EEOC Form 5 i I CHARGE OF Charge Presented To: Agency(ies) Charge No(s): This form is aliected by the Privacy Act of 1974. See enclosed Privacy Act FEPA Statement and other Information before completing this form. EEOC 551-2018-00592 Washington State Human Rights Commission and EEOC State or local Agency. it any Name (indicate Mn Ms.. Mrs.) Home Phone (Incl. Area Code) Date of Birth Cathy Petrie out. Ut- Street Address City, State and ZIP Code Named is the Employer. Labor Organization. Employment Agency. Apprenticeship Committee. or State or Local Government Agency That I Believe Discriminated Against Me or Others. (If more than two. list under PARTICULARS below.) Name No. Employees. Members Phone No. (include Area Code) WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY 500 or More (360) 902-9304 Street Address City. State and ZIP Code Attn: Kintu Nnambi, PO. Box 9046, Olympia, WA 98504 Name No. Employees. Members Phone No. {Include Area Code) Street Address City. State and ZIP Code DISCRIMINATION BASED ON (Check appropnate boxt?esj.) DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE Earliest Latest RACE COLOR SEX RELIGION NATIONAL ORIGIN 01-05-2016 11.10.2017 RETALIATION AGE DISABILITY GENETIC INFORMATION '3 OTHER (Specify) I: CONTINUING ACTION THE PARTICULARS ARE (If additional paper is needed. attach extra sheet(s)): See Attached. I believe I have been discriminated against because of my age, 59, and my sex, female, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. I want this charge filed with both the EEOC and the State or local Agency, if any. I NOTARY When necessary for State and Local Agency Requirements will advise the agencies if I change my address or phone number and I will cooperate fully with them in the processing of my charge in accordance with their procedures. I swear or af?rm that have read the above charge and that it is true to I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct. the best of my knowledge. information and belief. SIC-ENATURE OF 9 PLAINANT ?Lil/7 _8/2 Date Charging Party Signature SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE (month, day. year) . SCHEFTER 8t FRAWLEY WALTER L. IR. Attorneys at Law FRAWLEY . I4 5 College Street SE. Lacey, WA 98503 i 360 491-6666 - 360 456 363?.fo November 21, 2017 US. EEOC 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 RE: Charge of Employment Discrimination Dear sir or madam: and her phone number i Please direct all communications directly to my of?ce. Ms. Petrie would like to ?le a charge against the Washington State Department of Employment Security (hereinafter for age discrimination (Ms. Petrie is 59) and discrimination on the basis of her sex. She is requesting that a right to sue letter be issued immediately. As of April 2017, ESD had 1,431 employees. A. Age Discrimination. Ms. Petrie?s age discrimination claim is based on a pattern of related actions taken by ESD. Ms. Petrie's position as Manager of the Imaging Department was ?eliminated" and she was forced to accept a demotion. Her last da as a manager was Se tember 15 2017. Ms. Petrie was informed by- hwho is th? that the- had the power to create a similar position within the Division. seemed agitated that ?had disclosed her ability to create another manager position that would have the same pay grade as the position that was eliminated. Ms. Petrie, as a manager, had the right to twenty other managerial positions within either through her seniority over the incumbent or because the position(s) were vacant. These positions are referred to as Washington Management Service Positions (WMS) Despite being quali?ed for a number of the positions, ESD refused to transfer Ms. Petrie to a manager position stating that she ?failed to meet minimum quali?cations.? In an attempt to maintain her income level, Ms. Petrie applied and interviewed to be Manager of the UI Tax and Wage Employer Services within ESD. Ms. Petrie is completely quali?ed for that position. In denying her the position, ESD claimed that Ms. Petrie did not have any experience with the New Generation Tax System (NGTS) used by ESD. This issue never came up during the application process, is not listed as a requirement in the job announcement circulated by ESD for the position, and was not discussed in Ms. Petrie's interview. And, in fact, Ms. Petrie has been using NGTS, at a working and managerial level, using the pro ram in 2014. Instead of Ms. Petrie, ESD hired the position. is younger that Ms. Petrie and vastl 55 ex enenced than Ms. Petrie. Prior to being given the ?as a program coordinator and had never served as Director position a manager. Since 2013, ESD has systematically demoted, ?red. or forced to retire every manager within the headquarters of?ce of the Tax and Wage Department of ESD. This totals 4 individuals, all of whom were over 50 years old and most of whom are over 60. None of the managers were placed into other, already available positions at the same pay grade despite their quali?cations. ESD is systematically eliminating or demoting older employees and replacing them with younger employees. The Director at ESD has been encouraging Ms. Petrie to retire.