Sexual Harassment Suit Joins Several Against City

[Palehorse]

January 4, 2011
Mayor denies sexual harassment allegations in statement to media
By Abbey Doyle
The Herald Bulletin

ANDERSON, Ind. — In response to sexual harassment allegations from a parks department employee, Anderson Mayor Kris Ockomon issued the following statement at 1 p.m. Tuesday:

"I feel it is important that the public hear directly from me about this matter. Accordingly, I want to make it clear that I adamantly and unconditionally deny all such allegations.

"I have never engaged in any behavior with any person which could be remotely construed as sexual harassment.

"I am confident that the conclusion of the investigation and legal process will result in these claims  being completely discredited, and I look forward  to a speedy resolution."

Teresa Spencer, who transferred from the mayor's office to the city parks department in June 2009 to become business manager, alleges in a complaint to the Indiana Civil Rights Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission signed Dec. 31, 2009, that Ockomon subjected her "to quid pro quo and hostile work environment sexual harassment.

"These acts of sexual harassment include, but are not limited to: sexually suggestive comments regarding (Spencer's) appearance and clothing, requests for (Spencer) to get rooms at hotels with Mayor Ockomon, requests for (Spencer) to go to an amusement park with Mayor Ockomon and 'ride his roller coaster,' and Mayor Ockomon telling (Spencer) he has sexual dreams about her," the complaint alleges.

The Herald Bulletin obtained a copy of the complaint Monday.

Contacted Monday, Ockomon said "obviously not" when asked if the allegations were true. He referred questions to his Indianapolis attorney, Michael Cork. Ockomon demanded to know the source of the document; The Herald Bulletin has agreed to protect the identity of the person who provided it.

The revelation comes at the dawn of a mayoral campaign in which at least three Republicans have announced their candidacy. Ockomon, a Democrat, has not formally announced his intention to seek re-election, but he said recently that an announcement would come in the new year.

Cork said he was not at liberty to discuss Spencer's complaint in detail because of the confidential nature of the EEOC mediation process. But he said, "Based upon the available information, I do not believe there is a shred of truth to the charges, the allegations in Teresa Spencer's complaint." He called her allegations "politically and personally motivated."

"I have looked into the matter and have had full cooperation not only from Mayor Ockomon but from the entire staff of the City of Anderson," Cork said, "and I do not find one scintilla of evidence to support the allegations contained in that charge."

Spencer's complaint is still in a confidential process, Cork said. "The charge is currently in investigation with the EEOC. They have not made a determination yet, and I don't believe that they have begun much of an internal investigation." Cork also said he expected Spencer to file a federal lawsuit.

An EEOC representative said Monday that the commission does not discuss cases that are in the confidential stage, and that the time required to resolve complaints can range from three months to two years or more based on the nature of the allegations.

The complaint says the alleged harassment and retaliation took place between November 2007 and when the complaint was signed. "On each occasion, (Spencer) has rebuffed Mayor Ockomon's sexual advances and informed him that the advances were unwelcomed," the complaint says.

Spencer's complaint alleges that she "has been damaged as a result of (Ockomon's) discriminatory and retaliatory actions, including but not limited to, back pay and other financial damages, embarrassment, humiliation and emotional distress."

Spencer said Monday that she could not comment about the allegations on the advice of her attorney, Meghan Lehner of Indianapolis. Lehner did not return telephone messages seeking comment.

"Basically, I just want to do my job — that's what I want to do," Spencer said.

In October, a judge granted Spencer's request for a temporary restraining order against the city after she was suspended without pay for two days by Parks Department Superintendent John Gates. Gates said Spencer was late in paying bills, but Spencer said she lacked proper invoices to pay them. The restraining order barred the city from taking further disciplinary actions against Spencer.

That court case is one of at least three that have been brought against Ockomon, the city or officials by past and present parks officials:

Former Parks Superintendent Fred Reese was recently awarded more than $54,000 in back wages and benefits that he claimed as a result of his firing a year ago. No attorney appeared in court to represent the city in a hearing last month; city attorneys say notice of the hearing was not provided.
In August, Park Board Chairman Darin Foltz sued and blocked a hearing that Ockomon had called to present evidence for Foltz's removal from office.
Former Madison Circuit Court Judge Fredrick Spencer has represented Foltz, Reese and Teresa Spencer — his daughter-in-law — in each of the lawsuits.

City attorney Tim Lanane on Monday confirmed the city is paying Cork's legal fees to defend Ockomon against the harassment allegations. He said because the City Building was closed Monday, he did not have access to information about how much has been paid.

http://heraldbulletin.com/local/x1961024144/Mayor-denies-sexual-harassment-allegations-in-statement-to-media

[Palehorse]

One point, since the city of Anderson has at least 4 attorneys on staff, why is the city having to foot the bill for an Indianapolis attorney to represent Ocky in this "latest" suit? Will the citizens of this city now be forced to pay a "legal fee" being tacked onto their monthly city utility bills?

You'll note this suit was filed in December of 2009, if the HB didn't commit another in its string of editorial errors. So it has now been over a year since the complaint was filed; why has there been no progress made in connection with this complaint in that time? The article states the investigation is just getting under way, so why has it taken so long? Typical of how our government entities react to civilian allegations of harassment and a hostile working environment! 

This suit coming to light makes one wonder if it isn't the main driver behind Ocky's initiatives against the parks department in the first place!

[Palehorse]

This all goes back to the voters from my perspective. Despite the red flag of residency, "we the people" voted the current mayor into office. And all of a sudden allegations of sexual harassment and other potential actions of a discriminatory nature surprise us? Why?

The mayor represents this city and its citizens, and as such any potential actionable performance is required to be subsidized by us surrounding legal representation, when said actions are performed during the course of the duties of the office.

In this day and age when a city is required to retain legal counsel surrounding a myriad of potential liabilities, I find it disturbing that any city would hire an attorney that doesn't have a well rounded experience base that is diversified to include human rights and civil rights issues. At least have a couple of part timers on retainer to include this area of specialization. But that responsibility, if we are to believe Lanane, rests solely upon the mayor him/her self.

The voting citizens of this city have a personal responsibility to make an informed choice when placing their vote. Buying into the emotional flotsam our political process has become does not lend itself toward an educated decision process; and should the current allegations prove true, I believe it is incumbent upon each one of us to do better job in educating ourselves surrounding the candidates, for ourselves and this city in the next election.

Voting based upon a personal history with an individual is not always a good practice; in fact it is just as bad as buying into the political propaganda that floods the media and airwaves during every single election we encounter.

Minus a truly neutral and unbiased local media source, which the public can trust to ask the hard questions and dig for the truth, the job is left to the voters themselves; and unfortunately very few of the citizens within this city seem to be armed with the critical thinking skills with which to accomplish such a task.  And those that do possess these skills are frequently subjected to the emotional fallout of the propaganda machine, in an attempt to quash the truth with emotional turmoil and volumes of it.

The current lawsuit will be resolved, eventually, but the voters of this city had better do their homework well in advance of the next election; lest we vote someone into office who will potentially do worse than what has already been done in the present administration.

[Palehorse]

And now, as if this isn't ugly enough, the brother of the Mayor, Roger Ockomon, has had an order of protection entered against him by Teresa Spenser, because of postings Roger made on his facebook page.

http://heraldbulletin.com/crime/x233315120/Mayor-s-brother-named-in-protective-order

He is also highly critical of mayoral candidate, and former mayor Kevin Smith, and makes commentary that seems to insinuate that he has "dirt" on Kevin as well!

[The Troll]

  Well I not going to get to excited about this sexual Harassment case.  I seen to many of them at work where the women made them up to get even with a guy.  They have been playing around telling each other sexual thing.  But one day she come in with PMS and goes up front and files a sexual harassment charge.

  Since he change her job, that might be the reason she said anything and it all bullshit.

