Of Course the Gender-minded APS Physics Hires a Bully Lawyer

News Break: Fourth Circuit Selects Groundbreaking "Mixed Motive" Lawsuit Against APS Physics for Mediation

Post: A glaring example of the lack of public relations competence at APS Physics—in spite of the fact that at least five APS employees have some sort of PR job title—is the selection of representation during gender harassment and discrimination litigation. Even though APS Physics worked with an employment specialist (Jackson-Lewis) and carried employer liability coverage, the society chose neither. APS chose a bully lawyer, Deborah Whelihan, with a reputation of representing clergy/churches against misconduct charges. She seems to represent people who actually DID IT, whatever IT was. And APS is sans insurance "sanity" (ie, reviews of communications), so she's free to do whatever she wants on the never-ending APS dime, with continued instructions from APS to remain uncivil. (The alternative that Whelihan might be "freelancing" without approval from her client or that APS HR/Treasury is side-stepping a spineless exec Kate Kirby is even less palatable.) Two former employees of Whelihan's firm have described that firm's internal bullying!

Public relations, that is, communication internally and externally, is a must during a lawsuit, an executive transition (where reorganizations take place), and gender-based advocacy campaigns (APS is engaged in all three). And someone tasked with the PR function must have some sort of PR credentials (a PR person would not attempt physics, so why would physicists attempt PR?). No APS PR person has any known degree or studies in PR (one has been a journalist).

When PR’s missing, other (often negative) communications fill the gap, especially internally. Bad PR episodes can take down a defendant who may have otherwise gotten through, win, settle or lose, with their reputation intact. It is not always the outcome that matters, but how an organization handles oneself during it. APS continues to violate its own anti-harassment standards during this litigation and hires a bully lawyer, which is again, the arrogant “image” of physicists we all—especially females who run from a physics degree like it's a plague—have become accustomed to.

Because APS Physics is a bully, male leadership—Alan Chodos (Exec), Joe Ignacio (HR), Michael Stephens (Treasury)—needed not a reputable, national law firm, but a female bully. The hope was that through continued bullying (which is what spurred the plaintiff to sue in the first place), the plaintiff would dissolve into a teary puddle and evaporate. So from APS, every letter to the plaintiff, phone call, e-mail, filing is filled, not with solid legal arguments, but rather with personal shots at the plaintiff for not whimpering away. So much for the “civil” in lawsuit. (That’s why APS has fought to hide their voluminous filings under gag orders.)

At APS Physics, there is a “don’t blame me” tunnel-vision, where each office does its own thing or can wash their hands of something or blame someone else. This comes from lack of interpersonal skills; physicists tend to ALL want to be in charge; and not concern themselves with seeing the big picture, negotiating, operating professionally, following office rules.

As a result, this blog is frequently Number 1 in searches, with the document repository coming up big (Michael Stephens' depo is the second-most popular doc. behind the plaintiff's response to APS Physics). Almost every APS employee has read this blog. (Any organization with any PR savvy at all would have cured the likelihood of this occurring years ago.) But APS PR folks can surely wear those rose-colored glasses so they can bury their heads in the sand.

APS Physics’ female leaders can no longer use female tactics, working behind the scenes, cajoling and tip-toeing, and relying on being deferential. They can’t storm their way through, either. It’s up to them to take the best of male and female styles and create a new leadership model. If Kirby is up to the challenge, then …(competent leader and PR person can insert answer here.) Inaction is action.

By not having a PR plan for the lawsuit (ie, not taking it seriously), APS Physics now finds itself embedded in a hypocritical quagmire. APS had thought it could rely on “figurehead” females at the helm to provide cover for gender discrimination (and nasty behavior during a lawsuit). That is also the role that Kirby and president Cherry Murray are playing (in also supporting Whelihan's bullying and harassing behavior). Unless they choose something different. What tools are left? Well, there is so much damage to the APS image now that even winning the lawsuit won’t fix it; only a professional can. It’s high time to hire a PR Firm.