- who Ms. Petrie reported to prior to her position being eliminated, constantly made comments encouraging Ms. Petrie to retire. find a position closer to home (Ms. Petrie was commuting from Auburn to Olympia), or othenivise leave her position. Ms. Petrie?s new manager, went so far as to ask Ms. Petrie when she pl 're. When Ms. etne replied that she planned to was NEHeacted with surprise and expressed how quickly?anted to re Ire ue roblems at ESD and indicated that retirement wou great for both ?nd Ms. Petrie. When the efforts to encourage Ms. Petrie to retire are eliminated her position and forced her to accept a much lower level position. On November 10, 2017, ESD circulated a new organizational chart (dated 11/1/17). Ms. Petrie?s WMS position appWing recreated again to work in a different capacity, reporting directly less than two months after Ms. Petrie was removed from that very same position because it was being "eliminated." 8. Sexual HarassmentIDiscrimination Based on Sex. On January 5. 2016. Ms. Petrie was at a meeting with the Executive Leadership Team, which is comprised of the heads of all the divisions within ESD. The Commissioner of ESD, Dale Peinecke, was present at the meeting. Ms. Petrie and Mr. Peinecke had no prior relationship other than Ms. Petrie knowing that Mr. Peinecke was the leader of ESD. During the meeting. Mr. Peinecke approached Ms. Petrie and. with Ms. Petrie pressed against a ?le cabinet. placed his arm around Ms. Petrie and held her against him while addressing the other members of the Executive Leadership Team. A photograph of the incident was taken and. incredibly, posted on ESD intranet website to be viewed by all ESD employees, which has been enclosed with this letter for reference. This subjected Ms, Petrie to, among other things, insinuations from other ESD employers that she must have a ?special relationship? with Mr. Peinecke. Mr. Peinecke has exhibited the same behavior towards other ESD employees, including two other employees that Ms. Petrie has witnesses Mr. Peinecke inappropriately interact with. All of the employees that have been inappropriately touched by Mr. Peinecke have been female. On another incident, Mr. Peinecke put his arm around a female director while she was giving a presentation to a gathering of managers. This director was visibly uncomfortable. In addition to inappropriately touching female employees. Mr. Peinecke regularly stares at female employees, and particularly their breasts, to the point that employees are extremely uncomfortable. Mr. Peinecke only treats female employees in this manner. Mr. Peinecke's behavior is widely known among the employees at ESD. The female employees, including Ms. Petrie and her peers, have often discussed the need to wear loose ?tting clothing whenever Mr. Peinecke is present. Conservatively, Ms. Petrie believes she has heard these comments from at least ?ve other ESD employees. I would appreciate a right to sue letter being issued at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours. SC EFTER FRAWLEY Enclosure cc: Client SCHEFTER 8c FRAWLEY Attorneys n! [my [415 College Street SE. Lacey. WA 98503 360 49] 6666 36? 456-3632?m? SCHEFTER 8: FRAWLEY L. SCHEFTER, JR. Attorneys at Law 10E 1? RAWLEY 1415 College Street SE, VVA 98503 360-491-6666 . 360-456-3632fax November 21, 2017 US. EEOC 909 First Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104-1061 RE: Charge of Employment Discrimination Dear sir or madam: etrie. Her mailing addr nd her phone number i Please direct a communica Ions Irec yto my office. Ms. Petrie would like to file a charge against the Washington State Department of Employment Security (hereinafter for age discrimination (Ms. Petrie is 59) and discrimination on the basis of her sex. She is requesting that a right to sue letter be issued immediately. As of April 2017, ESD had 1,431 employees. A. Age Discrimination. Ms. Petrie?s age discrimination claim is based on a pattern of related actions taken by ESD. Ms. Petrie?s position as Manager of the Imaging Department was ?eliminated" and she was forced to accept a demotion. Her last da as a manager ed .5 who is the ad the power te a posr Ion w: seeme agitated that had disclosed her ability to create another manager position the wou ave the same pay grade as the position that was eliminated. Ms. Petrie, as a manager, had the right to twenty other managerial positions within either through her seniority over the incumbent or because the position(s) were