15

Filed 05/07/2010 Page 1 of 30

Case 3:09-cv-05048-RJB Document 84

THE HONORABLE JUDGE ROBERT J. BRYAN

Trial Date: May 10, 20 I 0

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ANN BEAHM,
11
12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

NO: C09-5048 RJB

Plaintiff,

PLAINTIFF'S TRIAL BRIEF

13 CITY OF BREMERTON, et al. 14

Defendants,

16

17 I. INTRODUCTION

18 Plaintiff claims that assistant Director sought to replace her with a pretty and flirtatious

19 young woman (Angela Woods). In order to achieve this goal, with the assistance of Ellen

20 Babbitt, Sheree Jankowski, Robert Elsen and Ms. Woods, Lucas brought forward a pretextual

21 claim that Mrs. Beahm had committed time theft and defrauded with city out of thousands of

22 dollars. Rather than refer the investigation to be handled by the city Auditor and the Attorney

23 General's office as required by city ordinance and without conferring with Ms. Beahm or her

24 supervisor, assistant director Lucas initiated his own informal "investigation". With the aid of

25

Longacre Law

569 Division St., Suire F Pori Orchard, W A 98366

(360) 876-7290 Fax (360) 876-0204

26 Plaintiffs Brief Trial

Page I

.,

25

Page 2

Longacre Law

569 Division St., Suite F Port Orchard, W A 98366

(360) 876-7290 Fax (360) 876·0204

Case 3:09-cv-05048-RJ8 Document 84

Filed 05/07/2010 Page 2 of 30

1 Detective Harker, under the auspices of Phil Williams, the head of Ann's department, they not

2 only brought interoffice charges but criminal charges as well.

3 Mr. Lucas hoped that due to the jeopardy that Ms. Beahm faced that she would

4 voluntarily resign but she did not. Nevertheless, Ms. Beahm was terminated and replaced by

5 Angela Woods as planned by Lucas. Despite facing felony charges, Mrs. Beahm refused to

6 compromise in the criminal proceeding. The theft charges ultimately unraveled and prosecutor's

7 office dropped all the charges against Ms. Beahm.

8 Plaintiff has claims pending for trial against the defendants for defamation, age

9 discrimination, wrongful discharge and interference with a contractual relation. Plaintiff shall

10 prove by a preponderance of the evidence that not only were the allegations of theft false, but that

11 they were a maliciously, fabricated pretext used to terminate Ms. Beahm from her position so she

12 could be replaced by a younger less qualified employee.

13 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

14 Ann Beahm and her husband grew up in Bremerton, graduating from high school there in

] 5 the early seventies. Mrs. Beahm worked for the city of Bremerton for thirty years, maintained an

16 unblemished record of hard work and dedication and rose to office assistant senior very early in

17 her career.

18 Paul Lucas, an assistant to the director of Public Works, wanted Angela Woods in the

19 position Ann Beahm had held for eight years. However, Angela, a homemaker who obtained

20 employment with Bremerton Public Works in May of2006, was a younger woman that was

21 pretty and flirtatious. Mrs. Beahm was well over forty years old and happily married. Lucas

22 enlisted the help of Mary Ellen Babbitt, Sheree Jankowski, Robert Elsen and Ms. Woods to bring

23 forward a pretextual claim that Mrs. Beahm had committed time theft and defrauded the city out 24 of thousands of dollars. Rather than refer the investigation to be handled by the city Auditor and

26 Plaintiffs Brief Trial

25

Page 3

Longacre L1W

569 Division St., Suite r Port Orchard, WA 98366

(360) 876·7290 Fax (360) 876·0204

Case 3:09-cv-05048-RJB Document 84

Filed 05/07/2010 Page 3 of 30

the Attorney General's office as required by city ordinance, assistant director Lucas initiated his

2 own informal "investigation". With the aid of Detective Harker, under the auspices of Phil

3 Williams, the head of fum's department, they not only brought interoffice charges but criminal

4 charges as well.

