With His Workers Facing Sexual Assault, This Bad Boss Stood Behind — the Harasser?
When William Fleischer needed a housekeeping manager for Vail Run Resort, a timeshare complex in the ritzy Colorado ski town, he hired Omar Quezada. Things quickly went downhill.
For a solid year, Mr. Quezada made life miserable for the cleaning staff of 15 Mexican immigrants. According to court documents, Mr. Quezada acted as a relentless sexual predator, exposing himself to women staff members, assaulting them, and demanding sex — then retaliating when they refused.
Mr. Quezada was arrested, prohibited from working at the resort, convicted by a local jury, and ordered to register as a sex offender — yet his boss Mr. Fleischer unaccountably supported him along the way, calling him a "good employee," giving him other work, and arranging for payment of some legal fees, according to a government complaint.
Mr. Fleischer even tried to block Mr. Quezada's victims from seeking justice: According to the complaint, he "stormed into" the Vail office of Catholic Charities, which was helping one of his housekeepers to file legal charges, and threatened to have the group's funding cut if its social worker didn't abandon the case.
Finally, Mr. Fleischer's managers fired most of the workers who had complained about Mr. Quezada.
William Fleischer is our new “Bad Boss of the Month.”
In 2015, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against Vail Run Resort and Mr. Fleischer’s Global Hospitality Resorts, Inc. — the management company that employed Mr. Quezada and his victims — alleging a hostile work environment and illegal retaliation. Earlier this year, the defendants agreed to pay the abused workers more than $1 million.
According to the complaint, Mr. Quezada started harassing his cleaning crew almost as soon as he was hired at the 54-unit resort. He began with sexual jokes during breakfast and lunch breaks. But Mr. Quezada didn’t just talk dirty: He wore tight shorts to emphasize his endowment, shared explicit photos on his phone, and told female workers they could trade sex for promotion.
As time went on, according to the complaint, Mr. Quezada began cornering employees in rooms, removing his clothes, and asking for sex. In at least one case, he tried forcibly to undress a housekeeper.
Mr. Quezada also played cruelly on the Mexican workers' fear of immigration authorities: According to a complaint filed by four former employees, he liked to tell his crew that enforcement officials had arrived at Vail Run, at which point the frightened housekeepers would run and hide. He repeatedly told the Mexican employees that they had no rights, that they were ignorant, and that he could have them deported at any time.
One employee, Maribel Soto Perez, had been pregnant when Mr. Quezada started working at Vail Run. Not long after she suffered a miscarriage, she said, Mr. Quezada entered an elevator and began fondling her, telling her he would take away her depression. After Ms. Soto rejected him, he responded by exposing himself.
Ms. Soto and others reported Mr. Quezada’s behavior to Global Hospitality controller Alan McLean, who worked for Mr. Fleischer, but Mr. McLean replied that Mr. Quezada was doing "a fine job," according to the EEOC. Neither Mr. McLean nor Mr. Fleischer investigated the matter, the EEOC said — not even after Ms. Soto went to Vail police and an investigating officer told Mr. Fleischer of his "dismay" that Mr. Quezada remained a supervisor.
Vail Police arrested Mr. Quezada twice. After the second arrest, he received a restraining order that made it impossible for him to work at Vail Run, so he resigned. That same day, according to the EEOC complaint, Mr. Fleischer commiserated with Mr. Quezada, saying he was “likely set up” and that anything he may have done was “consensual.”
Meanwhile Mr. Fleischer kept Mr. Quezada on the payroll at his personal ranch in a nearby town — and he helped Mr. Quezada to hire an attorney who previously worked for him, arranging for payment of $1,700 in legal fees.
At the criminal trial, Mr. McLean, the controller, testified in favor of Mr. Quezada, showing photos to discredit Ms. Soto's story of the elevator assault. But the jury found Mr. Quezada guilty of unlawful sexual conduct and extortion — both felonies — and Mr. Quezada pled guilty to two further charges.
Alas, Mr. Quezada's removal from Vail Run didn't end the housekeepers' woes: Mr. Fleischer quickly hired a new manager, Maria Ledezma, to “clean house” — and at least six of the complaining employees were fired in the following months. Ms. Ledezma and Mr. McLean even called the Vail police to escort Ms. Soto and her husband, also an employee, off the premises after Ms. Soto refused to sign an agreement that prohibited her from talking about Mr. Quezada's actions, according to the EEOC.