Calm Down APS Physics: It's Just a Lawsuit Scheduling Matter

The Court was simply trying to come up with a date for an informal conference that both sides could agree on, but Dr. Kate Kirby, APS Physics Executive, through her attorney, has to send an e-mail to the plaintiff slamming the plaintiff for this "defamatory blog," the plaintiff's "slanted perspective," and also deriding the plaintiff for daring to tell other people what happened to her at APS Physics. APS tells other employers to keep open channels for women with regards to discrimination, harassment and "making female friendly workplaces," but they don't want that when they get called out for discrimination themselves. In the APS mind, you are supposed to just take harrassment and discrimination, then keep your mouth shut (for the four years this case has been going on). APS: If you have any issue with free speech, file a lawsuit that's ACTUALLY about that.

APS also makes a bizarre claim that the plaintiff is talking to employees inside the APS organization. First of all, the plaintiff and her attorney were allowed to contact people to come forward as witnesses, and this is ALL that happened OVER three years ago, for a total of 15 minutes. At some points, the plaintiff was representing herself, due to the huge costs involved in having an attorney, and she sent letters to appropriate APS representatives on the other side of the lawsuit about settling the lawsuit. The plaintiff has not made anyone read her blog, which PREDATED the lawsuit: APS found it themselves. APS claims the plaintiff sent her blog anonymously (how is that possible these days?!) to her former harasser, Stephanie Jankowski, who then told APS. This is patently FALSE. The plaintiff has never attempted to contact her former harasser, nor does she have any desire to. The truth is that publicity, Google searches and internal employer turmoil happen during lawsuits that take too long to be resolved: 5-7 years time is needed to get through the federal system. (APS: You could have filed a motion to dismiss and tried to be rid of the whole thing, but you did not...what does that tell you about the seriousness of this claim?)

As stated above, the plaintiff has never communicated with ANY APS employee, except for two, Michael Stephens and James Riordon, who did agreed to testify. (Not only that, they showed their sexism while testifying on behalf of their paycheck signer.) This is how Court cases go; they happen in public, and everyone is entitled to watch it all and have an opinion, even the plaintiff.

Hey, APS Physics, we're just at scheduling logistics, most likely with staff who does not know the case and does not really care what both sides think about each other ... Can you concentrate on your legal defense regarding GENDER DISCRIMINATION?!

The more things change from Judy Franz to Kirby, the more they stay the same.

Sherry Yennello: Blind to Sexism when it's not towards an Elite

News Flash Update to Post Below
[Updated] Sherry Yennello (Texas A&M), who has been pronounced gender equity queen by APS Physics, has the audacity to ignore the gender lawsuit against ex-exec Judy Franz in her "good-bye Judy allegory." At this link (page 7) to the Gazette, Yennello thanks Franz for furthering goals of women succeeding in physics, "without causing unintended consequences." On its face, what a strange comment. Or Freudian slip. How can one make such an assertion, unless one is utterly arrogant or omniscient? (Is it the white male physicist that one must protect?!)

When you consider the facts uncovered during the lawsuit (and Part 3 below, where Franz speaks just as bizarrely), legal expenses, years of litigation, it is blatantly dishonest. What credentials does Yennello have in gender issues? Does Yennello have the threat of being fired based on discrimination over her head ? (No, she's tenured.) Does she have a certificate or degree in any type of social studies?! The plaintiff in the lawsuit does and she has physics environment work experience; perhaps she should be asked to join the committee...

Franz's recurring, inappropriate and well-known behavior was never contradicted by APS (Franz's frequent temper tantrums, Franz claiming she did not have to follow harassment law, Franz telling the plaintiff to hire women with children because they take less pay, etc.). Most importantly, Franz's advice to the plaintiff, a manager of support staff females, that she would be fired for not managing in a way that was appropriate for a female (and then having the plaintiff fired when she refused) is now the core of the Court's records. APS Physics admitted in the lawsuit that Franz, who was not the victim's direct supervisor (a male was), did indeed have a "counseling session" with the plaintiff and collaborated on the plaintiff's firing, even though others testified the plaintiff was always professional. Of course, Franz never put those demands on another male Education department manager, when he was in the exact same situation to the plaintiff. This is also confirmed by APS on the record.

