King v. RothMOTION for Summary Judgment with Brief In SupportN.D. Ga.February 7, 2017IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION DR. KAREN KING : : Plaintiff, : : Civil Action No. v. : : 1:15-CV-02306-SCJ-JKL TIMOTHY O. HORNE, Acting : Administrator of General Services : Administration, : : Defendant. : DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT COMES NOW Timothy O. Horne, Acting Administrator of the General Services Administration (“Defendant” or the “GSA”),1 by and through counsel, and, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 56.1, moves for summary judgment on the grounds that there are no genuine issues as to any material fact, and GSA is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 1 Timothy O. Horne is now the Acting Administrator of General Services Administration. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Timothy O. Horne should be substituted for Administrator Denise Roth as the defendant in this suit. Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52 Filed 02/07/17 Page 1 of 16 -2- In support of this Motion, GSA relies on the attached Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and the Exhibits attached thereto, as well as Defendant’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. This 7th day of February, 2017. Respectfully submitted, JOHN A. HORN UNITED STATES ATTORNEY /s/ Gabriel A. Mendel Gabriel A. Mendel Assistant U.S. Attorney Georgia Bar No. 169098 600 United States Courthouse 75 Ted Turner Drive, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Voice: (404) 581-6000 Facsimile: (404) 581-4667 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52 Filed 02/07/17 Page 2 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION DR. KAREN KING : : Plaintiff, : : Civil Action No. v. : : 1:15-CV-02306-SCJ- JKL TIMOTHY O. HORNE, Acting : Administrator of General Services : Administration, : : Defendant. : DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Timothy O. Horne, Acting Administrator of the General Services Administration (“Defendant” or the “GSA”), has moved for summary judgment. In support of Defendant’s Motion, he hereby files his Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, showing the Court as follows: INTRODUCTION Counts II and III of Plaintiff’s Complaint allege that she was discriminated against on the basis of race and retaliated against in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that after filing and then withdrawing an EEO Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52 Filed 02/07/17 Page 3 of 16 -4- complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and age in her non- selection for the GS-14 position, Plaintiff was selected for a new section chief position but was assigned to a position in Branch D of the GSA Region 4 Leasing Division rather than Branch B in which she was already working. Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 11-17. Plaintiff alleges this assignment to Branch D was discrimination on the basis of her race and retaliation for prior EEO activity. These are the only remaining claims set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint.2 STATEMENT OF FACTS Defendant incorporates herein by reference his Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“SOF”), which was filed contemporaneously with this Memorandum. ARGUMENT AND CITATION TO AUTHORITY A. Standard of review. Defendant is entitled to summary judgment if “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires the entry of summary judgment against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of every element essential to 2 Plaintiff’s other claims were dismissed by this Court. See Doc. 16; Doc. 18. Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52 Filed 02/07/17 Page 4 of 16 -5- that party’s case on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The existence of some factual dispute between the parties will not defeat summary judgment where there is no genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). Though the responsibility for asserting the basis of the motion rests initially with the moving party, the movant is not required to negate his opponent’s claim. The movant’s burden may be discharged by showing there is an absence of evidence to support the non-movant’s case. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-25; McCaleb v. A.O. Smith Corp., 200 F.3d 747, 752 (11th Cir. 2000). B. Standard of proof for Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff can prove her case by offering either direct or circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence of discrimination or retaliation would be evidence which, if believed, would prove the existence of a fact without inference or presumption. Castle v. Sangamo Weston, Inc., 837 F.2d 1550, 1558 n.13 (11th Cir. 1988). Since Plaintiff cannot offer any direct evidence of discrimination or retaliation, her claims must rely on circumstantial evidence, and are thus subject to the burden shifting analysis set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Under the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting scheme, if a plaintiff proves a prima facie case, the burden shifts to defendant to articulate a legitimate, Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52 Filed 02/07/17 Page 5 of 16 -6- nondiscriminatory reason for the employment decision. Elrod v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 939 F.2d 1466, 1470 (11th Cir. 1991); see Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981). A defendant’s burden in articulating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action is exceedingly light. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248; Cooper v. S. Co., 390 F.3d 695, 725 (11th Cir. 2004). Importantly, this burden is one of production - not proof or persuasion (Perryman v. Johnson Prods. Co., 698 F.2d 1138, 1142 (11th Cir. 1983)), and the proffered justification need only be one that “might motivate a reasonable employer.” Chapman v. A.I. Transp., 229 F.3d 1012, 1031 (11th Cir. 2000). Once a defendant meets his burden of production, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to present “significantly probative evidence to prove defendant’s articulated reason is merely pretext for intentional discrimination.” Elrod, 939 F.2d at 1470. A plaintiff can prove pretext by showing a defendant’s reason is “unworthy of credence or by showing that the protected characteristic more than likely motivated” defendant. Id. If a plaintiff chooses to establish pretext by showing an employer’s proffered reason is unworthy of credence, he must attack that reason “head on and rebut it.” Chapman, 229 F.3d at 1030. “Mere general allegations which do not reveal detailed and precise facts will not prevent the award of summary judgment.” Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dunmar Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52 Filed 02/07/17 Page 6 of 16 -7- Corp., 43 F.3d 587, 592 (11th Cir. 1995). At this stage, a plaintiff’s obligation “merges with the ultimate burden of persuading the court that he has been the victim of intentional discrimination.” Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256. C. Defendant’s legitimate reasons for Plaintiff’s assignment to Branch D. Even if the Court does find that Plaintiff has established a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation, GSA has satisfied its burden of proffering legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for Defendant’s conduct. The employer’s burden is one of production, not proof, and is therefore exceedingly light. Jones v. Gerwins, 874 F.2d 1534, 1540 (11th Cir. 1989). Title VII “was not intended to ‘diminish traditional management prerogatives.’” Burdine, 450 U.S. at 259. Courts are “not in the business of adjudging whether employment decisions are prudent or fair. Instead, the sole concern is whether unlawful discriminatory animus motivates a challenged employment decision.” Damon v. Fleming Supermarkets of Florida, Inc., 196 F.3d 1354, 1361 (11th Cir. 1999). As the Eleventh Circuit explained, Federal courts ‘do not sit as a super-personnel department that reexamines an entity’s business decisions. No matter how medieval a firm’s practices, no matter how high- handed its decisional process, no matter how mistaken the firm’s managers, the ADEA does not interfere. Rather, our inquiry is limited to whether the employer gave an honest explanation of its behavior.’ Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52 Filed 02/07/17 Page 7 of 16 -8- Elrod, 939 F.2d at 1470. In analyzing cases like the instant case, the Eleventh Circuit has cautioned that “we must be careful not to allow Title VII plaintiffs simply to litigate whether they are, in fact, good employees.” Alvarez v. Royal Atl. Developers, Inc., 610 F.3d 1253, 1266 (11th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation and citation omitted). The issue, thus, is not the “wisdom or accuracy” of the employer’s decision, but, rather, “our sole concern is whether unlawful discriminatory animus motivated the decision.” Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). Defendant has provided “an honest explanation of its behavior,” Elrod, 939 F.2d at 1470, that is wholly unrelated to any unlawful or discriminatory animus. See Alvarez, 610 F.3d at 1266. As set forth in Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed Materials Facts, in 2011, GSA restructured the supervisory hierarchy of its leasing branches by creating the position of section chief, with two section chiefs to be assigned to each of the four operational branches, for a total of eight positions. EEOC Hearing at 113-114, 207, 220- 222. Plaintiff applied for and was selected as a section chief in a competitive process because of her leadership qualities, technical skills, and experience to perform the duties. Id. at 45-46; 113-114; EEO Investigative Affidavit of Ellen Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52 Filed 02/07/17 Page 8 of 16 -9- Seiler (“Seiler Aff.”) at 4. However, only five of the eight section chief positions were filled, and none of the five individuals worked in Branch D. EEOC Hearing at 114-117; 224-229, 270. GSA determined that one of the newly selected section chiefs should be assigned to fill the void in Branch D because: 1) it was expected to take an unknown amount of time to fill the remaining permanent section chief positions; and 2) it was critical to have at least one permanent section chief with supervisory capability in each operational branch (unlike a detailed or acting section chief who could not exercise supervisory responsibility). EEOC Hearing at 204- 207, 237, 253-254; Seiler Aff. at 4. Since Branch B had two individuals selected to be section chiefs, transferring one of these section chiefs to Branch D would ensure each branch had at least permanent one section chief.3 Id. at 229-232, 269-270; Seiler Aff. at 4. The two individuals in Branch B selected to be section chief were Plaintiff and Maria Dent (“Ms. Dent”), a Hispanic woman who had previously also worked in Branch C. EEOC Hearing at 132, 229, 309. 3 The two individuals in Branch A selected to be section chiefs were not considered for assignment to Branch D because, unlike the other three branches, Branch A is located in Sunrise, Florida, and those two individuals only applied for positions in Fort Lauderdale/Sunrise, Florida. EEOC Hearing at 114, 117, 228. And, of course, moving the sole section chief in Branch C would have simply created a similar void in Branch C. Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52 Filed 02/07/17 Page 9 of 16 -10- The determination as to which individual would be assigned to Branch D was within the authority of David Hofstetter, the Director of the leasing division, who relied on Eileen Seiler, the Deputy Director of the leasing division. Id. at 111, 192, 199, 204, 234, 267-268; Hofstetter Aff. at 7; Seiler Aff. at 4. Ms. Seiler sought the recommendation of Mr. Mowry in his role as Branch B chief and supervisor of both Plaintiff and Ms. Dent. EEOC Hearing at 201-202, 229-230; Seiler Aff. at 5. Mr. Mowry viewed Plaintiff, who served as one of his team leaders in Branch B, as a great employee and gave her the highest possible performance rating; Mr. Mowry did not want to give up either Plaintiff or Ms. Dent and felt they were both critical to the success of his branch. EEOC Hearing at 302-305. Mr. Mowry recommended that Plaintiff, rather than Ms. Dent, be assigned to Branch D because: 1) he believed Plaintiff was an excellent mentor of junior employees and Branch D had a large group of newer, younger employees in need of a mentor; 2) Plaintiff had the experience, technical skills, and leadership ability to succeed (for which she had been recognized by the agency in the past); and 3) the Branch B team which Plaintiff previously led and would leave behind would better be able to perform without a permanent section chief. Id. at 105-107, 231, 236, 269, 305-306. By contrast, Mr. Mowry recommended keeping Ms. Dent in Branch B because: 1) he had a slightly closer working relationship with Ms. Dent; 2) Ms. Dent Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52 Filed 02/07/17 Page 10 of 16 -11- had just begun a very large project she was managing; and 3) Ms. Dent was in need of further mentoring on her management and leadership skills (she was viewed as being too aggressive and in need of more political savvy and a softer way to teach and mentor her employees). Id. at 231-232, 305. Neither Plaintiff’s race nor prior EEO activity was discussed or considered in the determination of which section chief to assign to Branch D. Id. at 209-210, 233- 234, 306-307; Hofstetter Aff. at 8-9; Seiler Aff. at 5. The undisputed evidence thus demonstrates that Plaintiff was assigned to Branch D because the agency desired a permanent section chief assigned to Branch D and Plaintiff was well-qualified to fill that role. There is no evidence that Defendant’s employment actions were taken with any unlawful “discriminatory animus” or retaliation. Damon, 196 F.3d at 1361; see Alvarez, 610 F.3d at 1266. These articulated, legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons justify Defendant’s actions, and Plaintiff’s claim therefore fails. D. Plaintiff cannot establish pretext. Defendant has articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for Plaintiff’s assignment as section chief in Branch D. Thus, in order to withstand summary judgment, Plaintiff must present “evidence sufficient to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to the truth or falsity of [Defendant’s] legitimate, Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52 Filed 02/07/17 Page 11 of 16 -12- nondiscriminatory reasons.” Evans v. McClain of Ga., Inc., 131 F.3d 957, 964-65 (11th Cir. 1997); see Hairston v. Gainesville Sun Publ’g Co., 9 F.3d 913, 921 (11th Cir. 1993). A plaintiff’s evidence of pretext “must reveal such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies or contradictions in the employer’s proffered legitimate reasons for its actions that a reasonable factfinder could find them unworthy of credence.” Vessels v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 408 F.3d 763, 771 (11th Cir. 2005); see Bentley v. Orange Cnty., Fla., 2011 WL 5119522, at *3 (11th Cir. Oct. 28, 2011) (“even if we assume arguendo that [plaintiff] made out a prima facie claim, she still did not show that [defendant’s] legitimate reasons for firing her—fraud and dishonesty and violating the leave policy—were a pretext for the unlawful discrimination.”). Establishing pretext, without more, is insufficient to support a finding of discrimination, as a plaintiff must show she suffered intentional discrimination and that the employer’s proffered “reasons are a pretext for discrimination.” Schaaf v. Smithkline Beecham Corp., 602 F.3d 1236, 1244 n3 (11th Cir. 2010) (emphasis in original). As long as the employer’s proffered reasons are reasons that might motivate a reasonable employer, an employee must meet those reasons head on and rebut them. Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012, 1030 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc). A Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52 Filed 02/07/17 Page 12 of 16 -13- mere “scintilla” of evidence in favor of the non-moving party, or evidence that is merely colorable or not significantly probative is not enough. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. Plaintiff’s conjecture that she was discriminated against or retaliated against for engaging in prior protected activity creates nothing but a “scintilla” of evidence in Plaintiff’s favor. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. These contentions do not reveal “weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies or contradictions in the employer’s proffered legitimate reasons” sufficient to conclude that the legitimate reasons offered by Defendant were not Defendant’s true reasons and, instead, were a pretext for discrimination. See Vessels, 408 F.3d at 771. Plaintiff cannot overcome the fact that the undisputed evidence demonstrates that Plaintiff was selected for assignment to Branch D based on legitimate business reasons within management’s discretion, largely based on management’s positive assessment of Plaintiff’s qualities and the expectation she would perform well in her new role. By contrast, Plaintiff relies on nothing more than her subjective belief that she was discriminated or retaliated against when she was assigned to Branch D. See Alvarez, 610 F.3d at 1266 (“The inquiry into pretext centers on the employer’s beliefs, not the employee’s beliefs and, to be blunt about it, not on reality as it exists Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52 Filed 02/07/17 Page 13 of 16 -14- outside of the decision maker’s head.”). Based on the record as a whole, there is insufficient evidence of pretext to withstand summary judgment. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully submits that summary judgment should be granted in Defendant’s favor. Respectfully submitted, JOHN HORN UNITED STATES ATTORNEY /s/ Gabriel A. Mendel Gabriel A. Mendel Assistant U.S. Attorney Georgia Bar No. 169098 600 United States Courthouse 75 Ted Turner Drive, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Voice: (404) 581-6000 Facsimile: (404) 581-4667 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52 Filed 02/07/17 Page 14 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION DR. KAREN KING : : Plaintiff, : : Civil Action No. v. : : 1:15-CV-02306-SCJ-JKL TIMOTHY O. HORNE, Acting : Administrator of General Services : Administration, : : Defendant. : CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I certify that the documents to which this certificate is attached have been prepared with one of the font and point selections approved by the Court in LR 5.1B for documents prepared by computer. s/ Gabriel A. Mendel Gabriel A. Mendel Assistant U.S. Attorney Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52 Filed 02/07/17 Page 15 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION DR. KAREN KING : : Plaintiff, : : Civil Action No. v. : : 1:15-CV-02306-SCJ-JKL TIMOTHY O. HORNE, Acting : Administrator of General Services : Administration, : : Defendant. : CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I electronically filed the within and foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system. This 7th day of February, 2017. s/ Gabriel A. Mendel Gabriel A. Mendel Assistant U.S. Attorney Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52 Filed 02/07/17 Page 16 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION DR. KAREN KING : : Plaintiff, : : Civil Action No. v. : : 1:15-CV-02306-SCJ-JKL TIMOTHY O. HORNE, Acting : Administrator of General Services : Administration : : Defendant. : STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT COMES NOW Timothy O. Horne, Acting Administrator of the General Services Administration (“Defendant” or the “GSA”) and, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 56.1, hereby files his Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, showing the Court as follows: 1. Plaintiff began working with the GSA in 2001. See EEOC Hearing No. 410-2014-0056X, January 30, 2015 (“EEOC Hearing”) at 23-24;1 Amended Complaint, ¶ 11. 2. Plaintiff was initially employed through the Outstanding Scholar 1 A true and correct copy of the EEOC Hearing is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 1 of 8 2 Program, eventually rising to a GS-13 position as realty specialist before being promoted to the position of team leader. EEOC Hearing at 24. 3. Plaintiff worked within Branch B of the Public Buildings Service leasing division of GSA, which had four operational branches and one support branch. EEOC Hearing at 193; Amended Complaint, ¶ 12. 4. The four operational branches engaged in identical operations with different geographic/territorial responsibilities, but Branch A was located in Florida while Branches B, C, and D were co-located in the same office, on the same floor, in Atlanta, Georgia. EEOC Hearing at 32-33, 114-117. 5. Plaintiff reported to her branch chief; the branch chief reported to the deputy director of the leasing division; the deputy director of the leasing division reported to the director of the leasing division. EEO Investigative Affidavit of David Hofstetter (“Hofstetter Aff.”) at 5.2 6. In April 2011, Plaintiff applied to become the branch chief of Branch B, a GS-14 position titled Supervisory Realty Specialist. EEOC Hearing at 36; Amended Complaint, ¶ 14. 7. Plaintiff was not selected for this position; Scott Mowry (“Mr. 2 A true and correct copy of the EEO Investigative Affidavit of David Hofstetter is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 2 of 8 3 Mowry”), was selected. EEOC Hearing at 36, 195-196; Amended Complaint, ¶ 15. 8. Plaintiff was not selected for the GS-14 position because, under the evaluation plan established for that position, Plaintiff was ranked eighth out of thirteen candidates; Mr. Mowry was ranked first and was selected. Hofstetter Aff. at 5. 9. Plaintiff filed an EEO complaint for her non-selection alleging race, sex, and age discrimination, but withdrew this complaint. Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 16-17. 10. In 2011, GSA restructured the supervisory hierarchy of its leasing branches by creating the position of section chief, with two section chiefs to be assigned to each of the four operational branches, for a total of eight positions; unlike team leaders, section chiefs would be part of the management team with supervisory responsibility for rating employees’ performance in order to lower the number of employees for whom each supervisor was responsible. EEOC Hearing at 113-114, 207, 220- 222. 11. Plaintiff applied for and was selected as a section chief in a competitive process. Id. at 45-46; 113-114. 12. Plaintiff was selected for the section chief position because of her leadership qualities, technical skills, and experience to perform the duties. EEO Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 3 of 8 4 Investigative Affidavit of Ellen Seiler (“Seiler Aff.”) at 4.3 13. After announcing the position and completing the section chief selection process, only five of the eight positions were filled: two individuals from Branch A in Florida, and three from the Atlanta branches: two from Branch B, one from Branch C, and none from Branch D. EEOC Hearing at 114-117; 224-229, 270. 14. GSA determined that for business reasons, it was critical to have at least one permanent section chief in each operational branch, which, amongst other things, would allow for a sharing of supervisory responsibilities between the branch chief and section chief; without a section chief, the branch chief alone had to supervise 18-20 people. Id. at 204-207, 253-254; Seiler Aff. at 4. 15. GSA decided that one of the newly selected section chiefs should be assigned to Branch D because: 1) it was expected to take an unknown amount of time to fill the remaining permanent section chief positions through a second selection process (as of 2015 GSA had still yet to fill all eight positions); and 2) it was critical to have at least one permanent section chief with supervisory capability in each operational branch (unlike a temporary, detailed, or acting section chief who could not exercise supervisory responsibility). EEOC Hearing at 204-207, 237, 253- 3 A true and correct copy of the EEO Investigative Affidavit of Ellen Seiler is attached hereto as Exhibit C. Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 4 of 8 5 254; Seiler Aff. at 4. 16. The two individuals in Branch A selected to be section chiefs were not considered for assignment to Branch D because, unlike the other three branches, Branch A is located in Sunrise, Florida, and those two individuals only applied for positions in Fort Lauderdale/Sunrise, Florida. EEOC Hearing at 114, 117, 228. 17. Since Branch B had two individuals selected to be section chiefs, transferring one of these section chiefs to Branch D would ensure each branch had at least permanent one section chief. Id. at 229-232, 269-270; Seiler Aff. at 4. 18. The two individuals in Branch B selected to be section chief were Plaintiff and Maria Dent (“Ms. Dent”), a Hispanic woman who had previously also worked in Branch C. EEOC Hearing at 132, 229, 309. 19. The determination as to which individual would be assigned to Branch D was within the authority of David Hofstetter (“Mr. Hoffstetter)”, the Director of the leasing division, a decision made based on concurrence with the recommendation of Eileen Seiler (“Ms. Seiler”), the Deputy Director of the leasing division. Id. at 111, 192, 199, 204, 234, 267-268; Hofstetter Aff. at 7; Seiler Aff. at 4. 20. Ms. Seiler sought the recommendation of Mr. Mowry in his role as Branch B chief and thus the immediate supervisor of both Plaintiff and Ms. Dent. EEOC Hearing at 201-202, 229-230; Seiler Aff. at 5. Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 5 of 8 6 21. Mr. Mowry viewed Plaintiff, who served as one of his team leaders in Branch B, as a great employee and gave her the highest possible performance rating; Mr. Mowry did not want to give up either Plaintiff or Ms. Dent and felt they were both critical to the success of his branch. EEOC Hearing at 302-305. 22. Mr. Mowry recommended that Plaintiff be assigned to Branch D because: 1) he believed Plaintiff was an excellent mentor of junior employees and Branch D had a large group of newer, younger employees in need of a mentor; 2) Plaintiff had the experience, technical skills, and leadership ability to succeed (for which she had been recognized by the agency in the past); and 3) the Branch B team which Plaintiff previously led and would leave behind would better be able to perform without a permanent section chief. Id. at 105-107, 231, 236, 269, 305-306. 23. By contrast, Mr. Mowry recommended keeping Ms. Dent in Branch B because: 1) he had a slightly closer working relationship with Ms. Dent; 2) Ms. Dent had just begun a very large project she was managing; and 3) Ms. Dent was in need of further mentoring on her management and leadership skills (she was viewed as being too aggressive and in need of more political savvy and a softer way to teach and mentor her employees). Id. at 231-232, 305. 24. LaSonya Glover, the Branch D branch chief, indicated she was willing to accept either Plaintiff or Ms. Dent. Id. at 231. Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 6 of 8 7 25. Mr. Seiler’s selection of Plaintiff for assignment to Branch D was based on management discretion to act in the interest of the agency’s business needs and in light of Plaintiff’s leadership skills and her technical knowledge to guide and direct and mentor a team of leasing specialists and lease contracting officers. EEOC Hearing at 201, 231, 236, 255; Seiler Aff. at 7. 26. In light of the recommendation from Ms. Seiler, Mr. Hofstetter concurred that Plaintiff’s assignment to Branch D was for the betterment of the agency and for Plaintiff’s professional development. EEOC Hearing at 234; Hofstetter Aff. at 7. 27. After Plaintiff’s assignment as Branch D section chief, the overall performance of her Branch D section improved, and Plaintiff’s management abilities and qualities contributed to that improvement. EEOC Hearing at 182, 293-294. 28. Neither Plaintiff’s race nor prior EEO activity was discussed or considered in the determination of which section chief to assign to Branch D. Id. at 209-210, 233-234, 306-307; Hofstetter Aff. at 8-9; Seiler Aff. at 5. 29. Neither Plaintiff’s race nor prior EEO activity was mentioned to Plaintiff as the basis for her assignment to Branch D. EEOC Hearing at 132. 30. Plaintiff has no evidence that her race or prior EEO activity was a factor in her assignment to Branch D; instead, her contention that she was discriminated Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 7 of 8 8 against on the basis of race and/or retaliation is based solely on the fact that she is African-American, had prior EEO activity, and was the section chief chosen for assignment to a different branch. Id. at 132, 137-138. Respectfully submitted, JOHN A. HORN UNITED STATES ATTORNEY s/ Gabriel A. Mendel Gabriel A. Mendel Assistant United States Attorney Georgia Bar No. 169098 600 United States Courthouse 75 Ted Turner Drive, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Voice: (404) 581-6000 Facsimile: (404) 581-4667 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-1 Filed 02/07/17 Page 8 of 8 In The Matter Of: King v. Tangherlini Proceedings Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. Court Reporters & Videoconferencing 11475 West Rd, Roswell, GA 30075 (770) 645-6111 or toll-free (888) 355-6111 Min-U-Script® with Word Index Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 1 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ATLANTA DISTRICT OFFICE KAREN KING, ) EEOC HEARING NUMBER ) 410-2014-0056X Complainant, ) ) vs. ) ) DAN M. TANGHERLINI, ) ADMINISTRATOR, ) AGENCY NUMBER GENERAL SERVICES ) 12-R04-PBS-KMK-01 ADMINISTRATION, ) ) Agency. ) ___________________________) The above-entitled case came on for hearing before the Honorable Timothy G. Hagan and was reported by Thomas R. Brezina, Certified Court Reporter, at 77 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia, on the 30th day of January, 2015, commencing at the hour of 9:06 a.m. * * * D'AMICO GERSHWIN, INC. Court Reporters & Videoconferencing 11475 West Road Roswell, Georgia 30075 (770) 645-6111 www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com Page 2 1 INDEX TO EXAMINATIONS 2 KAREN KING 3 Examination by Ms. King 21 Examination by Mr. Chriss 78 4 Further Examination by Ms. King 163 Further Examination by Mr. Chriss 182 5 6 ELLEN SEILER 7 Examination by Ms. King 192 Examination by Mr. Chriss 217 8 Further Examination by Ms. King 252 Further Examination by Mr. Chriss 261 9 Further Examination by Ms. King 264 10 11 LASONYA GLOVER 12 Examination by Ms. King 265 Examination by Mr. Chriss 281 13 Further Examination by Ms. King 296 14 15 SCOTT MOWRY (via videoteleconference) 16 Examination by Ms. King 301 Examination by Mr. Chriss 306 17 18 MARIA DENT 19 Examination by Ms. King 309 Examination by Mr. Chriss 310 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 3 1 INDEX TO EXHIBITS 2 Complainant's Marked/First Exhibit Number Description Identified Admit 3 C-1 Curriculum Vitae 22 23 4 of Dr. Karen King 5 C-2 Series of 25 28 Notifications of 6 Personnel Actions 7 C-3 Series of 33 35 performance evaluations 8 from 2006 through 2011 9 C-4 Series of 50 -- performance evaluations 10 from Branch D 11 C-5 Grievance dtd 54 58 December 4, 2012 12 C-6 Employee Performance 58 60 13 Review dtd October 27, 2012 14 C-7 Series of e-mails 62 67 15 from Karen King 16 C-8 EEO Investigative 68 69 Affidavit 17 C-9 Series of medical 69 -- 18 records from DeKalb Medical Physicians 19 Group 20 C-10 Memorandum for Karen 75 76 King dtd December 11, 21 2014, from LaSonya A. Glover 22 C-11 Document listing 76 78 23 cash awards 24 25 Page 4 1 INDEX TO EXHIBITS 2 Complainant's Marked/First Exhibit Number Description Identified Admit 3 C-12 E-mail string dtd 163 164 4 April 8, 2013, from Kathy Day 5 C-13 Notification of 198 200 6 Personnel Action dtd 11-06-2011 7 C-14 EEO Investigative 202 203 8 Affidavit of Ellen M. Seiler 9 C-15 E-mail dtd 205 -- 10 January 11, 2012, from Miranda Head 11 C-16 E-mail string from 211 -- 12 Kameshia Freeman dtd November 14, 2011 13 C-17 Document entitled, 213 214 14 "GSA Associate Performance Plan and Appraisal System" 15 C-18 E-mail string dtd 215 217 16 March 6, 2012, from Scott Mowry 17 C-19 E-mail string dtd 296 299 18 January 13, 2015, from Jennifer Stiggers 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (1) Pages 2 - 4 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 2 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 5 1 INDEX TO EXHIBITS Agency's Marked/First 2 Exhibit Number Description Identified Admit 3 A-1 Series of job 87 -- announcements and 4 job descriptions 5 A-2 Organizational 100 102 chart dtd 6 11/03/2012 7 A-3 E-mail dtd 108 109 January 11, 2012, 8 from Miranda Head 9 A-4 Series of e-mails 219 221 entitled "READ 10 Realignment - Draft" 11 A-5 E-mail chain dtd 221 221 January 30, 2012 12 A-6 Memorandum dtd October 224 225 13 October 18, 2011, from Ellen Seiler 14 A-7 E-mail chain dtd 237 240 15 November 3, 2011, from Latonji Lindsey 16 A-8 Organizational Chart 240 241 17 dtd 05/27/10 18 A-9 Memorandum for Karen 243 247 M. King from Ellen 19 Seiler dtd January 25, 2013 20 A-10 Spreadsheet entitled, 282 -- 21 "Associate performance Planning Worksheet - 22 Non-SES Management and Supervisory Associates" 23 24 25 Page 6 1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL: 2 On behalf of the Complainant: 3 SHANIA CHERELL KING Attorney at Law 4 2180 Satellite Boulevard Suite 400 5 Duluth, Georgia 30097 (678) 793-7975 6 shaniacking@gmail.com 7 8 On behalf of the Agency: 9 JARON E. CHRISS Attorney at Law 10 Assistant Regional Counsel Office of Regional Counsel (4L) 11 U.S. General Services Administration GSA Region 4 12 Southeast Sunbelt Region 77 Forsyth Street, SW 13 Suite 600 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 14 (404) 331-7910 fax: (404) 331-1231 15 jaron.chriss@gsa.gov 16 Also Present: Karen King, Ph.D. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 7 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 THE COURT: Let's go on record in the 3 case of Karen King versus the General Services 4 Administration. The complainant is represented 5 by Miss Shania Cherell King. The agency is 6 represented by Mr. Jaron Chriss. I believe the 7 complainant is, in fact, a Ph.D and should be 8 referred to as Dr. King. Would that be 9 correct? 10 DR. KING: That's fine. 11 THE COURT: Okay. 12 THE REPORTER: I'm sorry, ma'am. I 13 couldn't -- 14 DR. KING: Yeah, I do have a Ph.D. It's 15 Dr. King, actually. 16 THE COURT: Then that's the way we'll 17 refer to you, which will help distinguish you 18 from the attorney, although perhaps get you 19 confused with the namesake of the building that 20 we're in. 21 DR. KING: I didn't realize that. Yes, 22 that's true. And I live on Kingstream Way, so 23 that's another King. 24 THE COURT: Okay. Let me ask this of the 25 complainant: Who do you intend to call as Page 8 1 witnesses in this case? 2 MS. KING: I intend to call Dr. Karen 3 King, Ellen Seiler, LaSonya Glover, Felicia 4 Walker, Maria Dent, and Scott Mowry. 5 THE COURT: Are those all witness as to 6 liability? 7 MS. KING: They go towards adverse 8 action. Some of them are liability, like 9 LaSonya Glover. 10 THE COURT: Okay. Are any of these that 11 are exclusively witnesses as to damages -- 12 MS. KING: Oh. 13 THE COURT: -- or are each of them going 14 to testify at the liability stage? 15 MS. KING: At the liability stage, Your 16 Honor. 17 THE COURT: Who does the agency intend to 18 call? 19 MR. CHRISS: The agency intends to call 20 Dr. King, Miss Seiler, David Hofstetter, 21 LaSonya Glover, Scott Mowry, Maria Dent, and 22 Felicia Walker. 23 THE COURT: Okay. I heard some 24 objection. We had a prehearing. I don't think 25 I heard objections from one side or the other Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (2) Pages 5 - 8 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 3 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 9 1 to the witnesses. It seems like there have 2 more recently been some objections voiced, 3 although I'm not sure if that is -- those 4 objections are truly hard and fast or whether 5 they're simply posed in response to things that 6 have been set forth by the other side. 7 But let me -- and there is one witness, 8 Mr. Hofstetter, who is not present. I assume 9 -- I said we'll take his testimony at a later 10 date. With that ruling in mind let me ask the 11 complainant, do you object to any of the 12 agency's witnesses? 13 MS. KING: I do not, Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: And, Mr. Chriss, do you 15 object to any of the complainant's witnesses? 16 MR. CHRISS: The agency does not object. 17 THE COURT: Then let's leave it right 18 there. 19 MR. CHRISS: All right. 20 THE COURT: Let's see what we can agree 21 on and move forward. 22 MR. CHRISS: All right. 23 THE COURT: I note that the accepted 24 issue in the case -- I'm reading from page 1 of 25 the report of investigation -- is as follows. Page 10 1 "Complainant alleges that she was discriminated 2 against based on race, African-American; sex, 3 female; and reprisal, August 22nd, 2011, when 4 on December 14th, 2011, she was informed she 5 would be reassigned into a new section chief 6 position in Branch D." 7 Miss King, does that accurately state the 8 accepted issue? 9 MS. KING: Yes, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: And, Mr. Chriss, do you 11 agree? 12 MR. CHRISS: Yes, Your Honor. 13 THE COURT: I note that the purpose of 14 the hearing is to develop the record through 15 the examination and cross examination of 16 witnesses. My role is to serve as the 17 presiding official and to render a fair and 18 impartial decision on the merits of the case. 19 Before we go further, Miss King, did you have 20 any objections to or comments on anything I've 21 said or done so far during the processing of 22 the case? 23 MS. KING: No, Your Honor. 24 THE COURT: Mr. Chriss, how about you? 25 MR. CHRISS: No, Your Honor. Page 11 1 THE COURT: Okay. Miss King, are you 2 ready to proceed? 3 MS. KING: I am, Your Honor. 4 THE COURT: And, Mr. Chriss, how about 5 you? 6 MR. CHRISS: Your Honor, the agency 7 wanted to discuss one matter that I sent by 8 e-mail yesterday. In terms of testimony or 9 documents or evidence that's relevant to this 10 case, I just wanted to -- seeking Your Honor's 11 clarification regarding the date of the agency 12 action that's really relevant to this matter, 13 which was when Miss King was informed of the 14 decision to assign her to Branch D on 15 December 14th, 2011. 16 I am basically sort of seeking Your 17 Honor's comments regarding, you know, evidence 18 or testimony regarding facts that may have 19 developed, you know, well after December 14, 20 2011. Do you have any comment on that? 21 THE COURT: Not in the -- as a generic 22 matter. 23 MR. CHRISS: Okay. 24 THE COURT: Part of the reason why I read 25 the accepted issue was to make sure that we're Page 12 1 on the same page in terms of what the legal 2 issue in the case is, and of course that guides 3 -- is a significant factor in determining what 4 the content -- the evidence will be, but it 5 certainly is often the case that for a variety 6 of reasons we get into matters that are -- you 7 might not guess we were going to get into by 8 simply looking at the accepted statement -- the 9 accepted issue. So if the complainant wants to 10 get into something further, we'll perhaps -- 11 who knows? 12 Perhaps they will make no attempts to do 13 anything that you find objectionable, but if 14 they get to the point where they're trying to 15 introduce evidence that you think should not be 16 introduced, you can pose your objection and 17 I'll rule on it at that point. 18 MR. CHRISS: All right. Another matter 19 that I wanted to mention is just that in the 20 report of investigation I believe there was 21 some correspondence over a year ago that there 22 was some pages in the ROI, report of 23 investigation, that were illegible. It's 24 basically -- there are page numbers at the 25 bottom of the ROI, and it's basically page 100 Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (3) Pages 9 - 12 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 4 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 13 1 to 107. 2 And I was seeking to perhaps stipulate 3 with opposing counsel that we both received, or 4 at least Dr. King and I received, some 5 replacement pages, if you will, a legible copy 6 of the report of the affidavit from Ellen 7 Seiler and basically was hoping that we could 8 stipulate to sort of replacing the legible 9 pages of the affidavit with those that are 10 illegible that are currently in the ROI. 11 THE COURT: And really the offending 12 pieces of paper were all related that one 13 witness' affidavit? 14 MR. CHRISS: That's correct. 15 THE COURT: Ms. King, do you currently 16 have a legible copy? 17 MS. KING: I do have a legible copy of 18 the affidavit. 19 THE COURT: Then I'll leave it up to you, 20 Mr. Chriss, if you want to -- I'm not even sure 21 that -- if mine is as bad as what you are 22 describing, my copy of the ROI. But if you 23 want to introduce that affidavit as a separate 24 exhibit, I'll leave that up to you. 25 MR. CHRISS: All right. Thank you, Your Page 14 1 Honor. Finally, to the extent that complainant 2 -- well, complainant and the agency, it seems 3 like we both have basically the same witness 4 list, and complainant will be, you know, 5 presumably calling witnesses. Is it possible 6 that complainant can provide some sort of a 7 witness list or witness order? That way I can 8 provide, you know, notice to the witnesses when 9 they're -- 10 THE COURT: Fair enough. And please 11 describe the order in which you want the 12 witnesses called. 13 MS. KING: I'm calling Dr. King first. 14 Second I'm calling Ellen Seiler. Third I'm 15 calling LaSonya Glover. Fourth I'm calling 16 Felicia Walker. Fifth I'm calling Maria Dent, 17 and last I'm calling Scott Mowry. 18 MR. CHRISS: All right. 19 THE COURT: Okay. And how long do you 20 think that you'll be with Dr. King? 21 MS. KING: Maybe about 30 minutes to an 22 hour. 23 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Chriss, in 24 light of that, do you want to take two minutes 25 to kind of get your witnesses lined -- get Page 15 1 those folks lined up? 2 MR. CHRISS: Yes. I appreciate that, 3 Your Honor. 4 THE COURT: Mr. Chriss, is there anything 5 else you need to take up on a preliminary 6 basis? 7 MR. CHRISS: I'm just checking here. One 8 second. And I am thinking the answer is no, 9 Your Honor, other than any objections to me 10 just, you know, sending e-mails and 11 communicating with the witnesses as we move 12 along during the hearing? 13 THE COURT: Yes. There is no objection 14 from me. 15 MR. CHRISS: All right. Thank you, Your 16 Honor. 17 THE COURT: Okay. And, Ms. King, did you 18 have anything that you want to take up? 19 MS. KING: No, Your Honor. Not at this 20 time. 21 THE COURT: Let's take a five-minute 22 recess. 23 MR. CHRISS: Thank you. 24 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) 25 THE COURT: Let's go back on the record. Page 16 1 We'll proceed with the opening statements. 2 I'll have the complainant go first. 3 MS. KING: Your Honor, the facts of this 4 case are simple. This case is about 5 retaliation, ruin, and retribution. On 6 April 13th of 2011 Dr. Karen King applied for 7 the supervisory realty specialist position, and 8 a month later she was informed she didn't 9 receive it. Instead, Scott Mowry received the 10 position now. 11 Now, it was told that she did not receive 12 it because she did not have the leadership 13 skills or the qualifications to have that 14 position, so of course on August 22nd of 2011 15 Dr. Karen King filed a complaint alleging 16 discrimination for that selection process. 17 Well, about two and a half months later, 18 on November 6 of 2011, she is reassigned to a 19 failing branch with low performance measures. 20 Prior to that reassignment, for five 21 consecutive years immediately preceding that, 22 she had received level fives on every 23 evaluation. After that, she received level 24 threes. The awards stopped. 25 Her reputation with GSA was ruined in Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (4) Pages 13 - 16 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 5 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 17 1 that she was associated with a low performance 2 branch, and prior to this career at GSA she 3 actually served ten years in the military, and 4 she was honorably discharged, and she received 5 a -- she was a service-connected vet. So you 6 will hear evidence from Dr. Karen King about 7 how her disability is triggered by stressors 8 related to work and anything -- stress related 9 can actually enhance those triggers. 10 So you'll hear testimony that after she 11 was reassigned, not only did she stop receiving 12 bonuses and accolades for her stellar 13 performance for the past ten years at Branch B 14 where she consecutively worked in, now she is 15 associated with a failing branch, she is 16 constantly on leave, and she is receiving 17 failing performance measures. 18 So you'll hear testimony from Dr. Karen 19 King as well as from Ellen Seiler that she knew 20 about the complaint before she reassigned 21 Dr. Karen King. You'll hear testimony from 22 LaSonya Glover that the branch was failing at 23 the time Dr. Karen King was reassigned, and she 24 personally requested that Dr. Karen King be 25 reassigned to Branch B -- Branch D, excuse me. Page 18 1 And you'll hear testimony from Maria Dent 2 that she actually worked in South Carolina 3 territory prior to, so it would make more sense 4 to actually transfer her. All this testimony 5 you'll hear will show that it was actually 6 retaliation for her filing the August 22nd, 7 2011, complaint, and the evidence in fact here 8 will show that today. 9 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Chriss? 10 MR. CHRISS: Good morning, Your Honor. 11 The sole matter for review today is whether on 12 December 14, 2011, complainant was 13 discriminated against based on race, gender, or 14 EEO retaliation when she learned that she was 15 to be reassigned from a GS-13 Branch B section 16 chief position to a GS-13 Branch D section 17 chief position in the leasing division in PBS, 18 Public Building Service. 19 For complainant to prevail she would have 20 to prove, you know, the basic elements of race 21 discrimination, gender discrimination, or EEO 22 retaliation have been met. However, the 23 evidence to be presented will demonstrate that 24 the facts required to meet those elements are 25 really nonexistent in this case. Page 19 1 The evidence will show that the agency 2 did not discriminate against Mrs. King, a 3 fellow GSA management official, based on race, 4 gender, or prior EEO activity. Race was not a 5 factor in management's decision to reassign Ms. 6 King, gender was not a factor, and EEO history 7 was not a factor either. Instead you're going 8 to hear testimony from the agency that will 9 make clear it was in the agency's best 10 interests to assign King to Branch D rather 11 than the other candidates. 12 You'll hear testimony that Mrs. King's 13 skills, abilities as a manager, and the needs 14 of the leasing branch, Branches B and D, were 15 assessed in the decision, not the race, gender, 16 or level of prior EEO activity of Mrs. King or 17 any of the other people who were being 18 considered to be reassigned. 19 You're going to hear testimony from PBS 20 leasing management officials who had the 21 opportunity to provide input into the 22 assignment decision, including LaSonya Glover, 23 a black female; Ellen Seiler, a white female; 24 Scott Mowry, a male; and David Hofstetter, a 25 white male. Page 20 1 Again, they're going to testify that Ms. 2 King was a skilled manager who had capabilities 3 that management thought would really be 4 beneficial to Branch D. You're also going to 5 hear testimony from similarly situated folks, 6 section chiefs, other section chiefs who went 7 through the selection process and, you know, 8 competed for the announcement when section 9 chiefs were selected and who also were 10 eventually assigned to particular branches. 11 They will testify about how senior 12 management treated them as well as Mrs. King 13 throughout that process. Again, they also will 14 testify that race, gender, and level of EEO 15 activity, you know, was not really part of 16 management's decision making here. 17 In sum, you'll hear that management had a 18 clear and legitimate nondiscriminatory reason 19 for selecting Mrs. King rather than other 20 persons to be reassigned to Branch D. Again, 21 race, gender, and prior EEO activity were just 22 not part of the decision making process here. 23 Thank you. 24 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much. 25 We'll proceed with the testimony from Dr. King, Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (5) Pages 17 - 20 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 6 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 21 1 and, Ms. King, I'll leave it up to you. She 2 can either retain her seat or go to the end of 3 the table. 4 MS. KING: She can retain her seat, Your 5 Honor. 6 THE COURT: I'll ask the court reporter 7 to swear the witness in. 8 (Thereupon, an off-the-record 9 discussion was held.) 10 KAREN KING, 11 having been first duly sworn, was examined 12 and testified as follows: 13 THE COURT: Give us your name, please. 14 THE WITNESS: Karen King, Dr. Karen King. 15 THE COURT: All right. Ms. King, you can 16 proceed. 17 EXAMINATION 18 BY MS. KING: 19 Q. Dr. Karen King, please identify your race 20 for the record. 21 A. I'm black -- black female. 22 Q. And what is your educational background 23 since graduating from high school? 24 A. Received a undergraduate degree in policy 25 studies from Georgia State University with honors. Page 22 1 Received a master's degree from Troy State University 2 with honors, and received a doctorate in both 3 management and marketing from Arkansas University with 4 a 3.9 GPA, honors. 5 THE COURT: What was the bachelor's in, 6 once again? 7 THE WITNESS: The bachelor's in policy 8 studies. Policy, dealing with policies. 9 THE COURT: All right. Miss King, you 10 can proceed. 11 MS. KING: Mr. Chriss. 12 MR. CHRISS: Oh. 13 MS. KING: Any objection? 14 MR. CHRISS: I'm sorry. I haven't -- I 15 am seeing this for the first time, but yeah, I 16 have no objection. 17 MS. KING: All right. 18 (Thereupon, marked for identification, 19 Complainant's Exhibit C-1.) 20 BY MS. KING: 21 Q. Dr. King, I'm handing you what's marked 22 as Exhibit 1. Please describe what you are testifying 23 to. 24 A. I'm testifying to a resume of myself, 25 Dr. Karen King. Page 23 1 Q. And does that accurately reflect your 2 qualifications and your history? 3 A. Yes, it does. 4 MS. KING: Your Honor, I'd like to tender 5 Exhibit C-1 into evidence. 6 THE COURT: Excuse me? 7 MS. KING: I'd like to tender C-1 into 8 evidence. 9 THE COURT: Any objection? 10 MR. CHRISS: No objection. 11 THE COURT: It'll be admitted. 12 BY MS. KING: 13 Q. And now drawing your attention to your 14 military career, have you ever served in the military? 15 A. Yes. I served in the military for ten 16 years, seven years in Europe and three years 17 stateside. Received a medical discharge from the 18 military. I was injured while in the military. 19 Q. And do you have a service-connected 20 disability? 21 A. Yes. I'm service -- over 30 percent 22 service-connected disabled vet. 23 Q. And tell me about your employment history 24 with GSA. 25 A. My employment history with GSA is I came Page 24 1 here in August of 2001, and I was assigned as a realty 2 specialist. I came in as a GS-7 under the Outstanding 3 Scholar Program that GSA has, and I came as a GS-7. 4 Within a few months they did an escalated promotion to 5 GS-9 based on my performance, and then in a year I 6 received a GS-11 and in another year I received a 7 GS-12. After that, in two years I was promoted to a 8 GS-13 and -- 9 THE COURT: The 11 and the 12, was that 10 part of a career ladder promotion or -- 11 THE WITNESS: That was -- yes. I came in 12 under the Outstanding Scholar Program that was 13 a -- was a career ladder to a GS-12. If I did 14 perform as -- in accordance to the performance 15 plan, then I would receive a GS-12 in a year -- 16 every-year interval. So the first promotion 17 outside of that would have -- was the GS-13, so 18 I applied for a GS-13. 19 Two years later I was selected for a 20 GS-13. I became a realty specialist, and 21 within a year they actually promoted me to a 22 team lead, so I became a team leader, and I 23 served as a team leader for a couple of years, 24 and then that -- that was at the point when 25 they selected me to be a section chief. Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (6) Pages 21 - 24 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 7 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 25 1 And all of these activities were done 2 under Branch B. I served ten years in Branch B 3 as -- from a realty specialist to a section 4 chief and even acting as branch chief when we 5 did not have a branch chief, all while in 6 Branch D (sic) over a ten-year tenure. 7 BY MS. KING: 8 Q. And so the promotions and the transfers, 9 they were all within the same branch, Branch B? 10 A. There was no transfer ever done in Branch 11 B. Everything was a promotion. 12 Q. So since your hire in 2001, August 26th, 13 you've been consistently in Branch B? 14 A. Consistently in Branch B until the 15 transfer to Branch D. I've never been transferred 16 before that. I served ten years while in Branch B. 17 (Thereupon, marked for identification, 18 Complainant's Exhibit C-2.) 19 BY MS. KING: 20 Q. I'm handing you what is marked as Exhibit 21 C-2. Could you please describe that exhibit? 22 A. Okay. The exhibit is my personnel 23 action. That lists every single year and all of my 24 branch assignments, showing that I was actually in 25 Branch B from my commencement date of 2001 all the way Page 26 1 through the transfer that I've had to Branch D. 2 MR. CHRISS: Is it possible that I can 3 get a copy of that or just see it? Probably I 4 already have a copy. 5 THE WITNESS: You do. 6 MS. KING: Your Honor, I would like to 7 tender Exhibit 2 into evidence. 8 THE COURT: Any objection? 9 MR. CHRISS: Yes, Your Honor. The agency 10 would like to see the exhibit first. 11 THE COURT: Okay. 12 THE WITNESS: I can show you this while 13 she's -- 14 BY MS. KING: 15 Q. Hold on. I have it, Dr. King. 16 MS. KING: Here you go. 17 MR. CHRISS: Okay. Is this my copy, or 18 just taking a look -- 19 MS. KING: Yes, that's your copy. 20 MR. CHRISS: Thanks. 21 THE COURT: And what is B2 once again? 22 What is the document? 23 MS. KING: Oh, sorry. It's C-2, Your 24 Honor. 25 THE COURT: C-2? Page 27 1 MS. KING: Yes. 2 THE COURT: And what is it? 3 MS. KING: It's personnel actions 4 indicating her branch service from 2001 to 5 2011. 6 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Chriss, have you 7 had a chance to review it? 8 MR. CHRISS: Just a clarification 9 question. These pages are double sided. I 10 believe they're from Dr. King's official 11 personnel file; correct? 12 THE WITNESS: Those are the same ones 13 that you-all sent me. 14 MR. CHRISS: All right. 15 THE WITNESS: So you should already have 16 those. 17 MR. CHRISS: Yeah, I already have them. 18 I guess my question is just that there are -- 19 because it's double sided, there are a couple 20 of pages in here that are not notifications of 21 personnel action. Like, you know, this is a 22 page from a performance plan or APPAS or 23 something, and this is certificate of 24 investigation and security office. You know, 25 in terms of what you want it to be part of -- Page 28 1 THE WITNESS: Yeah. Here it is. 2 MR. CHRISS: Sorry. 3 THE WITNESS: It's not. It's a different 4 one. Look at that one, Chriss. 5 MR. CHRISS: Sorry. All right. 6 THE WITNESS: You can have that. That's 7 a different one. Here. That's all my -- that 8 should be all my own personnel actions. 9 MR. CHRISS: I have no objection. 10 THE COURT: Okay. It will be admitted. 11 BY MS. KING: 12 Q. Now, and then your prior testimony is 13 that you remained in Branch B from 2001 to 2011? 14 A. To 2012 when I was transferred. 15 Q. Transferred? All right. 16 A. So until January of 2012 I was in Branch 17 B the entire time, my entire tenure with GSA. 18 Q. Now, have you received any prior awards 19 or commendations for working with GSA? 20 A. Yes. I had prior awards. Received level 21 five on five evaluations. All five evaluations prior 22 to going -- moving to Branch D, received a level five 23 from five different supervisors, five different branch 24 chiefs, including Scott Mowry. Evaluated me at a 25 level five. Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (7) Pages 25 - 28 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 8 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 29 1 And then other -- four other branch 2 chiefs prior to that consecutively. I was a level 3 five. I was evaluated as a level five prior to being 4 relocated in January of 2012 to Branch D. Also 5 received -- went through accelerated leadership 6 program called Excellence in Government Leadership 7 Program. 8 Went there. It was for a GS-14 and 9 GS-13. I was recommended by the director, Rosemary 10 Phillips, to go through the program. Finished that 11 six years ago and was a one-year detail that I went to 12 Washington and worked with senior executives 13 developing different programs for different agencies. 14 Q. Now -- 15 THE COURT: I'm going to interrupt for a 16 minute. Please lay out a little bit of 17 background in terms of what kind of work is 18 done by this organization in general and these 19 different job titles that are being used. In 20 general, what type of work is done by each? 21 BY MS. KING: 22 Q. Could you please go into further detail, 23 Dr. King? 24 A. We work in the -- 25 THE COURT: I know it has something to do Page 30 1 with real estate, but beyond that -- 2 THE WITNESS: Oh, okay. 3 THE COURT: -- I don't know too much. 4 THE WITNESS: Okay. So we work at the 5 leasing program, so -- was realty services. 6 Now it's called leasing division. And under 7 leasing what we do is we get agency 8 requirements -- agency requirements and space 9 procurements to go out and look for space for 10 them. We have federal buildings that we 11 acquire. 12 Also we have lease facilities. I work in 13 the lease facility side of it. So the agency 14 would send to me an 81, a space request. 15 That's the trigger event asking us to go out 16 and look for space. Sometimes we have to build 17 buildings for them, you know, to house agencies 18 such as the FBI, the SSA, you know, all of the 19 different federal agencies. Or sometimes we 20 can find buildings that we can renovate in 21 order to meet their requirements. So it 22 depends on what the requirements state when 23 they come in. 24 So once we -- we meet with agencies. We 25 collaborate with other business lines such as Page 31 1 portfolio, budget, design and construction, all 2 the different services, business lines in order 3 to make sure we have all the requirements that 4 we need to accommodate agencies such as we need 5 engineers to look at drawings. We need budget 6 to approve funds, because that comes out of 7 public building funds, so there are array of 8 different collaborations, stakeholders that we 9 involve in our procurement process. 10 Throughout that whole process we complete 11 the requirements such as building the building, 12 which I've done many new construction 13 buildings, so we can sometimes build buildings. 14 We can lease out buildings, and then once we 15 complete the action for the agency, we make 16 sure we do closeout inspections. We take, you 17 know, agencies out there; make sure that 18 they're satisfied with what we provide, our 19 services, the building, lease facilities that 20 we provide them. 21 And we have meetings with the lessor to 22 make sure that the space is inspected. They'll 23 do inspection reports, and we make sure the 24 service is involved to go out there. We do a 25 turnkey opportunity, which is just reflecting Page 32 1 that yes, indeed, we understand and the agency 2 agrees that this project has been completed and 3 all their needs are satisfied, so we do -- 4 THE COURT: Now, what is the breakdown in 5 authority between sections A, B, C, and D? 6 THE WITNESS: There is no breakout. The 7 only thing different is that they handle 8 different territory. 9 THE COURT: And what would those be? 10 THE WITNESS: They're all identical, 11 so -- 12 THE COURT: Briefly. 13 THE WITNESS: Okay, briefly. So Branch 14 B -- when I was in Branch B we only -- we 15 handled Alabama. I mean, we'll handle Atlanta 16 is what we used to handle. We used to handle 17 Atlanta, and we used to handle Mississippi, 18 going way back to when we originally started. 19 We used to handle Mississippi. And then South 20 Carolina -- Branch A has always handled Florida 21 because they are out of Florida, so they always 22 handle Florida. Branch C -- 23 THE COURT: How about Branch D? 24 THE WITNESS: Branch D handles Alabama 25 and North Carolina, so that's the territory, Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (8) Pages 29 - 32 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 9 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 33 1 and then -- 2 THE COURT: How about C? 3 THE WITNESS: -- Branch C, Mississippi, 4 Kentucky and -- Mississippi, Kentucky, and 5 Tennessee. 6 THE COURT: And then who's in charge of 7 all those branches? 8 THE WITNESS: The director is in charge 9 of all the branches, which at that time was 10 Dave Hofstetter. He is the director over all 11 the branches, and under him he has a deputy, 12 which is Ellen Seiler. 13 THE COURT: Okay. You can proceed. 14 MS. KING: Yes, Your Honor. 15 BY MS. KING: 16 Q. When you testified that you received 17 performance plans during your GSA tenure, were they 18 documented? 19 A. Yes, they were documented. By five 20 evaluations that I had all fives prior to being 21 relocated to Branch D. 22 (Thereupon, marked for identification, 23 Complainant's Exhibit C-3.) 24 BY MS. KING: 25 Q. I'm handing you what is marked as C-3. Page 34 1 Could you please describe the exhibit? 2 A. The exhibit shows level five. 3 Q. What are those exhibits, Dr. King? 4 A. 2006, yes. Level five. 2007, '8. Level 5 five, 2009 and '10. Level five, 2010, '11. Yeah. 6 All five. Five performance evaluations prior to being 7 reassigned. Level five on all five evaluations, and I 8 was a section -- 9 Q. What -- 10 A. -- chief prior -- 11 Q. -- what years there they? 2006 through? 12 A. 2011. 13 Q. And for each year you received? 14 A. A level five. 15 Q. Level five? All right. 16 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). 17 Q. And are those an accurate description of 18 your performance evaluations prior to reassignment? 19 A. Yes. 20 MS. KING: Your Honor, I'd like to tender 21 Exhibit C-3 into evidence. 22 THE COURT: Any objection? 23 MR. CHRISS: Your Honor, I just want to 24 quickly look at them, but I think I've seen 25 them. I think I know what they are. Page 35 1 THE COURT: Okay. 2 MR. CHRISS: No objection. 3 THE COURT: It's admitted. 4 BY MS. KING: 5 Q. Now, have you ever been disciplined in 6 your entire career with -- 7 THE COURT: I'm going to interrupt you 8 right there because I'd guess the answer is no. 9 Mr. Chriss, she asserts that she always did a 10 good job. Is there any challenge from the 11 agency as to that point? 12 MR. CHRISS: Not at all. 13 THE COURT: Okay. Then perhaps that 14 would narrow the inquiry. 15 MS. KING: Thank you, Your Honor. 16 BY MS. KING: 17 Q. Drawing your attention to your first EEO 18 complaint, did you file one alleging the nonselection 19 of the supervisory realty specialist position, GS-14? 20 A. Yes, I did. 21 THE COURT: And give me a little bit of 22 background. It seems like there was perhaps a 23 new position and several people were promoted 24 at the same time. Did I understand that 25 correctly? Page 36 1 THE WITNESS: No. So there was a 2 position. I was serving as acting branch chief 3 because I had -- the only person in the branch 4 that had been there the length of time, the ten 5 years, and -- 6 THE COURT: That was for which branch? 7 THE WITNESS: For Branch B, and I was 8 serving as the branch chief because we did not 9 have one. We did not have a branch chief. The 10 branch chief had left, so I was serving as the 11 acting branch chief when the position was 12 posted. Okay? 13 So I applied, of course, knowing that I 14 had the -- like you said, the leadership 15 skills, the things I needed to be a great 16 section chief, and I was -- I mean branch 17 chief, and I was already acting in the position 18 with no issues at all, and I was not selected. 19 Scott Mowry, who was working at the time in 20 portfolio, who had been with GSA for two years, 21 he was instead provided the position and 22 brought to -- into Branch B to be my branch 23 chief. 24 THE COURT: And before he took that job 25 was he a branch chief or section chief? Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (9) Pages 33 - 36 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 10 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 37 1 THE WITNESS: No. He was neither one. 2 THE COURT: Excuse me? What was he? 3 THE WITNESS: He was, like, a program 4 analyst down in portfolio. 5 THE COURT: If I'm understanding you 6 correctly, the branch chief has several section 7 chiefs that report to them. 8 THE WITNESS: That's correct. And at 9 that time we had section team leads, which I 10 was a team leader at first, so at that point, 11 before the section chief, it was the same -- 12 the same organizational chart. Instead of 13 being a section chief, he had team leads that 14 reported to him, the same amount of team leads 15 that reported to him, so it was the same 16 structure. The only thing they changed is the 17 team lead -- some of the team leads became 18 section chiefs. That was the only 19 organizational change that they did. 20 THE COURT: Okay. 21 THE WITNESS: So I served in both 22 capacity -- 23 THE COURT: But are you one of the team 24 leads who became a section chief? 25 THE WITNESS: Yes. I'm one of the team Page 38 1 leads that moved up to team lead, and then when 2 they -- the section chief came, I moved to the 3 section chief. Right, correct. In the same 4 branch. 5 THE COURT: And what was the pay grade 6 associated with team lead? 7 THE WITNESS: A team lead is still a 8 GS-13. There was no promotion. Even a section 9 chief, there was no promotion. Even if they 10 moved me to a section chief, I got no 11 promotion. It was still a GS-13, and the 12 only -- 13 THE COURT: Then how about the people you 14 supervised in that job? What was their pay 15 grade? 16 THE WITNESS: The people I supervised, 17 some of them are 13s, which I still supervise 18 13s, and some of them are GS-12s. 19 THE COURT: Did you have 13s who were at 20 a level lower than that of section chief or 21 team lead? 22 THE WITNESS: Yes. I had 13s, which I 23 still do. Even then as a senior realty 24 specialist, they were 13s. 25 THE COURT: And so you did not have to be Page 39 1 a team lead to become a GS-13? 2 THE WITNESS: No, because after -- my 3 first position was a 13, senior realty 4 specialist. Then they did an announcement and 5 brought me in as a team lead, and then they did 6 another announcement and brought me as a 7 section chief. However, in all of those three 8 grades I never changed my pay grade. I was a 9 13 in all three positions. 10 THE COURT: Okay. Ms. King, you can 11 continue. 12 BY MS. KING: 13 Q. Just to clarify, were the duties the same 14 for each position, or just the pay grade was the same? 15 A. The only thing that was different -- yes, 16 the duties were different. As a senior realty 17 specialist you work in your own projects. You do more 18 complex projects, like that is when I was doing all 19 new construction projects, building buildings. And 20 then as I became team lead I became a person that led, 21 you know, pretty much -- not a supervisor, but I 22 actually led people. 23 That means that I would interact with 24 them every day, help them with projects, tell them 25 what to do on projects, and guide them every day, and Page 40 1 I was responsible for making sure their work was done 2 correctly. As a supervisor -- as a section chief then 3 I began to write their performance evaluations. I 4 began to write their disciplinary actions. I began to 5 provide awards for them. I actually began to do the 6 duties of a branch chief. 7 Q. Now, drawing your attention to August 22, 8 2011, did you file a complaint in regards to not 9 receiving that supervisory realty specialist position? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And what was the substance of your 12 complaint? 13 A. The substance of the complaint was what I 14 just, I think, clearly conveyed: That I'd been in the 15 position as a -- in Branch B for ten years. I had 16 served all the -- in every different capacity, went 17 through all leadership programs that were offered. 18 Had the educational level, had the supervisory skills, 19 of course, because I was acting in the acting branch 20 chief position when the job was posted on two 21 different occasions before Scott Mowry was selected. 22 And because he had never worked in real 23 estate, he had never worked in our branch, did not 24 know anything about the territory, I felt that based 25 on all of my qualifications, because if there was an Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (10) Pages 37 - 40 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 11 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 41 1 issue with me as leadership skills, then I should not 2 have been rotated as a branch chief, acting branch 3 chief with no issues for that period of time, if there 4 was an issue with my qualifications. However, I was. 5 So at that point I felt that there was definitely 6 discrimination because I was a suitable candidate for 7 the position. 8 Q. And just to clarify, Scott Mowry's 9 qualifications, did he hold a contracting warrant? 10 A. No, he did not. When he came to real 11 estate, he had no contracting warrant at all. 12 Q. And -- 13 A. No lease contracting officer warrant at 14 all. 15 Q. But he was working with GSA prior to -- 16 A. He was working in portfolio, but he was 17 not doing anything dealing with leasing. What he was 18 doing was tenant agreements, which you do not need to 19 have a warrant for. Tenant agreements are -- were 20 signed off by a contracting officer, which was Bridget 21 Rhodes at the time. 22 Bridget Rhodes signed off. She was a 23 policy analyst branch chief, and she was also my 24 supervisor, who also gave me a level five, but she 25 signed off on his tenant agreements. That's who Page 42 1 signed off because he did not have a warrant. 2 Q. Now -- 3 A. And when he came to the branch as a 4 branch chief, he still did not have a warrant. 5 Q. And he no longer works there; correct? 6 A. He no longer works at -- in Region 4. 7 Q. To the best of your knowledge before he 8 left, did he ever attain a warrant, a contracting 9 warrant? 10 A. To the best of my ability he did not 11 because I -- was -- as soon as he got the position, 12 they transferred me -- 13 Q. Which brings us -- 14 A. -- so I don't know. I don't know. 15 Q. Which brings me to my next question. 16 Were you reassigned after you filed that complaint? 17 A. Yes, I was. 18 Q. When were you reassigned? 19 A. I was reassigned on January 16, 2012. 20 Q. That was the day that you actually 21 started; correct? 22 A. Right. 23 Q. When were you notified? 24 A. Okay. I was notified in November 2011 25 that I was going to be -- okay. First of all, I Page 43 1 received a invite from Scott Mowry, and it had Ellen 2 Seiler's name on it. It had no subject matter, and it 3 had to meet with Ellen Seiler at 2 o'clock in her 4 office. Had no reason why. 5 Went into her office at 2 o'clock, and 6 that's when -- not only did Scott Mowry walk in; 7 LaSonya Duncan walked in and sat down, who was not on 8 the invite. They said that the purpose of the meeting 9 was to let me know that they all had discussed moving 10 me and they had made a final determination to move me 11 outside of Branch B and that there was no discussion 12 for me at all. 13 THE COURT: Now, what was Mr. Mowry in 14 charge of at this point? 15 THE WITNESS: At that point he was my 16 supervisor because they brought him in. 17 Instead of me being selected as the branch 18 chief, they selected him and brought him from 19 portfolio to be my supervise -- 20 THE COURT: What branch was he in charge 21 of? 22 THE WITNESS: Branch B, which I was still 23 in because even though I didn't get the job, 24 right after that they decided to transfer me. 25 THE COURT: Okay. Page 44 1 THE WITNESS: So they met with LaSonya, 2 who now is -- who was a branch chief of Branch 3 D, who they reassigned me to. 4 THE COURT: Which branch? 5 THE WITNESS: Branch D. So -- 6 THE COURT: And she was in charge of 7 Branch D at that point? 8 THE WITNESS: Yes, she was in charge of 9 Branch D. And when I walked in -- 10 THE COURT: I thought I saw somewhere 11 that Branch D was -- the head slot was vacant 12 at this point. Did I read -- 13 THE WITNESS: No -- 14 THE COURT: -- that correctly? 15 THE WITNESS: -- that's not correct. But 16 she was in charge of Branch D and had been in 17 charge of Branch D for a couple of years. She 18 was in charge of Branch D, so that 19 organizational chart you saw, it was invalid at 20 the time of my transfer. She had been in 21 charge of Branch B for a couple years. 22 It had been vacant two years because it 23 was a brand-new position. That was why. They 24 had no Branch D, so when they -- when they -- 25 when they brought on Branch D two years prior Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (11) Pages 41 - 44 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 12 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 45 1 to that, they put her as a branch chief in that 2 position as a new branch, so she started branch 3 under Branch D. 4 THE COURT: And what has your prior 5 association with her been? 6 THE WITNESS: I had no prior association 7 with her. Never had worked with her at all. 8 THE COURT: Okay. Ms. King, you can 9 proceed. 10 MS. KING: Yes, Your Honor. 11 THE REPORTER: Excuse me a minute -- a 12 second. You need to slow down a little bit. 13 When you speak that fast, I have trouble what 14 you're saying, and I'm not sure I know the 15 difference between Branch B and Branch D. If 16 you could slow down and enunciate, I could get 17 this down correctly. 18 THE WITNESS: Okay. So what do you want 19 me to -- 20 BY MS. KING: 21 Q. Just to clarify, at the time, before you 22 were reassigned to Branch D, Scott Mowry was your 23 supervisor. 24 A. Yes, that is correct. 25 Q. Before that time you actually interviewed Page 46 1 for a section chief position in Branch B; correct? 2 A. Yes, that's correct. 3 Q. And you received -- you became a section 4 chief around October 25, 2011? 5 A. Right, that is correct. 6 Q. So you did interview for that position; 7 correct? 8 A. Yes, I did. 9 Q. But you did not interview for a position 10 for -- a section chief position chief for Branch D; 11 correct? 12 A. No. What the -- what the -- what the 13 policy analyst, Bridget Rhodes, put in writing was 14 that the section chiefs would remain in the -- in the 15 -- in their current positions with the branch that 16 they were selected for until they hired some 17 additional section chiefs. So that was the branch 18 that we were supposed to stay in. 19 Q. Now, drawing your focus back to that 20 December 14, 2011, meeting with Ellen Seiler, LaSonya 21 Glover, and Scott Mowry discussing your reassignment, 22 what was your reaction to the reassignment? 23 A. I was astonished because first of all I 24 felt that someone should have had that conversation 25 with me prior to just sending out an invite, and Page 47 1 LaSonya was not on the invite. She just came in the 2 meeting and sat down, and for them to all three, 3 including my supervisor, Scott Mowry, just to say 4 we've all discussed you, and me being a stellar 5 employee -- and I've done so much for the agency. 6 We've all discussed you in closed meetings, and we've 7 already made a determination that we're going to move 8 you, and there is nothing you can do. 9 And my concern was, well, why am I being 10 moved? I stayed in Branch B for ten years. I've done 11 so much for Branch D (sic). We're doing so well in 12 Branch D (sic). My -- I get along with everybody in 13 Branch D (sic). I've ran the branch for Branch D 14 (sic), so what is the purpose of my move? 15 And nobody could really give me anything 16 other than, we've all made a determination that you 17 are the right person. You're the person. And I 18 brought up Maria Dent. I said, Maria Dent has worked 19 in North Carolina before. This territory is North 20 Carolina. She was one of the section chiefs that was 21 selected the same time. Why can't she go to Branch D? 22 She was selected at the same time, and we were in the 23 same branch. So I said, why couldn't she? I had the 24 ten years working in Branch B. She did not. She only 25 had a couple of years. So why can't she move instead? Page 48 1 They had told me that they've already 2 made a decision and it was not up to discussion. So I 3 was astonished. I felt very betrayed because all of 4 my workmanship I've done with GSA over the years, for 5 everything I've given GSA over the years, I think gave 6 them so much to make the organization what it is, and 7 for me to be treated in that manner, I felt that it 8 was really impartial treatment. 9 Q. Just to clarify, had you ever worked in 10 those territories that Branch D covered? 11 A. No. 12 Q. What were those territories, just to 13 clarify? 14 A. North Carolina and Alabama. 15 Q. And you never worked prior to those ten 16 years in those -- 17 A. Never worked in either. I've only ever 18 worked in Alabama -- in Georgia. That was the only 19 territory that I had worked in was Georgia -- 20 Q. And -- 21 A. -- for ten years. 22 Q. -- it is your testimony that Maria Dent, 23 a fellow section chief, had worked those territories 24 before -- 25 A. Right. And she was in the same -- Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (12) Pages 45 - 48 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 13 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 49 1 Q. -- so she would be familiar -- 2 A. Right. And she was in the same branch 3 that I was in, and she got selected for section chief 4 at the same exact time. 5 Q. And were there any others reassigned to 6 another branch? 7 A. No. I was the only section to date that 8 had been reassigned to another branch. 9 Q. So from 2011 to present date, 2015, 10 there's been no other section chief reassigned to 11 another branch? 12 A. There has been no other section chief 13 that was assigned to another branch. 14 Q. Now, once you were reassigned to that 15 branch, did you -- you still got performance 16 evaluations; correct? 17 A. I received performance evaluations. 18 Q. I'm going to hand -- was it documented? 19 A. The -- okay. When I was -- I was a level 20 five in Branch B. I was transferred in January, as 21 you said, of 2012, to -- January 16, 2012. I was not 22 given an interim appraisal at all. Scott Mowry had 23 already evaluated me as a level five, so no interim 24 appraisal was done when I was moved to Branch D, so -- 25 and at the end of the year I was given a performance Page 50 1 level of three, so I dropped two performance levels 2 within one year. Of the one single year I dropped two 3 levels in one year to a level three, even though I 4 only came to the branch in -- branch -- in January 5 of -- January 16, 2012. 6 (Thereupon, marked for identification, 7 Complainant's Exhibit C-4.) 8 BY MS. KING: 9 Q. I'm going to hand you what's been marked 10 as Exhibit -- 11 A. With -- 12 Q. -- C-4. 13 A. -- no interim appraisal. 14 Q. Could you please describe for the record, 15 what that exhibit is, actually? 16 A. This is my performance evaluation, Branch 17 D, for 2011, 2012 and -- 2012 and 2013 showing that I 18 am a level three employee. Even the -- the year that 19 I got no interim appraisal and that I dropped two 20 grade levels and no supervisor ever had any 21 communication with me that I was dropping two grade 22 levels within that same rating period. 23 Q. Now, is this an accurate -- 24 A. That's what I got. That's the 25 performance -- Page 51 1 Q. This is -- 2 A. -- evaluation -- 3 Q. -- accurate record of what you received? 4 A. Right. 5 MS. KING: Your Honor, I'd like to tender 6 Exhibit C-4 into evidence. 7 THE COURT: Any objection? 8 MR. CHRISS: No objection. 9 BY MS. KING: 10 Q. So again, those evaluations reflected 11 years 2011 through 2013 or '14? 12 A. Those two were through 2013. 13 Q. And what -- 14 A. And they all -- 15 Q. -- level were they? 16 A. They were level three, and they covered 17 even the part of the time I was in Branch B where I 18 was a level five. They also covered that period from 19 October to January. In that performance evaluation 20 they covered that period of time where I was a level 21 five. However, at the end I became a level three in 22 the same rating period. 23 Q. Because -- 24 THE COURT: And what is the date of this 25 performance review? Page 52 1 THE WITNESS: What is the date of that 2 one? Oh, the first one? Okay. 3 BY MS. KING: 4 Q. I'll let you read it. 5 A. 11/8 of 2012, and I was a five until I 6 came to the branch in January. 7 Q. So it's your testimony that there was 8 some overlap in the time period where you actually 9 were a five and you dropped -- 10 A. That's correct. 11 Q. -- down to a three? 12 A. That's correct. And no interim appraisal 13 was done to ever say that I was dropping down two 14 grades -- two performance levels within that one 15 rating period. 16 Q. And the year immediately preceding, you'd 17 been a five -- 18 A. A five for five years. 19 Q. Now, when you received that grievance -- 20 I mean that performance evaluation -- for the 2011 21 through 2012 year, did you actually file a grievance? 22 A. I filed a formal grievance. 23 Q. And was it documented? 24 A. It was documented. It was documented, 25 and it was sent to LaSonya Glover's supervisor, which Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (13) Pages 49 - 52 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 14 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 53 1 was Ellen Seiler, and I also provided in the grievance 2 all of the deficiencies and all the issues that I came 3 into the branch with, with -- every day I was getting 4 hostile e-mails from clients saying how these projects 5 was two or three years behind; that they -- that stuff 6 needed to be done; they did not have anybody working 7 on projects. 8 I mean, every single day I was getting 9 just e-mails of stuff not being done, having to meet 10 with Dave Hofstetter trying to get work done, trying 11 to find out what's going on in these branches that I 12 knew nothing about. Projects sitting on people's desk 13 for two years on hold. 14 And I wrote all of that in my grievance 15 because I felt it was so unfair for me to do all the 16 work in Branch D (sic) to get it where it was, and now 17 I come to a failing branch and now I get a level three 18 performance evaluation, and I've only been there 19 January. I can't work miracles. 20 First of all, by the end of that grade 21 there was still issues that I didn't even know about. 22 There was so many issues. There was so many projects 23 sitting on people's desk that I didn't even know 24 about. I actually asked one of the persons who worked 25 under me to provide me a list of all of these issues Page 54 1 because even few months later it was stuff I -- it was 2 still coming up on people's desks that was two years 3 old that people were calling about. Nobody knew where 4 the stuff was. 5 So I asked him to provide me a list of 6 all the issues in the branch because I said, I can't 7 keep up. It was very -- extremely stressful. So I 8 did file that grievance. I sent it to Ellen and I 9 explained to Ellen there is no way for me to be 10 accountable for everything that's been done in the 11 last two years that I had no supervisory authority 12 over. I was not in the branch. I don't know anything 13 about this territory, and for me to get a level three 14 within the same rating period for stuff I had no 15 accountability for was totally unfair and totally 16 unjust, and I did have that conversation with her. 17 She said -- she stated, well, we only go 18 by numbers. We don't -- we -- you know, we don't go 19 by what you did before. We only go by numbers of 20 where the branch is now. That was her conversation 21 with me. 22 (Thereupon, marked for identification, 23 Complainant's Exhibit C-5.) 24 BY MS. KING: 25 Q. I'm handing you what's been marked as Page 55 1 Exhibit C-5. Could you please describe what that 2 exhibit is? 3 A. This exhibit is when I sent to Kathy Day, 4 which is the HR director, and to Ellen Seiler, and I 5 put in the grievance, and I explained to her in this 6 grievance, which is pages and pages of all the issues 7 that would come in that I had no accountability for. 8 And also I gave her my employee 9 performance review that I gave to LaSonya, which is 10 pages of information showing that these are the real 11 things I've done -- doing this year to come -- to not 12 only help your branch but to help Branch B, and I feel 13 that all of these things that I put in the writing, I 14 have done to help the agency, and now I get rewarded 15 with a level three. I was totally, totally dismayed 16 and frustrated with this. 17 Q. Is that an accurate description of the 18 grievance that you filed on December 4? 19 A. That is correct. 20 MS. KING: I'd like to tender Exhibit C-5 21 into evidence. 22 THE COURT: Show it to Mr. Chriss. 23 MS. KING: Yes. 24 MR. CHRISS: Your Honor, I just wanted to 25 ask a clarification question for Attorney King. Page 56 1 First of all, a portion of this grievance is 2 already in the report of investigation at, you 3 know, page 85, but this is a more complete 4 version of the grievance. 5 But my question is, there are a couple of 6 documents in this, and the employee performance 7 review piece, was that submitted as part of the 8 grievance? 9 MS. KING: It was. It was rebuttal to 10 LaSonya Glover's appraisal evaluation for the 11 2011 through 2012 year. 12 MR. CHRISS: Okay. So it was part of the 13 grievance that was submitted like in an 14 attachment? 15 MS. KING: Correct. 16 MR. CHRISS: Because there was only one 17 attachment. 18 THE COURT: Why don't you just voir dire 19 the witness? I guess she is the one that 20 really knows the answer. 21 THE WITNESS: That was a -- this part of 22 it was a part of -- and they should have given 23 it to you but -- when they pulled the records, 24 but this part of it was when I gave -- you 25 know, in a year you always give your Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (14) Pages 53 - 56 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 15 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 57 1 performance evaluation -- 2 THE COURT: I guess what he's getting at 3 is, is this the official grievance -- 4 THE WITNESS: This is the -- 5 THE COURT: When they were passing on the 6 grievance, is this exactly what they had in 7 front of them? 8 THE WITNESS: Yes. This is what -- yeah. 9 They only had a copy of this because she had a 10 copy of the performance evaluation. This was 11 submitted to LaSonya. This went to LaSonya, my 12 performance review. 13 MR. CHRISS: Right. 14 THE WITNESS: And this says, this is what 15 I did throughout the whole year, and I asked 16 for this to become an attachment on my 17 performance evaluation. 18 MR. CHRISS: So the agency does object to 19 the extent that the self-assessment document, 20 the performance review document, was not 21 submitted as part of the grievance. 22 THE WITNESS: It was. 23 THE COURT: I guess it's a technical 24 objection, and if they want to introduce it, 25 they should do so separately. Page 58 1 MR. CHRISS: Correct. 2 THE COURT: Okay. Well, if we take that 3 document out is there any objection? 4 MR. CHRISS: No objection if you take 5 that -- 6 THE COURT: Let's take that document out 7 and admit the exhibit. Then, Ms. King, if you 8 want to admit that separately, go ahead. 9 THE WITNESS: Okay. 10 MS. KING: Exhibit C-5 is admitted, Your 11 Honor, without -- 12 THE COURT: If that is the one -- 13 MS. KING: Yes. 14 THE COURT: If the grievance package is 15 C-5, yes. 16 MS. KING: Thank you, Your Honor. 17 THE COURT: If you want to make this 18 other one either C-6 or C-5A, you will. 19 BY MS. KING: 20 Q. Now, did you actually respond to LaSonya 21 Glover by filing a performance self-assessment? 22 A. Yes, I did. 23 (Thereupon, marked for identification, 24 Complainant's Exhibit C-6.) 25 BY MS. KING: Page 59 1 Q. I'm handing you what's been marked as 2 Exhibit C-6. Please describe the exhibit. 3 A. This is my self-assessment. At the end 4 of every year I put in -- do a self-assessment, and on 5 here I put between 10/1/2011 I was in Branch B and 6 1/15/2012 I was reassigned to Branch D. I put in 7 here -- all of my information in here about results 8 driven, goals that I've done since I've been in both 9 branches, building coalitions and communication, 10 leading change, because this was based on the branch 11 chief performance plan that I was under that they gave 12 me to review: Business acumen, financial management. 13 So it was all the things that I've done. 14 Customer service. I have improved customer service 15 through project teams and leading national teams, 16 which I have done during this rating period and 17 leading people, so this was actually what I have done, 18 and I gave this to her to make sure it was included as 19 a part of my review so that I would not be downgraded 20 to a level three. 21 Q. Is this an accurate description, a 22 complete self-assessment you filed with her? 23 A. Yes. 24 MS. KING: Your Honor, I'd like to tender 25 Exhibit C-6 into evidence. Page 60 1 THE COURT: Any objection? 2 MR. CHRISS: No objection. 3 THE COURT: It'll be admitted. 4 MS. KING: Thank you. 5 BY MS. KING: 6 Q. Let's -- drawing your focus to what you 7 said about accountability and being under LaSonya 8 Glover, when you were assigned what was your position 9 under her? 10 A. My position under her was a section 11 chief, but she was, of course, the branch chief, and 12 she ran the branch. She told exactly -- territorial 13 assignments. She explains the goals and objectives of 14 the section, and she actually controls how processes 15 and procedures are managed and what things are done 16 and if -- how we're going to meet goals; you know, 17 productivity goals. She sets the standards and 18 provides her way of doing things, and you have to go 19 by her way of doing things. 20 Q. So does she have a final say-so -- 21 A. She does. 22 Q. -- as your supervisor? Could you 23 override her? 24 A. No. 25 Q. So anything that you wanted to do or make Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (15) Pages 57 - 60 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 16 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 61 1 changes to the organization would have to go through 2 her? 3 A. That is correct. 4 Q. But your testimony earlier was that you 5 were transferred -- or reassigned because of your 6 leadership qualities? 7 A. That's correct. 8 Q. Now, did any supervisor warn you of a 9 business need of Branch D prior to reassigning you? 10 A. No. The only time I know about -- 11 anything about Branch D was when I got that invite to 12 anonymous meeting and LaSonya walked in and -- with 13 Ellen and Scott saying that they had already discussed 14 me and that they were moving -- transferring me. 15 That's the first thing I knew about any type of need 16 or transfer. 17 Q. Now, was Branch D failing at the time you 18 were reassigned? 19 A. Branch D was extremely failing at the 20 time and -- 21 Q. And how was Branch B at the time you 22 were -- 23 A. The Branch B was succeeding. In most of 24 that area -- most all of the areas, they were 25 actually -- they were actually performing very, very Page 62 1 well, and Branch D was so many projects behind. As 2 again I said, there were projects at least two years 3 old that were sitting on people's desk. They had no 4 action done at all, and agencies were furious because 5 their space requests were not being addressed. 6 (Thereupon, marked for identification, 7 Complainant's Exhibit C-7.) 8 BY MS. KING: 9 Q. I'm going to hand you Exhibit C-7. Could 10 you please describe what that exhibit is? 11 A. Branch D is the e-mails I actually sent 12 to LaSonya and Ellen and Dave Hofstetter explaining 13 all of the issues that -- when I came over, that 14 project reports had not been done for months, and my 15 project reports in Branch B for my people, they were 16 done every two weeks. They were not doing that in 17 Branch D, so I had no idea what people were working 18 on. Some of them dated back to June of the following 19 year that they had did no updates on projects, so I 20 had no idea what was even on their desk. 21 Also I actually put in here that there 22 was so many holdovers, and there just pages of 23 holdovers, and holdovers, Your Honor, means that these 24 agencies need to remain in a space or some action 25 needs to be done on them, and they were actually just Page 63 1 sitting on people's desk, and they had to do holdovers 2 just to continue paying the rent. That means that the 3 requirements of getting lease space was not being 4 done. So now we have to just pay the lessor, so we 5 enter into an action called a holdover just to keep 6 paying the lessor but not addressing the agency's 7 needs. 8 And I was very, very concerned about that 9 because in Branch D -- I didn't believe in hold -- we 10 did not do holdovers, so to have pages full of 11 holdovers like this, for me as a leader was totally 12 unacceptable. 13 Q. About how many years was Branch D behind 14 on their -- 15 A. According to the e-mail that one of the 16 employees sent me -- because I was so frustrated, I 17 asked him to send me, some of these projects went back 18 to 2010. They went all the way back to -- he gave me 19 copies of this January of 2010, and I transferred in 20 January of 2012, but that's just how deficient these 21 projects were, sitting on people's desk with no 22 action, and now people were calling me every day 23 e-mailing me asking, could I take action on them. 24 Q. Is that an accurate description of 25 everything that was failing at the time you were Page 64 1 reassigned? 2 A. That is correct. 3 MS. KING: Your Honor, I'd like to tender 4 Exhibit C-7 into evidence. 5 THE WITNESS: And it's also noted on here 6 that LaSonya Duncan was the person that 7 received all these requirements, so they were 8 managed under her branch. However, nothing had 9 been done. The e-mail also is here -- 10 THE COURT: Let me interrupt for a 11 minute. How long had Miss Duncan been in 12 charge of the branch? 13 THE WITNESS: For two -- she was original 14 person, and she had been there two years when 15 this print started. She had been in there for 16 at least two years before I got reassigned, so 17 when these things came in, in 2012 -- she was 18 original branch chief. When these things came 19 in, they came directly to her because she was 20 the original branch chief, so she had been the 21 branch chief when all these things came in. 22 THE COURT: Okay. 23 THE WITNESS: And they have her name and 24 her signature saying that she received them. 25 MS. KING: Your Honor, I'd like to tender Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (16) Pages 61 - 64 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 17 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 65 1 Exhibit C-7 into evidence. 2 THE COURT: Any objection? 3 MR. CHRISS: No. Yes, Your Honor. Just 4 a clarification question. 5 Attorney King, it looks like there are a 6 lot of documents in here. 7 MS. KING: Yes. 8 MR. CHRISS: By C-7 do you mean, like, 9 all the documents in this entire -- 10 MS. KING: Just for judicial economy I 11 just did a concise description of everything 12 that was for the Branch D deficiencies. If you 13 want, I can partition them out and do separate 14 exhibits for all of them. 15 THE WITNESS: The problem is that, like 16 the comments that -- the employee made on 17 there, they -- the exhibits actually support 18 his comments. So he's saying it's deficient in 19 2010. Then you see the attachment that he's 20 talking about. 21 MR. CHRISS: And, Your Honor, some of 22 these documents I've never seen before. I'm 23 looking at them for the first time, so, yeah, I 24 mean, the agency does object. I do not object 25 to the first one because I've seen it before, Page 66 1 but as to the others, I object. 2 MS. KING: All these are in the control 3 of the branch. They had possession to actually 4 obtain -- 5 THE COURT: Well, I mean, had they been 6 exchanged during the course of this litigation? 7 MS. KING: They were not requested, Your 8 Honor. There was no discovery requested and -- 9 THE WITNESS: There was no discovery 10 requested. 11 MS. KING: From us. 12 THE WITNESS: None. 13 THE COURT: Yeah, but parties are 14 supposed to exchange exhibits in advance of the 15 hearing. Was that done? 16 MS. KING: There was an exhibit exchange, 17 but this was not, Your Honor. 18 THE COURT: How many other exhibits do 19 you intend to use? 20 MS. KING: I have about ten to 15 more. 21 THE COURT: Let's take a five-minute 22 recess. Why don't you show your whole package 23 to Mr. Chriss? If there are a few documents 24 that were overlooked, I guess that's one thing. 25 If we're going to be getting into a whole bunch Page 67 1 of documents that he's never seen before, 2 perhaps that's something different. Let's take 3 a five-minute recess and just let him take a 4 look at everything that you have. 5 MS. KING: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. 6 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) 7 THE COURT: Let's go back on the record 8 and make that official. Mr. Chriss has 9 reviewed the other documents that the 10 complainant intends to use, so he's at least 11 familiar with what they are. We'll deal with 12 those one at a time in terms of admissibility. 13 In terms of the last one we dealt with, what is 14 the number of that once again, Ms. King? 15 MS. KING: Exhibit C-7, Your Honor. 16 THE COURT: Any objection to that 17 exhibit, Mr. Chriss? 18 MR. CHRISS: No objection. 19 THE COURT: Then it will be admitted. 20 MS. KING: Okay. 21 BY MS. KING: 22 Q. Now, in regards to your retaliation case 23 filed on February 22nd of 2012, did any EEO officials 24 take a statement from you? 25 A. Yes. An EEOC counselor. Page 68 1 Q. And was it documented in writing? 2 A. Yes. 3 (Thereupon, marked for identification, 4 Complainant's Exhibit C-8.) 5 BY MS. KING: 6 Q. I'm going to hand you what's been marked 7 as Exhibit C-8. Can you please describe the exhibit? 8 A. Okay. So the exhibit, it just shows that 9 I did file a EEO -- 10 Q. Speak up just -- 11 A. I'm sorry. I did file a EEO complaint, 12 and it indicated in here that was based on my sex. 13 Also put in here my age, and I also put in here my 14 race, and I also put in here that I was being 15 transferred to another branch, and about the -- I take 16 medication for the service-connected disability and, 17 as stressful conditions elevate, anxiety, which leads 18 to increased dosages. That has been submitted in -- 19 Q. So that was an accurate description of 20 the complaint that you filed at the time? 21 A. Yes. 22 MS. KING: Your Honor, I'd like to tender 23 Exhibit C-8 into evidence. 24 THE COURT: Any objection? 25 MR. CHRISS: No objection. Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (17) Pages 65 - 68 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 18 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 69 1 THE COURT: It will be admitted. 2 MS. KING: Thank you, Your Honor. 3 BY MS. KING: 4 Q. Now, you said that you had complained of 5 medications. Could you go into further detail? Do 6 you have a disability? 7 A. I do have a disability. I was discharged 8 from the military with an honorable discharge due to 9 injuries while serving in the military for ten years. 10 Became a service-connected vet, over 30 percent, and 11 that was my status when I came to GSA, so they do have 12 a copy of my 30 percent in HR, disabled veteran 13 documentation from the Department of Veteran Affairs. 14 Q. And was your diagnosis documented? 15 A. My diagnosis was definitely documented, 16 and it's documented through HR as well. 17 (Thereupon, marked for identification, 18 Complainant's Exhibit C-9.) 19 BY MS. KING: 20 Q. I'm going to hand you what's been marked 21 as Exhibit C-9. Could you please describe that 22 exhibit? 23 A. Okay. This exhibit just says that over a 24 period of -- span of time of dealing with stressful 25 conditions while I have been in Branch D, that my pain Page 70 1 level has been increased. I've been on different -- a 2 whole lot of different medications, seeing pain 3 management doctors, taking a lot of days off from 4 work, and it has been -- contributed to -- additional 5 stressful conditions at work. 6 Q. So it's your test -- 7 THE COURT: Well, Dr. King, could you try 8 to slow down just a little bit -- 9 THE WITNESS: Oh, okay. 10 THE COURT: -- and just enunciate a 11 little more? 12 THE WITNESS: Can you hear me? I do talk 13 fast. I do talk fast. I'm sorry. 14 BY MS. KING: 15 Q. Thank you, Dr. King. 16 A. I'll say it again. 17 Q. Please just slow it down for the record. 18 A. Okay. 19 Q. I appreciate it. 20 A. I'm sorry. Okay. So the documentation 21 just states here that I do have service-connected 22 disabilities. This is from the DeKalb Medical Center, 23 and it's from the Department of Veteran Affairs, 24 DeKalb Medical -- department of -- of VA, Veterans 25 Medical Center, actually saying I have Page 71 1 service-connected disabilities. However, they have 2 been worsened over a period of time, and that I'm on 3 additional pain medication. I'm taking extended days 4 off. 5 They have referred me to several pain 6 management doctors. I've had all kind of injections 7 for pain, a lot of additional medications, a lot of 8 therapy, and that the level of stress as far as how 9 things have been approached in the branch have really 10 increased that level of stress. 11 So this is just supporting documentation 12 from doctors stating that I do have a disability. 13 Also that it's to the point now that I'm on actually 14 alternate work scheduled. The doctor asked me to work 15 three days at home, telework, because of stressful 16 conditions at work. 17 THE COURT: And what was the nature of 18 the original disability when you left the 19 military? 20 THE WITNESS: Nerve. I have pinched 21 nerves. I have a nerve disorder. I got a lot 22 of pinched nerves from serving in the military, 23 from doing a lot of things in the military, and 24 I actually had to have immediate surgery, and I 25 had to have a cervical fusion as soon as I got Page 72 1 out of the military. 2 MS. KING: Your Honor, I'd like to tender 3 Exhibit C-9 into evidence. 4 THE COURT: Any objection? 5 MR. CHRISS: No objection, Your Honor. 6 THE COURT: Well -- 7 BY MS. KING: 8 Q. So just to clarify, Dr. King, you have a 9 preexisting condition that you received in the 10 military, but this disability is triggered by 11 stressors? 12 A. Stressors and anxiety. When things are 13 chaotic my anxiety level is definitely increased. 14 Q. And how did you realize that your 15 symptoms had gotten worse? How do you know it's not 16 other stressors? 17 A. Pain, confusion, anxiety, disoriented, 18 those kind of things. When -- some of the anxiety 19 issues that you have to the point that I had to go to 20 one of those extended -- I went to the emergency room. 21 That because this stress -- the anxiety level had went 22 up so much, and they had to refer me to a specialist 23 at the Emory Science Clinic, and they had to actually 24 do spinal injections. 25 Q. Now, have you had any traumatic event in Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (18) Pages 69 - 72 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 19 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 73 1 your life since you've been reassigned, like a death 2 in the family or a traumatic event that would cause 3 you stressors? 4 A. No. 5 Q. Now, do you go to doctors' appointments 6 for this disability? 7 A. I only go -- since I was already on 8 medication, I was already seeing pain management, so I 9 was going already. However, I had to go in an 10 increasing manner. I've gone to many -- several pain 11 management doctors outside of VA. 12 They referred me -- I've gone to spinal 13 clinics now to get spinal injections. I'm on 14 increased medication for anxiety, all just built on -- 15 they said that the anxiety level of doing this work, 16 being transferred with the chaotic nature of the 17 business of what we're doing, has really increased my 18 anxiety level, so I'm on four different medications 19 since I came into the branch that I was not on when I 20 came into the branch. 21 Q. And this is over what period of time? 22 A. This started triggering really a few 23 months after coming in. When I really was getting all 24 the e-mails and all of the complaints about work not 25 being done for years, getting all the amount of Page 74 1 complaints from employees and from lessors, from 2 agencies. It has -- what it does is it goes to the 3 point that it builds and builds and builds to the 4 point that you just have an episode, and I got to the 5 point that I was having anxiety episodes. 6 Q. And had you had that while you were in 7 Branch B? 8 A. I've never had anxiety episodes, no. It 9 was -- my pain level was really managed with the 10 medication that I was on. 11 Q. And to present day what is your present 12 condition? 13 A. My present condition is that I'm on a -- 14 my doctor recently has asked for me to go on an 15 alternate work schedule, working from home three days 16 a week because of the anxiety and stress level at 17 work, and that has been on file with -- human 18 resources does have the documentation. 19 Even though they can't share it with my 20 supervisor, they did explain to her that it was an 21 urgent nature, that she allowed it, and she did give 22 me two provisional -- she has not made it permanent, 23 but she gave me two provisional letters saying that 24 provisionally she would allow me to work three days a 25 week from home. Provisionally. Page 75 1 Q. So your accommodation request is that you 2 work three days from home? 3 A. Yes, telework. 4 Q. And that request was granted? 5 A. That request was granted even though I 6 don't do it because of the amount of workload and 7 issues that come up in the branch. I have not been 8 able to work that schedule. I'm in the office most of 9 the time. 10 (Thereupon, marked for identification, 11 Complainant's Exhibit C-10.) 12 BY MS. KING: 13 Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked 14 as Exhibit C-10. Could you please describe those 15 exhibits, Dr. King? 16 A. Okay. This exhibit just shows that on 17 December 11 LaSonya Glover gave me a 30-day telework 18 provisional accommodation starting December 15, and 19 then when that expired she gave me another one on 20 June -- January 26th. It was provisional, for another 21 two weeks, because she has not made -- she hasn't 22 decided to give me anything additional to the 23 provisional. 24 Q. And that's an accurate description of -- 25 those are the complete accommodation requests that you Page 76 1 requested? 2 A. Right. My doctor actually asked for it 3 to be permanent, but I've not been able to get the 4 permanent. 5 MS. KING: Your Honor, I'd like to tender 6 Exhibit C-10 into evidence. 7 THE COURT: Any objection? 8 MR. CHRISS: No objection. 9 THE COURT: It's admitted. 10 BY MS. KING: 11 Q. And the last part I just want to discuss 12 with you, Dr. King, is you mentioned prior in your 13 testimony that with -- associated with level fives you 14 got awards for your receiving level fives; is that 15 correct? 16 A. That's correct. 17 (Thereupon, marked for identification, 18 Complainant's Exhibit C-11.) 19 BY MS. KING: 20 Q. I'm going to show you what's been 21 marked -- 22 A. I have this. 23 Q. Oh, okay. Sorry. Thank you. I'm going 24 to show you what's been marked as Exhibit C-11. I 25 want you to describe, Dr. King, what is that document. Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (19) Pages 73 - 76 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 20 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 77 1 A. Okay. This document shows for the years 2 starting in -- well, no. All the way back to 2007 it 3 shows that I was a level five and that I received 4 individual cash awards and group cash awards for 5 various amounts of money throughout the -- the years 6 that I was in Branch B until I was transferred to 7 Branch D. At level fives. 8 Q. So prior to the reassignment you received 9 level fives, and that was usually a higher amount of 10 money that -- 11 A. It was -- it went from -- some of these 12 were $4,000, $3,000 cash awards, and I went down now 13 to -- sometimes we get a group award of $200 for 14 three. It's drastically different from what I was 15 getting in Branch B. 16 Q. So it's fair to say after that 17 reassignment you have not received any sum close to 18 what you were receiving before the reassignment? 19 A. According to -- to the CHRIS printout 20 here from HR, no. I get -- the most I've gotten on a 21 level three they give you is $200 when I was getting 22 $4,000, and two years straight I received $4,000, 23 1,050, another 1,050. So, no, nowhere near. 24 MS. KING: Your Honor, I'd like to tender 25 Exhibit C-11 into evidence. Page 78 1 THE COURT: Any objection? 2 MR. CHRISS: No objection, Your Honor. 3 THE COURT: It's admitted. 4 MS. KING: That concludes this witness, 5 Your Honor. 6 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Chriss, any 7 cross examination? 8 MR. CHRISS: Yes, Your Honor. 9 EXAMINATION 10 BY MR. CHRISS: 11 Q. Good morning, Dr. King. 12 A. Good morning, Mr. Chriss. 13 Q. I have a couple questions for you. 14 A. Okay. 15 Q. As an initial matter there was some 16 discussion about your ratings; correct? Do you 17 remember that? In your testimony this morning. 18 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). Which rating? 19 Which rating are you referring to? 20 Q. You stated that you received a five 21 annual APPAS rating for the five years before you were 22 reassigned to Branch D -- 23 A. That is correct -- 24 Q. -- section chief; correct? 25 A. That's correct. Page 79 1 Q. So in your GSA career you've received a 2 rating other than a rating five; correct? 3 A. Correct. Before I became a 13, yes. 4 Q. And can you describe what position you 5 held when you received the rating that was other than 6 a five? 7 A. A realty specialist, a leasing 8 specialist. 9 Q. Lease -- 10 A. Contracting officer. That's before I 11 became a team lead and before I became a section 12 chief. I was a senior -- this was before my 13, my 13 years as a 13. When I receive the fives, I was in the 14 GS-13 position. When I -- the performance evaluations 15 you're referring to, I was GS-12. 16 Q. And if I could show you a document -- 17 that's the wrong one. I'm having -- okay. Let me ask 18 you this. I mean, you're currently a section chief in 19 Branch D; correct? 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. How many people do you have to perform -- 22 do you have to provide annual APPAS rating for? 23 A. Nine. 24 Q. And have you had occasion -- have you 25 ever rated someone less than a five? Page 80 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And what do you use to determine how to 3 rate someone in terms of whether they get a one, a 4 two, a three, a four, or a five? 5 A. Their performance. 6 Q. Do you use anything else? 7 A. It has to be according to their 8 performance plan. 9 Q. Now, for some of the years when you 10 received a five, you were on the performance plan as a 11 team lead; correct? 12 A. Yes, that's correct. 13 Q. And if I could show you this document -- 14 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). 15 Q. -- and give you a second to take a look 16 at that document. 17 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). 18 Q. Is that a performance plan that I think 19 you were under as a team lead when you worked for 20 Scott Mowry? 21 A. That's correct. 22 Q. And you see how that document has 23 separate columns that discuss particular traits for 24 level five performance versus level four performance 25 and on to level one performance; correct? Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (20) Pages 77 - 80 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 21 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 81 1 A. That's correct, uh-huh (affirmative). 2 Q. And if you look at the category and the 3 language in -- for a level five, if you could read 4 some of that for one of the performance elements. 5 A. Okay. Customer driven. So what do you 6 want me to read here? "Customer -- communications 7 with customers are completely responsible to identify 8 needs and need standards. Provides evidence of 9 support of completion of enrichment activities." 10 That's a level five. 11 Q. Now, if you -- 12 A. "No verifiable -- more than one 13 verifiable complaint against -- verifiable complaint 14 regarding responsibility." 15 Q. So if you read that same section for a 16 level three level performance, how does it read? 17 A. Okay. "Works independently and only use 18 -- and only on unusual and nonroutine transaction 19 requires assistance. Provides accurate and complete 20 information. No more than three verifiable complaints 21 of -- responsiveness." 22 THE REPORTER: Excuse me. Could you read 23 that a little more slowly. 24 THE WITNESS: Again, "No more than three 25 verifiable complaints. Works independently and Page 82 1 only on unusual and nonroutine transactions 2 requires assistance." 3 BY MR. CHRISS: 4 Q. So, I mean, you're a manager? You've 5 been a manager for a while. You've been rating people 6 for -- 7 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). 8 Q. -- a couple years now? 9 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). 10 Q. So is there anything wrong with a level 11 three annual APPAS rating? 12 A. I don't know. I don't rate people by if 13 it's wrong or right. I rate people based on their 14 performance. 15 Q. Right. And you rate them based on their 16 performance against the performance plan and the 17 critical elements; correct? 18 A. That is correct. 19 Q. But looking at a level three in terms of 20 how it's described in the performance plan for this 21 team lead position, is there anything in here that's 22 negative or says that a level three means you're not 23 meeting the performance standard? 24 A. It does not mean that you are not 25 meeting, but it does not mean that you are Page 83 1 exceptional, and as an exceptional employee I have 2 been all -- a level five, and I have met the criteria 3 on level five. So it really doesn't, to me, matter if 4 a level three is good or bad, but to me on what 5 performance standard I'm actually performing, and so 6 that's what I look at. I look at the performance 7 level that actually documents my true evaluation. 8 Q. And, Ms. King, you stated that you have 9 rated employees who report to you at a level three; 10 correct? 11 A. Right. And the reason I've done it, 12 though, is a different reason. The reason I've done 13 it is because coming again over to the branch there 14 were many, many issues in the branch, which I have 15 done documentation that has been provided showing that 16 people were not -- were not performing. They were 17 leaving projects on their desk for two years. 18 They did not update project reports, 19 which was my requirement. They were doing extensive 20 amount of holdovers, and I didn't do holdovers, so 21 their performance level was in no regards a reflection 22 of my performance level coming to Branch D. 23 They were -- had an ingrained behavior of 24 how they -- that they functioned, and that ingrained 25 behavior was a continued protocol, so it was more like Page 84 1 a group thing, issue where everybody kind of thought 2 the same and acted the same, so their documentation 3 would never reflect my performance that I performed 4 because I don't perform in that manner. 5 Q. So for persons that you have rated at a 6 level three, are you stating that their performance 7 was not meeting the -- was not satisfactory? 8 A. No. What I am saying is that they did, 9 just like you asked me to say, what does it say? No 10 more than three verifiable complaints. They did not 11 have more than three, but they could have some -- it 12 -- they did have verified complaints. 13 If you have problems, you have projects 14 sitting on your desk for two or three years and you 15 have taken no action on those projects and you have 16 customers calling me every day asking what to do, of 17 course you're not going to be a level five because 18 you're not taking action. You're not satisfying 19 agency needs. You're not meeting requirements. 20 You're not using taxpayer dollars wisely. 21 So of course you're looking for 22 accountability as a manager. You'd never get a level 23 five at that point. That would not be me. I wouldn't 24 have projects sitting on my desk. I wouldn't have 25 been doing holdovers. I would have had -- when people Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (21) Pages 81 - 84 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 22 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 85 1 call me, I call them back, so that does not reflect 2 me. 3 Q. So you will agree that a level five is 4 the highest possible rating that you can receive on 5 this scale from -- 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. -- one to five; correct? 8 A. And five different branch chiefs for five 9 years thought they -- they put me as a level five, so 10 it wasn't just Scott Mowry. It was five branch chiefs 11 before that, that said you are an outstanding 12 employee. 13 Q. And have you ever had occasion to rate an 14 employee at a level five? 15 A. Yes, I have. 16 Q. And -- 17 A. Since I've been in Branch D I have 18 because I saw progress on what they did on their own, 19 on some projects they did independently of the branch. 20 They did high -- they did more projects like me: More 21 new construction, more projects that they had to work 22 independently and they had to meet Congress people. 23 They had to do -- it was a lot of stakeholders that 24 they had to involve -- external stakeholders that they 25 had to involve with their projects. Page 86 1 They had to do a lot of business meetings 2 outside with -- you know, with city officials, and so 3 because they did things outside of their normal work 4 agreement and they show exceptional work habits, yes, 5 I did rate an employee a level five, and that's the 6 kind of things I was doing. Exactly things I was 7 doing. I've led many teams during the same period. 8 In fact, I just stopped leading one for 9 national team -- a national team. I led a national 10 team for three years. I went to Washington. We had a 11 conference call. We made the standard operating 12 procedures for the team. We changed all of the 13 policies. We came up with a whole new program. We 14 came with an on-line presentation that we trained the 15 whole region that I was a part of. So yeah, I am 16 exceptional and I'm not the standard employee, so 17 those are the type of employee that I rate a level 18 five. 19 Q. So you have rated an employee at a level 20 five. What is that employee's name? 21 A. Elaine Peters. 22 Q. And how many years have you rated her? 23 A. One level, level five, and since then 24 she's not been involved with any of those high-level 25 projects. She's not done anything outside of her Page 87 1 standard role of duty. However, that's not me because 2 I have -- like I said, throughout being in Branch D 3 I've still been on leading -- leadership teams and 4 national leadership teams, so I am above just a 5 standard rating. 6 (Thereupon, marked for identification, 7 Agency Exhibit A-1.) 8 BY MR. CHRISS: 9 Q. Now, Ms. King, does that appear to be an 10 accurate version of your -- authentic version of your 11 performance plan? 12 A. Uh-huh (affirmative), until it changed in 13 November of 2011. 14 MR. CHRISS: The agency would like to 15 move to admit that into evidence as Agency 16 Exhibit 1. 17 MS. KING: No objection. 18 THE WITNESS: See this -- 19 MS. KING: No objection, Your Honor. 20 THE WITNESS: Okay. But you did know 21 that they changed November of '11? It changed. 22 BY MR. CHRISS: 23 Q. Yes, that's fine. Okay. Now, Ms. King, 24 if I could direct your attention to report of 25 investigation, page 75 in this binder. Page 88 1 A. Okay. 2 Q. There are page numbers at the bottom. 3 A. Seventy-five, okay. 4 Q. That's the performance plan that you 5 worked under, November of 2011 -- 6 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). 7 Q. -- under Scott Mowry in Branch B as in 8 boy; correct? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. And this is a performance plan as a 11 supervisory realty specialist, which is also known as 12 a section chief; correct? 13 A. But it was the same as noted on here, the 14 same as a branch chief. We had the same positions. 15 So same position description per Bridget Rhodes' 16 e-mail that it was a same exact identical to the 17 branch chief. 18 Q. If you could just answer the question 19 that I asked. 20 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). 21 Q. Is this the -- is a supervisory realty 22 specialist, this performance plan, is this what people 23 call section chief, the performance plan for a section 24 chief? 25 A. No. This was actually the performance Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (22) Pages 85 - 88 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 23 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 89 1 plan for a branch chief. They had not developed one 2 for the section chief yet, and I have the notes in 3 there from Ellen Seiler saying that. 4 THE COURT: Well, was this the one that 5 was typically being used for the section chief? 6 THE WITNESS: Yes. They changed it to -- 7 right. They use the same one for the branch 8 chief, for the section chief, correct. 9 BY MR. CHRISS: 10 Q. And if you look at the top left of the 11 document where it says, "Employee name, Karen King"? 12 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). 13 Q. And it says, "Position, supervisory 14 realty specialist," and it has the date, November 14, 15 2011? 16 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). 17 Q. Was this your performance plan? 18 A. Yes. 19 Q. And were you ever a branch chief? 20 A. Just acting branch chief. 21 Q. So this is your performance plan when you 22 were a section chief; correct? 23 A. This is one they gave me as a section 24 chief. 25 Q. So is it your contention that you should Page 90 1 have been rated at the level five as a section chief, 2 according to what's in this performance plan? 3 A. That is correct. 4 Q. Now, wouldn't you agree, Ms. King, that 5 the leasing division has a lot of quantitative 6 measures that tie to performance and evaluating 7 performance? 8 A. Yes. All branches do, uh-huh 9 (affirmative). 10 Q. So in terms of assessing performance, 11 part of what a manager has to do is to look at how 12 well particular sections perform against these 13 quantitative measures; right? 14 A. That's correct. All do. 15 Q. So is it your contention that your 16 performance measures were at the level where you 17 should have received a five? 18 A. That is correct. 19 Q. And, I mean, wouldn't you agree that, you 20 know, you were not accustomed to receiving less than a 21 five; right? 22 A. I receive a five for five years as a 13. 23 Q. And it's your testimony that there is 24 some entitlement? That, you know, you should be 25 getting a five every single year of your GSA Page 91 1 employment? 2 A. That's all incorrect. I should be rated 3 as according to my performance, and I was performing 4 at a level five. 5 THE COURT: Let me ask you this. Who is 6 it that gave you this rating? 7 THE WITNESS: LaSonya Duncan. 8 THE COURT: Her last name once again? 9 THE WITNESS: Duncan. It's Glover. She 10 use two names. Glover; Duncan. 11 THE COURT: Dawkins? 12 THE WITNESS: Glover, yeah. Duncan. 13 THE COURT: Let's go with Glover. 14 THE WITNESS: Okay. 15 THE COURT: Is this a situation where her 16 hands were tied and she had to give you this 17 rating, given the performance of your unit with 18 regard to these statistics, or could she have 19 rated you more highly if she wanted to? 20 THE WITNESS: She could have -- as a 21 supervisor you can -- you can, like I said, as 22 a supervisor I've given people five, and I 23 actually gave people fours and fives, so you 24 can't -- 25 THE COURT: Well, are there situations Page 92 1 where perhaps somebody is -- a little bit like 2 you: They're put in a difficult situation; 3 therefore, their numbers are at the three level 4 and not the five level? Does the rating 5 official have discretion to say, we think there 6 is valid reasons for this; therefore, we're 7 going to rate them more highly than what the 8 numbers would suggest? 9 THE WITNESS: My concern with this rating 10 is a couple things. Is that when I received my 11 first section chief evaluation -- well, I 12 started working in October as a section chief. 13 I didn't have a performance plan when I started 14 working. The requirements said that you are 15 supposed to have an evaluation in 30 days. 16 Okay. 17 So I received the evaluation -- I mean 18 performance plan in 30 days. I didn't receive 19 this evaluation, this section chief duty 20 description until November of 2011. Okay? So 21 I did -- I received it then. Now, the problem, 22 because this was still the branch chief's duty 23 description, they knew that they had to change 24 it, so this was an interim. So I didn't get a 25 section chief where this was changed until Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (23) Pages 89 - 92 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 24 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 93 1 March of 2012. Okay. 2 Now, when I transferred to Branch B, 3 (sic) I didn't get any interim appraisal as far 4 as anything, you know, saying, that you have 5 changed. In fact, Scott Mowry still had me as 6 a five. Even with LaSonya in the midyear, she 7 never mentioned anything about you -- you know, 8 your rating is going to change to a -- two 9 levels down by the end because you're not doing 10 this, this, and this, so we never had -- 11 THE COURT: Well, wasn't -- 12 THE WITNESS: -- that conversation. 13 THE COURT: -- your objection to the 14 transfer based on the idea that just no matter 15 how well you did, given the problems in the 16 branch, your rating was going to go down? 17 THE WITNESS: That should not have ever 18 occurred based on branch performance that they 19 had two years ago before me that would reflect 20 my performance and I just got there in January. 21 That should never happen. There is no way that 22 should happen where now I'm being impacted 23 unjustly and adversarially -- 24 THE COURT: Well, if -- 25 THE WITNESS: -- based on -- Page 94 1 THE COURT: -- that would be the case, 2 then why did you object to the transfer? I can 3 see you saying, I don't want to be transferred 4 to this unit because they're setting me up for 5 failure -- 6 THE WITNESS: Right. 7 THE COURT: -- they don't have 8 discretion -- 9 THE WITNESS: Right. 