When Ms. Soto filed state discrimination charges a few months later, Mr. Fleischer denied that she ever had been harassed and called her a “liar” and “bipolar.” The EEOC soon stepped in to support Ms. Soto and her co-workers, however, and Mr. Fleischer's companies opted to settle the resulting civil lawsuit rather than face a jury.
The consent decree in the case orders Mr. Fleischer's companies to pay $1.02 million to cover damages and attorney fees for eight "aggrieved individuals," including Ms. Soto and her husband. Mr. Fleischer and Mr. McLean each must undergo 12 hours of annual harassment and discrimination training — but Mr. Fleischer was removed from the case as a personal defendant, so that's about it.
Vail Run, meanwhile, need pay just a scant $20,000 of the overall settlement: The remaining $1 million will be paid by insurance.
» Read the EEOC's civil complaint
» Read the housekeepers' complaint in intervention
The Employment Law Group® law firm was not involved in E.E.O.C. v. Vail Run Resort Community Association, Inc. We select "Bad Boss" cases to illustrate the continuing relevance of employee protection laws for our newsletter's audience, which includes attorneys and former TELG clients.
This Bad Boss Discouraged Pregnancy — and Fired Employees Who Were Expecting
Over a period of six months, Bruce Paswall learned that three of his employees were pregnant.
The New York chiropractor was not happy for them.
“Again?” said Dr. Paswall, according to court testimony, upon hearing of the third case — just months after he had fired the first two pregnant women.
And so Melissa Rodriguez became the third victim — called out for her weight gain, given extra work, paid for fewer hours. Dr. Paswall’s office manager even bullied her into an unneeded ultrasound and had the result sent directly to him. Ultimately she too was fired; afterward, she suffered from severe anxiety and her hair started falling out.
“The happiest moment in my life — and they took that away from me,” an emotional Ms. Rodriguez told the court.
Bruce Paswall, owner of G.E.B. Medical Management, Inc. in Manhattan, is our latest “Bad Boss of the Month.”
After a month-long trial, a state jury in Bronx, N.Y., found that Dr. Paswall and G.E.B. had discriminated against all three of the former employees and awarded them a total of more than $6 million in damages. The case is currently in post-trial motions.
Why would a healthcare professional be hostile to pregnancy? According to testimony, the trouble started when another former employee returned to work after having a baby, asked for a raise, and then quit without notice. This infuriated Dr. Paswall, and he wanted to avoid a repeat.
When hiring Marlena Santana as a new administrative assistant, for instance, Dr. Paswall asked about her reproductive plans and advised her not to have children, the jury heard. When she said she probably wouldn’t have kids until her 30s, Dr. Paswall replied, “Smart girl.”
Just a few months later, however, Ms. Santana found herself pregnant. After Dr. Paswall heard the news he stopped talking to her, she testified. Instead of working at the front desk, as before, her hours were sliced and she was ordered to spend most of her day filing in a hot, tight, windowless back room where employees were often bitten by dust mites or mosquitos. Buffeted by bad morning sickness, she would return from throwing up only to be told “it’s not that serious.”
Meanwhile, Yasminda Davis — the second plaintiff — had been hired shortly after Ms. Santana to work as a medical biller. Like Ms. Santana, she said Dr. Paswall quizzed her about marriage and children during the interview process. And when Ms. Santana’s pregnancy became known in the office, Dr. Paswall warned Ms. Davis that she “better not get pregnant like that.”
But Ms. Davis was already feeling unwell; an office gossip speculated about her being pregnant. After she took a couple of sick days, she noticed a growing chill in the office environment: Dr. Paswall stopped being friendly and she felt “watched.”
Things came to a head when Ms. Davis told the office manager she was seeing a doctor about a possible pregnancy: He said “Oh boy” and “stormed off” to Dr. Paswall’s office, she testified. The following week, after her pregnancy was verified, Dr. Paswall told Ms. Davis “it wasn’t working out” and fired her. The very next day, Ms. Santana was fired in a similar way.
Both pregnant women were devastated. Ms. Santana sank into depression; her relationship suffered, and she stopped seeing friends. “I didn’t even want to get out of bed,” she said.
Ms. Davis also had escalating tensions at home, plus severe money troubles: With her husband and daughter, she was evicted from her apartment and — after her son was born and her husband became violent — ended up living in a shelter for battered women.
