Former depot security guard has dismissal complaint reversed

This story was published Thu, Aug 22, 2002

By Karen Zacharias
Herald Oregon bureau

HERMISTON -- A former security guard at the Umatilla Chemical Depot who claimed he was racially harassed and unlawfully terminated has had a dismissal of his complaint reversed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Federal Operations.

Michael Smart, 34, claimed Robert Scaplehorn, director of security for the depot, harassed him because Smart is black.

Smart said the harassment began last Sept. 17, shortly after he arrived at the depot. A Gulf War veteran, Smart has worked as a security officer for 10 years. He's worked for the Department of Defense at Dugway Proving Grounds in Dugway, Utah; the Federal Reserve in Dallas, Texas; and at nuclear munition sites in Fort Hood, Texas, and Saudi Arabia. Additionally, he has been certified in the Army's Special Reaction Training.

According to complaint documents, Smart was dismissed from his job Feb. 14 "for abandonment of his position during probationary period." But Smart, who now lives in Arizona, said he did not abandon his job but was unlawfully dismissed after staff at Umatilla allegedly lost his worker's compensation claim, provided by his doctor. Smart said his doctor put him on medical leave because of the stress created by the harassment he was allegedly receiving at Umatilla.

The EEOC decision, dated June 27, does not address Smart's claims about racial discrimination or his unlawful dismissal.

However, the EEOC disagreed with the Army's contention that Smart failed to take the appropriate steps in his initial claim at Umatilla. Instead, the director of the federal agency ruled that Smart believed he was following proper procedures based upon the counseling he was receiving from the depot's equal opportunity counselors.

Carlton Hadden, director for the federal operations office, said Umatilla had dismissed Smart's claim "for failure to obtain counseling."

But, Hadden noted: "This is not a situation where (Smart) completely refused to discuss his complaint with the EEO office. In fact, the record shows (Smart) had several contacts with (the counselor) and provided sufficient information that the counselor was able to obtain statements and affidavits from several agency officials regarding his complaint."

Thus, Hadden ruled, "We find the agency improperly dismissed (Smart's) complaint for failure to obtain EEO counseling."

Moreover, Hadden reversed the depot's decision to dismiss Smart's claim and ordered them to notify Smart of his rights within 150 days of Hadden's decision.

Hadden also noted that Smart has the right to file a civil action suit against the depot.

In a phone interview, Smart said he hasn't yet decided whether he will pursue civil action in the matter. But he was relieved that his appeal was upheld.

"I think Umatilla knows they did discriminate against me," Smart said. "They tried to throw my complaint out. They didn't care about me or the process."

 

Copyright 2002 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.