10 THE COURT: -- to say your numbers are 11 bad but they're getting better, and we realize 12 you have problems. That seems to be your 13 basis -- am I understanding that that's at 14 least part of the basis for your objection to 15 the transfer? 16 THE WITNESS: That's correct, because I 17 knew -- 18 THE COURT: Well -- 19 THE WITNESS: -- I was going into hot 20 water. 21 THE COURT: -- then is this a situation 22 where the real problem is the transfer as 23 opposed to the rating and the rating was simply 24 something that they had to give you, given the 25 difficulties in the branch? Page 95 1 THE WITNESS: They did not -- okay. 2 This -- typically what happens, if a person has 3 a level five -- they tell how -- and how policy 4 says -- actually the GSA policy says is that 5 typically when you are leaving -- when they -- 6 in the same rating period I'm going to change. 7 If you are a level five employee, if I give -- 8 THE COURT: They give -- 9 THE WITNESS: -- a four -- 10 THE COURT: -- you some warning? They 11 tell you -- 12 THE WITNESS: Right. They tell you that. 13 THE COURT: So that's one objection. 14 THE WITNESS: They give you interim 15 appraisal. They say you're changing, or they 16 give you some counseling saying your evaluation 17 is going to change, especially if you're 18 talking about two different levels, so they 19 give you some kind of counseling. 20 That's what I would do with my employees. 21 I sit them down and I talk to them. I don't 22 surprise them at the end of the year and now 23 come out and I give them a level three, which 24 is two levels below and then I give you a 25 spreadsheet and say, well, you know your Page 96 1 section is not performing; it hasn't been 2 performing for the whole year and now we're 3 holding you accountable. That for me was 4 unfair because you -- 5 THE COURT: Let me stop you right there. 6 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 7 THE COURT: Beyond the lack of notice at 8 the midterm, do you have any other objections 9 to the rating? 10 THE WITNESS: I had objection to the 11 rating because it wasn't a true reflection of 12 me because I wasn't -- 13 THE COURT: Excuse me? 14 THE WITNESS: -- in the branch -- it 15 wasn't a reflection -- a true reflection of me 16 because I wasn't in the branch for that whole 17 entire year. I came to the branch in January. 18 I wasn't -- 19 THE COURT: I'm going to stop you right 20 there. I'll get back to the previous question. 21 Was this a situation where Miss Glover's hands 22 were tied and she had to give you this rating 23 and you do object to the lack of the midterm? 24 Let's set aside the objection to the lack of 25 the midterm. That's on the record. By the Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (24) Pages 93 - 96 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 25 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 97 1 time you got down to the final rating or the 2 rating at the end of the year, did Miss Glover 3 actually have discretion to rate you higher? 4 THE WITNESS: She did. 5 THE COURT: Okay. 6 THE WITNESS: She had discretion. 7 THE COURT: And, Mr. Chriss, you can 8 continue. 9 BY MR. CHRISS: 10 Q. Dr. King, so as it pertains to ratings, I 11 mean, would you agree that, again, the manager has 12 discretion in terms of whether to rate an employee at 13 a three, a four, or a five or even a one and a two; 14 correct? 15 A. Yes. But the discretion goes to -- still 16 goes back to the performance plan. 17 Q. Are you -- I mean, are you aware of any 18 HR policy that requires management to provide advance 19 notice somehow if it's going to rate an employee at a 20 level three? 21 THE COURT: I think she said there is 22 one -- 23 THE WITNESS: There is a policy. 24 THE COURT: -- so why don't you be more 25 specific? Go ahead. Page 98 1 THE WITNESS: Yes. There is an HR policy 2 that they sent out to managers asking managers 3 if their rating period is -- you're changing 4 your rating for your employees, that you should 5 have a conversation. 6 BY MR. CHRISS: 7 Q. And just to speak to that -- 8 A. Not just give a person evaluation at the 9 end that you go down two levels. 10 Q. In terms of a change in rating, you're 11 talking about if an employee received say a four 12 APPAS, annual APPAS rating, the year before and you as 13 a manager, you're planning to rate them at a level 14 below a four, that there is some HR requirement that 15 you communicate with them in a certain way in advance? 16 A. Yes. 17 THE COURT: She's saying you're supposed 18 to give them a midterm review? 19 THE WITNESS: Yeah. You're supposed to 20 give them some kind of advance notice because 21 then that person still believes that they're 22 performing at their four level. 23 BY MR. CHRISS: 24 Q. Right. Well, okay. Every employee is 25 supposed to receive a midterm review; correct? Page 99 1 A. Right. And you should have that 2 conversation at that midyear review. If they are 3 perform -- if you -- what our HR guidance is, if you 4 are -- at midyear if you no longer have a five 5 employee, you have a four, and they really been 6 getting on us to have a four employee and now you know 7 that you are going to say they're a three, then you 8 should just have a conversation because you really 9 need to let them know because there might be some 10 things that they can do to get back to that four or 11 that five level. 12 THE COURT: Ma'am, let me stop you right 13 there. Is this a situation where everybody is 14 supposed to get midterm review? 15 THE WITNESS: Yes. 16 THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Chriss. You can 17 continue. 18 BY MR. CHRISS: 19 Q. Can you identify the policy or how that's 20 communicated to managers? 21 A. Kathy Day sends out information to 22 managers. 23 Q. By e-mail? 24 A. By e-mail, uh-huh (affirmative). 25 Q. So, Ms. King, I mean, you testified that Page 100 1 you are a strong performer. You received fives for 2 five years in a row; correct? 3 A. That's correct. 4 Q. Now, during some period of time there 5 when you received the five, you were a team lead; 6 correct? 7 A. That's correct. 8 Q. And as a team lead part of your 9 responsibility was, you know, leading the team that 10 you were assigned, trying to help that team meet 11 certain performance measures for the team; correct? 12 A. That's correct. And I received a five 13 during that time. 14 (Thereupon, marked for identification, 15 Agency Exhibit A-2.) 16 BY MR. CHRISS: 17 Q. Now, I'm going to present you a document 18 here. Take a look at this document. Does this 19 document reflect the organizational chart for PBS 20 leasing in November of 2012? Let me rephrase -- 21 A. Yes, because I can't -- because I don't 22 remember seeing it, so, I mean, I just can't tell 23 you -- I have to look through all the names on here -- 24 Q. Right. 25 A. -- so I can't really be 100 percent Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (25) Pages 97 - 100 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 26 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 101 1 valid that this is exactly what it was in 2012. 2 Q. Right. Well -- 3 A. Because this is an organizational chart, 4 so -- 5 Q. Right. In the column for Branch D as in 6 dog, do you see your section that includes you -- 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. -- your name as section chief? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. And the names that are listed within that 11 section, is that what you recall in terms of who was 12 in your section for the date of this document, the top 13 right, which says November 3rd, 2012? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And does this appear to reflect the PBS 16 leasing division that you currently work in? 17 A. As I say, I don't know all -- there is a 18 lot of new people, so I can't verify every name in 19 here. 20 Q. Right. 21 A. I can just verify my branch, because, you 22 know, we have people in Florida. We have -- some 23 people I don't even know now, so -- 24 Q. Right. 25 MR. CHRISS: Here is a copy. Page 102 1 MS. KING: Thank you. 2 MR. CHRISS: Your Honor, I'd like to move 3 to enter this document into evidence as Agency 4 Exhibit Number 2. 5 THE COURT: Any objection? 6 MS. KING: No, Your Honor. 7 THE COURT: It's admitted. 8 MR. CHRISS: Your Honor, may I approach? 9 I'd like to hand you a copy of this. 10 THE COURT: Yes. Okay. 11 BY MR. CHRISS: 12 Q. So, Ms. King, this is the organizational 13 chart for PBS leasing, correct, in 2012? 14 A. I guess. This is my first time seeing 15 this, so I'm going to go by what you say. 16 Q. This document was shared with opposing 17 counsel in the documents that were produced in 18 discovery. 19 A. Okay. 20 Q. And we're just going to talk a little bit 21 about the organization of this document just to help 22 everyone understand how the group is structured a 23 little bit. 24 A. Okay. 25 Q. So if you look at the column on the far Page 103 1 left -- 2 A. Let me see it again. I'll give it back. 3 I know what you're talking about since you -- all 4 right. 5 Q. If you look at the column on the far 6 left -- 7 A. Okay. 8 Q. -- at the top where it says, "4PR1A 9 customer service branch, Florida." 10 A. Okay. Uh-huh (affirmative). 11 Q. Is that making -- that entire column, 12 does that include everybody who was in Branch A as in 13 apple? 14 A. I don't know all the people. 15 Q. Right. I'm sorry. Let me rephrase. 16 A. Okay. 17 Q. The way this document is organized, is 18 that referencing Branch A as in apple that's in 19 Sunrise, Florida? 20 A. Yes. That's how it's structured, yeah. 21 It's structured like that. 22 Q. So the letter at the end of the 4PR1 for 23 each column is identifying one of the branches; is 24 that correct? 25 A. That's correct. Page 104 1 Q. So likewise, if you move one to the right 2 where it says Scott Mowry at the top, branch chief, 3 that entire column in a sense is Branch B; correct? 4 A. That's correct. 5 Q. Same thing for Branch C to the right 6 under Liz Williams; correct? 7 A. Yes, that's correct. 8 Q. And finally one column to the right where 9 it says, "LaSonya Duncan, branch chief," that's the 10 column that is applicable to Branch D as in dog; 11 right? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. So when you were testifying earlier about 14 the fact that you worked in Branch B for ten years -- 15 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). 16 Q. -- that would be at the branch, you know, 17 in the column that has Scott Mowry as the branch 18 chief; correct? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. And there came a time when you were 21 reassigned to work in Branch D, and that would be 22 Branch D under LaSonya Duncan, correct, and that's 23 where you currently are; right? 24 A. That's correct. 25 Q. And at the top on this document where we Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (26) Pages 101 - 104 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 27 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 105 1 see Ellen Seiler as deputy director, basically she is 2 the second person, you know, in charge for the leasing 3 division; right? 4 A. That's correct. 5 Q. So, Ms. King, again, you testified and 6 you were talking about documents that showed pretty 7 clearly that, you know, you have a reputation as being 8 a very strong performer; correct? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. You're very capable, you're very bright, 11 you graduated with honors from several different 12 levels of education in terms of advanced education; 13 correct? 14 A. That is correct. 15 Q. You have very good leadership skills that 16 you have been recognized for in the past; correct? 17 A. That is correct. 18 Q. You've received monetary performance -- 19 bonuses for your performance; correct? 20 A. Yes. In the past, that's correct. 21 Q. So when you were reassigned to -- I mean, 22 there came a time that you were reassigned to Branch 23 D; correct? 24 A. That is correct. 25 Q. And, I mean, do you recall what Page 106 1 management told you as to why you were being 2 reassigned? 3 A. They told me that they needed someone to 4 work in Branch B -- I mean Branch D. They said I was 5 the right person for Branch D. I don't know -- oh. I 6 don't know what they exactly meant by that, but they 7 said that they selected me and I was the right fit for 8 Branch D. 9 I don't know what the right fit meant 10 because I did explain to them that I didn't have, you 11 know, any experience in Branch D. I had never worked 12 projects in Branch D and that I did express that from 13 -- see, that's one variable, that I heard it was a 14 failing branch. So yes, they did tell me that I was 15 the right fit. 16 Q. If I could turn your attention to report 17 of investigation page 85. 18 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). Okay. 19 Q. This is your grievance that's already 20 part of the report of investigation; correct? 21 A. Yes. I think so, yes. 22 Q. If you look at the bottom of the page, 23 under supporting information -- 24 A. Where you see that? 25 Q. I'm going to read -- Page 107 1 A. Where is supporting? Oh, the first page. 2 Okay. I see it. 3 Q. Page 85, supporting information, it says, 4 "Effective January 15, 2012, I was transferred to 5 Branch D. This was presented as a mandate and not an 6 option. It was stated that this transfer was based on 7 my leadership abilities and focus on achieving 8 results." 9 Do you see that language? 10 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). Uh-huh 11 (affirmative). 12 Q. So does that help with refreshing your 13 recollection that -- I mean, do you disagree that you 14 were not -- I mean, this is jury grievance. I mean, 15 you stated that you were transferred and you were told 16 that it was because of your leadership abilities and 17 focus on achieving results; correct? 18 A. Yes. That's -- yeah. I'm not going to 19 disagree that that's what they told me, and as I 20 stated before, my leadership abilities, as we've 21 stated, were exceptional, and they still are, and my 22 performance evaluations reflect it. So yeah, they did 23 indicate that. I didn't think it was valid, but yes, 24 that's what they did tell me. 25 Q. And just so that we all understand here, Page 108 1 at some point you competed for a position -- I mean, 2 you submitted an application for an announcement to 3 become a section chief; correct? 4 A. That is correct. 5 Q. Tell me a little bit about how you came 6 to submit your application for that section chief 7 position. 8 A. An announcement was posted, and I 9 applied. 10 Q. And do you recall that several team leads 11 competed for that announcement and several section 12 chief positions were selected as a result of that 13 announcement? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. If you could take a look at this document 16 here. 17 A. No. This is the same one you just showed 18 me, and you asked me if I was okay with it, and I gave 19 it to King to, you know -- you gave me that one 20 already, my supervisory realty specialist, asked me 21 was that for the section chief, and I said yes -- is 22 that a different one than section chief -- 23 (Thereupon, marked for identification, 24 Agency Exhibit A-3.) 25 BY MR. CHRISS: Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (27) Pages 105 - 108 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 28 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 109 1 Q. This is -- okay. Let me hand you this 2 document. If you take a look at this document, does 3 that appear to be the announcement -- 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. -- that you submitted an application for? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. This appears to be an authentic version 8 of the announcement? 9 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). It's the one we 10 just looked at. 11 MR. CHRISS: The agency would like to 12 enter that into evidence as -- I believe it's 13 Agency Exhibit Number 3. 14 THE COURT: Any objection? 15 MS. KING: No, Your Honor. 16 THE COURT: It will be allowed. 17 MR. CHRISS: All right. 18 BY MR. CHRISS: 19 Q. Now, Ms. King, you testified previously 20 that management indicated that you would remain in 21 your branch after you were selected for the section 22 chief position; right? 23 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). And it was 24 actually in writing, yes. 25 Q. Previously you'd been a team lead again Page 110 1 in Branch B as in boy. After the selection -- after 2 you were selected as a section chief -- 3 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). 4 Q. -- for a while you remained in Branch B 5 as in boy; correct? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. Now, if you could take a look at the 8 announcement -- I'll give you some time -- is there 9 any language in that announcement, do you recall, that 10 said that persons competing for the job who are 11 currently in a branch in PBS leasing would remain in 12 that same branch if they were selected to be a section 13 chief? 14 A. No. 15 Q. So you're stating that after the 16 selection process someone in management communicated 17 to you that you would be remaining in Branch B? 18 A. Yes. Human resources, in writing. 19 Q. And who was that person in human 20 resources? 21 A. It was Tina Lindsey, and the e-mail came 22 from Bridget Rhodes, who was the policy manager. 23 Bridget Rhodes here, the leasing policy and program 24 manager, she said who will be their branch chiefs. 25 Said King and -- and she has a copy. It says King and Page 111 1 Maria will stay in Branch B, and it came from human 2 resources. 3 Q. Now, who ultimately would have authority 4 in terms of, you know, where you would work and where 5 you would be reassigned? Would that be HR or PBS 6 leasing management? 7 A. It would be -- it really comes under the 8 director and the deputy director could get somebody to 9 -- they run the division, so they run the branches. 10 Actually over the branches. 11 Q. So when you say that -- 12 A. It would not be up to a branch chief. It 13 would be up to their manager to decide if they going 14 to allow me to move. 15 Q. So it would be under the PBS leasing 16 management team, not HR; correct? 17 A. Right. It would be under director, 18 correct. 19 Q. So any communication that you received 20 from Miss Lindsey, who is in HR, or Miss Rhodes, who 21 is a lower level in management at some point -- 22 A. No. She's a branch chief. 23 Q. She's a branch chief? 24 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). 25 Q. Was Miss Rhodes your branch chief in Page 112 1 Branch B at the time that you received the 2 communication from her indicating that you would 3 remain in your Branch B? 4 A. No. She was just over policies. 5 Q. So there came a time when -- you know, 6 when the transfer occurred you testified that you were 7 asked to, you know, report to an office to have a 8 meeting with Mr. Mowry; is that correct? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. And you also testified that -- you spent 11 some time talking about Maria Dent. 12 THE COURT: Why don't you just hold your 13 fire for just a minute or two until those 14 sirens go? 15 MR. CHRISS: Okay. 16 BY MR. CHRISS: 17 Q. You spent some time talking about Maria 18 Dent in the context of who should have been assigned 19 to Branch D; is that correct? 20 A. That's correct. 21 Q. Now, the announcement that I showed you 22 for the section chief position -- 23 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). 24 Q. -- do you recall the persons who were 25 selected under that announcement as section chiefs? Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (28) Pages 109 - 112 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 29 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 113 1 A. Yes. It was Maria Dent and myself, Karen 2 King. Under Branch D it was Felicia Walker. Under 3 Branch C it was -- who else in here? James Thompson 4 and what other person? Somebody else. Oh, here we 5 go. Mike Ellis. 6 Q. So it was a total of five of you; 7 correct? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. Now, previously, before there were 10 section chiefs, there were team leads; correct? 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. So, I mean, would you agree that there 13 was a shift and a restructuring in PBS leasing where 14 you went from having three team leads per branch and 15 three teams per branch to two section chiefs per 16 branch; correct? 17 A. Two team leads, yeah. Because we were 18 team leads, so we went from team lead to section 19 chiefs. Is that what you are asking? 20 Q. Correct. 21 A. So we still -- we were still in a -- for 22 me, all of us were section -- team leads anyway, so 23 all we did was change to section chief. 24 Q. To restate -- 25 A. Okay. Page 114 1 Q. So was there a restructuring in PBS 2 leasing from team lead positions to section chief 3 positions? 4 A. Yes. The -- our roles changed to section 5 chief. 6 Q. And the performance plan and the roles 7 and responsibilities for the team lead were different 8 than those for the section chief; correct? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. Team leads were required to compete to 11 become section chiefs; correct? 12 A. That's correct. 13 Q. Some team leads did not become section 14 chiefs; correct? 15 A. That's correct. 16 Q. By becoming a section chief you joined 17 the management team because you were rating employees' 18 performance; correct? 19 A. That's correct. 20 Q. So of the five people who were selected 21 as section chiefs, isn't it true that two of those 22 five folks were located in Sunrise, Florida? 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. And those two folks were James -- is 25 it -- actually, who were those two folks, if you can Page 115 1 tell me? 2 A. James and Mike. 3 Q. Yes. James Thompson and Mike Ellis; 4 correct? 5 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). 6 Q. So in effect there were three section 7 chiefs in Atlanta, Georgia: Yourself, Karen King; 8 Felicia Walker; and -- 9 A. Maria Dent. 10 Q. -- Maria Dent; correct? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. And would you agree that you and 13 Miss Dent were already in Branch B; correct? 14 A. That's correct. 15 Q. And Branches B, C, and D, those jobs are 16 based in Atlanta, Georgia; correct? 17 A. Yes, that's correct. 18 Q. So -- 19 THE COURT: Which ones are based in 20 Atlanta? 21 MR. CHRISS: B, C as in Charlie, and D as 22 in dog. 23 THE COURT: Wait. B as in boy? 24 MR. CHRISS: B as in boy, yes. 25 THE COURT: B, C, and D? Page 116 1 MR. CHRISS: That's correct. 2 THE COURT: Okay. 3 BY MR. CHRISS: 4 Q. And just to clarify, at the top of this 5 organizational chart where there is an identifier with 6 territories and parentheticals, how does that relate 7 to where the jobs are performed? For example, where 8 it says, "Branch B, Georgia, South Carolina," does 9 that mean that those people work in, say, South 10 Carolina or Georgia? 11 A. We all are in -- right there in that same 12 floor, that same group, so it's no -- we don't -- just 13 because they assign you a territory, we are all still 14 on the same floor, that same group. It's just a 15 matter of saying that you going to work in a 16 particular branch. 17 Q. I understand. So, for example, for 18 Branch D where it says Alabama and North Carolina, all 19 of those persons actually work in Atlanta, Georgia, 20 but support -- 21 A. Right. 22 Q. -- I guess leases or other items that are 23 located in North Carolina and Alabama? 24 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). 25 Q. So getting back to where we were, three Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (29) Pages 113 - 116 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 30 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 117 1 section chiefs were selected, two that already had 2 been working in Branch B -- Maria Dent, Karen King -- 3 correct -- 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. -- yourself? And the one other -- 6 THE COURT: Let me interrupt for just a 7 minute. Are the Florida branches based in 8 Florida? 9 THE WITNESS: Yes. 10 THE COURT: Okay. But then everybody 11 else is based in Atlanta? 12 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's correct. 13 BY MR. CHRISS: 14 Q. So again, there were three persons, 15 section chiefs, who had been selected in Atlanta, 16 Georgia: Yourself, Maria Dent, and Felicia Walker -- 17 A. Correct. 18 Q. -- right? 19 THE COURT: And what branch was 20 Miss Walker working in when she was selected? 21 THE WITNESS: Branch C. 22 THE COURT: Okay. 23 BY MR. CHRISS: 24 Q. So of the five that were selected was 25 anybody selected who was already in Branch D as in Page 118 1 dog? 2 A. Not on the day of their selection, no. 3 On this chart it shows it, but not on the day of 4 selection. 5 Q. Right. And the date of selection was 6 before the date on this chart; right? 7 A. Yes. Right. 8 Q. So, I mean, wouldn't you agree that 9 management -- that it made sense for someone to be 10 assigned to work as a section chief in Branch D? 11 A. Okay. Okay. It's -- I would say this. 12 It does make sense for someone to work in -- be 13 assigned to Branch D as a section chief. However, 14 when the transfer was done on January 16, Wanda 15 Hardiman was also selected as a -- a detail 16 appointment on the same day as I was selected to start 17 in Branch D, so we started on the same day in Branch D 18 in January. She started a detail as a section chief, 19 so they already -- they had one on the same day I 20 started in January, and they filled my position with 21 someone else, in Branch B, so they still needed 22 somebody in Branch B on the same day. 23 THE COURT: Who replaced you in Branch B? 24 THE WITNESS: Scott Mowry. I mean Scott 25 -- Scott Ayers -- Ayers did -- A-Y-E-R-S -- Page 119 1 replaced me, and Ellen sent out an e-mail 2 saying Karen King is going to be reassigned, 3 Wanda is going to be Branch D, Scott Mowry is 4 going to replace her Branch B, and that Ryan 5 Johnson would be in Branch C. So they had all 6 -- by the date I was reassigned, they had all 7 six section chiefs in place. 8 THE COURT: Okay. Now, was Mr. Ayers one 9 of those people who had recently been promoted 10 to section chief? 11 THE WITNESS: No. He was a team lead. 12 He had been a team lead. He applied, but he 13 did not get the position. 14 THE COURT: Okay. 15 THE WITNESS: So, yeah, that's it right 16 there. 17 THE COURT: And Miss Dent was promoted 18 to -- 19 THE WITNESS: Section chief, right. 20 THE COURT: How long had she been a team 21 lead for? 22 THE WITNESS: She had been a team lead 23 for a few years, just like I had been but -- 24 THE COURT: As long as you or -- 25 THE WITNESS: -- in another branch. She Page 120 1 had came from Branch C. 2 THE COURT: But what was your length of 3 service as a team lead as opposed to hers? 4 THE WITNESS: Probably about the same 5 amount of time because she was a team lead in 6 Branch C and I was in Branch B. 7 THE COURT: Okay. 8 THE WITNESS: In fact -- in fact, she was 9 in Branch C -- hold on a minute. She was in 10 Branch C longer than me as a team lead, 11 actually, and that's the team where she was 12 working in North Carolina prior to this when 13 she was actually in Branch C. 14 MR. CHRISS: Your Honor, do you have any 15 other questions? 16 THE COURT: No. 17 BY MR. CHRISS: 18 Q. Ms. King, you testified before that 19 Miss Hardiman was selected to work a detail -- 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. -- as a section chief in Branch D -- 22 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). 23 Q. -- at the same -- 24 A. In January. 25 Q. -- time that you started working in -- Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (30) Pages 117 - 120 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 31 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 121 1 A. Branch D. 2 Q. In Branch D? 3 A. Both in January. All of us was in 4 January. 5 THE COURT: And also was she one of those 6 newly selected section chiefs? 7 THE WITNESS: Yes. 8 THE COURT: So she was a permanent 9 section chief but detailed to -- 10 THE WITNESS: No. She was not permanent. 11 What they did is they end up -- what Ellen 12 Seiler originally said is it was going to take 13 them awhile to actually select someone for the 14 vacant space, but they did not. 15 They end up posting it and selected Wanda 16 Hardiman and Ryan Johnson and Scott Mowry to 17 become effective in January, so when I went -- 18 transferred in January to Branch D as a section 19 chief, they also started their positions on the 20 detail to section chief and later became the 21 permanent section chiefs. 22 THE COURT: Well, you'd mentioned certain 23 people were promoted to section chief at the 24 same time -- 25 THE WITNESS: Right. Page 122 1 THE COURT: -- as you. Was Miss Hardiman 2 one of those people? 3 THE WITNESS: Yes. 4 THE COURT: And then she was detailed to 5 team D? 6 THE WITNESS: No. She was already in D, 7 so she did not have to move. She was already 8 in Branch D. She did not move anywhere. She 9 just became a section chief. 10 THE COURT: Okay. 11 BY MR. CHRISS: 12 Q. Ms. King, just to clarify the record here 13 a little bit, the five people who were selected for 14 section chief positions on the announcement that you 15 competed for, again, were yourself, Maria Dent, 16 Felicia Walker, Mike Ellis, James Thompson -- 17 A. That's correct. 18 Q. -- correct? Only those five? 19 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). Got selected. 20 Q. Not Wanda Hardiman; correct? 21 A. That's correct. 22 THE COURT: Did Wanda Hardiman become a 23 full-fledged section chief just like the rest 24 of -- 25 THE WITNESS: Yes. Page 123 1 THE COURT: When did that happen? 2 THE WITNESS: She started her detail as a 3 section chief in January, at the same time I 4 did my -- I transferred. 5 THE COURT: I guess what I am getting at 6 is, was she simply detailed to the -- 7 THE WITNESS: And then -- 8 THE COURT: -- job of section chief? 9 THE WITNESS: -- they made her a 10 permanent section chief, so she always stayed 11 in that position. 12 MR. CHRISS: Yeah. Your Honor, I have a 13 document I am about to show the -- 14 THE COURT: Okay. 15 MR. CHRISS: -- clarify. 16 THE COURT: Go ahead because I'm 17 confused. 18 MR. CHRISS: All right. 19 BY MR. CHRISS: 20 Q. Ms. King, if you could take a look at 21 this document here, is this an e-mail communication 22 identifying that Miss Hardiman is one of the persons 23 who has been assigned to work a temporary detail as a 24 section D -- as a Branch D section chief? 25 A. Yes, in Branch D. She was already up -- Page 124 1 that's correct. 2 Q. And to read from this document, do you 3 see where it says, "This detail is for 90 days" -- 4 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). 5 Q. -- "while the candidates serve as section 6 chiefs within a customer service branch B, C, and D 7 responsible for ensuring the execution of real estate 8 transactions and perform a variety of supervisory 9 realty specialist duties"; correct? 10 A. Right. Same as my position. 11 Q. In the same document do you see where it 12 says as well, "Karen King will be reassigned to Branch 13 D" -- 14 A. As permanent. 15 Q. -- "as permanent" -- 16 A. That's correct. 17 Q. -- "section chief"; correct? 18 A. That's correct. 19 Q. So there is a difference between Miss 20 Hardiman being assigned for a 90-day detail as a 21 section chief in Branch D and your permanent 22 assignment as a Branch D section chief; correct? 23 A. Well, let me explain. No. It is an 24 informality. The reason I'm saying this, because she 25 went under the performance plan of a section chief Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (31) Pages 121 - 124 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 32 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 125 1 when she was on that detail, so she did for 90 days go 2 under this performance plan of a section chief, and 3 then when the permanent positions came open she 4 actually got the permanent job, so on this chart 5 that's why you see Wanda Hardiman, section chief: 6 Because she never came out of the position. She 7 always stayed in position, and she started under my 8 performance plan when she started this detail. 9 Q. So at a later point in time subsequent to 10 her detail she competed for and got the job as a 11 section chief in Branch D; is that correct? 12 A. Yeah. Before this detail ended, they 13 ended up making her permanent. 14 Q. And if I could point your attention to 15 page 1 from the report of investigation. 16 A. Okay. 17 Q. This is your formal complaint, you know, 18 where it describes your claim. It states that, you 19 know, you were discriminated against when on 20 December 14, 2011, you were informed that you would be 21 reassigned to a section chief position in Branch D; 22 correct? 23 A. Uh-huh (affirmative), that's correct. 24 Q. So, I mean, you were informed about your 25 reassignment December of 2011, not in January of 2012; Page 126 1 correct? 2 A. Yeah. That's -- that's the same day 3 we're talking about the invite came out, so that's 4 then they called me into the office. That what you're 5 referring to? 6 Q. Right. 7 A. They called me into the office and told 8 me they were transferring me. 9 Q. Right. 10 A. And I didn't get transferred until 11 January. 12 Q. Right. So management had decided that 13 you were going to go to Branch D before the date of 14 that e-mail, which is January of 2012? Would you 15 agree? The date of the e-mail -- 16 A. Which e-mail you're talking about? 17 Q. Well, the e-mail that you're looking at. 18 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). 19 (A cellular telephone rang.) 20 THE WITNESS: Turn that totally off. I 21 thought I put it on silent. It is on silent. 22 THE COURT: Go off the record for just a 23 minute. 24 (Thereupon, an off-the-record 25 discussion was held.) Page 127 1 THE COURT: Mr. Chriss, you can proceed. 2 THE WITNESS: Okay. What were you 3 saying? 4 BY MR. CHRISS: 5 Q. So basically, do you know the date when 6 management determined that Hardiman was going to be 7 assigned to a section D -- or Branch D section chief 8 detail? 9 A. Well, the announcement actually came out 10 for the detail like a month before that because they 11 actually had to do a -- this is -- there was a detail 12 opportunity came out a month before that, asking who 13 wanted to do details, and then she applied for this 14 detail, and it came out a month before really in the 15 same month I was notified I was going to Branch D. 16 She actually filled the position in January, but the 17 detail opportunity that they post, came out a month 18 before. 19 Q. But do you know that -- can you say for 20 certain that Miss Hardiman was selected to work on the 21 detail before you were identified as the person to be 22 reassigned to Branch D? 23 A. I don't have any -- any of that 24 information. 25 Q. And also, I mean, management above you, Page 128 1 above the section chief level, had the authority to 2 determine which of the two sections you would assume 3 leadership for; right? 4 A. Yeah. Management -- yeah. They could do 5 that. 6 Q. So let's speak to the two other persons 7 in Atlanta who were selected to be section chiefs: 8 Felicia Walker and Maria Dent. 9 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). 10 Q. Again, it's well established and it's 11 sort of beyond dispute that you had solid academic 12 qualifications and solid leadership skills and, you 13 know, abilities in terms of your prior ratings and 14 prior performance at GSA in leasing; correct? 15 A. Yes. So did -- so did Maria Dent. 16 Q. And -- 17 THE COURT: What is the race of Felicia 18 Walker? 19 THE WITNESS: White female. 20 THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead. 21 BY MR. CHRISS: 22 Q. Correct. And, I mean, what was your 23 knowledge or understanding of the performance of 24 Miss Walker? 25 A. I never worked with Miss Walker. See, I Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (32) Pages 125 - 128 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 33 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 129 1 worked with Maria Dent, so I knew her performance. I 2 didn't know the performance of -- I never worked with 3 Felicia. She's in Branch C. See, I never work in 4 Branch C. Only branch I've ever worked was Branch B, 5 so I have no knowledge of anything Felicia was doing. 6 Q. And wouldn't you agree that management 7 had the authority, the branch chiefs, to determine who 8 would be reassigned to Branch D? 9 A. Probably not the branch chief. The 10 branch chief level, they probably went through Ellen 11 Seiler or Dave to make that determination because they 12 can't do, really, a reassignment without getting their 13 approval. 14 Q. And Dave Hofstetter was the -- 15 A. Director. 16 Q. -- director of PBS leasing at that point 17 in time, correct, and Ellen Seiler again was the 18 deputy -- 19 A. Deputy, uh-huh (affirmative). 20 Q. -- director of leasing? 21 A. And that's why they called me to Ellen's 22 office: Because they could not really make that 23 change. They actually talked to her and called me 24 into the office. 25 Q. So wouldn't you agree that they had the Page 130 1 authority -- Miss Seiler -- 2 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). 3 Q. -- Mr. Hofstetter, that they had the 4 authority to determine who would be reassigned? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. You testified earlier that you were, you 7 know, upset and frustrated that you weren't given the 8 opportunity to provide input into that decision before 9 it -- 10 A. Yeah -- 11 Q. -- was made; is that correct? 12 A. -- because I was exemplary employee, and 13 I felt that a supervisor should -- I would never do an 14 employee like that. I would never -- if I have a 15 exemplary employee that's done all of these 16 different -- you know, just enormous amount of 17 projects and work and team leadership and leading 18 regional teams and I've given you fives every year and 19 then you don't even give me the courtesy as an 20 employee, as an exemplary employee, to even call me in 21 the office and have a conversation? 22 How I found about it is an anonymous 23 invite with no subject matter saying to see Ellen 24 Seiler, and then when I walk in there, LaSonya walks 25 in, and they -- she wasn't even on the notification, Page 131 1 and then they tell me, oh, by the way, we're 2 reassigning you? 3 Yes, I was -- it really -- I didn't even 4 quite know what to say. It really astonished me. I 5 just felt that for me it was not -- it was 6 unprofessional, and to me it was not the right way you 7 do business with your employees. 8 Q. So it's your testimony that that was 9 unprofessional? That's not the right way that you do 10 business -- 11 A. Treat employees. 12 Q. -- or treat an employee; correct? 13 A. Correct. So I felt it was impartial 14 treatment because that's not the right way to treat an 15 employee. 16 Q. Now, based on your understanding was 17 there any indication to you that, you know, your 18 gender was part of their decision making process? 19 A. None of that came up. He just told me -- 20 no. They did not tell me anything about gender or 21 anything like that, no. 22 Q. Now, you'll agree that the other two 23 people in Atlanta were females, Miss Walker and 24 Miss Dent; correct? 25 A. Yes, they're both females. Page 132 1 Q. And do you recall that race -- do you 2 have any knowledge that race was part of the decision 3 making process by management in terms of who would be 4 reassigned -- 5 A. Well -- 6 Q. -- to -- 7 A. -- being -- 8 Q. -- Branch B? 9 A. -- that I wasn't a part of any of the 10 discussion, I really can't tell you because remember, 11 they just called me in and said they already discussed 12 everything and they made the decision. So I don't 13 know. It could be race, because I was the only black 14 female that was reassigned and I was the only person 15 that was reassigned. So based on their discussion, 16 they -- could have been race because looking at me, 17 I'm the only black female and I was the only one 18 reassigned. 19 Q. Right. Okay. Fair enough. 20 A. So then I wasn't privy to that. I told 21 you, they had no discussion with me. 22 Q. Fair enough. And what is your 23 understanding of the race of Maria Dent? 24 A. She's Mexican. 25 Q. So Latino or Hispanic? Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (33) Pages 129 - 132 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 34 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 133 1 A. I don't know. She told me she's Mexican. 2 Yeah. 3 Q. And what is your understanding of the 4 race of Felicia Walker? 5 A. She's a white female. 6 Q. And to your knowledge do you know 7 whether -- do you just happen to know whether Ms. 8 Walker or Miss Dent have any prior EEO activity or 9 have engaged in the EEO process? 10 A. I think so, based on conversations. 11 Q. And I should mention that -- what sort of 12 rapport do you have with Miss Dent? 13 A. I had a good -- very good rapport with -- 14 actually, with Miss Dent when I was working on because 15 like I said, when I was over there most of the time I 16 actually served as the acting branch chief while she 17 was there. Had a very good rapport with her. 18 Q. And what sort of rapport do you have with 19 Miss Walker? 20 A. I don't -- like I said, I never worked 21 with other than saying hi, I've never really -- see, I 22 worked with Maria. I never really worked with Felicia 23 other than sometimes we say hi, we talk, and we 24 sitting next to each other and we say, how are you 25 doing? I don't have a relationship with Felicia Page 134 1 Walker. 2 Q. And when you submitted your application 3 when you were a team lead -- as a team lead when you 4 submitted your application to compete for the section 5 chief position, did you have any idea at all what 6 branch that you would be selected for? 7 A. The only thing I had to go by was just 8 communications. They were looking -- because they had 9 teams, like you said. They all applied for -- every 10 team lead in the branches applied for the team -- the 11 section chief position. So even Wanda Hardiman, which 12 was a team lead, she applied for the team lead 13 position. Robert Scott applied. So everybody applied 14 for the section chief positions that were already 15 there. 16 So under that, we were -- discussion that 17 we had with Scott Mowry is that everybody is going to 18 get the team -- section chiefs in the branches, and 19 it's just on discussion and that everybody would have 20 their section. The team leads would become section 21 chief. So we were just going by everybody applied and 22 everybody was going to be a -- you know, we're going 23 to get section chief in each branch, so that was just 24 an assumption. 25 Now, it was based on communications with Page 135 1 our branch chief, Scott Mowry, but not only that, like 2 I said, then Bridget Rhodes sent off a communication 3 that -- she is policy. She meets with branch chiefs, 4 so she meets with all the branch chiefs as a policy 5 because she actually put up the announcement. That's 6 what Bridget did. 7 She also sent an e-mail out saying that 8 we're going to stay in the same branch, so everything 9 for me, once she sent the e-mail -- after we got this, 10 was going to stay in the same branch, everything for 11 me was, okay, we're going to stay in the same branch 12 until I was called into the office and told, you're 13 going to be moving in December. 14 THE COURT: Let me interrupt for a 15 minute. What is the race of Miss Hardiman? 16 THE WITNESS: She's a black female. 17 BY MR. CHRISS: 18 Q. So let's shift to this meeting when you 19 learned that you were going to be reassigned. Again I 20 believe you stated that Scott Mowry, the Branch B -- 21 the branch chief of Branch B; Ellen Seiler, the deputy 22 director, those two were part of the meeting; correct? 23 A. You said Ellen Seiler and Scott -- and -- 24 and LaSonya walked in. She was not on the invite, but 25 she walked in. Page 136 1 Q. So LaSonya Duncan -- 2 A. Walked in. 3 Q. -- who was the branch chief for -- 4 A. Branch D -- 5 Q. -- branch D -- 6 A. -- walked in. 7 THE REPORTER: Excuse me. Try to let him 8 finish again. Try that last exchange again. 9 BY MR. CHRISS: 10 Q. LaSonya Duncan, who was the branch chief 11 for Branch D, she also was present for the meeting; 12 correct? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. So you had the two affected branch 15 chiefs, Branch B that you were being transferred from 16 and Branch D that you were being transferred to, as 17 well as Ellen Seiler, the deputy director, present for 18 that meeting; correct? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. And it's your testimony that you don't 21 believe that Miss Duncan, the Branch D branch chief, 22 should have been present for the meeting? 23 A. No. That wasn't -- this is the problem. 24 The problem was when Scott Mowry sent out the invite 25 he did not have a subject on the invite. He said we Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (34) Pages 133 - 136 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 35 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 137 1 need to meet with Ellen. Just me, you, and him need 2 to meet. Just the three need to meet with Ellen, and 3 he did not say why, for 2 o'clock. 4 So I was in meetings with my teams, so at 5 2 o'clock I just walked into Ellen's office and sat 6 down with Scott. Here walks LaSonya, who was not on 7 the invite, and she walks in the meeting, and then 8 they decide to discuss how they've had all these 9 conversations about me and that I was going to be 10 transferred. 11 Now, on the e-mail that was a part of the 12 discovery, the e-mail between LaSonya and Scott, she 13 asked him, are you going to tell her anything about 14 transfer? 15 And he said, I'll meet with her in 16 private. That did not happen. They called me in the 17 office and all three had this communication with me 18 about the transfer. 19 Q. So it's your contention that, you know, 20 that was unprofessional? It should have been handled 21 differently; correct? 22 A. That is correct. 23 Q. But, you know -- 24 A. It was unfair. 25 Q. Treatment being unfair, unprofessional, Page 138 1 and something that should have been handled 2 differently, I mean, that's altogether different than 3 discrimination, wouldn't you agree? 4 A. That's retaliation, and like I said, 5 that's my claim, retaliation. And the other thing 6 would be, I don't know what they talked about, about 7 my race because like I said, I wasn't privy. They had 8 all kind of e-mails and hidden text e-mails that came 9 through. I have no idea what they discussed. What 10 they told me in person is they already had 11 conversations about me and that I was being 12 transferred. I wasn't privy to those conversations. 13 Remember, they did not tell me. 14 Q. Fair enough. Okay. You testified before 15 that you had competed for the branch chief position in 16 Branch B where they hired Scott Mowry; correct? 17 A. Correct. 18 Q. And you were disappointed because you 19 were not selected for that position? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. Have you been selected for every position 22 that you have applied for at GSA? 23 A. Up to that point. I can't remember every 24 position that I applied for at GSA. No because it was 25 one position before that, I was not selected, that I Page 139 1 know about before that. Even though they said I was 2 very well qualified, that from the panel I was not 3 selected. 4 Q. So you -- 5 A. It was not -- wait a minute. It was not 6 in the leasing, though. So I had been -- I had been 7 selected before, but it was not -- this position, 8 you're right, it was not in leasing. 9 Q. So just to clarify, in your GSA career 10 before you were not selected for the Branch B branch 11 chief position, you'd previously applied for GSA 12 positions where you'd not been selected? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. So you were not selected. You started 15 working under Scott Mowry? 16 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). 17 Q. And you were a team lead; right? 18 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). 19 Q. And you had good rapport with Mr. Mowry? 20 You got good ratings under Mr. Mowry; correct? 21 A. Right. 22 Q. Isn't it true that you also worked well 23 with Maria Dent, who was the team lead for the other 24 team in Branch B; right? 25 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). We all worked Page 140 1 fine. Like I say, because we all had been working 2 there, and we worked fine. 3 Q. Right. And isn't it true that you even 4 testified that at some point in time you acted as an 5 acting branch chief in Branch B when Mr. Mowry was not 6 available or the position was otherwise vacant? 7 A. That's correct. 8 Q. Now, you testified previously that Branch 9 D had some performance issues; right? 10 A. Right. 11 Q. Now, were those performance issues well 12 known to you as a team lead when you were in Branch B? 13 A. They were discussed through -- through 14 employees because I knew people in Branch D. 15 Q. I believe you -- 16 A. Discuss -- discussions. I didn't have -- 17 I didn't have any written documentation, no, but 18 people talk, and I do know people that were already in 19 Branch D who had expressed some real valid concerns 20 about some issues they were having in Branch D. So 21 that was another reason that I expressed that I was 22 concerned that they were -- I was moving to a 23 low-performing branch. 24 Q. Now, let's back up a little bit. So when 25 you were in Branch B as a team lead, there are Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (35) Pages 137 - 140 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 36 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 141 1 performance measures, and on some level you're working 2 with your team trying to get them to meet these 3 performance measures; correct? 4 A. Correct. 5 Q. When you first arrived as a team lead in 6 Branch B, I mean, was your team performing at the 7 highest level that it could have possibly been 8 performing? 9 A. When I was a team lead I got level fives, 10 and as a 13 supervisor. See, I started getting fives 11 as a supervisory realty specialist, so I guess we were 12 at the optimum level as a team lead. 13 Q. Let me rephrase. I'm actually talking 14 about the performance measures, the performance of the 15 team, in terms of the team's -- 16 A. The team -- 17 Q. -- performance measures against goals of 18 the team, not the team lead. 19 A. Oh. 20 Q. So when you started with your team in 21 Branch B, when you first arrived, you become a team 22 lead in Branch B, I mean, was the team performing at 23 the same level that it was performing at, you know, 24 when you moved from team lead to section chief, or was 25 there somewhat of a development process? Page 142 1 A. No, because this is the difference. I 2 was already in Branch B, so the difference was, I was 3 already a supervisory realty specialist and I was 4 already working with a lot of employees already. So 5 it was a big difference because I knew Atlanta, I knew 6 Georgia and all the territories, and it was much 7 easier for me because most of the projects they were 8 working on, I had already -- those were my projects. 9 I'd already did the leases. I'd built 10 the buildings, so they were really managing things I 11 was already doing, so it was much easier for me to 12 become their team lead because I was already really 13 directly working with them on all those projects than 14 to go to a whole new branch, so there was not that 15 transition. 16 Like people say, it was seam -- Bridget 17 Rhodes indicated the branch, it was seamless. She 18 said, I would have never known you were not already a 19 team lead because there was no real -- there was a 20 seamless process in me becoming the team lead over a 21 section of people that I already really worked with. 22 Q. Got it. 23 A. And already knew the projects, already 24 knew the territory. 25 Q. So it was seamless when you transitioned Page 143 1 from a CO -- 2 A. Supervisor. 3 Q. A CO role -- 4 A. I was a supervisor. 5 Q. -- to a team lead role? 6 A. I was a supervisor. No. I was -- I 7 was -- in a 13 you could first go to a senior realty 8 specialist, so as a senior realty specialist you're 9 working with LCOs because you're unlimited warrant and 10 you're a 13. They're still a 12. So as a 13 you're 11 working with 12s on projects, and you're signing a lot 12 of your documents. You're still doing work with them 13 because they don't have the warrant level that you 14 have. 15 So you're the 13. I was still already 16 working with them. So as I became the team lead, more 17 as the supervisory role, then it was seamless because 18 I was already really working with signing their 19 contracts on projects. 20 Q. I understand. Okay. I appreciate that 21 explanation. So similarly, would you say that, you 22 know, it helped the transition from team lead to 23 section chief in Branch B, I mean, the fact that you 24 had already been working with that group of people as 25 the team lead in Branch B? Page 144 1 A. Right. 2 Q. So it would have required more work to 3 establish relationships and figure out what the 4 baseline is in terms of arriving and -- being assigned 5 to Branch D rather than Branch B; right? 6 A. Oh, correct because I never worked any 7 projects in -- and that's why I thought Maria should 8 go: Because I didn't know anything about the 9 territory. You're right. 10 Q. Now, Maria was in Branch B as well? 11 A. Right. 12 Q. On just another team? At another team in 13 Branch B? 14 A. Right. They came from -- she came from 15 Branch C, though, and she already worked North 16 Carolina projects. 17 Q. Had -- 18 A. She came from Branch C, and on the Branch 19 C -- Branch C, they used to have North Carolina, and 20 so she used to work the North Carolina territory, 21 which now was -- 22 THE COURT: Wait. She came from what 23 branch? 24 THE WITNESS: Branch C. She was -- 25 THE COURT: C? Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (36) Pages 141 - 144 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 37 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 145 1 THE WITNESS: -- not always in Branch B. 2 She came from Branch C as a team lead, who 3 handled North Carolina projects. Well, they 4 split up Branch C and made a Branch D, and then 5 LaSonya got the projects in North Carolina. 6 That's how she got that branch, but while it 7 was originally before that -- 8 THE COURT: You're -- 9 THE WITNESS: -- branch was developed -- 10 THE COURT: -- saying D was split off 11 from C? 12 THE WITNESS: Uh-huh (affirmative). C 13 was the original branch under Liz Williams. 14 She was the original -- she was original 15 person. She had -- she had North Carolina. 16 She had all those territories plus North 17 Carolina under the old structure. What they 18 decided to do -- she had Alabama. She had 19 North Carolina. What they decided to do is 20 split up Branch D -- Branch C, which was under 21 Liz, and make it Branch D. Well, Maria Dent 22 worked under Liz under Branch C in a North 23 Carolina territory, so my -- 24 THE COURT: Wait. One more time. She 25 worked under you in the North Carolina -- Page 146 1 THE WITNESS: She -- 2 THE COURT: -- territory? 3 THE WITNESS: -- worked under Branch C 4 under Liz Williams, who had -- 5 THE COURT: One more time. 6 THE WITNESS: She worked under Branch C. 7 Look at Branch C, Liz Williams. 8 THE COURT: I'm not hearing what the 9 letters are. 10 THE WITNESS: Oh, C. 11 THE COURT: So was there a point where 12 you were in Branch C? 13 THE WITNESS: No, never. But Maria was, 14 and under Branch C they had North Carolina, and 15 that's when she -- 16 THE COURT: Was Maria a team lead -- 17 THE WITNESS: Yes. 18 THE COURT: -- within C? 19 THE WITNESS: Yes. She was a team lead 20 in Branch C. 21 THE COURT: And for how long was she a 22 team lead in Branch C? 23 THE WITNESS: She was at least a team 24 lead for about two or three years over there. 25 THE COURT: Okay. And do you know if she Page 147 1 had the same territory the whole time or -- 2 THE WITNESS: No. She switched -- it 3 changed, but she had it for a period of time. 4 It changed. 5 THE COURT: Do you have any idea why she 6 came to team B? 7 THE WITNESS: Uh-huh (affirmative). 8 THE COURT: Why? 9 THE WITNESS: I can't -- I don't know the 10 real reason why, but -- 11 THE COURT: Well, have you been given 12 some explanation by someone? 13 THE WITNESS: No because, see, she came 14 as a team lead like I was. You know, I was a 15 team lead in Branch B, so the next thing I 16 know -- 17 THE COURT: Wait. A team lead in Branch 18 B? 19 THE WITNESS: Uh-huh (affirmative). 20 THE COURT: You were always in Branch B? 21 THE WITNESS: Yes, I was always in B. 22 And so the next thing I know, they transferred 23 her from being a team lead in Branch C over to 24 B. 25 THE COURT: But did you ever hear from Page 148 1 anyone why that took place? 2 THE WITNESS: No, I didn't. 3 THE COURT: Let's just wait until those 4 sirens die down. Mr. Chriss, go ahead. 5 MR. CHRISS: Thank you, Your Honor. 6 BY MR. CHRISS: 7 Q. Ms. King, you testified that Branch D's 8 performance -- Branch D had some performance issues; 9 correct? 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. But you're not able to describe what some 12 of those performance issues were? I mean, let me 13 rephrase. You testified that you were aware -- that 14 you had been informed that Branch D had performance 15 issues; correct? 16 A. Correct. 17 Q. But did you know for certain what those 18 performance issues were before you started working in 19 Branch D in January of 2012? 20 A. No, not specifically. Just that they had 21 kind of management issues as far as getting projects 22 done. That's it. I didn't know what projects they 23 were. 24 Q. You stated management issues in terms of 25 getting -- Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (37) Pages 145 - 148 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 38 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 149 1 A. Getting projects -- 2 Q. -- projects done? 3 A. -- completed, yeah. 4 Q. Completed? 5 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). I didn't know what 6 they were because I wasn't in the branch. 7 Q. And did you have any awareness or 8 understanding of Branch D's performance relative to 9 Branch A, B, or C before you were assigned -- 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. -- to work in Branch D? Yes? I mean, 12 outside of Branch B -- let me rephrase. Branch A and 13 Branch C, what did you know about their performance? 14 THE COURT: Let's stop right there. 15 Assuming that you're correct, that Branch D was 16 not as good as Branch B, where did the other 17 branches -- 18 THE WITNESS: Oh. 19 THE COURT: Was D actually the worst 20 or -- 21 THE WITNESS: They were the worst, and 22 it's a part of one of the -- one of the 23 exhibits that you already submitted. 24 THE COURT: Excuse me? 25 THE WITNESS: It is a part of one of the Page 150 1 spreadsheets that was already submitted. It 2 shows productivity and what we're meeting, and 3 they were the worst. 4 THE COURT: Okay. 5 THE WITNESS: Yeah. 6 BY MR. CHRISS: 7 Q. So by this spreadsheet are you making 8 reference to some sort of an indicator that would show 9 the performance measures and -- 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. -- metrics for Branch D? 12 A. Yes. We -- that was a part of our 13 management meeting. They used to give us performance 14 measures and what branch was meeting and what branch 15 did not. 16 Q. So when you arrived in Branch D as a 17 section chief, wouldn't you agree with the assessment 18 that you determined that Branch D needed some work, 19 that your section needed some work? 20 A. Yeah, it needed some work. 21 Q. So there was room for improvement in 22 terms of the performance of individuals in your 23 section and the overall performance of the section 24 against performance measures; right? 25 THE COURT: Mr. Chriss, I'll allow the Page 151 1 question, but in light of the previous 2 testimony I think that's putting it mildly. 3 MR. CHRISS: Okay. 4 BY MR. CHRISS: 5 Q. Can you respond? 6 A. I don't even know the question. Can you 7 tell me again? 8 Q. Yeah. 9 A. I guess I don't understand what -- 10 Q. There was room for improvement in terms 11 of the performance of persons in your section that you 12 were assigned to in Branch D when you arrived? 13 A. The whole section, yeah. 14 Q. And there also was room for improvement 15 in terms of the section's overall performance against 16 performance measures; right? 17 A. Right. And according to the sheet, the 18 overall branch, not just the section. 19 Q. Now, you had, you know, above board, 20 exceeds expectations, performance for years; correct? 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. So doesn't it make sense that management 23 assigns someone who's performing at an exceptional 24 level to a branch in a section that needed help? 25 A. No. The reason I say this is because the Page 152 1 whole branch needed help. When I arrived there I 2 would get constant e-mails where we're going to the 3 director's office about issues that were so 4 outstanding and so high level, and it was -- a lot of 5 stuff, it was -- it was branch issues. As far as they 6 started reassigning people to me, changing people to 7 me from under -- other -- the other part of the 8 section to me. 9 So for me I couldn't -- I didn't have the 10 control I needed. Like to me I had a lot of control 11 in Branch B because I knew it so well and not only 12 that, I was really acting in that -- acting branch 13 chief for a period of time, so I -- actually for me, I 14 felt I had some type of control. I felt I had no 15 control when I went to Branch D because I was still 16 under a supervisor who still was leading for over two 17 years a low-performing branch, and I didn't have the 18 authority to -- for me to make the needed change that 19 I needed, I felt, as a manager. 20 THE COURT: What changes did you need 21 make, though? 22 THE WITNESS: Well, the way they -- 23 THE COURT: You're making -- 24 THE WITNESS: -- the processes. 25 THE COURT: -- it sound like you just Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (38) Pages 149 - 152 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 39 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 153 1 simply needed to make sure the people met their 2 time deadlines. 3 THE WITNESS: Uh-uh (negative). The 4 way -- the way it was structured. So, for 5 instance -- 6 THE COURT: What was wrong with the way 7 it was structured? 8 THE WITNESS: For instance, holdovers. 9 Holdovers meant -- when we talked about the 10 holdovers, there was two pages of holdovers. I 11 didn't like -- I never did holdovers. To me, 12 holdovers is frowned upon as far as -- central 13 office frowns upon holdovers. We get counted 14 against for holdovers, and they were -- 15 THE COURT: What is a holdover once 16 again? 17 THE WITNESS: A holdover is when you 18 don't do an action on a lease like it's getting 19 ready to expire and just so you will keep 20 paying the lessor, you keep doing the holdover 21 to keep paying rent because you're squatting in 22 the space. You're just sitting in the space, 23 and you really don't have an actual extending 24 lease action, so you really should have a 25 succeeding lease. You should have an Page 154 1 extension. 2 THE COURT: Well, is there anything to 3 stop you from instructing your subordinates 4 that they should make changes, address the 5 leases that were holdovers, and either get a 6 lease or get a new tenant? 7 THE WITNESS: Yes. But the problem was, 8 when I got over there, the holdovers were 9 acceptable in the branch, so I really did not 10 have control over that because when I said to 11 them -- I said I would not approve a holdover, 12 I was overrode. So when this is an acceptable 13 ingrained practice, it's hard for me to come 14 over and override what is acceptable in the 15 branch. I can't override if that is a policy 16 for the branch. 17 THE COURT: Describe a little more 18 explicitly how often it was or when it was that 19 you tried to do something and were overruled. 