Lastly, APS failed to inform NSF of the ongoing federal EEOC claim (as is required) so that it could obtain the grant to start this "gender equity" farce in the first place, where they then pat themselves on the back for the poor showing of females in physics: Such as male leaders claiming negligible 4% increases in some gender rate that's close to zip as "pretty good." Or they use these "we need to find what women want" sessions as excuses for inaction, when everyone knows what women want: equal pay, flexible hours and respect, not more luncheons for commiserating with "buddies." Look here, Yennello gets funded to tell others what recipient duties are under EEO laws, when her own organization was not in compliance with reporting.

Of course, Yennello is FOR the voice of females when the harassment and discrimination are elsewhere or aimed at a scientist, but if the discrimination claim is made against APS Physics, that woman speaking up must be a crackpot!

One guesses that the victim's pain in losing her livelihood and thousands of dollars of pay (on false APS promises that lured the plaintiff from another job), the emotional stress, the nasty reference, all at the hand of Franz and her male minions, are not unintended consequences. Perhaps because it was on purpose, because Franz knew it would be hard for her to get caught (under the guise of her gender). The victim's voice in this situation has been ignored and minimized out of existence BY OTHER WOMEN. Power corrupts ALL; the model is still male. When the leader needs something, such as a (female) "assistant" to type her expense reports, etc. well, those gender idealisms go out the window.

Part 2: Sister Protests APS Physics "Female Friendly" Site Visits
APS Physics is sending a "female friendly" site-visit team to a Texas-area (? not sure, APS is trying to keep these things mum) university this month, in efforts to attract women to physics. This blog stands in protest against the hypocrisy. Barbara Whitten, Peter Sheldon and Sherry Yennello, members of the team, should admit to the "visitees" that APS is a defendant in a gender lawsuit, before being holier than thou, and furthermore, should be embarrassed to represent the gender inequity of APS Physics headquarters.

There are numerous issues with this effort:
-APS Physics has done nothing to reprimand the discriminators within its own headquarters.
-APS continues to be a defendant to a gender discrimination lawsuit, one that touches on an emerging legal theory that expands the major McDonnell Douglas framework with the "mixed motive," so that employers can't just make stuff up and get off the hook. (So APS is ground-breaking in a negative way and refuses to admit this conflict of interest before making visits.)
-Singling out women for luncheons, etc., makes them targets for firing or retaliation as troublemakers, if they speak up (in a down economy, with more women not being protected by tenure.)*
-Victims of discrimination or bias, ie, women, should not be saddled with coming together and fixing this and every other "interpersonal" problem (that's more bias!)
-Women are not the cause of the bias or lack of attractiveness of physics; men, women in high positions (like Kate Kirby and Cherry Murray, APS leaders) and the institutions are. How about getting them together for lunch instead.
-How you treat your support staff and other female professional staff says a lot about what you really feel about women in the workplace when no one is looking (the general public is the pool from which future female interest in physics may come). And APS Physics treated the plaintiff in this lawsuit in a humiliating and hostile manner, even with a female figurehead, Judy Franz, at the helm.
-Increasing the numbers of women, especially as bluff and fluff figureheads or at powerless lower levels, does not automatically clear bias from the situation. You must change the overarching model.

*It appears APS has removed the prior obvious targeting of the wording at women (because of blog protest perhaps), but is still having its announcement circulated among "women's" groups on campus. What is fishy is the lack of prior PUBLIC announcement on the APS Website: We are for gender equity, if you would just keep it amongst the wimmin' please, while we work with all those white male faces in government and powerful places.