5 After failing to get Mrs. Beahm to resign over the false allegations, Paul Williams next

6 tried to force her to pay the City money, quietly walk away from her job and forgo her rights

7 under the law, threatening criminal prosecution and public humiliation if she did not. His

8 extortions demands were sent via Jane Rebelowski who was so upset at the treatment of Ann, she

9 left city employment taking a job with less pay and a long commute from home.

10 Mrs. Beahm refused to be intimidated. She fought to save her reputation and dignity by

11 defeating the false claims so thoroughly that all Kitsap County Superior COUlt Felony criminal

12 charges were dismissed by motion of the prosecutor. Nevertheless, the City of Bremerton tried to

13 hold on to the fri volous charges because Mrs. Beahm had begun her counterclaims against the

14 City, beginning with her EEOC claim. What was left of the time theft case was re-filed in Kitsap

15 County District Court as a misdemeanor, down from over one hundred fifty allegations of time

16 theft to four.

17 Still, Ann could not be stopped. She again showed that the City Defendants' claims were

18 so deficient that the prosecutor had to motion for dismissal of those charges as well. Ultimately,

19 the biggest problem overlooked by the defendants' was Ms. Beahm's email log which showed

20 that she was actively at her work station sending out emails from her work station at the times

21 that the defendants claimed she was not at work.

22 III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

23 Am Beahm is a nearly a lifelong resident of Kitsap County, Washington. Bam in Idaho

24 in 1956, her family moved to Bremerton in 1958. She went to elementary, junior high and

26 Plaintiffs Brief Trial

23

Page 4

Longacre Law

569 Division St., Suite F Port Orchard, W A 98366

(360) 876-7290 Fax (360) 876-0204

Case 3:09-cv-05048-RJ8 Document 84

Filed 05/07/2010 Page 4 of 30

highschool while living in Bremerton. In ] 974 she graduated from Central Kitsap High School.

2 After High School she went to work for a Savings and Loan Bank in Bremerton where she

3 worked until she got a job with the City of Bremerton in 1977 and continued in that employment

4 with Civil Service protection for the next thirty years until the City Wrongfully Terminated her in

5 August 0[2007. At the time of her employment Mrs. Beahm was a member of the Local

6 Teamsters Union.'

7 At the time of her abrupt termination, Mrs. Beahm worked under City Engineer Michael

8 Mecham for the Department of Public Works and Utilities, Engineering Division. Her

9 responsibilities included preparing the division payroll, and timekeeping for the Engineering

10 Division; acting as Division Agenda Bill coordinator; reviewing Engineering Division credit

] ] cards and travel charge cards, as well as confirming all business purchases for the Division;

] 2 monthly reconciliation of Division Charge Card purchases; Public Disclosure Coordinator;

13 composing, proof reading and editing division correspondence; reviewing, reconciling and

14 coding invoices for division; developing project filing system; assisting with specifications for

15 division projects; developing of department specific forms; designing spreadsheets for project

16 logging and scheduling; preparing photographic images for presentations; planning and

] 7 coordination of public events related to the division projects; managing general operations of

18 engineering administrative support; providing customer service, and transcribing correspondence

19 from taped dictations. Although not technically a manager, her work required her to enforce

20 policy or supervisor directives regarding hours, charges and project coding.

21 10 all her years for the City of Bremerton, Mrs. Beahm never received a single counseling,

22 reprimand or disciplinary action for not living up to her responsibilities. To the contrary, she

24

IThis statement of facts follows Ann Beahrns declaration and will not be cited except where attachments or

25

depositions are referred to.

26

Plaintiff's Brief Trial

.,

22

Page 5

Case 3:09-cv-05048-RJB Document 84

Filed 05/07/2010 Page 5 of 30

received accolades for always staying on top of her work load, and completing it in a professional

2 manner, Mrs. Beahm often took work home and worked on her own time if necessary to

3 complete her job assignments. Most time she took work home she worked compensatory time to

4 avoid having the City pay her overtime. Because Mrs. Beahm held the keys to payroll being paid

5 out on time, she often had to work on weekends to tabulate and reconcile all the time sheets,

6 prepare the division payroll worksheet, and enter payroll project codes into the city accounting

7 system. The weekend work became necessary when the bi-monthly pay periods ended towards

8 the end of the week. Further, when agenda bills were needed at the last minute, Mrs. Beahm

9 would have to take the work home to make sure the agenda bills were ready for the meetings.

