Another Payout in Arnold?

11 Aug

A new passenger has hopped aboard the Arnold gravy train, as police chief and interim city administrator Bob Shockey has filed a lawsuit against the city, councilman Ken Moss, and former councilwoman Doris Borgelt. Their “offense” was retaliation, creating a hostile work environment, and age discrimination.

Now, the inclusion of the age discrimination allegation is important. It is also baseless, but that’s a given. In order for Shockey to claim a Missouri Human Rights Act violation, he has to be part of a protected class (race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age or disability). So, while age has nothing to do with the criticism Shockey has (rightly) received, he had to throw that in there to justify his lawsuit. Recall that original gravy train passenger Susie Boone, city Parks and Recreation Director, included no such class designation in her original harassment complaint against Ken Moss. As the 12-27-12 Leader reported, the Missouri Commission on Human Rights sent back her complaint, saying they “could not do anything” with it. But no problem there. She simply re-filed her complaint with “gender discrimination” tacked on, although there was no evidence that her gender had anything to do with Moss’ criticism of her. Along with a bogus investigation, this paved the way for Boone to receive a $55,000 payday and protections that make it very hard to fire her.

Shockey’s claim that he was harassed is based on criticism he received over the sham Boone investigation. It was Shockey who selected the investigator, Kevin Garrison of Protective and Investigative Services. Garrison is the man who could not be served the lawsuit Ken Moss filed against him because his address of record is actually his accountant’s office (look this up on Casenet). In both the cases of Boone and Shockey, legitimate criticism and oversight of their work is being labeled as “harassment.” It should be further noted that Shockey has received no adverse employment effects from this alleged activity. He is still the chief, and he still has a few weeks left of being interim city administrator (and collecting the accompanying pay increase). In short, this suit is baseless.

But the courts are not his audience here. The audience is council members Amato, Fulbright, Crisler, Cooley, Freese, and Coleman. They are the individuals that Shockey hopes to receive a payout from. Will he get more money than Boone? He hired her attorney, Joan Swartz, I guess because she has experience with extracting payouts from the Arnold council.

Now, Boone didn’t have to take the step of filing a lawsuit. Her MCHR complaint was enough, after the investigation. But I guess Shockey can’t order an investigation of his own complaint. Perhaps this lawsuit is timed to coincide with the arrival of the new city administrator, Bryan Richison, on September 1. When handing over the reins, Shockey can say, “hey, there’s this suit of mine, and the way we do things around here is to have an investigation. If you need a suggestion for an investigator, I can recommend one.”

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Another Payout in Arnold?”

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Quotes from Shockey Articles | Jefferson County Penknife - August 17, 2013

    […] who I consider to be a partner in covering this area, wrote a good article on Arnold Chief Shockey’s lawsuit. I especially appreciate this, in the 2nd […]

    Like

  2. Alternate View of Arnold | Jefferson County Penknife - August 27, 2013

    […] concerns raised by residents about Arnold Police Chief Bob Shockey and the claims he made in his lawsuit against the city, councilman Ken Moss, and former councilwoman Doris […]

    Like

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: