Opinion ID: 4037519
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alleged Discriminatory Treatment

Text: Cole’s promotion to sub-foreman marked the start of what he terms a “laundry list of events” amounting to unfair and discriminatory treatment. It began with his own privileges as a sub-foreman. As far as Cole knew, he did not have a budget to order supplies for his assigned work areas, and unlike other foremen, he did not have the authority to place commodity orders. He also believed that friends and family of supervisors in the department were making more money than No. 15-2305 3 they should have. He spoke about those concerns repeatedly with Brian Hart, the assistant superintendent for the department, and with Steven Wilhelm, a Building Services supervisor, and with Jesse Perez, the university’s director of administration and labor relations. In addition to these more general, ongoing complaints, Cole points to some specific events that he argues showed race discrimination. For example, Cole complains that on one occasion, some of his student-athlete workers were required to load scrap metal from areas outside of Cole’s responsibility onto salvage trucks. He was concerned that he might be accused of wrongdoing after overhearing that some of the profits from the scrap metal might be missing. He notified Perez of the incident. He also spoke to Sara Cliffe, who was the assistant director of compliance at the university. In another incident, Cole learned of a substantial paper towel purchase made in his name. Concerned that someone might have been using his name without his permission, he reported the incident to Wilhelm and Hart. They assured him they would take care of it. (As far as we can tell, no further trouble ever resulted from either of these incidents.) On several occasions after 2009, Cole was accused of unauthorized key possession by a number of Building Services supervisors, including Wilhelm, Rhonda Richards, Charlotte Marx, and Tammie Pulak. Cole testified that he never actually had the keys he was accused of possessing, though once he was required to search for a key in the snow when he says Richards knew it was already accounted for. 1 Eventually, Bill 1 Cole testified that Richards also called some of his African-American students “worthless.” We discuss below why this remark, as cruel and ill- 4 No. 15-2305 Nicklas, who was the acting superintendent of the department until he took over as vice president of public safety and community relations in November 2012, advised Cole not to go to key control because Marx had threatened to call the police on him. 2 Cole also testified that he had been told that Pulak instructed the university police to watch him for no legitimate reason. He reported the surveillance to Hart. Afterward he arrived at work one day to find that his door had been kicked in, his office cleaned out, and his supplies placed on a cart, all without his knowledge or approval. Cole complained about the incident to Perez and Cliffe. In August 2012, Cole filed an ethics complaint with the university about an array of alleged unethical practices. According to Cliffe, who conducted the investigation, Cole complained that: • Employees with connections to supervisors were being paid more than the standard salaries. • Employees were supervising their own children. • Supplies had been ordered under Cole’s name without his knowledge or authorization. • Cameras had been recording Cole and his crew. • Police had called on Cole due to past complaints. founded as we assume it was, does not constitute evidence of race discrimination. 2 There is some dispute over Nicklas’s exact title, but it is immaterial. There is no doubt that Nicklas eventually began supervising the university police. No. 15-2305 5 • A retired university employee still possessed and used his university cell phone. • There were recording devices in foremen’s offices. Cliffe investigated, and she substantiated three of Cole’s complaints: supervisors had supervised their own children, employees’ friends and family received special consideration for assignment to special projects, and the retired employee did indeed still have his university cell phone. She found that the rest of Cole’s allegations were unfounded.