] 0 Mrs. Beahm first met Paul Lucas at work when she transferred to the Engineering

11 Division in the Department of Public Works and Utilities in Januaryof 1999. Not long after

12 meeting him, Mrs. Beahm noticed that Paul Lucas appeared to be interested in the younger

13 women who worked for the city; Witness Linda Shafer also advised that Paul Lucas gave an

14 employee in her early 20's special treatment, bending over backwards for her and rewriting a job 15 description and classification to fit her individual skills.' Mrs. Horish also advised that Paul

16 Lucas helped this person with her resume when she applied for the Office Assistant n position in

17 the department and had it reviewed by Police Department Tim Sholtis's wife, who works on

18 resumes.' Mrs. Shafer also stated that Mr. Lucas was horrific to Lynn Horish (who is in her

1950's), who works in the same area as Mr. Lucas. Mrs. Shafer felt that Mr. Lucas's treatment of

20 Mrs. Horish was based on her age, because of the way he treated her with disdain." Lynn Horish

21 admits that she has experienced age discrimination for the last] 0 years in the Department of

23

2 Deposition of Linda Shafer 55 :4-20

24

3 Deposition of Lynn Horish 32: 13-17 & correction sheet

4 Deposition of Linda Shafer 38:25 & 39: 1-6

25

Longacre L3W

569 Division St., Suite F Port Orchard, \VA 98366

(360) 876-7290 Fux(360) 876-0204

26

Plaintiffs Brief TIiaI

..

20

Page 6

Case 3:09-cv-05048-RJ8 Document 84

Filed 05/07/2010 Page 6 of 30

1 Public Works. Younger people have been assigned her work and invited to go to special events

2 and ceremonies that she should have attended due to her position. Mrs. Horish advised that both

3 Phil Williams and Paul Lucas were not as friendly to her as they were to the younger employees, 4 and treated her in a manner that created an overall feeling that she wasn't a valuable employee.'

5 She also stated that it is common knowledge among the women working for the city that 6 are 50 years old that the city may push them out the door to retirement." Jane Rebelowski stated

7 that she got the feeling that Paul Lucas wanted to get rid of Aim Beahm and replace her with

8 Angela Woods (who is 20 years younger) because of the harsh way he would speak to Ann and

9 his constant talking about how great Angela was, and the inordinate amount of time he spent at

10 Angela's desk. Ms. Rebelowski went on to state that it was almost as if Mr. Lucas was flirting 1 ] with Angela, although she was not insinuating they had any type of persona] relationship."

12 In1999, Paul Lucas asked Steven Kindred, an Office Assistant II, who worked directly

13 under Mrs. Beahm in the Engineering Division to keep track of Mrs. Beahm's time and to bring 14 him the log when he documented enough information. Mr. Kindred was laid off in a reduction-

] 5 in-force and never turned in the log mentioned."

16 ill October, 2001, Linda Shafer Cline to work for the Engineering Division as an Office

17 Assistant II where she worked directly under/with Mrs. Beahm. A few months later Paul Lucas

] 8 asked Mrs Shafer into his office and began to ask her about her working relationship with Mrs.

19 Beahm. He asked Mrs. Shafer to document Mrs. Beahm's activities. Mrs. Shafer absolutely

2]

22

5 Deposition of Lynn Horish 51 :15-25 & 52: 1-1 0

23

6 Deposition of Lynn H orish 276: 15-25 & 27:1 -19

24

7 City Deposition of Jane Rebelowski 99: 11-20

8 Deposition of Paul Lucas 16:6-18 & 17: 1-16

25

Longacre Luw

569 Division St., Suite r Port.Orchard, WA 98366

(360) 876-7290 fax (360) 876·0204

26

Plaintiffs Brief Trial

20

Plaintiffs Brief Trial

Page 7

Case 3:09-Gv-05048-RJB Document 84

Filed 05/07/2010 Page 7 of 30

refused to take part in this attempt to get rid of Mrs. Beahm".

