If a supervisor working for a public entity uses her money to hire a personal attorney to fight an ex-employee’s unemployment claim, is it justice or vengeance?
It all depends on who you ask and which side you believe.
‘I took it upon myself to hire an attorney to protect my own self and my reputation,? said Pat Fitchena, executive director of the North Oakland Transportation Authority.
‘It’s further retaliation and it’s a personal vendetta against me,? said Danny Poole, NOTA’s former operations manager.
The ongoing saga of Fitchena versus Poole continued when an administrative law judge recently ordered that Poole was not entitled to state unemployment benefits because he did not have good cause to voluntarily resign Aug. 10, 2007. He must now pay all the money back to the state’s Unemployment Insurance Agency.
?(Poole) failed to give the employer sufficient time to address his concerns prior to leaving,? the judge wrote. ‘He was under no legal, economic or physical compulsion to quit . . . He did not act as a reasonable employee would, under similar circumstances, who wished to maintain the employment relationship.?
‘I knew going into it that this judge sides with the employer,? said Poole, noting that’s what his advocate, provided by the state to represent him at the hearing, told him. ‘I, frankly, found it absurd. The whole thing was like a setup.?
Although the judge’s decision troubled Poole, he’s really bothered by the fact that Fitchena paid for an attorney out of her own pocket to appeal his case.
‘She hired her own personal, professional attorney and I was going in with an advocate. It was pretty much a one-sided deal,? Poole said. ‘It’s a lawsuit as far as I’m concerned. It’s wrong. It’s an employee going against an employee.?
Although Fitchena was Poole’s supervisor, she’s technically an employee of NOTA, which is governed and funded by representatives from Oxford, Addison and Orion townships and their villages.
Fitchena insisted her motivation for hiring an attorney was simply to help clear her name, not to get back at Poole.
‘I didn’t see NOTA doing anything for me,? she explained. ‘They were doing it for NOTA. Nothing about my reputation or anything else. NOTA was only cover ing NOTA at that point.?
In July 2007, Poole, along with eight other former and current NOTA employees, issued a written complaint to the three township supervisors accusing Fitchena of verbal and physical abuse of employees, inappropriate use of public resources, wasteful spending, policy violations, mismanagement and poor working conditions.
Since then, there have been numerous newspaper articles, letters to the editor and comments at public meetings regarding Poole’s complaint and actions taken by the NOTA board in response to it.
There was even an investigation by the Oakland County Sheriff’s Department which yielded no criminal charges because no one filed a complaint.
‘I have been defamed and my reputation has been slandered and libeled and everything else,? Fitchena said. ‘There were a lot of things that were said in that letter that were absolutely untrue.?
Fitchena saw her chance to help clear her name by appealing the Dec. 18, 2007 decision from a different administrative law judge, which ruled that Poole had ‘good cause? to voluntarily leave his job at NOTA because of Fitchena’s alleged actions and was therefore entitled to unemployment benefits.
At the time, the judge noted that Fitchena’s testimony ‘is not as reliable as that of Mr. Poole.?
‘Thus, whenever her testimony is in disagreement with the testimony of (Poole), (Poole’s) will prevail,? the judge wrote.
Fitchena claimed she did ‘not get a fair hearing? at the first hearing.
‘The (judge) would not let me speak. She sequestered me in another room and wouldn’t let me come back into the hearing,? she explained. ‘It was definitely unfair. What she did was take his written document and take that as gospel. And that is not what happened.?
Fitchena said she consulted with NOTA Chairman John Sutphin and Board Member Dan Alberty, both of whom represent Addison Township, about her filing an appeal and paying an attorney with her own money. The entire NOTA board was not informed of her plans to appeal.
‘They said, ‘Pat, if you feel that strongly that he should not be getting unemployment, then go and appeal,? and I did,? she said. ‘Why should this guy collect unemployment when he’s not entitled to it??
Alberty believes pursuing this matter was the right thing to do.
‘We owe it to the taxpayers and to (NOTA) to pursue if we don’t think they have a legitimate claim for unemployment,? he said. ‘I truly believe the board would have said okay, that it’s a legitimate expense and should have been done.?
When asked why then the entire NOTA board wasn’t consulted about the appeal, Alberty replied, ‘It was never brought up to the board because there was a short turnaround time as far as appealing it. The procedure had already been started.?
‘I had said that it should be brought to the board,? Alberty noted. ‘We are the ones that should be paying for it. But there wasn’t enough time to bring it and ask for action from the time that we found out about what was going on.?
The Dec. 18, 2007 hearing decision in favor of Poole receiving unemployment benefits was mailed out Dec. 20.
The appeal was due by Jan. 22.
NOTA’s regular meeting was Jan. 17, plus the board held a special meeting on Jan. 3.
Alberty believes NOTA should reimburse Fitchena for her attorney fees.
‘I still think NOTA owes her the money for it,? he said. ‘I personally would like to see it be an agenda item in the future when it’s not part of the politics that it appears to be now.?
‘I don’t expect them to repay me,? Fitchena said.
Things definitely changed at the second unemployment hearing held June 16 in Flint.
?(Poole) should have addressed his problems directly with his ‘female? boss before going over her head to talk to advisory board members,? the administrative law judge wrote. ‘Instead, he prepared a ‘write up? complaining about her, which he did not want her to know about or see.?
‘I did exactly what I thought was right,? Poole explained. ‘When somebody verbally abuses you and belittles you on a constant basis and then it gets aggressive enough to where they’re physically hitting you . . . what am I supposed to do? Go to that person??
‘There was no going to the immediate supervisor,? added Poole, who noted he went to the advisory board so they’d ‘take a look? at the situation.
‘That’s all I was asking. I was not looking for anything else. I wasn’t looking for a promotion. I wasn’t looking for her job,? Poole said. ? All I wanted was for somebody to pay attention to what was taking place at NOTA because I believe in that program 100 percent.?
The judge saw things differently and determined Poole had ‘not established good cause attributable to the employer for his leaving.? It was ordered that Poole was ‘overpaid? because he was not eligible to receive unemployment benefits and the state’s Unemployment Insurance Agency ‘must establish restitution.??
‘I believe we got a fair hearing,? Fitchena said. ‘This judge saw him for exactly what he is.?
‘I’m definitely appealing this,? Poole said. ‘If I don’t appeal it, I’m liable for all the monies that I had collected on unemployment.?
Poole has until July 18 to file a written appeal. One of his options is to file a direct appeal to circuit court.
‘I have one more opportunity to appeal this decision. It will go all the way to the circuit court,? he said. ‘I may pursue further actions (against) the townships or the NOTA board itself.?
‘If he wants to go farther with it, I’ll be glad to go and pay for it myself,? Fitchena said.