Part 3: Women can be Neanderthals, too
Just to show readers how neanderthal the female leadership of APS is, here is past-exec Judy Franz's advice to leaders about how to combat gender inequity (from the APS Website): ".. if you publicly chastise those that [sic] make demeaning or snide comments, you will find the rewards are great." Out of all the possibilities of what to espouse in regards to gender inequity, this is the pull quote set in a super-large type. An eye for an eye, the male model. And there is no expounding by Franz for "better" context.

It is not clear who could do this (it's doubtful an offender would offend in front of someone in power or what if the exec is the offender?). Does APS want the victim to spearhead this descent into public pillorying? It is less clear who would be rewarded: perhaps it's APS (or an employer) for not having to investigate or deal with the problem in an official, professional or confidential manner. (The exec can say, "well at least I feel better now"!)

One guesses from the lack of official removal/amelioration that the offender then gets to keep his job after he gets his tongue-lashing, and he would just immediately become a perfect gentleman, rather than some retaliatory pig bent on retribution, who harasses when no other witnesses are around. If this remedy is based on gossiping up the chain of command (from HR or an ombudsman presumably), well let's not even go there for ridiculousness and privacy violations...

The worst aspect is the prospect of escalating a situation in public (rather than taking it into the confines of HR), which would most likely further victimize the victim, give her a reputation of being a passive-aggressive, "bitchy troublemaker" and give rise to potential violence. (It could also harm the male employee who is unjustly targeted.) If the harasser has supervisory control over the victim, her reviews and her employment, what then? Would this exec then protect the female victim every minute of the day?! Doubt it, what is APS thinking (or not thinking)?!

The Judge Can't Read: Why the Plaintiff may just Win over APS Physics

Attached here is the motion ruling from Judge Roger Titus. The plaintiff's original complaint is posted at the right.

To show that the judge can't read (or that his clerk Vanessa Chen wrote his ruling, with him just nodding, er, signing off), he repeatedly states the plaintiff received a warning letter. The problem is that APS testified to the Unemployment Commission (scroll through) that "[the plaintiff] was never warned."

APS Statement to Unemploymnt

Titus appeared completely out of it during oral arguments, saying that he did not even know, and muttering to himself about, for example, what motions he had to rule on in the case (there were three still open.) He then had to ask the attorneys. Chen admitted, too, that the Court had "misplaced" the plaintiff's filings in the days just prior to the appearance, precisely because, in effort to bury this case, the Court has, repeatedly and unilaterally, pulled from or refused to post key case documents on its electronic system.
*Chen has left the Court's employ; our important justice workings are run by law graduates who only stay a year.

Secondly, Titus claims there is no "mixed motive" in the case (in a separate ruling that he refuses to make public, because it is so preposterous), when in the attached supplementary ruling, he clearly writes that the plaintiff was told directly by the top agent of APS Physics, Judy Franz, its CEO, just three weeks prior to the plaintiff's termination, that she would be fired for not managing in an "appropriate female" style. (The plaintiff refused to change her style.) Further, Titus calls what Franz did a "minor inconvenience." Then he writes that this utterance was an "overheard conversation" of others in the hallway, hence, inadmissible hearsay.....even though both sides agree a direct one-on-one conversation, that is, a "counseling" meeting, between the two occurred.

Titus's proclaimation that the employer's verbal communications with the plaintiff are hearsay, and inadmissible, is in contradiction with the Federal hearsay exemption that expressly allows those as evidence. Titus then went on to expand an employer's rights to include being allowed to destroy litigation documents (the plaintiff's work records) and create post-hoc reasons for a termination.

To show how arbitrary Titus was, he claimed to be reading from a reference Chodos provided about the plaintiff, but he skipped the negative parts and then announced it was a positive reference that did not defame the plaintiff. (Defamation, ie, truthfulness, is not the standard, but the likelihood of getting a job. This will be easily won on appeal.) All of us had the real reference in front of us and were astonished how he skipped the "poor" and "failing" ratings in numerous categories that Chodos bestowed on the plaintiff. Titus also skipped the reference checker's assesssment that this reference would be "construed as a negativity" by most employers.

