Saturday, June 13, 2015

The Shocking Case Of The Exposed TRWD Male Member Employee Termination Scandal

I tell you, the TRWD really is one of those gifts that just keeps on giving. So many scandals with so many twisted variations.

You must read the strange case of Jacklyn Worfel Mayfield and Lori Beth Mayfield, Appellants, v. Tarrant Regional Water District yourself to get the whole bizarre story.

Short version, a TRWD employee named Jacklyn was subjected to seeing something she did not want to see, subjected to this by her supervisors. Jacklyn's disdain led to a hostile work environment. Jacklyn turned to her mother-in-law, Lori, a fellow TRWD co-worker, for advice and help.

On March 21, 2012, both Jacklyn and Lori were fired by the TRWD. Jacklyn was told she was fired because she had exhausted her paid time off. Lori was given no reason she was fired.

Jacklyn and Lori then sued the TRWD, which claimed it had some sort of sovereign immunity from being sued for the type thing Jacklyn and Lori were suing over.

On June 10, 2015 the Court of Appeals of Texas, El Paso ruled in the TRWD's favor.

Why El Paso? I have no idea?

Below are excerpts from the case, which will make clear to you what Jacklyn's supervisors showed her which set off this latest TRWD scandal.....

During the week of December 19, 2011, Jacklyn was called into an office where several people were laughing and talking, including her supervisors Norman Ashton, Madeline Robson, and Jennifer Poulson.   They told her “you have to see this, come look now.” Jacklyn did so, and was shown a photograph on Ashton's phone of “an extremely hairy and huge penis.” Jacklyn was shocked and horrified, reacted negatively, and was told to leave the room. Jacklyn wanted to report this incident, but as all her supervisors had been participants, she reported it to her engineering department supervisor (and mother-in-law) Lori, who recommended that she not report the incident further and hope it would blow over with time. Lori advised Jacklyn it would “go badly” for her if she reported the incident further. Following the penis picture incident, Jacklyn “experience[d] increased tension in the office.” Her petition and supporting affidavit detail a number of interactions between her supervisors and herself, mainly consisting of challenges to her truthfulness about medical appointments and treatment. She felt that Ashton watched her constantly. She was told to get verification of tests her doctor performed to show she was not lying about treatment. She was told to give her supervisor Poulson detailed reports about her whereabouts when she was away from her desk. Supervisor Ashton apparently thought this reporting was disrespectful to Poulson (why he felt this way was unexplained). No other employee was required to give these detailed reports. Jacklyn again consulted with Lori, who again advised her to comply with the requests and see if the problem would resolve on its own.

Jacklyn was eventually diagnosed with, and received treatment for, a cortisol deficiency. She was released from the hospital and was informed on March 21, 2012 that she had been terminated as she had exhausted her paid time off.

Upon learning of Jacklyn's termination, Lori told her own supervisor that she had personally supervised Jacklyn's notification regarding her hospitalization, and Jacklyn had proof she had contacted a supervisor daily. She told him that the water district “had broken her heart and that her heart would never be with this company again.” Lori was also terminated from the water district, and was never given a reason as to why, even when inquiry was made for purposes of obtaining unemployment insurance.


There you have it, read the entire ruling by going to Jacklyn Worfel Mayfield and Lori Beth Mayfield, Appellants, v. Tarrant Regional Water District and see if the judge's reasoning makes any sense to you.

UPDATE: Elsie Hotpepper has informed me the Tarrant Count Court of Appeals threw out the case, so the plaintiffs took it to El Paso, which also, eventually, basically, threw out the case.

No comments: