23 (2005) (assuming that graffiti constituted a form of harassment). In Rolando Cano v. Chertoff, 2006 WL 2332538 *10-*12 (E.E.O.C 2006) the hostile environment consisted of unwelcome comments, rumors and graffiti. The graffiti there was similar to that directed as Mr. Wood, including: “Cano swallows,” “Cano sucks dicks” and “Cano’s a queer.” Id. at *12. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission concluded that:
the sexually explicit comments and graffiti directed at complainant, after he expressed that he found them offensive, were sufficiently severe and pervasive to create an intimidating, hostile, and offensive work environment. The Commission notes that, evaluated from the viewpoint of a reasonable person in complainant’s circumstances, the sexually explicit comments and graffiti were extremely offensive and we not the record shows that complainant, a veteran supervisor with the agency, had his authority undermined by the offensive conduct.

Id. Mr. Wood submits that offensive verbal comments are equivalent to offensive written graffiti, and perhaps more so as they are anonymous and can be seen by many people.
The company’s failure to effectively stop the graffiti contributed to and exacerbated that hostile environment. This environment was severe and pervasive enough to alter the conditions of Mr. Wood’s employment. He suffered severe emotional distress as a result of the repeated instances of graffiti, as well as the company’s lackadaisical response to it. The totality of these circumstances are indeed enough to be offensive to a reasonable person, and were experienced as such by Mr. Wood. See Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 23 (1993) (“whether an environment is ‘hostile’ or ‘abusive’ can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct”); Ruffino v. State Street Bank & Trust Co., 908 F.Supp. 1019, 1038 (D.Mass. 1995) (“hostile environment discrimination typically is not confined to one act, directed at one individual, one time; rather it is a composite of workplace action and inaction”); Belanger, supra at *4, citing Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc.
B. The Company’s Response Was Not Reasonable
Furthermore, the company’s response was not reasonable in these circumstances. The response was clearly not prompt, as US Airways acknowledges that surveillance cameras were not fully installed until September, six months after Mr. Wood’s initial complaint about inappropriate graffiti and vandalism of company property, and only after Mr. Wood had made repeated requests. Nor was appropriate training of all employees promptly undertaken or completed. As of the filing of the company’s Position Statement in February 2012 — nearly one year since Mr. Wood’s initial complaints — they concede that not all employees have completed anti-harassment training, but that it “will be completed shortly.” See Modern Continental, 445 Mass. at 111 n.17 (noting that a plaintiff’s claim survives summary judgment where there was a “protracted delay before taking any remedial action”).
Statements made by Mr. Wood’s superiors at US Airways also demonstrate the company’s unreasonable response to his repeated complaints. See Am. Compl., ¶¶ 5, 8, 10-11, 18-19. “An employer who passively tolerates the creation of a hostile working environment implicitly ratifies the perpetrator’s misconduct ….” Modern Continental, 445 Mass. at 105. The SJC continued:
Moreover, acquiescence on the part of the employer effectively communicates to the victim of harassment that her employer does not care about the hostile environment in which she must work, a message that can only operate to exacerbate the adverse effects of that hostile environment. In this context, an employer who is not part of the solution inevitably becomes part of the problem.

Ibid. See also Salvi, 67 Mass. App. Ct. at 606; Barbot v. Hapco Farms, Inc., 19 M.D.L.R. (1997) (MCAD ruled that where an employee who was called names, the employer’s response of telling the employee to “ignore the situation and get back to the job,” and promising she would be “on the lookout” and would be calling a meeting of employees in which she would condemn the name calling, was ruled an inadequate response by the employer). Commentary in this area of the law notes that “reported MCAD cases reveal a tendency of employers to underreact to claims of antigay harassment in the workplace.” Massachusetts Employment Law, MCLE, Vol. 1, Ch. 12, § 12.7.2 (2009).
With regard to the investigation of Mr. Wood’s complaints, the company’s initial response was inadequate and ineffective. Later, the company apparently began investigating whether perhaps Mr. Wood was himself responsible for the homophobic graffiti directed at him. Accusing the victim of being the perpetrator cannot possible qualify as having conducted a reasonable investigation — especially where Mr. Wood’s own handwriting expert has undermined and refuted the company’s handwriting expert’s report and conclusion. See Exhibit 1. The company’s resorting to an investigation of Mr. Wood, let alone relying on the inadequate and inconclusive report of their expert, buttresses the evidence that the company’s response was not only unreasonable but retaliatory.
C. Retaliation
With regard to Mr. Wood’s claim of unlawful retaliation against him by the company, this is demonstrated by, inter alia: the company’s delayed and ineffectual response to his initial complaints; various statements made to Mr. Wood by his supervisors; the company’s lack of legal support when Wood was falsely accused of harassment in December 2011 by fellow employee XXXXX, after Mr. Wood has filed his charge with the MCAD in October 2011; the company’s accusation that Mr. Wood himself was responsible for the offensive graffiti; and the company’s reliance on the handwriting expert’s flimsy findings as the basis for ultimately terminating his employment. The investigation of Mr. Wood, the victim of the hostile work environment, and later termination of Mr. Wood based on an inadequate and inconclusive handwriting report, constituted willful retaliation by US Airways.
Conclusion
Having offered the handwriting analysis of Dr. Fraser in rebuttal to the company’s own handwriting expert, which demonstrates the ample shortcomings with Ms. Koppenhaver’s methods and conclusion, Mr. Wood has established the necessary probable cause that he was both subjected to a hostile work environment and retaliated against.


I swear or affirm, under the pains and penalties of perjury, that I have read the above Rebuttal Statement and that it is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.


__________________________
Jeffrey R. Wood, Complainant
Dated: ____________________


On this ___ day of March, 2012, before me, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared __________________, and proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification, which was ___________________, to be the person whose name was signed on the within document in my presence.

__________________________
Notary Public
Commission Expires:_________




Respectfully submitted,
Complainant,
Jeffrey R. Wood,

By his attorneys,


_____________________________
add response to story
add response to story
Bookmark and Share