20 THE WITNESS: Okay. So, for instance, 21 overruled in extensions. Overruled as far as 22 territory assignments of people, like who does 23 what projects, who projects are transferred to. 24 THE COURT: Well, be a little more 25 specific. Who did you want to put in a Page 155 1 particular place but you were told that you 2 could not? 3 THE WITNESS: Okay. So, for instance -- 4 I'll just use an example, a recent example. I 5 have one employee who have a territory. He's a 6 13, and he have -- he had an extensive 7 territory as a 13, and I was told I had to give 8 all of his projects but one to my other people, 9 and I had no choice of doing it, which now they 10 had their own territory. We're 12s. 11 And then they had to take their territory 12 assignment and give their territory 13 assignments -- and he works from a project, and 14 for me I had a concern. I voiced that concern. 15 I was told I had no choice, and I did see -- I 16 had no choice because it was already made, and 17 it really put a stressful condition on my 18 employees because now they have to manage a 19 lot -- he had a lot of projects, and I have to 20 disseminate to them as 12s to work projects 21 that he was working. 22 So that's just one example where I do not 23 have control, and for me if you are working one 24 project as that he was working -- was around 25 46,000 square feet. I've worked projects that Page 156 1 were almost 200,000 square feet, 400,000 square 2 feet and still maintain a whole territory as a 3 13. 4 So I didn't understand it if I could 5 manage ten projects plus do new construction 6 projects, two at a time, why I had to have one 7 employee to work one project, and I was told 8 that's how it's going to be and just deal with 9 it. So I'm overruled. I don't have authority 10 to do what I deem necessary for my people and 11 to make the section work correctly. 12 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Chriss, you can 13 continue. 14 BY MR. CHRISS: 15 Q. Ms. King, you stated that you were in the 16 military; correct? 17 A. Correct. 18 Q. So in the military there is a pretty 19 strict hierarchy and chain of command; correct? 20 A. That is correct. 21 Q. Now, you were the section chief in Branch 22 D; right? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. And Miss Duncan is your supervisor -- 25 A. Correct. Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (39) Pages 153 - 156 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 40 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 157 1 Q. -- and the head of the branch for Branch 2 D; correct? 3 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). 4 Q. Similar to that, I mean, you reported to 5 Mr. Mowry, who is the head of Branch B, at the time 6 that you were reassigned; right? 7 A. Correct. 8 Q. So in the military I imagine that there 9 were times when you were assigned to new positions, 10 new roles, new geographic regions; correct? 11 A. I stayed in the same position, but yeah, 12 we did rotate to different locations. I stayed as a 13 personnel supervisor. 14 Q. So when those reassignments occurred did 15 you ever challenge a reassignment as being 16 discriminatory or somehow -- 17 A. No. 18 Q. -- unfair? 19 A. I put in -- I actually put in for the 20 assignments. I stayed in Europe and I asked to stay 21 in Europe, so really, you can't really -- because in 22 Europe, since I was a personnel supervisor, I did -- 23 you did have options to write the Pentagon and ask for 24 duty -- I actually asked them to go to Europe, and I 25 actually asked them to stay in Europe a second time, Page 158 1 so those are actually assignments that I engaged with 2 the Pentagon to do. 3 Q. So for each of your assignments in the 4 military -- 5 A. I had no issues. 6 Q. -- you requested or applied for the 7 assignment? 8 A. I applied to come back Stateside. I 9 applied to, you know -- now, you don't know where you 10 go when you come Stateside, but I did apply to come 11 back Stateside. 12 Q. Now, again, previously you testified that 13 you were upset that you were not selected to be a 14 branch chief for Branch B; correct? 15 A. Yes. Yeah, uh-huh (affirmative). 16 Q. So do you have an interest in becoming a 17 branch chief in the future? 18 A. I have not even thought about it, 19 actually. 20 Q. Have not thought -- 21 A. With all of this going on, I've never 22 really actually thought about it. 23 THE COURT: Mr. Chriss, how much longer 24 do you think you'll be? 25 MR. CHRISS: Just a few minutes, Your Page 159 1 Honor. 2 BY MR. CHRISS: 3 Q. Would you agree that you believe that -- 4 well, let me rephrase. Has your reassignment to 5 Branch D negatively impacted your GSA career 6 advancement? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. In what way, Ms. King? 9 THE COURT: Well, she said it has a lower 10 performance rating, and I guess you're saying 11 you think that would make it more difficult for 12 you to get promoted -- 13 THE WITNESS: Right. 14 THE COURT: -- correct? 15 THE WITNESS: That's right. 16 THE COURT: Also your bonuses have been 17 lower? 18 THE WITNESS: My bonus have been lower 19 and -- 20 THE COURT: Anything else beyond that? 21 THE WITNESS: And in the past all of my 22 supervisors gave me superior recommendations 23 because I was a level five, and of course 24 Miss Duncan has not done that. But I've asked 25 for details. I've asked to do anything -- to Page 160 1 go anything outside of the position. I was 2 always told no, you can't go anywhere. 3 And I had gotten -- really have not 4 gotten any support from Miss Duncan in that, 5 where my other supervisor very supportive of 6 things to do to enhance my career, and that's 7 the reason I -- actually successfully in where 8 I was before I got to Branch D. It really has 9 totally halted once -- since I've been to 10 Branch D. 11 BY MR. CHRISS: 12 Q. And has anyone from management indicated 13 to you that, you know, your work in Branch D is 14 hurting your potential for career advancement? 15 A. No. All they just say is, you can't go 16 anywhere. I mean, that's pretty much what -- I ask to 17 do details or do anything. They just say, no, you 18 can't go anywhere. 19 Q. So switching to the -- you testified 20 previously about your medical conditions that you 21 developed in the military; correct? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. You stated that the medical conditions 24 that you have that you developed in the military are 25 made worse by stress; correct? Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (40) Pages 157 - 160 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 41 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 161 1 A. Correct. Which has developed over the 2 years, yeah. 3 Q. Now, you're the section chief in Branch 4 D; correct? And let me rephrase. I mean, isn't the 5 work of PBS leasing, as a manager in PBS leasing, 6 isn't that inherently stressful? 7 A. No, not necessarily. Job -- I know the 8 leasing inside and out, and that's the beauty of 9 knowing leasing. I know the job inside and out from 10 working every single -- biggest project you can name 11 to the very lowest project and leading teams and 12 specialists in many, many projects. So the role of 13 the job itself is definitely not stressful. 14 The stressful thing is when you can make 15 as a supervisor, manager, and also -- and I guess I 16 think because I'm also professor of managing theory, 17 organizational behavior, so you can make -- when you 18 see organizational changes, structural changes or 19 things that you knew you need to do to make your 20 section effective, then yes, it is very stressful 21 because you feel like you're fighting against the 22 grain. It's very stressful and it's very defeating. 23 You feel very defeated. Not the job defeating, but 24 your responsibility, your constraints, very defeating. 25 Q. What dollar amount does your section Page 162 1 within Branch D manage or have some responsibility for 2 in terms of leases? 3 A. I can't tell you the exact dollar amount, 4 actually. 5 Q. Could you estimate? I mean, is it over a 6 million dollars for a year, for example? 7 A. Probably is, but it's a lot lower than 8 Branch B, uh-huh (affirmative), because, see, the 9 difference in Branch D, they have a lot of little 10 small projects, and in Georgia we hit all these big -- 11 like we manage the whole -- like Peachtree Center and 12 all of the big projects, so we have a huge territory 13 in Branch B. 14 Q. And you have an unlimited warrant; 15 correct? 16 A. Oh, yeah. I've had limited (sic) warrant 17 since commencement. That was the only warrant I have 18 ever had. 19 Q. Right. Which means there is no dollar 20 limitation on the dollar amount -- 21 A. Right. 22 Q. -- or some sort of monetary amount you 23 could authorize for the agency? 24 A. Correct. 25 MR. CHRISS: I have no further questions, Page 163 1 Your Honor. 2 THE COURT: Any follow-up? 3 MS. KING: Yes, Your Honor. 4 FURTHER EXAMINATION 5 BY MS. KING: 6 Q. In your prior testimony on cross with Mr. 7 Chriss you mentioned Kathy Day. Who is that? 8 A. She's director of human resources. 9 (Thereupon, marked for identification, 10 Complainant's Exhibit C-12.) 11 BY MS. KING: 12 Q. I'm going to tender in what's been marked 13 as Exhibit C-12. Could you please identify this 14 exhibit? 15 A. Okay. This exhibit is just talking about 16 midyear appraisals and talking about your employee is 17 going to change in performance level, that you should 18 have some type of discussion with the employee and 19 reassignment. It's talking about interim appraisals 20 being done as well. 21 MS. KING: Your Honor, I'd like to tender 22 Exhibit C-12 into evidence. 23 THE COURT: Excuse me? 24 MS. KING: I'd like to tender Exhibit 25 C-12 into evidence. Page 164 1 THE COURT: Any objection? 2 MR. CHRISS: No objection, Your Honor. 3 THE COURT: Okay. It'll be admitted. 4 BY MS. KING: 5 Q. Now, Dr. King, could you please read the 6 section for reassignments? 7 A. "An associate who is reassigned to a 8 position with GSA that requires a new performance plan 9 during the performance" -- 10 Q. Could you please just slow down? 11 A. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I am so sorry. 12 "Reassignments: If an associate is reassigned to a 13 position within GSA that requires a new performance 14 plan during the performance rating period and if they 15 have served in their position for a minimum of 120 16 days, an interim appraisal shall be prepared. This 17 interim appraisal shall be considered when completing 18 the annual performance." 19 Q. Just to follow up on that, you were in 20 that section chief position 120 days; correct? 21 A. Yes. 22 Q. And did you received a midyear review? 23 A. No. I did -- not an interim appraisal. 24 Q. Now, you were discussing leadership 25 qualities that you were transferred. That's the Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (41) Pages 161 - 164 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 42 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 165 1 reason why you were transferred to Branch D? 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. And just to clarify, could you approve 4 anything under Branch D without the approval of 5 LaSonya Glover? 6 A. No. She sets the guidelines, and I have 7 to go to her to ask whatever we're going to do. She 8 sets the guidelines. 9 Q. So she has the final say-so? 10 A. She does. 11 Q. Just a few more questions, Dr. King. 12 Now -- 13 THE COURT: But did her guidelines 14 provide that people could have projects sitting 15 on their desk for two years, or were you and 16 she both on the same page at least with regard 17 to that? 18 THE WITNESS: I don't know because when I 19 came, that's -- that was part of the documents. 20 When I came, I had gotten so many e-mails from 21 people saying nothing was done on these 22 projects that it was a -- she -- her -- that 23 document shows she logged them in, because it 24 goes to the -- 25 THE COURT: Excuse me? Page 166 1 THE WITNESS: -- branch chief. She 2 logged them in. She logged them in when they 3 came in, and it has her name on and her 4 initial. So it was a guy that ran -- was 5 Desmond Shaw when I came over there, and he -- 6 when she logs them in, she was giving them to 7 him, and so because I was getting so many 8 complaints about nothing was done for years, I 9 asked him to give me a sheet of everything that 10 was not done. 11 I said, because I'm getting all these 12 e-mails, and I have no idea what you're talking 13 about. So I have several lists of projects 14 that were two years old some and some a year 15 old that had sitting -- 16 THE COURT: I'm going to interrupt right 17 there. Did you have the impression that 18 Miss Glover did not care about that, or did you 19 have the impression that she shared your 20 concern that things would be -- 21 THE WITNESS: I didn't know because, see, 22 what -- okay. This is what I didn't know. 23 This is -- this was my concern. As a manager, 24 a section chief, and as acting branch chief in 25 Branch B -- when I got those, I am just looking Page 167 1 at what I did. I got the same requirements in 2 Branch B. When I got those requirements in 3 Branch B, I actually logged them in like she 4 did. 5 That's what you are supposed to do. I 6 assigned them to a person. I add them to a 7 tracking sheet, and I monitored what was being 8 done on those -- on those space requirements 9 because those are agency requirements. They're 10 looking for space. They want something to be 11 done. 12 THE COURT: Ma'am, did you get negative 13 criticism from Miss Glover for having done 14 that? 15 THE WITNESS: No. I'm saying that's what 16 I did in Branch B, so when I came to -- 17 THE COURT: Did you -- 18 THE WITNESS: -- Branch C (sic) -- 19 THE COURT: -- try to do the same thing 20 in Branch D? 21 THE WITNESS: Yes. But because there was 22 so many on people's desk that they did not want 23 to share with me, I didn't know how many there 24 were, so it was really at the end of the -- and 25 I have e-mails. It was even at the end of the Page 168 1 rating period. I was still finding out about 2 these projects sitting on people's desk that 3 nobody was tracking and nobody was monitoring, 4 and I didn't have a clue who had what project. 5 They were just sitting on people desk. 6 So it was no way for me to really get a 7 good idea of what had been going on because 8 people just had the projects sitting on their 9 desks, and when I asked for them, they don't 10 give me the projects. They just give me some 11 of it. So almost at the end of the year I had 12 asked Desmond -- and it is in one of those 13 things. I said, Desmond, I'm getting inundated 14 with so much stuff. I actually ended up going 15 on leave for probably a week and a half. I 16 went to New York because I was so frustrated. 17 I asked -- I said, Desmond -- I said, I 18 need something else to show what all you 19 have -- I want a realistic view, because he did 20 not want to show me. I said, I need to see 21 what's on your desk. I want to see everything 22 on your desk. I want to see the documents, 23 when they sent it in, who signed for it. I 24 want to see all of it, I said, because this is 25 ridiculous. Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (42) Pages 165 - 168 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 43 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 169 1 So when he sent it, it was still two 2 pages of stuff at the end of the year, at the 3 end of my rating period, that I had known 4 nothing about that was still sitting on people 5 desks. That was my concern, of me getting a 6 three, and I'm still in the process of 7 understanding what even needs to be done to 8 even get projects moving. Yeah, eventually I 9 did -- 10 THE COURT: Well -- 11 THE WITNESS: -- but it definitely wasn't 12 done in that rating period. 13 THE COURT: I see that complaint. You're 14 also complaining that you did not have 15 discretion. I'm just wondering, was this 16 really a big dispute? Did Miss Glover 17 seriously dispute the idea that the branch had 18 some problems that needed to be fixed? 19 THE WITNESS: When I originally asked in 20 that meeting and I said -- 21 THE COURT: Because it strikes me that 22 many of these things you're describing are not 23 things that reasonable managers would disagree 24 on. 25 THE WITNESS: Uh-uh (negative). It Page 170 1 wasn't that she disagreed. The problem was -- 2 for me was the way the branch was being 3 managed. I thought the branch was really very 4 perform -- was managed very poorly for two 5 years. It had been managed very poorly based 6 on evidence that was there. Very poorly 7 because there was no control over any of the 8 documentation. Nobody knew what -- 9 THE COURT: Did you think from 10 management's perspective, they would want to 11 get their best person and put them in charge of 12 trying to -- 13 THE WITNESS: I think they should have -- 14 THE COURT: -- address this? 15 THE WITNESS: For me, I think they should 16 have got their best branch chief to address 17 those situations. For me, I thought they 18 should get your best branch chief, not a 19 section chief. 20 THE COURT: If it's not going to be a 21 branch chief, if they don't want to re -- get 22 rid of the branch chief, would a second-best 23 solution -- if they're looking for a section 24 chief would you agree that they would try to 25 find the best person that they could? Page 171 1 THE WITNESS: I think -- I would think 2 they might try to do that, but I also think 3 again -- 4 THE COURT: Why would they in a million 5 years try anything else? 6 THE WITNESS: Well, that's -- my concern 7 was, why didn't they get Maria? They had rated 8 her a level five. 9 THE COURT: Well, is it possible they 10 thought you were a better performer than she 11 was? 12 THE WITNESS: Both of us received a level 13 five performance evaluation. 14 THE COURT: Well, is it possible they 15 thought you were even better than she was? 16 THE WITNESS: I don't know that, and they 17 never revealed that to me, and my concern was 18 that she already knew the territory and would 19 probably been more easier because some of the 20 contracts they were working on, she assigned, 21 so I said, she might be a better fit only 22 because -- 23 THE COURT: Well, was everything running 24 smoothly when she left, or were some of these 25 problems in existence even during her tenure? Page 172 1 THE WITNESS: See, I didn't work for her 2 in Branch C. That was in Branch C, and that's 3 when she had North Carolina. But that whole 4 territory got reassigned to Branch D, and when 5 I came, that's the territory I was assigned to, 6 so I really didn't work with her -- 7 THE COURT: Well, did Miss Glover have 8 problems from day one with the way things were 9 performing? These -- where you had great 10 people that all of the sudden became bad 11 performers at such time as Branch D was 12 created, or was Miss Glover herself presented 13 with some challenges? 14 THE WITNESS: Well, if you -- to me, when 15 I came over there, to be honest with you, it 16 stemmed from Branch D because -- the reason I'm 17 saying that is because when I see something 18 logged in by the supervisor and it's logged in 19 saying January of 2010 and I'm coming in there 20 January of 2012 and nothing has moved on that 21 project and I see several on people's desk that 22 look like that and there is no accountability, 23 nobody is trying to do nothing, and nobody has 24 gone to their person and said, what in the 25 world are you doing on this project, this space Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (43) Pages 169 - 172 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 44 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 173 1 request? 2 I said, I gave my people 30 days in 3 Branch B to get a response on a requirement. 4 Now it's two years later and there is no 5 accountability on getting anything done? For 6 me -- 7 THE COURT: Do you have any knowledge as 8 to whether things were running smoothly with 9 respect to those employees and their workloads 10 before Miss Glover was put in charge of Branch 11 D? 12 THE WITNESS: Well, these came in while 13 she was -- while she was branch chief, though. 14 THE COURT: Excuse me? 15 THE WITNESS: These requirements came in 16 while she was branch chief, so they were 17 brand-new. They were not transferred. 18 THE COURT: I understand that, but did 19 she have a big backlog when she took over? 20 THE WITNESS: I don't know what she had 21 like two and a half years ago before that 22 because she had been in the branch for a 23 minute. She had -- she had just started the 24 branch, so I don't know that. 25 THE COURT: Okay. Ms. King, you can keep Page 174 1 going. 2 BY MS. KING: 3 Q. Now, there were several other people who 4 applied for section chiefs or branch chief; correct? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And for the people who applied for 7 section chiefs, for the branch they applied, they 8 stayed in that branch; correct? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. Now, you mentioned Wanda Hardiman. What 11 was the significance of her getting the section chief 12 job or detail months later on January 16, 2012? 13 A. It was just that they announced the 14 position in December when they decided to transfer me, 15 and in January they started the -- the detail -- the 16 detail on the same day that I started, so they 17 actually had a person in Branch D when I started 18 Branch D. And not only that, they needed my position 19 in Branch B because they hired somebody to take my 20 place in Branch B on the same day that I went to 21 Branch D. 22 Q. So in October -- it is your testimony 23 October, she, Wanda Hardiman, was in Branch D; 24 correct? 25 A. Yes. Page 175 1 Q. And she did not get the section chief 2 position? 3 A. That's correct. 4 Q. But a few months later she got the 5 section chief position -- 6 A. That's correct. 7 Q. -- in the same branch that you were 8 reassigned to? 9 A. That's correct. 10 Q. So now it is two of you in the same 11 branch? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And your concern was, why couldn't you 14 have stayed in Branch B if you are going to promote 15 Wanda Hardiman, who was already in Branch D? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Just to clarify that. And today -- 18 THE COURT: Let me ask one more question. 19 Do you know whether or not Miss Dent applied to 20 be a branch chief? 21 THE WITNESS: Yes, she did. 22 THE COURT: Do you know how she was rated 23 in terms of her application in relation to you? 24 THE WITNESS: For branch chief? 25 THE COURT: I've seen a defense that you Page 176 1 were rated Number 6. Do you know where she 2 stood? 3 THE WITNESS: No, I don't know where she 4 stood. 5 THE COURT: Okay, Ms. King. You can 6 continue. 7 MS. KING: Your Honor, I believe this is 8 -- I would have Dr. King verify. 9 BY MS. KING: 10 Q. Is this the ranking for the actual branch 11 chief position, or is that another position? That's 12 not labeled. 13 A. It's not labeled, so I don't know what it 14 is. 15 Q. Because Scott Mowry is on the -- 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. And out of the section chiefs you were 18 the only -- you were amongst how many females? 19 A. They got -- that got selected? 20 Q. Yes. 21 A. There was three of us. 22 Q. And you were the only black female? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And you were the only reassigned person? 25 A. Yes. Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (44) Pages 173 - 176 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 45 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 177 1 Q. And to date you've been the only 2 reassigned person -- 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. -- since 2011? 5 A. Even though they hired others, yes. 6 Q. Now, that e-mail for that meeting, did it 7 have a subject invite on it? 8 A. No. 9 Q. So what was the significance of it not 10 having a subject on it? 11 A. I don't know. Because, I think, nobody 12 wanted me to know what the meeting was about. 13 Q. So you felt ambushed? 14 A. Yes, I did. And I expressed that in the 15 meeting. 16 Q. You expressed that -- 17 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). 18 Q. -- to whom? 19 A. My frustrate -- because it did not have a 20 subject. I felt that somebody should have let me know 21 what the meeting was about before I went, and now I 22 come in and then everybody comes in, including LaSonya 23 Glover, who was not on the e-mail, and then they talk 24 about how they have had these conversations about me 25 and they're going to transfer me. I just felt like it Page 178 1 was definitely an ambush, yes. 2 Q. And you testified to Scott Mowry getting 3 the supervisory realty specialist, the one that 4 precipitated the August 22, 2011, discrimination 5 complaint. You testified that before you have not 6 received positions that you applied for. What made 7 this position different? Why did you feel like race 8 was a factor in you not getting the supervisory realty 9 specialist? 10 A. Because the qual -- because really, like 11 I said, we all talked about leadership. We all talked 12 about, oh, she's a great employee. I mean, really 13 that's what we were talking about the entire time we 14 have been talking. Great employee, education, 15 leadership skills. She ran the branch when nobody was 16 there. You know, performing better than any other 17 branch. Why would I not get it? 18 Q. So you were actually acting as a branch 19 chief -- 20 THE COURT: That's been established. 21 BY MS. KING: 22 Q. Yeah. And is it customary for branch 23 chiefs to actually permanently get the branch chief 24 position if they're acting as a branch chief? 25 A. In -- it's -- typically in the past it Page 179 1 have been, and typically when we were doing -- and 2 they do things different after that, but all along, 3 what has been happening before, because I had been in 4 the branch since 2001, that they had somebody in 5 branch that they did promote to the branch chief until 6 that time. It was somebody coming in that they had 7 been in leasing, had been doing leasing before they 8 became as a branch chief. 9 And typically the director back then, 10 Rosemary, she was really adamant about promoting her 11 team leads and moving them up to branch chief. She 12 really had that systematic approach of realty 13 specialist, specialist, leasing specialist, senior 14 realty, special team lead, and -- because she felt 15 like she needed to groom you as a team lead in order 16 to make you a good branch chief. That's how she felt 17 about it. 18 Q. And -- 19 A. So that was customary. 20 Q. And prior to Scott Mowry filling that 21 branch chief position, had he requested to work the 22 GSA before? 23 A. Well, he had requested to do a detail in 24 leasing through our branch. 25 Q. Did he request anything else? Page 180 1 A. He requested to work with Maria Dent. 2 Q. As doing what under Maria Dent? 3 A. Under standard leasing. 4 Q. So he was requesting to learn how to do 5 leasing? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And how much time before that -- before 8 he got the branch chief -- 9 A. I don't know. 10 Q. -- position? 11 A. I don't know that. 12 Q. Just a few more questions. You mentioned 13 earlier in your testimony that you were sometimes 14 denied details. Can you explain the most recent 15 denial for a detail? 16 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). I asked to do an 17 internal detail just yesterday and -- no. I mean, 18 actually I asked for the -- my last resource was 19 yesterday, but actually I asked for this week to do a 20 detail that closed yesterday, and I was told again, 21 no. 22 Q. And what was the reason given for the 23 denial of the detail? 24 A. They indicated that now they may consider 25 me for a outside detail, the six months, but not for Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (45) Pages 177 - 180 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 46 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 181 1 internal detail inside GSA. 2 Q. So the impression you got is that they 3 wanted you to work outside of GSA? 4 A. Because that's what was told. 5 Q. So they would not approve the outside 6 detail -- I mean, the internal detail, but they would 7 only approve the outside detail? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And there was no other explanation given? 10 A. And I wasn't even given a recommendation 11 as I needed for that one. 12 Q. And the last question is, have you ever 13 needed to make accommodations to work from home while 14 working in Branch B? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. In Branch B? 17 A. Oh, no, not in Branch B. 18 Q. So the only -- you requested 19 accommodations to work from home when you started 20 working in Branch D? 21 A. My stress level was fine in Branch B. 22 MS. KING: No further questions, Your 23 Honor. 24 THE COURT: Mr. Chriss, anything further 25 from you? Page 182 1 MR. CHRISS: Yes, Your Honor. 2 FURTHER EXAMINATION 3 BY MR. CHRISS: 4 Q. Just to clarify again, at issue in what's 5 part of your complaint is, again, your reassignment to 6 Branch D, not your APPAS rating that you received at 7 the end of 2011 and your first year as a section chief 8 in Branch D; correct? 9 A. That was -- my whole thing was 10 retaliation. I felt everything that's happened to me 11 since I actually filed the original complaint and then 12 asked to be transferred was retaliation. 13 Q. Since you arrived as a Branch D section 14 chief has the overall performance of your section 15 improved? The section's performance, not your 16 performance. The section's performance. 17 A. Yes, it has improved. 18 Q. So your management abilities and your 19 qualities, capabilities have made a difference in that 20 section, wouldn't you say? 21 A. Uh-huh (affirmative), to an extent. Not 22 fully because I don't -- you know, I can't make all 23 the decisions, but to an extent, yes. 24 Q. As a manager have you ever asked somebody 25 who reports to you to attend a meeting without telling Page 183 1 them what the meeting was about? 2 A. No. 3 Q. Is that -- 4 A. Well, I said performance meeting. I put 5 something on the e-mail. Something. Talk about 6 performance and, you know -- something on there to say 7 what we're going to talk about. 8 Q. Have you verbally, you know, in 9 face-to-face communications, just asked one of your 10 employees to come to your office to have a meeting 11 without telling them what the subject of the meeting 12 was? 13 A. No because I'm very outspoken, so I 14 typically tell people we need to talk and we're going 15 to discuss an issue that I had on a conference call or 16 an e-mail that I had, and this is what we need to 17 discuss because first of all, the reason I do that is 18 because now do -- I want to be prepared. 19 It may be some things I want them to 20 bring. It may be some discussions I want to have with 21 them, so I really want to make sure that they know 22 what the discussion is going to be. They might need 23 to bring a pad with them to take notes, so really it 24 is to make sure that they're prepared for it. 25 Q. As a management official is there ever an Page 184 1 occasion where you talk about your employees' 2 performance with other GSA employees outside of their 3 presence? Let me rephrase. As a manager are there 4 ever occasions where you have spoken about an 5 employee's performance when that employee is not right 6 there? 7 A. Talking about their performance? 8 Q. Correct. 9 A. No. 10 Q. And as it pertains to the detail, is it 11 your testimony that management is precluding you from 12 competing for details? 13 A. Yes. Well, okay. Let's say this. When 14 I first filed the -- and I said the retaliation, and 15 because -- let me explain something. I've had 16 directors have come personally, even today, and have 17 requested me personally that I know for the type of 18 worker I am, because I've helped them in different 19 matters with panels and doing interviews and different 20 things with them -- they came personally requesting 21 me, and I was told, no, we're not letting you go. 22 So I repeatedly have asked for my own 23 career advancement is the reason I did. For my own 24 career advancement, because I feel like in Branch D 25 has totally stagnated my career. I was so far upward Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (46) Pages 181 - 184 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 47 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 185 1 before coming to Branch D that I've repeatedly asked 2 for something to keep enhancing my career. 