2 In June of 2006, Angela Woods came to work for the Engineering Division as an Office

3 Assistant il, filling the position vacated by Linda Shafer. Paul Lucas asked Mrs. Woods to keep

4 track of Mrs. Beahm's activities and comings and goings. Mrs. Woods told Mr. Lucas she

5 wasn't comfortable doing this because she was such a new employee and still on probation. In

6 her taped interview on July 1,2007 with Mr. Lucas and Mr. Williams, Mrs Woods confirmed

7 this conversation occurred in October of2006.10 However, in her signed deposition of January

8 20, 2010, she states that Mr. Lucas asked her to do so in July of 2006 and then he asked her about

9 it again in October of20061!. Mrs. Woods states that she told co-worker, Ong Smith, that Mr. 10 Lucas asked her to keep track of her hours." Lynn Horish stated Angela Woods told ber that

II Paul told her that she should keep tabs on AIm's time, and that later on, Paul Lucas told her the

12 same thing. 13

13 Mr. Lucas never approached Mrs. Beahm or her supervisor with any of these

14 conversations. Mr. Lucas was not in her chain of command.

15 On January 14, 2007, while at work Mrs. Beahm fell on the ice in front of the

16 Engineering Division injuring her neck and hip. She reported the incident the following day to

17 Mr. Lucas and he encouraged her to file an L and I Claim, which she did. The injuries from this

18 fall resulted in physician appointments, medical testing and scans, and therapy.

19 In the fall of 2006, four Engineering Division employees claimed they began tracking the

21

9 Deposition of Linda Shafer 41 :20·22; 42: 1-7 & 43: 1-8

22

lOTaped Statement Woods, Pages 5 & 6 & 7: I 59-160.

23

IIDepo Woods 24:16-24. 25:1-6 & 39:4-9

24

12Depo Woods 25:15-21 & 26:6-7.

13 Deposition of Lynn Horish I 4: 19-21

25

Longacre Law

569 Division St., Suite F Port Orchard, \VA 98366

(360) 876-7290 Fax (360) 876·0204

26

OJ

19

Page 8

Case 3:09-cv-05048-RJ8 Document 84

Filed 05/07/2010 Page 8 of 30

hours they thought that Ann Beahm was working.

2 Sheree Jankowski states that she began keeping track of Mrs. Beahm's hours in

3 November of2006. Jankowski could not observe Mrs. Beahm's work area from hers and she

4 does not recall if she could see Mrs. Beahm when she was seated at her desk. Mrs. Jankowski

5 had to walk by because to observe Mrs. Beahm because there is a divider three and a half to four

6 feet tall blocking the view. Mrs. Jankowski claims that she based the times noted 'on the

7 calendar (used in the investigation) on her personal observations and those of Bob Elsen, Angela

8 Woods, Maryellen Babbitt. Also whenever somebody just happened to say something, because

9 she has alleged that she "heard things". 14 Mrs. Jankowski also stated that her work hours were

1 0 from 7:30 to 4:00, she wasn't certain what hours Ann worked and that she didn't remember what

11 the core hours were for Engineering. 15 Mrs. Jankowski said that from January of2006 through

12 May of 2007 she had to cover the front counter a couple of times when Mrs. Beahm was not 13 there." Mrs. Jankowski states that no one else saw the calendar until March 1, 2007 when

14 Maryellen Babbitt asked her for a copy of it. Mrs. Jankowski said she did not purposely have any

15 discussions with Ms. Babbitt related to keeping tabs on Ms. Beahm prior to March 1 '1.17 When

16 asked if she trusted Mr. Lucas, Mrs. Jankowski replied "1 work with him. 1 guess SO".18

17 Mrs. Rebelowski stated that Sheree Jankowski openly referred to Mr. Lucas as "Spy Boy"

18 for years because he previously conducted an investigation on her for Internet use and that all of

20

1'1 Taped Statement Jankowski, Pages 2-4 ,Deposition of Jankowski 13:5-23 & 66:6-10, Exhibit A Bldg

..

Floor plan

21

22

IS Deposition of Jankowski 39: 15-25 & 40: 1-16

23

16 Deposition of Jankowski 43 :6-19

24

17 Deposition of Jankowski 56: 11-25 & 57: 1-25 & 58.: 1-4 & 63 :4-8

18 Deposition of Jankowski 33:13-15

25

Longacre Law

569 Division sr, Suite r Port Orchard, \VA 98366

(360) 876-7290 Fax (360) 876-0204

26

Plaintiffs Brief Trial

18

Filed 05/07/2010 Page 9 of 30

Case 3:09-cv-OS048-RJB Document 84

a sudden Paul Lucas was stopping by Sheree's desk whispering and spending time on the second

2 floor." Mrs. Jankowski admitted that she received a letter from her supervisor at one time about

3 Internet use." When asked about her Internet use for personal reasons and that over 49,000

4 pages of entries were found, Mrs. Jankowski replied, who knows." Mrs. Jankowski stated that

5 she did use city computers to produce house plans that she was building for herself or her

6 111 other. 22 Mrs. Jankowski admits that she brought her 2 dogs to work and kept them under her

7 desk and she also brought her kids to the office and kept them there while she was working."

8 Mrs. Jankowski stated that when she made personal telephone calls, she would skip her morning 9 or afternoon break to make up for them and that she did not exceed her break times." Results of

10 a Public Disclosure Request for Mrs. lankowski's personal cellular telephone revealed that she

11 made numerous personal telephone calls during the work day.

12 Mr. Elsen states that he began keeping track of Mrs. Beahm's comings and goings

13 because he felt there were discrepancies and that something was being taken from the city". He

14 felt that the city should get full benefit of the time they paid their employees because that is what

15 they expected of him. Mr. Elsen would report his observations of Mrs. Beahm's hours based on

16 the footsteps he heard coming up the stairs located outside of his office, which are commercial-

17 grade stairs that do not move or creak, and other claims that were quite hyperbolic. Mr. Elsen

]9

19 Deposition of Jankowski 26 :8-14

20

20. Deposition of Jankowski 69:2-6 & Exhibit B

21

21 Deposition of lank ow ski 75:10-18

22

22 Deposition 0 f Jankowski 82 :"12-15

23

23 Deposition of Jankowski 85:14-25 & 86:1-12

24

24 Deposition of Jankowski 82:25, 83: 1-25 & 1-2 & 4:

25 Deposition of Elsen 21 :5 -6 & 23: 1-2

25

Longacre Law

569 Division si., Suite F Port Orchard, \VA 98366

(360) 876-7290 Fnx (360) 876·0204

26

Plaintiff's Brief Trial

Page 9

.,

17

Page 10

Case 3:09-cv-05048-RJB Document 84

Filed 05/07/2010 Page 10 of 30

said the shoes Mrs. Beahm nonnally wore made a loud clapping sound, however, he never

2 looked at her shoes to see what made this distinctive sound." He further advised that the only

3 footsteps he recognized of all of the employees in the building were Mrs. Beahm's. Paul Lucas 4 never conducted any tests to see if this was possible 27. Mrs. Beahm normally wore shoes with

5 rubber type souls for comfort that made little or no sound. Montee Geister, who shared the same

6 office space, advised that Mr. Elsen's radio was often on at a level where you could hear it out in 7 the hallway"; Mr. Elsen frequently used his speaker phone at a very loud volume", and that Mr.

