Ohio Civil Rights Commission Vicki Ann Wheatley v. Wickliffe City Schools Charge No, CLE74(39789)08032009 Wickliffe City School's Position Statement The Charged Party, the Board of Education of the Wickliffe City School District (“the Board”), currently employs the Charging Party, Vicki Ann Wheatley (“Ms. Wheatley”), pursuant to an administrator contract. See Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.02(C). Until June 9, 2009, Ms. Wheatley was in active service as the Principal of Wickliffe High School in Wickliffe, Ohio. The High School Principal is responsible for “the total operation of the high school program and staff.” (Exhibit 12 to Affidavit of Kathleen Cintavey, Ph.D. [“Cintavey Aff"). The High School Prineipal’s responsibilities include keeping the District's Superintendent informed of the school’s activities and problems; enforcing and implementing district policies and administrative regulations; establishing and maintaining an effective learning climate in the school”; supervising the personnel assigned to the High School; and evaluating and managing employee job performance. (id.). ‘The High School Principal position reports directly to the Superintendent of the District, The Board has employed Ms. Wheatley since 1998. On June 9, 2009, the Board suspended Ms. Wheatley from her Principal position, with full pay and benefits, pending an investigation of her management of educational and staffing issues. at Wickliffe High School. On August 3, 2009, almost two months after her suspension, Ms. Wheatley filed the above captioned charge with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. As explained below, and in the accompanying affidavit of the District’s Superintendent, Kathleen Cintavey, Ph.D., the Board categorically denies that Ms, Wheatley has everbeen discriminated against or subjected to an unlawful hostile environment because of her gender, or retaliated against, whether in violation of Ohio Rev. Code § 4112 or any other law. Rather, Ms. Wheatley is currently suspended while the Board investigates allegations that Ms. Wheatley engaged in misconduct and grossly mismanaged education and employment-related matters at Wickliffe High School. Ms. Wheatley’s charge is, in part, time barred Ms. Wheatley’s OCRC charge claims that, on October 27, 2008, she “filed a complaint against Kathleen Cintavey, Superintendent of Wickliffe City Schools for ongoing harassment, gender discrimination, and hostile work environment.” (Charge of Discrimination at 1). The District notes that Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.05(B)(1) sets a six month limitations period for filing a charge of discrimination, so Ms. Wheatley’s charge is untimely as to any alleged discriminatory acts occurring prior to February 4, 2009. Despite the untimely nature of Ms. Wheatley’s charge of discrimination relating to the various events occurring between October 27, 2008 and February 2, 2009, however, the Board will briefly address some of the issues that are time-barred but inextricably related 0 timely allegations of discrimination, Wheatley’s internal complaint of discrimination On October 27, 2008, Ms. Wheatley made an internal complaint that she had been discriminated against and subjected (o a hostile environment because of her gender and claimed that the District’s Superintendent, Dr. Kathleen Cintavey, was responsible for the alleged discrimination. Rather than conduct an internal investigation the Board hired an attomey, Barbara K. Besser, to investigate Ms. Wheatley’s allegations. Ms. Besser, an experienced employment law litigator and former Trial | |Attorney with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,' interviewed Ms. Wheatley, Dr. Cintavey, and Ms. Wheatley’s male comparators. Ms. Besser’s report, dated December 18, 2008, determined that no unlawful discrimination had occurre (Report of Barbara K. Besser, Esq., Exh. 14 to Cintavey Aff. Specifically, Ms. Besser noted that the male principals Ms, Wheatley compared herself to were subjected to the same “harassment” that Ms. Wheatley complained of, .e., Dr. Cintavey reviewing and changing their PowerPoint presentation slides; a large number of directives communicated by e-mail; being spoken to in “harsh” tones; being called in to meet while ‘on vacation; continued “trust issues” conceming the new Superintendent and her management style, efe. (Exh, 14 at 4). Ms. Besser determined that there was no evidence of any gender based disparity in