vacant. These positions are referred to as Washington Management Service Positions (WMS). Despite being qualified for a number of the positions, ESD refused to transfer Ms. Petrie to a manager position stating that she ?failed to meet minimum qualifications.? In an attempt to maintain her income level, Ms. Petrie applied and interviewed to be Manager of the UI Tax and Wage Employer Services within ESD. Ms. Petrie is completely quali?ed for that position. In denying her the position, ESD claimed that Ms. Petrie did not have any experience with the New Generation Tax System (NGTS) used by ESD. This issue never came up during the application process, is not listed as a requirement in the job announcement circulated by ESD for the position, and was not discussed in Ms. Petrie?s interview. And, in fact, Ms. Petrie has been using NGTS, at a working and managerial level, an using the er14. Instead of Ms. for the position. 3 younger that Ms. Petrie, ESD hired Petrie and vastl ess ex errenced than Ms. Petrie. Prior to being given the Director positioniyas a program coordinator and had never served as a manager. Since 2013, ESD has systematically demoted, ?red, or forced to retire every manager within the headquarters of?ce of the Tax and Wage Department of ESD. This totals 4 individuals, all of whom were over 50 years old and most of whom are over. 60. None of the managers were placed into other, already available positions at the same pay grade despite their qualifications. ESD is systematically eliminating or demoting older employees and replacing them with younger employees. The Director at ESD has been encouraging Ms. Petrie to retire. who Ms. Petrie reported to prior to her position being eliminated, constantly made comments encouraging Ms. Petrie to retire, find a position closer to home (Ms. Petrie was commuting from Auburn to Olympia), or otherwise leave her position. Ms. Petrie?s new manager,_ went so far as to ask Ms. Petrie when she pl 're. When Ms. Petrie replied that she planned to was 7Wreacted with surprise and expressed how quicleanted to re rre roblems at ESD and indicated that retirement wou great for both?and Ms. Petrie. When the efforts to encourage Ms. Petrie to retire are eliminated her position and forced her to accept a much lower level position. On November 10, 2017, ESD circulated a new organizational chart (dated 11/1/17). Ms. Petrie?s WMS position apparentl is being recreated again to work in a different capacity, reporting directly to less than two months after Ms. Petrie was removed from that very same posnion because it was being ?eliminated." B. Sexual Harassment/Discrimination Based on Sex. On January 5, 2016, Ms. Petrie was at a meeting with the Executive Leadership Team, which is comprised of the heads of all the divisions within ESD. The Commissioner of ESD, Dale Peinecke, was present at the meeting. Ms. Petrie and Mr. Peinecke had no prior relationship other than Ms. Petrie knowing that Mr. Peinecke was the leader of ESD. During the meeting, Mr. Peinecke approached Ms. Petrie and, with Ms. Petrie pressed against a file cabinet, placed his arm around Ms. Petrie and held her against him while addressing the other members of the Executive Leadership Team. A photograph of the incident was taken and, incredibly, posted on ESD intranet website to be viewed by all ESD employees. which has been enclosed with this letter for reference. This subjected Ms. Petrie to, among other things, insinuations from other ESD employers that she must have a ?special relationship" with Mr. Peinecke. Mr. Peinecke has exhibited the same behavior towards other ESD employees. including two other employees that Ms. Petrie has witnesses Mr. Peinecke inappropriately interact with. All of the employees that have been inappropriately touched by Mr. Peinecke have been female. On another incident, Mr. Peinecke put his arm around a female director while she was giving a presentation to a gathering of managers. This director was visibly uncomfortable. In addition to inappropriately touching female employees, Mr. Peinecke regularly stares at female employees, and particularly their breasts, to the point that employees are extremely uncomfortable. Mr. Peinecke only treats female employees in this manner. Mr. Peinecke's behavior is widely known among the employees at ESD. The female employees, including Ms. Petrie and her peers, have often discussed the need to wear loose fitting clothing whenever Mr. Peinecke is present. Conservatively, Ms. Petrie believes she has heard these comments from at least five other ESD employees. I would appreciate a right to sue letter being issued at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, SC EFTER FRAWLEY Enclosure cc: Client SCHEFTER FRAWLEY Attorneys at Law 1415 College Street SE. Lacey, WA 98503 360?491?6666 -