8 Geister himself could not hear or depict people corning up the same stairs". Mr. Geister also

9 stated that there were two windows overlooking the parking lot and he had about 25 plants on the 10 shelf in one of the windows". Mrs. Shafer advised that during the time she worked in

11 Engineering, Mr. Elsen made long, long personal telephone calls that were so loud on his

] 2 speaker phone that she could hear him from the parking lot and building entrance on the first 13 floor; as well as from her work area". Ms. Rebelowski also stated that Mr. Elsen spent a lot of

14 time on personal telephone calls, speaking loudly on his speaker phone and listening to his radio

15 turned up louder than a normal person would, which she found odd because he shared a very ] 6 small office with another person." Results of a Public Disclosure Request for Mr. Elsen's

18

26 Deposition of Elsen 36:12-15 & 38: 1-5

19

27 Deposition of Puul Lucus 36:2-24

20

2H Deposition of Geister 8:21-25 & 9:1-13

21

29 Deposition of Geister 9: 14-21

22

30 Deposition of Geister 10; 13-15

23

31 Deposition of Geister 7:17-25

24

32 Deposition of Linda Shafer 53:18-25 & 54: 1-9

33 City Deposition of June Rebelowski 100: 1-1 0

25

Longacre Law

569 Division St., Suite F Port Orchard, W A 98366

(360) 876-7290 Fax (360) 876·0204

26

Plaintiff s Brief Trial

..

Filed 05/07/2010 Page 11 of 30

Case 3:09-cv-05048-RJB

Document 84

1 personal cellular telephone revealed that he made numerous, lengthy personal telephone calls

2 during the work day. Mr. Elsen stated that he never saw the calendar that Mrs. Jankowski

3 maintained." When questioned about personal use of the Internet, Mr. Elsen stated that it is

4 possible that he used it during working hours, but that Engineering Division employees Montee

5 Geister, Gunnar Fridriksson, could have accessed his computer as well." Gunnar Fridriksson

6 stated that he had used Mr. Elsen's computer for work purposes, however, he never accessed it

7 for personal use and he never witnessed anyone else using Mr. Elsen's computer." Mr. Geister

8 stated that he has his own computer and that he does not recall ever using Mr. Elsen's

9 computer."

10 Maryellen Babbitt indicated that Bob Elsen and Sheree Jankowski came to her with

11 information and their suspicions about Ann Beahm". They indicated they had seen confidential 12 payroll reports with employee leave balances and showed her some papers", which she did not 13 look at in detail." Ms. Babbitt told them that she would contact the person who handles the

14 disciplinary actions for Public Works, Paul Lucas." Mrs. Babbitt stated that approximately a

15 week later she delivered a sealed envelope, containing what she understood to be the records kept

16 on Mrs. Beahm's hours, that Mr. Elsen and Mrs. Jankowski had given her to deliver to Paul

17

18

34 Deposition of Robert Elsen 18:8-9

19

35 Deposition of Robert Elsen 16:3-9; Exhibit C

20

36 Deposition of Gunnar Fridriksson 8:21-25 & 9:3-4

21

37 Deposition of Montee Geister 10:19·21 & 11:7-14

22

38 Deposition of Babbitt 17:7-13

23

39 Deposition of Maryellen BnbbiuI8:14-15

24

40 Deposition of Maryellen Babbitt 19:4-5

25

41 Deposition of Maryellen 8nbbi1l21:1-6 & 39:12-17

Longacre Law

569 Division St., Suite F Port Orchard, W A 98366

(360) 876·7290 Fax (360) 876·0204

26

Plaintiff s Brief Trial

Page 1 1

19

Filed 05/07/2010 Page 12 of 30

Case 3:09-cv-05048-RJ8

Document 84

Lucas." Mrs. Babbitt said that she did not provide any input or information about Mrs. Beahm's

2 hours. Mrs. Shafer stated that although there were core hours, Mrs. Babbitt was allowed to come

3 into work at 8:30, which was later than the hours other division employees worked."

4 Angela Woods stated that when Sheree Jankowski asked her about Mrs. Beahm's arrivals

5 or departures she would provide her the information." Mrs. Woods advised that Mrs.