Titus not only had his response already written (by his clerk) before anyone spoke, he read from it directly afterwards. This was to prevent an electronic written document (as is done with every other civil case) from being posted so he could bury the case. And this was after he would not allow the plaintiff to respond in writing to the latest motion. His office had lost the documents last week, then he claimed he read everything the day prior to the hearing (impossible). At one point, he stuttered because he stated his (clerk's) version of a fact and then read a depo quote that contradicted it. Then he kept on going. He refused to notice pages of testimony that showed things were different than what his clerk had relayed.

Just the sort of stuff that has been readily overturned at higher levels, or in other jurisdictions. APS attorney Deborah Whelihan was visibly in recognition of the fact she got off on a lark, for the time being. It was clear the judge never read the filings, which the plaintiff is told happens about 1/3 of the time. That's why the plaintiff has a nonprofit that has expressed interest in supporting the appeal in the Fourth Circuit that is dearth on proper employment precedent. Of the rare cases that are indeed brought in this Republican bastion where they rarely allow employment discrimination trials, about 90% are ruled at lower levels in favor of employers by judges, who apparently don't bother to read. The odds actually go up for plaintiffs to about 50/50 at the next level.

APS Physics will be forever stained by this soon-to-be famous case, once there is a female judge who just might read it.

APS Physics Male Leadership: Role Model for the Arrogant Physicist

In the world of physics, especially within the American Physical Society, rules that apply to the rest of the world don’t apply. APS claims outwardly that they're interested in diversity and engaging women in their profession. APS claims they are weeding out all the well-documented arrogance of the male physicists of the past.

But the truth of one’s convictions is not borne out in public sentiments; it's proven by what one does when no one is watching. Alan Chodos, second in command, is the rusty lynchpin that keeps those sexist doors at APS Physics jammed shut for women under him, at least older ones who've lost their charm. Chodos admitted in testimony that he prefers “young” women when he does his hiring for “support” positions; you know, those staff expected to coddle the physicists. (The plaintiff also testified that he told her the same thing, only saying that the female had to be “cute”!)

Chodos et al fired the female, now plaintiff, because although she never did anything wrong (as APS testified) she did not fit gender stereotypes expected of a “pink collar” manager (while a physicist male who acted in the same manner kept his job).

Afterwards, Joe Ignacio, HR director, stated that it was against APS policy to give a negative reference. But Chodos is so comfortable in his ivory tower, he retaliated against the female victim, gave her a bad reference (scroll through the pages) anyway—and mentioned the case. He did this even though he admitted in testimony he knew nothing of what she really did at work. He did this also knowing that the personnel records of many previous employees show that almost everyone BUT the plaintiff seemed to act inappropriately at APS Physics (based on available role models, no doubt).

There is no real victory for APS, because APS has defiled the process by which those who suffer discrimination seek redress. He and his organization cheated, by lying to state investigative agencies (which gave APS the false appearance of victory), withholding evidence, and instead of telling the truth, hiring a lawyer, Deborah Whelihan, with instructions to intimidate and delay the plaintiff away.
Chodos also abused his authority by corralling other staff under him to "mob" the plaintiff with petty shots, but only after she filed suit.

APS may express patronizing platitudes about harboring women who come forward when it’s other workplaces; but when it’s APS Physics, the woman coming forward must be incompetent or mentally imbalanced (as APS lawyers have written). Why do all this, APS, as the famous Supreme Court decision implies, if you have not discriminated?

Chodos (along with Ignacio) has brought shame on APS Physics in his egotistical, five-year and counting, win-at-all costs battle with his female victim. At this time, just after the real "Norma Rae" has passed, the plaintiff's little "cardboard sign" is first, or nearly first, on Internet searches related to "alan chodos, "gender" and "APS," etc.