treatment; rather, Ms, Besser determined that Dr. Cintavey’s interactions with Ms. Wheatley were hampered by clashing communication styles and a difference in management styles compared to Dr. Cintavey’s predecessor. (Exh. 14 at 7-10). In addition, the Board notes that Ms. Wheatley appears to have personal issues with Dr. Cintavley? Ms._Wheatley’s_ November _2008_and_March_2009 allegations of harassment Ms. Wheatley’s charge complains about an executive session meeting of the Board of Education on November 25, 2008, a subsequent communication with Board Vice President Dr. Joseph Muscatello on or about November 28, 2008, and an e-mail Ms, Besser’s biography is found at hitp://www.elfvinbesser.com/Besser.php. ? The Commission should know that Dr. Cintavey and Ms. Wheatley competed for the vacant Superintendent position. The Board of Education passed over Ms. Wheatley and hired Dr. Cintavey in April 2008exchange with Dr. Muscatello in late March 2009. The charge mentions that the meeting was about “an issue that was brought up at the board meeting earlier that evening,” Ms. Wheatley’s charge also claims that Mr. Muscatello’s communication in November 2008 was “frightening” and “made [her] feel uncomfortable,” and his March 2009 e-mail exchange was “frightening,” too The Board’s November 25, 2008 meeting and Dr. Muscatello’s e-mails of March 18 and March 24, 2009 all involved the Board’s demand for an explanation for Ms. Wheatley’s unilateral decision to create and publish an erroneous newsletter in November 2008. To the extent Ms. Wheatley claims Dr. Muscatello’s e-mails “frightened” her, her supposed fear is subjective and entirely unwarranted, because the e- ‘mails are in no way threatening, ha ssing, or discriminatory. (E-mails from Dr. Joseph. Muscatello and Vicki Wheatley, Exh. 22 and 23 to Cintavey Aff). Indeed, Ms. Wheatley’s charge also fails to explain why she believes the Board's supposedly “angry and accusatory” qui stions were discriminatory, since the Board members’ inquiries all related to her job performance and her unilateral decision to send out the erroneous newsletter. (Newsletter, Exh, 24 to Cintavey Aff). By way of background, in 2008, the Board researched and considered, but never adopted, a seven period per day class schedule for Wickliffe High School. In November 2008, however, Ms. Wheatley authored and distributed the newsletter announcing that Wickliffe High School's administrators had “been instructed to implement a seven (7) period bell schedule for the 2009-2010 schoo! year.” (Exh. 24), This statement was false Ms. Wheatley’s allegations concerning the November 2008 meeting are time barred, but also inextricably related to Ms. Wheatley’s complaints about Dr. Muscatello’s March 2009 communications.because the Board had never adopted any policy making such a change to the schedule and no one had informed Ms. Wheatley that she was to make such a change. ‘This erroncous report caused much consternation in the District, forcing the Board and the administration to answer questions from irate parents, students, and staff about a “policy change” that had never actually occurred During the November 2008 Board of Education meeting, the Board asked Ms. Wheatley about the statements in her newsletter and the Board questioned her about a subsequent letter writing campaign involving students. Ms, Wheatley refused to explain her actions. She was later instructed by the Board’s attomey, Tim Sheeran, and her own attorney, Susan Gragel, to submit a written explanation about her decision to distribute the erroneous newsletter. (Cintavey Aff 17, 18). Mr. Muscatello’s March 2009 e-mails followed up on those instructions and the Board’s inquiries because four months had passed since the November 2008 meeting, yet Ms. Wheatley had not provided an explanation for her actions. Ms. eatley’s ns concerning her February 9, 2009 reprimand Ms. Wheatley’s charge states that she received a reprimand on February 9, 2009, but the charge fails to disclose why she was reprimanded, In fact, the Superintendent visited the High School building on numerous occasions during January 2009 and found the study hall in a chaotic state. Ms. Wheatley repeatedly failed to address this situation, resulting in a written reprimand. As the Cintavey affidavit explains, on numerous occasions in January 2009, Dr. Cintavey visited the High School study hall and found an unruly mess. Students were off task and poorly supervised ~ eating during study hall, milling about