Finally there was Melissa Rodriguez, the third plaintiff, who was hired as an administrative assistant immediately after Ms. Santana and Ms. Davis were fired. This time Dr. Paswall didn’t ask Ms. Rodriguez about her family plans during the hiring process — but as it happened, she was already six or seven weeks pregnant.
When she began showing a few months later, Ms. Rodriguez testified, Dr. Paswall commented on her large belly and his office manager accused her of having worn a girdle to disguise her pregnancy. He forced her to take an ultrasound to prove she had not been lying “about how far along I was in my pregnancy.”
She wasn’t lying — yet after a few months in which her workload was increased, her pay was cut, and her appearance was criticized, she also was fired.
Ms. Rodriguez told the jury that she tried to hide the firing from her husband, a traumatized veteran, because she felt “ashamed, embarrassed, angry. And I should have been happy. … it was robbed from me.”
She tried to look for work while visibly pregnant, but, she said, “Nobody would hire me.” One month after the baby was born, she and her husband separated. They got back together and the following year she became pregnant again. But this time, she testified, instead of being happy she found herself “scared.”
“I kept on having flashbacks of what happened to me at” Dr. Paswall’s office, she told jurors. “Scared that I would be going through the same thing … the crying, the losing my job, not being able to afford things for my kids, looking for a crib. I don’t want to go through that again.”
With regret, Ms. Rodriguez terminated her pregnancy.
The jury awarded more than $1.5 million in compensation to each of the three women fired by Dr. Paswall, and ordered a further total of $1.5 million in punitive damages.
» Ms. Rodriguez’s testimony about the aftermath of her firing
The Employment Law Group® law firm was not involved in Santana v. G.E.B. Medical Management, Inc. We select “Bad Boss” cases to illustrate the continuing relevance of employee protection laws for our newsletter’s audience, which includes attorneys and former TELG clients.
Unnerved by an Employee’s Use of an IV Drip, This Bad Boss Chose to Eliminate Her Job
Photo Credit: wavebreakmedia
When Linda Dunnagan developed a life-threatening condition after a decade of service in local government, she expected her supervisor to show some concern.
Instead, he showed her the door.
Ms. Dunnagan had been hospitalized for a serious infection, and returned to work with an intravenous drip that she used to administer her own medication. The drip didn’t affect her performance as comptroller of Madison County, Ill., but evidently it unsettled her boss, county treasurer Kurt Prenzler.
After seeing her with the drip, Mr. Prenzler urged Ms. Dunnagan to retire, according to court testimony. When she demurred, he eliminated her job and offered her a choice between demotion and retirement.
Kurt Prenzler is our new “Bad Boss of the Month.”
Ms. Dunnagan retired under protest and filed suit in federal court. In February, a jury awarded her $450,000 in damages, finding that Mr. Prenzler’s actions violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Madison County taxpayers are on the hook for the damages award, and possibly also for Ms. Dunnagan’s legal fees; county lawyers have asked for a reduction in the verdict.
Ms. Dunnagan wasn’t considering retirement in 2012 when she entered hospital for a serious infection. By then she had worked as county comptroller for 10 years, suffering from rheumatoid arthritis but often exceeding expectations despite her impairments. She hoped to work for at least two more years.
Mr. Prenzler had been Ms. Dunnagan’s boss since 2010, when he was first elected as county treasurer; in court documents he said he had been unaware of her disability.
After getting out of the hospital, Ms. Dunnagan returned to work in August 2012. For months afterward she gave herself medication twice daily via an IV drip, as instructed by her doctor, but this didn’t interfere with her duties — a fact acknowledged by Mr. Prenzler in court documents.
Still, Ms. Dunnagan testified, her boss seemed agitated by her use of the drip, which she needed to stave off complications. Mr. Prenzler admitted he was concerned about “risk of contagions” to other employees, even though Ms. Dunnagan’s doctor had cleared her to work without restrictions.
It was around that time, according to Ms. Dunnagan, that she was instructed to train someone else to do her job.
In November Ms. Dunnagan was hospitalized once more but quickly returned — along with her IV drip. This time Mr. Prenzler called a meeting with the county’s human resources director. According to Ms. Dunnagan, Mr. Prenzler pressured her to retire and seek disability benefits.
Mr. Prenzler said he just wanted “to make sure she was aware of the benefits she was entitled to.”
Ms. Dunnagan told others she feared she was being pushed out because of her disability. And indeed, a few weeks later Mr. Prenzler announced that he had decided to eliminate her position and divide her responsibilities among two other people. He offered her a new position that paid almost 40% less; deprived her of an office; and had a lesser title — “Assistant Accounting Manager and Real Estate Manager.”