What really proves the APS hypocrisy is that the “male” way is worshipped at APS Physics (members are still overwhelmingly male); even the women live and breathe that air (especially in a down economy) to the point they don’t see it. That’s quite sad. The APS gender platform was never better than dead to begin with, with physics having the lowest rate of female participation of any male-dominated field, even firefighters and police. APS has no diversity platform, either (you see a lot of White faces in those leadership positions). Through Chodos’s continued employment, the coffin is nailed shut.

"Our Name is APS Physics, and We Endorse Harassment and Perjury"

A former female manager at APS Physics was harassed and fired for it; she's endured years of APS evasion at the highest levels (Alan Chodos and Judy Franz) and perjury during the state investigation and the ongoing federal lawsuit. The fight for justice goes on.

APS Physics has (successfully, in the eyes of their legal team) unnecessarily extended proceedings by withholding evidence, destroying ALL the plaintiff’s work records during discovery and lying to state investigators (amply documented on this blog) and the Court. Recent antics have been legal attempts to curtail the plaintiff’s free speech about the realities of working in APS Physics headquarters under “deposed” Franz, now replaced by Kate Kirby, and seeking justice.

The APS attorneys developed the “don’t write it down, destroy evidence, evade, delay, cover up” strategy knowingly. The second of the two, Deborah Whelihan, attempted to “prepare” Michael Stephens, Comptroller, for his deposition, and it's quite evident that he did not do such a "good" job, with his flip-flopping, evasion, lies, plus name-calling of the plaintiff. Stephens is a sexist: He calls the plaintiff a ditz, after claiming he did not know or have much contact with her. As a financial leader, he bases his reasoned opinion for execs firing the plaintiff on gossip. The third prong was to paint the plaintiff as being evil, even if it means making bizarre and petty claims then refusing to hand over records to back them up (because they’re lies). The absence of any e-mails or documentation from Stephens shows that.

APS could do this because the investigators and the Court trust employers. All APS Physics had to do was to NOT keep records and NOT get involved when the plaintiff approached Joe Ignacio, HR Director, for help with harassment. APS then delayed handing over evidence (to state unemployment and EEOC bodies and the Court), while as Ignacio admitted, it destroyed them (for example, taking the Annual Report down off their Website.

Most Read" is Annual Report that Comptroller Stephens Does Not Want you to See: If you are related to APS Physics, please ask the Webmaster or your Society contact why APS Physics took down (and still refuses to post) the 2004 APS Physics Annual Report that is central to an ongoing lawsuit. The metadata in the "replacement" Word file show that Stephens had someone (name redacted) make the dummy file and he did this AFTER the litigation process commenced. Further, in Stephens' deposition testimony, he claims the plaintiff in the lawsuit only "attempted to produce" this annual report and did not. Besides the fact that the plaintiff's staff, not just her, produced the report, the APS legal theory goes that this failure caused her dismissal.

Therefore, he had the report taken down and replaced. See the APS Annual Report page. Perhaps that's why the 2004 Annual Report is the most read attachment on sister's blog. Well, here is the fully produced report completed then by the plaintiff and her staff (more on this perjury in the article below and at right) that she obtained from a third party, as APS testified (conveniently) that they destroyed their records:

APS Physics 2004 Annual Report (Final)

-----------------

Later, APS attorneys had their clients testify that they can’t remember or don’t know, oila, but something in those destroyed records, or in the records we won't give you, is bad. Although not allowed in other jurisdictions, destruction of employer evidence is currently legal ONLY in Maryland's District, where very few employment cases are filed or hold precedence. A mixed-motive discrimination case (evidence shows males being treated differently than the plaintiff, and Franz also told the plaintiff she would be fired if she did not exude a more feminine style) would immediately go to a jury in other places, too. That’s why the plaintiff will seek redress at the highest levels of the Court, where such jurisdictional irregularities are handled.

But the APS Physics behavior is far from ethical. Because he knew that the records would belie his testimony, Stephens withheld records related not to the plaintiff’s claims, but to the claims of APS Physics. In fact, the incomplete records the plaintiff obtained after about two years of legal requests, show that all of his petty and bizarre claims are false. If APS wins in about two more years, there is no glory in winning by deceit, on blood money; or in putting a victim of their harassment through the ringer for calling them out on it, while they espouse a gender "friendly" agenda.

