EEOC
Complaint filed against John Pepmeyer
by Norm Winick
the Zephyr, Galesburg, Illinois
In the most specific and damning allegations
yet, three employees of the Knox County StateÕs AttorneyÕs office have lodged a
formal complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Chicago
detailing dozens of incidents of sexual harassment and intimidation they claim
were perpetrated by their boss.
Teresa M. Cummings, Jennifer S. Brown and
Constance M. Griffith all submitted statements claiming that StateÕs Attorney
John Pepmeyer made improper sexual advances and comments from virtually his
first day on the job.
Additionally, one of the complainants allege
that Pepmeyer, after being named but before being sworn in as StateÕs Attorney,
tried to get her to reduce a felony charge to a lesser offense for one of his
clients.
The charges in the EEOC complaint are much
more specific than the vague union grievances which started this debacle.
The EEOC complaint is only the beginning to a
much more lengthy and serious process. The employeesÕ attorney, Barry Barash,
has requested a Òright to sueÓ letter from the EEOC rather than a hearing. If
the Department of Justice approves it, Barash said he intends to move
immediately to file suit in federal court in Peoria. ÒI have not received the
letter as of this writing; however, I expect to receive one in the near future.
With the right to sue letter in hand, my clients will immediately proceed to
file a civil action in federal court against Mr. Pepmeyer and the State of
Illinois. To that latter point, there are a long series of cases which hold
that the StateÕs Attorney is an Illinois constitutional officer and that a
proper party defendant under Title VII is the state, not Knox County. I realize
thatÕs counterintuitive, but thatÕs what the law has been for 150 years.Ó
The litany of charges against Pepmeyer as
detailed in the complaint involve several areas of transgressions. All three
claim that he made casual comments which, when repeated, became offensive and
unbearable. Those included comments about the posterior of a female employee and
then progressed to unwanted touching and more specific remarks. ÒMr. Pepmeyer
walked up behind me as I was sitting at my desk. He put his hand on my back and
began to rub my back and whispered to me, ÔIÕm ready to ride your ass when you
are.Õ I thought, ÔHoly Moses, whatÕs wrong with this guy?ÕÓ
Other alleged incidents include sexually
suggestive gestures: ÒOn or about Friday, March 2, 2007, as [we] were cleaning
the office, [we] asked Mr. Pepmeyer what we should do with an extra table. He
replied by saying that we should attach some straps to it. He then grabbed the
table and made a sexual humping motion.Ó
Each of the incidents described in the
complaint is in a different section with a descriptive title. The above
incident is entitled, Òhumping.Ó
In Òbattery,Ó a complainant alleges that
Pepmeyer went beyond comments and gestures. An employee was locating something
on PepmeyerÕs computer for him. ÒI sat at the front of Mr. PepmeyerÕs desk and
told him which icons to click on. At that moment, Mr. Pepmeyer grabbed the back
of my pants and said, ÔI just want to see whatÕs down there.Õ He pulled the
back of my pants open, touched my lower back, right above my buttocks and
peered down my pants at my buttocks.Ó
ÒI spun around to hit his hand; I stood up
and left his office. At that point, I was angry, upset and frightened.Ó
One complainant alleges that Pepmeyer
repeatedly talked to her about naked ÔBloody MaryÕsÓ or getting naked in
general.
She had recently returned from maternity
leave when Pepmeyer is accused of putting his arms around her, kissing her on
the cheek and saying he loved her. She also says he asked her if her episiotomy
was healed.
Other incidents with names like ÒRide Ôem
CowboyÕ and ÒHair PullingÓ seem to detail a pattern of improper advances and sexual
comments that, if true, are clearly inappropriate in any setting.
Two of the employees claim that they had been
experiencing similar disgusting behavior by Pepmeyer and hadnÕt told each other
about it. When they learned of a pattern, they realized they had to take action
and discussed the matter with their union representatives.
Amidst the alleged misbehaving are reports of
the complainants having emotional difficulties dealing with the situation at
work, crying incessantly, and taking time off to try to deal with it.
Additionally, the complainants argue that
their jobs are not clearly defined and that they are unsure about what they
should or should not be doing. The office manager, Constance Griffith, in
particular, says he has made her job intolerable by not clearly defining her
role or being consistent in assigning her responsibilities.
Pepmeyer has brought in some other workers,
some paid, some volunteer, who, the complainants allege, spend much of their
time watching and documenting their activities. They claim this contributes to
a pattern of intimidation and a hostile work environment.
The hostile work environment claim is also
strengthened by the tension that is apparent in the office yet it is a claim
that might be hardest to prove in court.
Barash responded Òno commentÓ when asked to
provide a law that dealt with hostile work environments. Other sources say that
there is no federal statute that specifically prohibits creating or maintaining
a Òhostile work environment.Ó To be illegal, it must be caused by
discriminatory harassment based on race, color, religion, national origin,
disability, age or sex.
One of the most serious allegations in the
EEOC complaint alleges that Pepmeyer, on his first day as StateÕs Attorney but
before being sworn in on January 12, 2007É
ÒHe came into the office and asked me to get
some of the files on which he was still defense attorney of record as he was
trying to get some of these taken care of before he took office later that same
day.Ó
ÒHe asked me to type an amended information
in a sex caseÉ. He wanted me to type it to reduce it to a battery (misdemeanor)
which would be an offense which would not require registering as a sex
offender.Ó
ÒI knew the felony attorney Mike Kraycinovich
had just recently spoken to the victim and the victimÕs family and they wanted
the É matter to go to trial. They emphatically were opposed to a plea
agreement.Ó
The secretary says she than contacted StateÕs
Attorney Paul Mangieri who backed her up and said that Òthe family deserved justice
and that was what they were going to get.Ó He would not sign an amended
information and said he would tell John in no uncertain terms that this case
would go to trial.
Barash says that the complaint stands on its
own merit and that he will not try the case in the media. ÒIn my opinion, Mr.
Pepmeyer has (1) attempted to try his case in the media; and (2) to distract
attention from his own conduct by pointing his finger at the Sheriff and former
StateÕs Attorney. I think those issues stand on their own; Mr. Pepmeyer has
plenty of grief on his own plate with which to deal.Ó
The statements in the complaint are made Òunder
oathÓ and have been forwarded to the AttorneyÕs Registration and Discipline
Commission, the FBI and the Illinois Attorney GeneralÕs office.
Barash says that a federal
courtroom is the next likely venue for action in the matter. ÒIÕm advised there
will not be an EEOC hearing and that the files have already been sent to the
Department of Justice in Washington.Ó They are the ones who issue Òright to sueÓ
letters and a lawsuit cannot proceed without it. With the StateÕs Attorney
being a state employee, the Attorney General would likely have to appoint a
special prosecutor to avoid a conflict in the matter if it gets to that point.
4/19/07