Mr. Prenzler framed the change as part of a broader cost-cutting campaign. In her lawsuit, however, Ms. Dunnagan argued that was just a pretext for discrimination. She sought damages for her lost income and benefits, including a richer pension she would have received had she retired at a later date, and also for the distress and humiliation she suffered.
The jury found in her favor and awarded Ms. Dunnagan $450,000 — an amount that quickly became a political football, as Mr. Prenzler had earlier refused a settlement offer for far less.
Mr. Prenzler now believes taxpayers should give him a promotion: In November, he’s on the ballot to become chairman of the county board. He told a local newspaper that he disagrees with the verdict and expects the county to pursue an appeal.
“I promised to cut my budget,” he said, “and I did.”
» Ms. Dunnagan’s Complaint
» A local paper’s roundup of Madison County’s legal woes
The Employment Law Group® law firm was not involved in Dunnagan v. Madison County Treasurer’s Office. We select “Bad Boss” cases to illustrate the continuing relevance of employee protection laws for our newsletter’s audience, which includes attorneys and former TELG clients.
This Bad Boss Pitted His Staff Against His Only Black Firefighter
Vernon Creswell was shaking as he made a pot of coffee in the kitchen of his new firehouse.
The emergency responder had just met Greg Mowad, a white battalion chief, and gotten a taste of what he would face as the lone African American in the fire department of Montebello, Calif., a suburb of Los Angeles.
“Hey bud,” said Mr. Mowad, who was relaxing in front of Fox News. “I know you’ll agree with me on this one. There is good blacks and there is bad blacks, and bad blacks are ni**ers.”
As Mr. Creswell later recalled in a deposition, his new superior officer criticized local Black fire chiefs and concluded: “All those Compton ni**ers are cut from the same cloth.” Mr. Creswell had just moved from the nearby Compton fire department, as Mr. Mowad knew.
Greg Mowad is our new “Bad Boss of the Month.”
After enduring several years of tension, Mr. Creswell sued the City of Montebello; a state jury awarded the experienced firefighter-paramedic more than $935,000 in damages for racial harassment and retaliation. In February 2016 the trial judge awarded him a further $1.5 million in legal fees.
Mr. Mowad may have been Mr. Creswell’s boldest antagonist in Montebello, but he was not alone. On Mr. Creswell’s very first day on the job, for instance, battalion chief Rick Lynsky told Mr. Creswell he had opposed his hiring and said, “You’re not going to fit in here — you’re an outsider,” according to testimony.
Other firefighters told Mr. Creswell that Mr. Mowad and fellow supervisors had referred to him as a “ni**er” and other epithets. Accounts vary, but witnesses also said that either Mr. Mowad or Mr. Lynsky — irritated at Mr. Creswell’s use of leave — advised other firefighters to take the Black man “out back” and “beat the crap out of him.”
When Mr. Creswell heard about some of these incidents, he testified in court, he “wanted to throw up.” He went to Montebello’s top fire chief to voice his dismay, but said the chief minimized the threats — his top brass was just “running their mouths,” he said.
Mr. Creswell filed a complaint with California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing, which ultimately led to the lawsuit and jury award. Separately, Montebello launched an investigation that would conclude that Mr. Mowad indeed had used racial slurs in the firehouse. According to a Montebello fire captain, Mr. Mowad was infuriated at this turn of events. “If I go down,” he threatened, “the whole department is going down.” Everyone in the department used the n-word, Mr. Mowad asserted.
Mr. Mowad had a history of seeing his workplace through a racial lens: Earlier in his career he had filed a discrimination case of his own — in nearby Anaheim, Calif., where he was passed over for a promotion that went to a Black man.
Meanwhile Mr. Creswell faced escalating harassment and retaliation, according to testimony. After applying for a position as acting fire captain, for instance, he was given a different test than three non-Black candidates — and told he had failed. He was denied a chance to take refresher courses in strike-team leadership, a prestigious duty he had previously earned. And even though he was a veteran firefighter who enjoyed being a mentor, he was denied the chance to train new firefighters.
Mr. Creswell also was warned not to wear department-approved gear when he exercised at the station: Mr. Lynsky said the standard beanie cap made him look like a “thug,” he said.
At trial, the jury awarded Mr. Creswell $185,150 in economic damages for unlawful retaliation — and $750,000 in non-economic damages for racial harassment. He remains a firefighter in Montebello.