APS Physics ran up unnecessary bills by making the plaintiff’s deposition take two days—with irrelevant questions about her college years and personal life, etc. APS now has the gall to ask the plaintiff, who has been under the poverty line, to pay them back. APS could show their humanity by writing and removing the request (but they won’t, because they are not human).

Stephens tries to distance himself from the Annual Report that APS Physics executives first claimed led to the firing of the plaintiff because it was either not done, or had a typo, or something. Then they said she hired a temp when no one else at APS does and she should have done more work herself. Then they said her temp cost too much and then they say he didn’t. Then they said it took the plaintiff too long to hire people, longer than everyone else. (APS just keeps making things up. For example, HR director Joe Ignacio’s signature is on the temp’s approval slip. And APS refused to hand over hiring/replacement dates for other employees because they showed the plaintiff’s hiring activities were in line with males. The plaintiff dug into public records and figured it out herself.)

The parties throwing the blame the plaintiff’s way all participated and signed off on the allegedly bad piece (it’s not bad). You can read about the 2004 Annual Report by clicking the label below. Make no mistake, the report exists and is complete, all done by the plaintiff and her staff, as she dug and found the records through a third party, who wrote an affadavit backing her up.

Of course, the Comptroller is the main driving force for an annual report, but Stephens acts like he doesn’t know a thing. Here’s his red handwriting on the March 28 proof, however.

Stephens Annual Report Revisions

During production of the Annual Report, the execs left town for about seven days, while Stephens and his gang left for some more. All made it clear they would NOT bring laptops or read e-mail during their absences. It was the plaintiff who accommodated their “important” schedules by compressing her own and sending an e-mail before they left. She then sent a second e-mail when they got back (below). Stephens denies knowing about it, even though his boss mentions his name and that he's with him (highlighted here in blue). And Stephens DELAYED the schedule by giving the plaintiff all WRONG financials for inclusion, wasting time, (see his handwriting on the proof above and page through it)—It was the plaintiff who put things back on track.

Of course, Whelihan steps in (doing so makes her words deponent testimony, so it's bizarre) to prevent meaningful answers, making claims that the plaintiff should have finished the Annual Report prior to any of the signers being available to sign off and over TWO WEEKS prior to the deadline shown in the e-mail! (Like Whelihan gets her filings in that early...not!)



Although all the APS Physics execs contributed and put their “John Hancocks” on the Report, why is only the plaintiff without employment? That's an easy answer: The work is fantastic; it's just that the person doing it is a plaintiff in a discrimination suit against APS Physics.

APS Physics HR Manager, Executive Commit Perjury About Annual Report

The Devil is in the Details
Executive Kate Kirby employs two high-level males who committed perjury (prior to her taking over), in their efforts to come up with some reason (other than gender discrimination) for firing a female plaintiff, after HR expert Joe Ignacio, one of those managers, lured the plaintiff from her long-term job, asked her out on a date (to which she said "no") and fired her six months later.

For background, while the plaintiff was employed at APS Physics, her department was given an annual report to do, during the special World Year of Physics. The plaintiff hired Anthony Foronda, a creative temp, who worked with Judy Franz, then Executive, to develop cover designs, interior layouts and photo selections that Franz praised in the plaintiff’s presence and approved in writing. (Foronda denies in his affadavit working on the report, but his agency billed APS for it). APS reviewers could at any time—during reviews of the manuscript, design comps, two sets of page proofs OR during the planning meeting, or prior to the project going to the printer or while it was there—provide input; and they are not lily-livered types. So the plaintiff’s department built consensus and accommodated the reviewers at the time, with everyone signing off.

Moreover, the plaintiff met the schedule that she had e-mailed twice to everyone EXACTLY, sending the report to the printing vendor on March 31 (then she was fired), over two weeks prior to its due date, April 14. Not only did the vendor proofs arrive by the deadline she stated and requested (April 6 at latest), the printing was also done on time. So this is where the APS perjury begins.