[Sandy Eggo]

Those poor innocent men! It's a shame that they allow women into the workplace. </sarcasm>

[Anne]

Some men don't believe there is such a thing as sexual harassment.

[Y]

Some men don't believe there is such a thing as sexual harassment.

The term 'sexual harassment' appears to have been far too widely defined in legal settings.

I posit that unless behavior is specifically, or aimed at promoting, unwanted physical contact - the key word here being 'physical' - then it shouldn't be sexual harassment under the law.  Even then the specific contact must explicitly sexual.

[Anne]

I think that is subject to interpretation. What is a sexual comment to me may not be to you. What you think is harmless comments may not be to me. In this case, if the mayor said the things he is accused of saying, what do you think he meant when he suggested (allegedly) that they get a room together and she "ride" his roller coaster? Seems clearly sexual to me, and since he is in a position of power it is also threatening.

[Y]

I think that is subject to interpretation. What is a sexual comment to me may not be to you. What you think is harmless comments may not be to me. In this case, if the mayor said the things he is accused of saying, what do you think he meant when he suggested (allegedly) that they get a room together and she "ride" his roller coaster? Seems clearly sexual to me, and since he is in a position of power it is also threatening.

As I posited, comments that aren't leading to unwanted physical contact are just that, comments.  Therefore, it shouldn't matter what either you or I think about the comment.

As far as the suit against the Mayor and what I posited, there's no alleged unwanted physical contact, and unless the plaintiff can prove there was any specific job retaliation directly related to not providing sexual favors, there should be no case.

The bottom line is that we are sexual beings and make sexual comments and advances.  To criminalize those actions without actual harm is not in our best interests.

[Anne]

Unwanted physical  contact turns it into assault or rape. Like I said some people don't believe there is such a thing as sexual harassment.

[Y]

Unwanted physical  contact turns it into assault or rape. Like I said some people don't believe there is such a thing as sexual harassment.

1)  Which, as I pointed out, is actual harm.

2)  Why don't you define 'sexual harassment' then - your definition please.

[The Troll]

  I worked at a factory where 30 women and 3 men working on the work floor, I was one of the males.  I never seen such back bitting, back stabbing, foul talk, crying to the boss about some other woman.  As a male, it was like working in a mine field.  Some women you could enjoy, cut up with and have a good time.  But others, just talking to them, you might get a knife in the back with the company.  You had to find out which women were the bitches and pretty quick.  I have never seen it in a all men shop to that extent.  Of course you're going to find assholes in any company.  But the women are the worse at it.

  We had one woman working on the assembly line that everyone hated, men and women alike.  Always cry, bitching, looking to get someone in trouble.  So we left her totally alone.  Every time she would walk up to a group of people or walk into a room, people left the area.  She went to the company and cried that everybody was shunning her.  My god she was a walking EID, bomb waiting to go off and take your job.

  Then the government came a long and made the companies put women in all men's jobs like pipefitter and millwright.  The women wanted our jobs, but they didn't want the dirty work that came with it.  But they also wanted all of the women's rights to be babied and pampered.  In other words kiss their little asses.  Like, oh I can't lift something that heavy or I can't climb that high.  You want me to crawl back into the dirty black hole through small dirty access door?  Oh, it too hot here in the heat treat area for me, I need a break or go to the restroom.  On and on and on.

  But, what is so bad, our union the UAW had classes to teach the woman what sexual harassment was.  Oh, give me a break.    Stupidity rules.   

[Anne]

1)  Which, as I pointed out, is actual harm.

2)  Why don't you define 'sexual harassment' then - your definition please.

Any repeated comments containing requests for sexual contact or alluding to sexual contact especially when made by someone with power over (like a boss or someone who is intimidating for some reason) the person being addressed. I think if someone made those kind of remarks even after being told no or to stop it becomes harassment.

[Palehorse]

This whole situation reminds me of "Minority Report", wherein the law is punitive toward a crime that has not yet happened. . .