And Mr. Mowad? According to court documents, he was placed on paid leave for more than a year, until shortly before the trial. Montebello was poised to fire him for his use of racial slurs, but eventually decided to allow him to “retire in lieu of termination” — with a pension and no disciplinary notes on his record.
There was no investigative finding about Mr. Lynsky, who also retired from the department.
» Mr. Creswell’s First Amended Complaint
» Jury’s Special Verdict
The Employment Law Group® law firm was not involved in Creswell v. City of Montebello. We select “Bad Boss” cases to illustrate the continuing relevance of employee protection laws for our newsletter’s audience, which includes attorneys and former TELG clients.
Even an Employee’s Child Suffered the Lewdness of This Bad Boss
At any workplace, the boss sets the tone. Jim McKinney was no exception: His Dallas-based medical company was rife with sex talk and catcalling — much of it from himself.
Even by his own crass standard, however, Mr. McKinney hit a new low on Bring Your Child To Work Day. Upon meeting an employee’s teenage daughter, according to a deposition, he sized up the child and said, in front of his team: “Wow — for being 15, your knockers are very big.”
The employee, Bonnie Shaw, was mortified and told Mr. McKinney he was out of line; he just laughed. Ms. Shaw brought her concerns to Human Resources and was fired shortly afterward.
Jim McKinney is our new “Bad Boss of the Month.”
After hearing from Ms. Shaw and others, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit against EmCare, the parent company of Mr. McKinney’s AnesthesiaCare division. At trial a jury awarded $499,000 to the aggrieved former employees; EmCare is fighting the verdict.
The remark about Ms. Shaw’s daughter was far from Mr. McKinney’s only offense. “Every time” her boss was around, Ms. Shaw testified, he had something sexually suggestive to say. Sometimes he’d ask her to lower her neckline to show more cleavage; sometimes he’d ask her to lift up her skirt so he could see her “behind.”
Ms. Shaw said she had complained before to HR, but that nothing had happened. After the incident with her child, which had left her visibly upset and shaking, she complained again. So did co-worker Luke Trahan, who had witnessed Mr. McKinney’s misconduct. Within weeks, both were fired without any indication of poor performance on the job.
Also fired after complaining was Mr. McKinney’s administrative assistant, Gloria Stokes, who had raised concerns about the sexual comments that happened “every time Mr. McKinney was in the office — multiple times a day.”
During her job interview, Ms. Stokes said, Mr. McKinney told her that he hoped she wasn’t the kind of person who would run to HR “every five minutes.” Once hired, she found out why: Mr. McKinney often made lecherous comments, such as saying Ms. Stokes was “busting out” of her shirt. When getting a cold soda, he would tell Ms. Stokes he was “hot and horny.”
Mr. McKinney also talked dirty with men in the office, often in Ms. Stokes’ presence. With one male colleague, she said, “p*nis size came up frequently,” as did wife-swapping braggadocio. In court, Mr. McKinney struggled to explain a series of e-mails that evidently included a photo of a p*nis tattoo: Possibly the words “deep or shallow” referred to an EmCare account, he testified. Asked what “big boys welcome” meant, he had no suggestions.
In court, the EEOC excoriated Mr. McKinney for being more like a “teenage boy going through puberty than a high-level executive in charge of an entire department.” EmCare lawyers defended him as a “character” and a “joker” but not a harasser or retaliator.
Eventually, however, Mr. McKinney resigned from EmCare after a business dinner at which he got drunk, accosted a female employee as “a bitch and a whore,” and (depending on the account) yanked her ponytail. Mr. McKinney claimed he was so inebriated he had no memory of the incident; he was drowning his sorrows after learning that EmCare wanted to name a physician to his position.
For its part, EmCare argued that the dinner was “the first, last, and only time Mr. McKinney crossed over [a] line.” The jury disagreed: It found that Ms. Stokes had been sexually harassed; that Mr. Trahan and Ms. Shaw — the mother whose child Mr. McKinney humiliated — had faced unlawful retaliation; and that EmCare should pay the three former employees a half-million dollars in combined damages.
» EEOC Complaint
» Partial trial transcript: Mr. McKinney’s testimony on “p*nis related” e-mails
The Employment Law Group® law firm was not involved in EEOC v. EmCare, Inc.. We select "Bad Boss" cases to illustrate the continuing relevance of employee protection laws for our newsletter's audience, which includes attorneys and former TELG clients.