Just when the report’s extra copies were being delivered to APS, Ignacio, HR director, lied to the unemployment agency in this statement, falsely claiming that the report was late, and that the proofreading, ergo quality, was bad as a result. He didn't think anyone would find out. Inconceivably, he later testified in his depo (not knowing the plaintiff had his statement) that he NEVER spoke with the unemployment office. Ignacio also testified he never opened the box of reports, nor looked at proofs to make his determination, and that APS destroyed the project's records and samples!!

That is because even though APS has had an entire lawsuit to show us the issues or to provide the report, there are NO errors or content issues. Not only did numerous staff members review the piece, the plaintiff hired a professional proofreader on March 29 (the plaintiff has the estimate and invoice) to check the piece for accuracy. Because APS destroyed its records of the report rather than hand them over, the plaintiff has to obtain the report herself from a third party.

In depositions, Alan Chodos, who was the executive liaison, and Franz deny working with the plaintiff on the report during the final week of production (who believes that?). Ignacio and APS lawyers, however, told the state EEOC earlier (out of fear of losing there) that the plaintiff was insubordinate with regards to Franz’s directions (which allegedly were Franz's fix for the project being late [?!]). And it created an incident that led to her immediate firing. If you look at Ignacio’s initial unemployment statement, he had ALREADY said that did not happen.

Back on March 17, Franz and other staff commented and approved the first page proof, a draft now lost to the APS shredder. After staff attended the PhysTEC and March meetings, the plaintiff provided a March 28 draft* that was routed to Franz by Chodos; the plaintiff luckily saved it, as it shows that execs committed perjury. This proof has Franz’s writing on it (see post-its, etc.), requesting minor changes, during that now notorious week. Chodos also denied in his deposition that he routed this page proof, but it was the plaintiff’s work method to note the initials of reviewers in the bottom right, and right there are the initials! (E-mails in the project's records that APS destroyed also document his involvement.) Chodos, the man who testified he had NO role in the project, even obtained a last-minute photo, as Franz requested, from fellow AAPT exec, Bernard Khoury, to replace another.
*Please note that some handwriting is the plaintiff’s.

Below is the next version, supplied to the printer,** showing that Franz and others' corrections had been accommodated.

APS Annual Report as Plaintiff Provided Printer

**Note the placeholder for the photo (p.3) Chodos obtained on paper (not electronic!), requiring a vendor scan. APS e-mailed the vendor that this very report "looked great," after approving ALL the plaintiff’s prior instructions.

Of course the executive office was communicating with the plaintiff: In fact, Chodos was working with the plaintiff and Franz on an almost obsessive basis (as one would expect on an important project), only firing the plaintiff after he confirmed that the annual report was on its way to the printing vendor. The plaintiff also has provided to the Court expert testimony of a publications professional, who agrees that the changes and working interactions on the annual report were typical, the OPPOSITE of a fireable offense. Blaming someone for a project (1) when nothing was late or wrong with it; (2) you fire the person well before it's due; and (3), you never say, write or e-mail "boo" at the time, is crying wolf on three counts.

Click here for the final, beautiful 2004 Annual Report, 99% the same as when the plaintiff was fired for it, with the vendor adding photos that it was hired by the plaintiff to scan. (In some strange legal filings, APS claims that having a vendor scan photos for better quality—and when you don't have the equipment at work—is ALSO a fireable offense.) This is the one annual report, even though APS states on its Website otherwise, that APS does not want you see.

Interestingly, Comptroller Michael Stephens and his team were away for Easter during the review time, and then returned to overhaul every number in the annual report's financials, at the last minute. The plaintiff got those corrections done and allowed Stephens extra time, even though it was at her own time detriment. There are other final drafts with handwriting on them that will be posted shortly. The next posts will include those and describe contractor Elizabeth Higgins’s perjury and what she did after the plaintiff was fired in more detail.