6 Jankowski told her about the calendar she was keeping in November of2006.

7 Mrs. Horish advised that she went upstairs three to four times a day and that she would

8 see Mrs. Beahm on nearly every instance either at her desk or down the hall talking to her

9 supervisor, Mike Mecham. She does not recall any instance when she wasn't there. Her working

10 hours at that time were 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. She also advised that about 95 percent of the time

II she would see Mrs. Beahm's car in the parking lot when she arrived at work. When questioned

12 about what type of car Mrs. Beahm drives, Mrs I-Iorish responded that it was a gray Altima, 13 which indeed is the type of car Mrs. Beahm drove to work nearly all of the time."

14 Lynn Horish, whose work area is in the same as Paul Lucas's office stated that beginning

15 in January of2007, she observed Angela Woods was in his office once or twice a day and that

16 they started closing the door during these meetings. The meetings continued until Mrs. Beahm

17 was suspended." Mrs. Horish states that Sheree Jankowski met with Mr. Lucas in his office

18 about once a 1110nth,47 Bob Elsen met with him approximately once every two weeks and

20

42 Deposition of M aryellen Babbitt 40: 15-22

21

43 Deposition of M aryellen Babbitt 32: I 0-22

22

44 Deposition of Angela Woods 28:18-22

4S Deposition of Lynn Horish 45: 14·25 & 46: 1-23

23

24

46 Deposition ofLynn Horish 15:14-25 & 16:1-9

47 Deposition of Lynn Horish 16:24-25

25

Longacre Law

569 Division St., Suile F Port Orchard, W A 98366

(360) 876·7290 Fax (360) 876·0204

26

Plaintiffs Brief Trial

Page 12

.,

18

Page ]3

Case 3:09-cv-05048-RJ8 Document 84

Filed 05/07/2010 Page 13 of 30

Maryellen Babbitt on two occasions. Mrs. I-Iorish overheard Ann Beahm's name mentioned

2 during these meetings and also stated that it was unusual for people from the second floor (where

3 the Engineering Division was located) because Paul Lucas did not supervise anyone upstairs."

4 In addition to meeting with Mr. Lucas, all of these employees met with him as a group toO.49

5 Although he does not remember if it was Ms. Babbitt or Mrs. Jankowski who did so, Paul

6 Lucas states that in March of 2007, one of them handed him the calendar that Sheree Jankowski

7 had been keeping of Mrs. Beahm's (alleged) comings and goings. He asked this person how they

8 had been doing this and Mrs. Jankowski told him personal observation. Mr. Lucas states that in

9 April of2007 he took the calendar to Director Phil Williams, who told him to "dig into it"so.

10 Mrs. Beahm's supervisor was not advised of these activities until approximately the second week

] 1 of May, 2007.

12 Lucas prepared a log comparing the hours on the calendar prepared by Mrs. Jankowski

13 and the hours posted on payroll worksheets for Mrs. Beahm." Lucas admits the payroll 14 worksheets do not show when people come and go" and that he did not check with Mrs.

15 Beahm's supervisor to determine what her schedule was." Mr. Lucas used additional documents

16 which include Leave Request Authorization forms that he states he confirmed were the forms

17 submitted by Mrs Beahm for the specific pay periods." Mr. Lucas advised that Mrs. Woods

19

4B

Deposition of Lynn Horish 17: I -25

20

49 Deposition of Lynn Horish 16: 14-16

21

50 Deposition of Paul Lucus 25:24-25 & 25: 1·3

22

51 Deposition of Paul Lucus Dep 32'6-8

23

5'

- Lucus Dcp 32'[ 5-18

24

53Lucus Dep 33'13-15

54puul Lucas Deposition 53'19-24

25

Longacre Law

569 Division sr, Suite F Port Orchard, WA 98366

(360) 876·7290 Fax (360) 876-0204

26

Plaintiffs Brief Trial

..,

23

Page 14

Case 3:09-cv-05048-RJB Document 84

Filed 05/07/2010 Page 14 of 30

1 removed these leave slips from Mrs. Beahm's desk and gave them to him, however, Mrs. Woods

2 does not recall doing this.".

3 On May 18,2007, at approximately 2:45 p.m. Mrs. Beahm received a telephone call from

4 Managing Engineer Larry Matel. He told her that Phil Williams (the Public Works Director)

5 wanted meet her at 3 :00 p.m. in his office. She did not think much of this because she had

6 worked directly with Phil on many occasions. When she went into Mr. Williams's office Mrs.

7 Beahm found Paul Lucas, Assistant City Attorney Ken Bagwell and another person she had

8 never met seated at the table. Phil introduced this person as John Witte, but never told her who

9 he represented or worked for. Still assuming this meeting was project or work related she took a

10 seat next to Paul Lucas at the table Mr. Wi11iams then told bel' that there had been some payroll

I I discrepancies she thought he was going to ask her about someone else when he told her that she

12 was immediately being placed on Administrative Leave pending further investigation, which

13 totally took her by surprise. Paul Lucas then escorted Mrs. Beahm to her work area in full view

14 of the public and co-workers to retrieve her personal items while he watched her and tum in her

15 keys. Mr. Lucas told her that her computer had already been shut down and locked and that she

16 was to leave tile premises. Mrs. Beahm was visually shaken and crying during this incident as

] 7 co-workers walked by observing her. Mr. Lucas then escorted Mrs. Beahm to her vehicle, once

18 again in full view of the public, causing her extreme emotional distress. Mrs. Beahm's

19 supervisor, Michael Mecham, was on vacation this day.

20 Mrs. Beahm was never counseled or advised of any payroll discrepancies prior to May 18,

21 2007. Her direct supervisor, Michael Mecham, stated that had he been made aware of the

22 allegations or concerns, he would have taken the time to talk to her about it." A review of her

24

55Deposition of Angela Woods 32:4-14

56 Deposition of Michael Mecham, 25'15-19.

25

Longacre Law

569 Division St., Suite F Port Orchard, \V A 98366

(360) 876-7290 Fax (360) 876·0204

26

Plaintiffs Brief Trial

.,

21

Page 15

Case 3:09-cv-05048-RJB Document 84

Filed 05/07/2010 Page 15 of 30

Personnel File reveals no incidents of disciplinary actions, counseling or anything negative

2 during the 30 years she was employed by the City of Bremerton.

3 The following work day, May 21,2007, Angela Woods was provisionally promoted to

4 Mrs. Beahm's position. Several months later in November she was permanently placed in this

5 position. Prior to this Paul Lucas had expressed to Mr. Mecham that he thought Mrs. Woods was

6 an employee with a lot of ambition. 57 Just before Angela Woods received the provisional

7 promotion, Lynn Horish talked to Phil Williams and Mike Mecham volunteering to do the

8 Engineering Division payroll because if Mrs. Woods were to work on it she would be working

9 out of classification and they responded no thank you. Mrs. Horish further advises that at time

10 upon the work she had seen Angela do, she did not think she was qualified for the position. 58

11 On June 20, 2007, Detective Rodney Harker of the Bremerton Police Department called

12 Mrs. Beahm's residence and left a message for her. She returned his call and he told her that the

13 city filed criminal charges and asked her to come in for an interview. Mrs. Beahm gave him her

14 attorney's name and said she needed to contact him.

15 A police report completed by Detective Rodney Harker indicates that on June 6, 2007, he

16 met with Phil Williams, Paul Lucas, Assistant City Attorney Ken Bagwell and Captain James

17 Burchette of the Bremerton Police Department . Paul Lucas told him that his investigation

18 revealed that there was a "running joke" between employees asking "Where's Aim?" similar to

19 "Where's Waldo?,,59. Detective Harker advised that Mr. Williams and Mr. Lucas wanted the

20 case reviewed for criminal charges." However, Paul Lucas stated that he did not intend to gather

22

57 Deposition of' Michael Mecham 28'12-17.

23

58 Deposition ofLynn Hor ish 23:6-23 & 24:1-2

24

59 Harker Probable Cause Statement 1:3

60 Bremerton Police Report #B07-006685' I & 2 (of 6)

25

Longacre Law

569 Division St .. Suite f' Port Orchard. WA 98366

(360) 876-7290 fax (360) 876-0204

26

Plainti ff s Brief Trial

.,