Wednesday, June 03, 2015

Tina Smith denies wrongdoing, accuses former employee of sexual harassment

Tina Smith says she
did nothing wrong.

That is what you would expect to see any time someone responds to a lawsuit, but in the response filed by R-8 attorneys to a wrongful dismissal action brought by Kathy Dukes, the Joplin R-8 COO and human relations director says she never encouraged Dukes to quit after Dukes brought a sexual harassment complaint to her.

But the kicker was a new allegation, something which apparently was never mentioned to Dukes:

"Tina Smith on behalf of the Joplin School District received a grievance alleging certain sexual advances and harassment on the part of (Dukes)."

Smith's response said Dukes decided to leave the school district on her own.

"Plaintiff of her own free will and volition, announced her intent and desire to resign and she signed and executed for good and valuable consideration a mutual separation agreement and release."

After the last few days, it is certainly obvious just how truthful these mutual separation agreements are.

However, Smith's response acknowledges that Dukes' sexual harassment claim was investigated.

"It was determined that Peter Coleman had violated the sexual harassment policies in place and in force for the school district and as a result, he was discharged."

(From the February 27 Turner Report)

Dukes' lawsuit was filed less than a week before the Joplin R-8 School District settled a sexual harassment lawsuit.

Dukes' million dollar lawsuit filed February 10 in Jasper County Circuit Court claims Kathy Dukes reported to human resources director Tina Smith (pictured) that Coleman was sexually harassing and stalking her.

Six days later, Smith took decisive action, placing the alleged victim, Dukes, on paid administrative leave.

A month later, despite a notice that said Dukes' complaint had been confirmed, Smith pressured Dukes into quitting, holding the threat of a bad job reference over her head.

Smith and Superintendent C. J. Huff signed a document  in which Dukes swore not to sue for sexual harassment in return for a "neutral job reference" and four weeks of severance pay.

Dukes, a utility worker, and Coleman, her supervisor, "began a relationship as a result of an indication by Mr. Coleman that he was separated from his wife and was going through a divorce," according to the petition.

Dukes discovered that Coleman was not getting divorced, so she ended the relationship and asked Coleman "not to communicate with her outside of work.

After the relationship ended, Dukes said, she "began to suffer from multiple incidents of stalking and harassment at the hands of Herbie Coleman where he would stalk her after hours and harass her while at work about who she was with and where she had been after working hours,:

Dukes claims that Coleman went "as far as harassing her present boyfriend by sending him letters with false negative information about the plaintiff in an effort to break up the relationship between the plaintiff and her present boyfriend."

After a fellow employee told her she should talk to someone about the harassment, Dukes scheduled an appointment with Smith on December 13, 2013.

During that interview, Dukes told her story and played recordings of the harassing calls from Coleman, according to the petition. Smith said she would begin an investigation.

Six days later, Dukes was placed on administrative leave for allegations of misconduct.

On Monday, January 13, 2014, during what is described as an "uncomfortable meeting" between Smith and Dukes, "Ms. Smith, by way of pressure and coercion, talked Ms. Dukes into signing a mutual separation agreement and release."

During the meeting, Smith asked Dukes if she had looked for work and "don't you think it would be best if you found another place to work," adding "no one wants to work with you any more."

Smith also gave Dukes a letter in which she said her investigation indicated Coleman had violated board policy. "An investigation of the grievance has been completed and the district finds adequate substantiation exists to support an infraction of board policy.

"At Joplin Schools, we are committed to providing a learning and working environment that is free from harassment and discrimination. All participants in the educational process are expected to follow policies and administrative procedures of the district. Subsequently, the district has responded with the appropriate actionable measures."

Dukes signed the "mutual separation agreement" in which she "hereby releases and forever discharges the Joplin Schools Board of Education, its employees, its affiliates and subsidiaries, together with their respective directors, officers, agents, employees, and board of director, from any and all claims or other causes of action she may have against them relating to or arising out of Doris Kathrine Dukes' employment with School, including, but not limited to any claim of sexual harassment, or hostile work environment, or retaliation related to filing sexual harassment complaints, or any other cause of action related to her employment or her separation of employment, Missouri Statutes or Federal Constitution.

"The Joplin Schools hereby agrees to accept her resignation and will provide a neutral letter of reference consistent with policy. As and for additional consideration, the Joplin Schools shall pay the amount of $2,820.80 representing four weeks' pay less all required withholdings.

"As and for additional consideration herein, Doris Kathrine Dukes, hereby voluntarily resigns from her employment with the Joplin Schools, effective this date, January 14, 2014."

Count I of the lawsuit alleges wrongful discharge and violation of public policy and asks for $1 million in punitive damages.

Dukes, who is represented by William G. Weber of the Evenson, Carlin, Cooper, and Weber LLC firm in Pineville, is asking for a jury trial.

In the district's response to the lawsuit, lawyer Karl Blanchard asks that the lawsuit be dismissed because it "fails to state a cause of action" on which either relief or pnnitive damages can be awarded.

If the lawsuit is not dismissed, Blanchard says, the district is asking permission to have all of Dukes' last 20 years of work records provided.

During the week before the Dukes lawsuit was filed, Judge David Dally officially dismissed another lawsuit in which former custodial supervisor George Morris, who said he had been sexually harassed by buildings project director Mike Johnson, was fired. The amount the district had to pay to settle the lawsuit has not been revealed.


Anonymous said...

Tina Smith do something wrong to an employee? This woman loves to harm employees, and took an active part in trying to destroy the careers of those employees that she, Besendorfer, and Huff wanted out of the way. I hope she is the next person on the list for dismissal. She, like Huff, lies like she breathes. That she used Coleman to paint her house and arranged that on school time is a violation of district policy, especially if she used school technology to communicate with him. I know this, because Ms. Smith has informed us of the rules regarding school technology.

She is evil, hateful, and greedy. She must go. Today would be good.

Anonymous said...

Please, make her go away. The stuff of nightmares. Every time I see her the B-word jumps into my head. I think she has secret powers for that to happen. That doesn't happen with other people.

Anonymous said...

Tina Smith: The proverbial pit bull with lipstick.

Anonymous said...

This sounds about like Huff saying he won't pay the electrical contractor because he doesn't like their work. They are very good at just making up lies to try and cover themselves. It's worked up to now because they have had a board that didn't ask questions. If Lynda Banwart has her way, this woman will be able to continue her activities that have harmed so many staff members. They all need to be cleaned out. The way she and the rest of upper admin have padded their salaries, she can afford to leave.

Anonymous said...

They say that managers rise to their level of incompetence. The district's illustrious Chief Compliance Officer is definitely there. How did she get this position anyway, and what salary is the district paying her? She is probably being paid way too much.

Jay Hawker said...

Her husband plays softball with Huff. I have had he pleasure of knowing her for years. She is smart enough to know that she lacks intelligence and talent, so she relies soly on her hubby' s connections.