3 I've been repeatedly told no even though 4 other people have specifically asked for me. Even 5 directors, even ask Dave for me, and I was told no. 6 So -- and I'm consistently told no, and like I said, 7 it has only hindered my professional growth. Since 8 I've been in Branch D it has been no growth. 9 THE COURT: Did you get a rating for the 10 fiscal year that ended in October of -- or I 11 guess September of 2013? 12 THE WITNESS: Yes. 13 THE COURT: What was that rating? 14 THE WITNESS: Three. 15 THE COURT: And then did you get another 16 rating at the end of 2014? 17 THE WITNESS: Three. 18 THE COURT: That was a three also? All 19 right. Ms. King, anything further? Well, 20 pardon me. Mr. Chriss. 21 MR. CHRISS: No problem. Change there. 22 No. 23 THE WITNESS: And in the beginning when 24 this all started, that's -- because of what was 25 going on, and like I said, I don't -- I work to Page 186 1 me -- I like to be exceptional, and this is 2 where I guess when you start talking about a 3 three, I've never been a three person. I've 4 always been the exceptional person. I work on 5 a whole 'nother level. I don't work on other 6 people's level. 7 And so it's really my integrity of me, 8 who I am, and have always been. That's what I 9 stand by, and when I feel like I'm being 10 impeded with it and I can't -- it really puts 11 me in a box. I feel like I can't move and I'm 12 suffocated. So that's when this originally 13 came up, the only thing I requested was to a 14 detail or to move or to do something these 15 directors are asking me to do so that they -- 16 so I could have career growth, and I was 17 repeatedly told no, you cannot do anything, and 18 that's why we are where we are today. So I had 19 asked for in the beginning. That was it. 20 THE COURT: Mr. Chriss, anything further? 21 MR. CHRISS: Yes, Your Honor. 22 BY MR. CHRISS: 23 Q. By working in Branch D, a branch that 24 needs help and working to improve a section in Branch 25 D that needs help, it's your testimony that that's not Page 187 1 helping your career? 2 A. I feel I've done all I can do. I've 3 actually went into Branch D. I've made a structure. 4 I've made employees now understand policies, made sure 5 they understand -- it was a whole lot of stuff they 6 never did by policy that they do now, so I made sure I 7 PMR -- excellent on PMR, which is the review that we 8 do. 9 Ever since I've been in Branch B -- or 10 Branch D, I make sure they improved on their PMR. We 11 don't have -- we have one deficiency one year. We 12 really exceptional as far as percentagewise. So I 13 made sure that I've done everything as a section chief 14 done that I could do to empower my people and to lead 15 them. I feel like I've exhausted everything I could 16 do, and my whole thing was, I want to move for my 17 career growth. This is impeding me because this is 18 all I could do is what I have done. 19 Q. And management is not preventing you from 20 applying for, you know, jobs and -- 21 THE COURT: Well, I don't think that she 22 is claiming they denied her the chance to at 23 least apply. What she is claiming is that her 24 requests were not granted. 25 BY MR. CHRISS: Page 188 1 Q. Just to clarify, when you say request, 2 you mean -- 3 A. Okay. This is how -- okay. So I'm a 13. 4 THE COURT: I think you're even claiming 5 some people even asked to come work for them -- 6 THE WITNESS: Directors. 7 THE COURT: -- and your superiors will 8 not release you; right? 9 THE WITNESS: Right. Directors have 10 personally asked for me. Several have asked 11 for me, and they say, oh, we'll think about it, 12 and end up saying no. This is the thing. As a 13 13, because I have not worked in -- I only had 14 worked in Branch B doing leasing. 15 How it works is, you know, sometimes 16 people see potential in you and they see how 17 well you are. They ask for you because you 18 know what they say? I'll mentor you, I'll 19 bring you under me. I'll help you get your 20 next level 14. 21 That's what they were trying to do for my 22 own career goal. Every time that occurred, 23 they said no because they know I didn't know 24 that division, so they were going to bring me 25 under them as a mentor because I had mentors as Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (47) Pages 185 - 188 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 48 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 189 1 15s, and mentor me and get me to a level 14 2 that everybody knew -- 3 THE COURT: Well -- 4 THE WITNESS: -- I deserved. 5 THE COURT: -- who would some of these 6 people be? 7 THE WITNESS: Okay. So I had -- one 8 person that asked for me was Karen Warrior. 9 She asked for me. One person was Susan -- what 10 is Susan's last name? She is over the DNC now. 11 I can't think of her last name. She's over 12 DNC. She asked for me. What is Susan last 13 name? I can't even think of it now, but she's 14 over in DNC. She asked for -- Dave Hofstetter 15 directly for me. They even talked about it and 16 talked about it and said no -- 17 THE COURT: Which would tend to suggest 18 that, at least in some quarters, your 19 reputation that you built up previously is 20 still intact. 21 THE WITNESS: That was when I first came 22 to the -- when I came to the branch and I felt 23 like I did all I could do, they asked for me 24 and -- because they wanted to mentor me because 25 they know I didn't know their division as -- I Page 190 1 will bring you over here. We'll have a deputy 2 position come open. I'll bring you over. 3 You'll be good for this. Every time it was no. 4 That's how it has been working. 5 You don't just -- as a 14 a lot of times 6 you don't know the job, cross over like that. 7 You get somebody who is willing to work with 8 you, bring you in, help you because they know 9 your leadership qualities. They work with you, 10 and then when something comes open, then you 11 have the skill set. That's how they work, and 12 everybody does, and that's how it goes. 13 THE COURT: Mr. Chriss, anything further? 14 MR. CHRISS: Yes. Just one final 15 question. 16 BY MR. CHRISS: 17 Q. Aren't you enhancing your leadership 18 qualities, abilities by working to improve a difficult 19 branch and difficult section? 20 A. No. I've done all I can do, as I stated, 21 to help this section. There was -- there was many 22 reports they were not doing. There was many documents 23 they've never seen that they were supposed to do by 24 policy, by regulation, they were not doing. They had 25 never seen it. They'd never done it. I trained them. Page 191 1 They're doing everything by policy now. 2 Like I said, ever since I've been there 3 they're now meeting all the PMR goals. They did 4 better in the last year than any other branches did in 5 my section, so I've done -- as just a section chief, 6 I've done all I could do to mentor and grow my people 7 to grow. Now they have the skill set. I need to now 8 take my turn and have my career growth. It's time for 9 me. 10 MR. CHRISS: All right. No further 11 questions. 12 THE COURT: Miss King? 13 MS. KING: No further questions, Your 14 Honor. 15 THE COURT: Thank you very much. You're 16 excused. Let's take a recess. We'll come back 17 at 1:30. 18 MS. KING: Thank you, Your Honor. 19 (Thereupon, a lunch recess was taken from 20 12:25 p.m. until 1:32 p.m.) 21 THE COURT: I'll ask the court reporter 22 to swear the witness in. 23 ELLEN SEILER, 24 having been first duly sworn, was examined 25 and testified as follows: Page 192 1 THE COURT: Could you give us your name, 2 please? 3 THE WITNESS: Ellen Seiler. 4 THE COURT: Ms. King, you can proceed. 5 MS. KING: Thank you, Your Honor. 6 EXAMINATION 7 BY MS. KING: 8 Q. Ms. Seiler, could you please identify 9 your race for the record? 10 A. Caucasian. 11 Q. And your sex for the record, please? 12 A. Female. 13 Q. And you are employed with GSA; correct? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. What was your date of hire? 16 A. 2/13/1989. 17 Q. And what is your current position with 18 GSA? 19 A. Deputy director of the leasing division. 20 Q. Now, prior to your position now have you 21 ever worked in leasing before? 22 A. No, I have not. 23 Q. And just for brief background could you 24 describe the nature of your work, your 25 responsibilities with GSA? Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (48) Pages 189 - 192 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 49 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 193 1 A. I'm the deputy director of leasing, which 2 oversees the entire leasing branch. We have four 3 operational branches and one support branch, and I 4 have four direct supports of the operational branches 5 that I supervise, and it's the day-to-day operation of 6 the leasing. 7 Q. And did you receive supervisory training 8 in accordance with your position? 9 A. Yes, I did. 10 Q. And who was your -- can you name your 11 supervisors? 12 A. Can you clarify? My current superior? 13 Q. Current supervisor. I apologize. 14 A. My current supervisor is Dawn Norman. 15 Q. And at the time of the reassignment of 16 Dr. Karen King who was your supervisor? 17 A. David Hofstetter. 18 Q. Thank you. Drawing your focus to the 19 complainant, Dr. King, how -- to the best of your 20 knowledge has she had a history of good performance 21 evaluations serving under you? 22 A. She never has directly served under me. 23 I've never been her direct supervisor, so can you 24 clarify for me? 25 Q. Sure. Based on the -- to the best of Page 194 1 your knowledge does she have a history of having good 2 performance evaluations with GSA? 3 A. To the best of my knowledge, yes. 4 Q. Now, is it required that all managers and 5 supervisors attend at least eight hours of the EEO 6 training every two years? 7 A. I don't know the specifics of the GSA 8 requirements, but I can assume that yes, we do take 9 EEO training on a periodic basis. 10 Q. You're required to do -- 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. -- EEO training? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. And during your training did you receive 15 the language for the equal opportunity and affirmative 16 action policy, that -- 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. -- handbook? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And does the policy include 21 antiretaliation language? 22 A. I -- I don't know off the top of my head. 23 I can't recall. 24 Q. Now, drawing your focus to August 22nd, 25 2011, Dr. King filed a complaint alleging Page 195 1 discrimination for the nonselection position of the 2 supervisory realty specialist position, GS-14. Were 3 you aware of that complaint prior to her reassignment 4 to Branch D? 5 A. I would -- 6 THE COURT: Did you know about the 7 complaint when it was filed? Did it come to 8 your attention that this complaint had been 9 filed? 10 THE WITNESS: We -- I had received a call 11 from a EEO counselor, yes. 12 THE COURT: Would that tend to be towards 13 the end of 2011? 14 THE WITNESS: I believe so. 15 BY MS. KING: 16 Q. And it was prior to Dr. King being 17 reassigned? 18 A. Yes. 19 THE COURT: And that was a nonselection 20 for the job that Mr. Mowry was placed in? 21 THE WITNESS: Correct. 22 THE COURT: Why did you pick -- why was 23 Mr. Mowry picked as opposed to the complainant? 24 THE WITNESS: He demonstrated in the 25 interview panel his leadership skills, that it Page 196 1 far exceeded -- he was the best person that -- 2 that's why he was selected. 3 THE COURT: What type of questions did 4 you direct to him? 5 THE WITNESS: The first -- I was not on 6 the panel. The first set of questions -- round 7 of interviews are technical. The second round 8 was leadership and managerial questions. 9 THE COURT: And do you have any idea what 10 his background was before he came to GSA? 11 THE WITNESS: He worked for the post 12 office doing leasing. 13 THE COURT: Okay, counsel. You can 14 continue. 15 BY MS. KING: 16 Q. Back to Mr. Scott Mowry, had he ever held 17 a contracting warrant prior to coming to GSA? 18 A. With the Postal Service, yes. 19 Q. But not within GSA? 20 A. No. 21 Q. No? Okay. And just to be clear, you 22 said you were aware of the complaint prior to Dr. King 23 being reassigned? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. Do you know the exact date? Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (49) Pages 193 - 196 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 50 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 197 1 A. No. I can't recall when I got the call 2 from the EEO counselor, no. 3 Q. I'm going to show you -- did the agency 4 consult you when they responded to the interrogatories 5 dated January 13, 2014? I'll hand you -- if you 6 could, Miss Seiler, please turn -- 7 A. Seiler, please. 8 Q. Sorry. I apologize. Seiler. Could you 9 please turn to question 26? 10 A. Okay. 11 Q. And could you read the question and 12 answer for that, Miss Seiler? 13 A. "On what date did Ellen Seiler and Dave 14 Hofstetter become aware that complainant had 15 complained to anyone about alleged discrimination 16 regarding her nonselection for the supervisory realty 17 specialist, GS-14 vacancy announcement 110405525?" 18 The answer was, "Ellen Seiler became 19 aware on or around July 14th, 2011. David Hofstetter 20 became aware on or around January 7, 2013." 21 Q. And does that refresh your memory as to 22 when you were aware of the complaint? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Thank you, Miss Seiler. I appreciate it. 25 Now, Miss Seiler, who was involved in this decision to Page 198 1 reassign Dr. King? 2 A. Scott Mowry and LaSonya Glover and 3 myself. 4 Q. Was David involved? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. So we have Scott Mowry, David Hofstetter, 7 LaSonya Glover, and did you say a third person? 8 A. Myself. 9 Q. Yes, right. And when was Dr. King 10 reassigned to Branch D? 11 A. The December, January time frame. 12 December '11 or in January of 2012. 13 Q. Now, I'm going to hand you this exhibit, 14 Miss Seiler. 15 (Thereupon, marked for identification, 16 Complainant's Exhibit C-13.) 17 BY MS. KING: 18 Q. I'm going to hand you an exhibit marked 19 as C-13. Now, could you read the date at the bottom 20 of that exhibit? 21 A. The approval date? 22 Q. Yes. 23 A. 11/6/2011. 24 Q. And could you please describe for the 25 court or the record, what exactly are you looking at? Page 199 1 A. On notification of personnel action. 2 Q. Reassigning Dr. Karen King from Branch B 3 to D? 4 A. Correct. 5 Q. You just testified prior that she was 6 actually transferred in December or January? 7 A. To the best of my recollection, yes. 8 Q. So what is the discrepancy between that 9 date when she was approved and the December 14th date 10 when the meeting was held and January when she 11 started? 12 A. I don't know what the discrepancy is. I 13 don't do the 52. I don't process this action, so I 14 can't tell you why we discussed it in December and 15 this was done in November. 16 Q. Who has the authority to reassign Dr. 17 King to another branch? 18 A. Who has authority? 19 Q. Yes. 20 A. The division director. 21 Q. So that would have to have come from the 22 division director? 23 A. Yes. Or his acting person, yes. 24 MS. KING: Your Honor, I'd like to admit 25 Exhibit C-13 into evidence. Page 200 1 THE COURT: Any objection? 2 MR. CHRISS: If I can -- no objection. 3 THE COURT: It's admitted. 4 BY MS. KING: 5 Q. Now, as you just saw that Dr. King was 6 actually reassigned on November 6, 2011, why wait over 7 a month, until December 14, 2011, to tell her she was 8 actually reassigned to another branch? 9 A. Oh, at the time of -- at that date her 10 current supervisor was out of the region on an 11 assignment. I know there were several holidays during 12 that time. Other than that, I don't know the reason 13 why it took a month to have that meeting. 14 Q. Now, when you had that December 14, 2011, 15 meeting with Dr. King, what was the substance of the 16 discussion? How did you notify her of her 17 reassignment? 18 A. Scott Mowry led the discussion of her 19 reassignment at that meeting. 20 Q. And how were the parties notified to 21 attend the actual meeting? 22 A. A calendar invite from Scott Mowry. 23 Q. And was there a subject on that e-mail? 24 A. Not that I recall, no. 25 Q. Do you know why it was left blank? Why Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (50) Pages 197 - 200 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 51 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 201 1 they would not put a subject discussing reassignment 2 on it? 3 A. I can't answer for Scott Mowry. He set 4 it up. 5 Q. I got it. And so when you were at the 6 meeting what did you tell Dr. King the reason for 7 reassigning her to Branch D? 8 A. It was based on her leadership skills and 9 her technical knowledge. 10 Q. Exactly what leadership skills are you 11 referring to, Miss Seiler? 12 A. Her ability to lead a team of leasing 13 specialists and lease contracting officers. 14 Q. Isn't it -- 15 THE COURT: Let me interrupt for just a 16 moment. Did you participate in the decision? 17 THE WITNESS: I would say no. I -- I 18 asked Scott Mowry and LaSonya Glover, the one 19 -- Scott having the two section chiefs in his 20 branch, LaSonya having none, let them have the 21 discussion of -- it had to be either Karen or 22 Maria go to that branch. It was -- I really 23 left the thinking to them. It was my decision 24 once they made their recommendation. 25 THE COURT: You followed their Page 202 1 recommendation? 2 THE WITNESS: Correct. 3 THE COURT: You can go ahead, Ms. King. 4 MS. KING: Yes, Your Honor. 5 BY MS. KING: 6 Q. You said you left it to LaSonya Glover 7 and Scott Mowry to make the decision and you just 8 approved it? 9 A. Make the recommendation. 10 Q. Make the recommendation and you approved 11 it? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. Now, what was Dr. King's position -- I'm 14 sorry; reaction to the reassignment during that 15 meeting when you told her that she was being 16 reassigned? 17 A. She was upset and didn't like it. 18 (Thereupon, marked for identification, 19 Complainant's Exhibit C-14.) 20 BY MS. KING: 21 Q. Miss Seiler, I'm going to hand you what's 22 been marked as Exhibit C-14. Could you please 23 describe that exhibit on the record? 24 A. It states it's an EEO investigative 25 affidavit. Page 203 1 Q. And whose affidavit is it? 2 A. Mine. 3 Q. Is that your signature at the bottom? 4 A. Yes, it is. 5 Q. Is that an accurate representation of 6 everything that you signed? Under penalty of perjury, 7 that's everything that you said that happened on that 8 date? 9 A. Yes. 10 MS. KING: Your Honor, I'd like to tender 11 Exhibit C-14. 12 THE COURT: Any objection? 13 MR. CHRISS: No objection, Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: I'll admit it. 15 BY MS. KING: 16 Q. One moment, Miss Seiler. Now I'm going 17 to just have you read question 18 and answer 18 on 18 page 4 of your affidavit, if you will, please. 19 A. You said read the question and the 20 answer? 21 Q. Yes, please. I appreciate it. 22 A. "Were you the management official who 23 reassigned the complainant to Branch D? If yes, 24 please provide a detailed explanation of the reasons 25 the complainant was reassigned." Page 204 1 The response, "The complainant was 2 selected for the position of section chief in Atlanta. 3 She had the leadership qualities, technical skills, 4 and expertise to perform the duties. Due to a 5 business need David Hofstetter and I were the 6 management officials that made the final decision to 7 assign the complainant to Branch D. It was a business 8 decision to redistribute personnel. 9 At the time, two employees from Branch B 10 had been selected for the section chief position, and 11 Branch D had none selected. Also, it was not known 12 how long it would be before it would be able to 13 reannounce. We knew it would be at least 90 days or 14 longer to repost the position, another 60, 90 days for 15 announcing, interviewing, and selection process. It 16 was critical we have at least one section chief in 17 each branch with the transition from team leaders to 18 section chiefs." 19 Q. Thank you, Miss Seiler. So based on your 20 affidavit you say that you did not know when you would 21 reannounce for the section chiefs; correct? 22 A. That's correct. 23 Q. And it was important to have a section 24 chief in Branch D; correct? 25 A. Correct. Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (51) Pages 201 - 204 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 52 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 205 1 Q. And Dr. King was to start working Branch 2 D on January 16, 2012; correct? Do you know the date? 3 A. No. 4 Q. If you read the bottom portion. 5 A. Okay. 6 (Thereupon, marked for identification, 7 Complainant's Exhibit C-15.) 8 BY MS. KING: 9 Q. Now, you can keep this. I'm showing you 10 what's been marked as Exhibit C-15. 11 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). 12 Q. Can you please describe that exhibit? 13 A. C-15? 14 Q. Yes. 15 A. It's an e-mail to the division announcing 16 three individuals that were selected for detail for 17 the vacant section chiefs that we have as well stating 18 that Karen King was being reassigned to Branch D. 19 Q. So you just testified that you did not 20 know when you announced the position, but you had 21 three other people hired with the same start date as 22 Dr. King on January 16, 2012; correct? 23 A. No, that's not correct. Those people 24 were on a detail. They were not permanently selected 25 for that position. They were only acting in that Page 206 1 position. 2 Q. Now, for detail isn't it true that you 3 have to interview and actually put out the detail 4 information prior to January 16, 2012, the start date? 5 A. Yes. We would announce there was a 6 vacancy for a detail, not a permanent position. 7 Q. So why not -- there was already -- you 8 chose one of those people for Branch D. Why not put 9 one of those new hires or new -- those temporary 10 people for section chiefs in Branch D? 11 A. There is one in Branch D. Wanda Hardiman 12 is in Branch D. 13 Q. I understand that, but why couldn't you 14 just keep Dr. Karen King in Branch B and move another 15 hire to Branch D? 16 A. Because that would be two acting in 17 Branch D and not a permanent one, and I needed a 18 supervisor that has supervisor capabilities in Branch 19 D. 20 Q. Isn't Wanda Hardiman -- doesn't she have 21 supervisory capabilities? 22 A. Not in an acting position in a detail, 23 no. 24 Q. Didn't she apply for the section chief 25 position in September? For the section chief of team Page 207 1 -- Branch D? 2 A. September of what year? 3 Q. September 2011. 4 A. I would have to look at that referral to 5 know if she was on it. I don't -- 6 Q. So to the best of your knowledge you 7 don't know if Wanda Hardiman was not selected for the 8 section chief in Branch D? 9 A. Not off the top of my head, no. I'd have 10 to look at the referral to know if she was. 11 Q. Just to back up to your prior testimony, 12 you're saying that you didn't know -- it would be a 13 business need for Branch D to have an acting section 14 chief because there was none there; correct? 15 A. No, that's not correct. It was a 16 business decision to have one of the selected 17 officials off the announcement be in Branch D, so we 18 would have a supervisor there to shrink the span of 19 control. If we did not have that, we had a branch 20 chief that had 18 to 20 people. With a permanent 21 section chief then that person could have eight to ten 22 personnel and be that supervisor and have the 23 supervisory role and position. 24 Q. Isn't it -- according to that e-mail you 25 placed someone in Branch B, C, and D, correct, for the Page 208 1 temporary section chief positions? 2 A. That's correct. 3 Q. So you essentially replaced Dr. King in 4 Branch B? You replaced her position; correct? 5 A. Correct. 6 Q. And so you had to interview for those 7 detail positions prior to January 16, 2012; correct? 8 A. Correct. 9 Q. So you interviewed for her replacement 10 prior to her being reassigned; correct? While she was 11 still acting in the position? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. And again, you did not tell her until 14 over a month later that she was actually reassigned, 15 correct, due to -- 16 A. Sixty-two -- 17 Q. -- holidays? 18 A. -- correct. 19 Q. Now, you touched on Maria Dent. Were you 20 aware that she had worked in the territories covered 21 by Branch D? 22 A. Who worked in -- 23 Q. Sorry. Maria Dent. 24 A. Worked in? 25 Q. The territories covered by Branch D? Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (52) Pages 205 - 208 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 53 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 209 1 Florida -- I'm sorry. South Carolina and the other 2 territories. 3 THE COURT: I think it's North Carolina. 4 BY MS. KING: 5 Q. North -- sorry. I apologize. I'm 6 getting them mixed up. 7 A. No, I didn't know that. 8 Q. So to the best of your knowledge you did 9 not know that Maria had worked -- 10 A. No. 11 Q. And so with that knowledge wouldn't it 12 have been a better fit to place a person who already 13 had knowledge of that territory in Branch D? Would 14 you agree with that statement? 15 A. It's possible. 16 Q. Did you ever warn Dr. King of a business 17 need prior to December 14, 2011? 18 A. No. 19 Q. Did you ever warn her of a business need 20 prior to this personnel action dated 11/6 of 2011? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Just a few more. Now, did you have any 23 discussions with your supervisor about the alleged 24 discrimination that Dr. King complained of for the 25 supervisory realty specialist nonselection? Page 210 1 A. Myself and Dave Hofstetter. Did we 2 discuss it? 3 Q. Yes. 4 A. No. 5 Q. No? 6 A. Not that I recall, no. 7 Q. And what about the retaliation claim that 8 she filed on February 22nd, 2012? 9 A. Uh-uh (negative), no. 10 Q. Now, was Dr. King selected as a section 11 chief for Branch B prior to being reassigned to Branch 12 D? Is that your understanding? She was a section 13 chief in Branch B before being reassigned to Branch D 14 as a section chief? 15 A. My understanding, she was selected to be 16 a section chief whether it was Branch B, C, or D -- 17 Q. But she was in Branch B prior to -- 18 A. -- prior to the selection -- 19 Q. Got it. 20 A. -- correct. 21 Q. And did the section chief positions have 22 the same performance plans as the branch chiefs? 23 A. No. Not at that time, no. 24 Q. And did the section chief positions 25 require a new performance plan? Page 211 1 A. Yes, they did. 2 (Thereupon, marked for identification, 3 Complainant's Exhibit C-16.) 4 BY MS. KING: 5 Q. I'm going to show you an exhibit marked 6 as C-14, Miss Seiler. Sorry. I apologize. 7 Correction for the record. It's actually going to be 8 Exhibit C-16. Could you please describe that paper 9 that you're looking at? 10 A. It's an e-mail. 11 Q. From? 12 A. From Karen King to Karen King. 13 Q. At the lower portion of it? I believe it 14 was a forward. 15 A. From Kameshia to several branch chiefs 16 and Karen King, CC to Bridget Rhodes, David 17 Hofstetter, and myself. 18 Q. And what was the substance of that 19 e-mail, Miss Seiler? 20 A. Section chief performance plans. 21 Q. And could you read the subject of the 22 e-mail, Miss Seiler? 23 A. Section chiefs performance plans. 24 That's -- 25 Q. Oh. Where it starts at "Good morning" Page 212 1 and ends at, "Thanks," please. 2 A. "Good morning. I have placed all section 3 chiefs, parenthesis, not team leaders, parenthesis on 4 their performance plans in CHRIS. They mirror the 5 branch chiefs' performance plans. We can make tweaks 6 up until December 15. Please review with your section 7 chiefs and provide comments to Ellen. I notice that 8 the TKO language is missing from the branch chiefs. 9 It would be added to mirror the section chiefs prior 10 to December 15. If you have any questions or 11 comments, please let Ellen know." 12 Q. Thank you, Miss Seiler. I appreciate it. 13 MS. KING: Now I'd like to tender into 14 evidence, Exhibit C-16. 15 MR. CHRISS: No objection. 16 BY MS. KING: 17 Q. Per this exhibit you're acknowledging 18 that the section chief positions did require a new 19 performance plan; correct? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. Now, did you give Dr. King a new 22 performance plan in accordance with the GSA 23 performance plan and appraisal system policy? 24 A. I would not have given it to her. Her 25 first-line supervisor would have. Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (53) Pages 209 - 212 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 54 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 213 1 Q. And do you understand what the policy 2 states in regards to new performance plans for newly 3 created sections -- positions? 4 A. That every employee should have one, and 5 they should have it in a certain time period. 6 THE COURT: Ms. King, just hold off for 7 just a moment. 8 (Thereupon, marked for identification, 9 Complainant's Exhibit C-17.) 10 THE COURT: You can proceed. 11 BY MS. KING: 12 Q. Miss Seiler, could you read -- could you 13 please just describe the exhibit I'm handing you for 14 the record, Exhibit C-18? 15 A. "GSA order. Subject: GSA associate 16 performance plan and appraisal system." 17 Q. Now, could you please turn to the page 18 that's notated at the bottom right-hand corner that 19 says 12/30, and could you read the circled numeration 20 Number 2? 21 A. "Performance plans for all associates 22 should be established at the beginning of the 23 appraisal period. When an associate enters into a 24 position or changes position after the start of the 25 annual appraisal period, performance plan should be Page 214 1 developed and communicated to the associate as soon as 2 possible -- as soon as feasible, excuse me, normally 3 within 30 days after the appointment to the new 4 position." 5 Q. So according to that policy, it should be 6 done within the 30 days of the actual performance plan 7 -- the position being created; correct? 8 A. It states, "When an associate enters a 9 position or changes it, that you start a new 10 performance plan, normally within 30 days." 11 Q. I'll take that for assessment. 12 MS. KING: Your Honor, I'd like to tender 13 Exhibit C-18 into evidence. 14 THE COURT: Any objection? 15 MR. CHRISS: No objection, Your Honor. 16 THE COURT: It's admitted. 17 BY MS. KING: 18 Q. Now, Miss Seiler, when was the new 19 performance plan submitted for the section chief 20 positions that were created? 21 A. I don't recall. 22 MS. KING: For the record, what was the 23 last exhibit that I just tendered into 24 evidence? I apologize. 25 THE REPORTER: Eighteen. Page 215 1 MS. KING: Okay. That one should 2 actually be 17. It should be 17. 3 (Thereupon, an off-the-record 4 discussion was held.) 5 (Thereupon, marked for identification, 6 Complainant's Exhibit C-18.) 7 BY MS. KING: 8 Q. Miss Seiler, could you please -- I'm 9 handing you Exhibit C-18. Could you please describe 10 what you're looking at? 11 A. An e-mail. 12 Q. And who is it from? 13 A. Scott Mowry; performance plan. Subject 14 is "Performance plan section chief, revised." 15 Q. And what is the date of that e-mail? 16 A. March 6, 2012. 17 Q. So according to that e-mail, by March 6, 18 2012, there still hadn't been a performance plan; 19 correct? 20 A. I cannot answer that. 21 Q. Could you please read the substance of 22 that e-mail, the body of that e-mail, on the record? 23 A. "Subject, performance plan, section 24 chief, revised." It states, "I've updated the 25 performance plans for the section chiefs according to Page 216 1 our discussion last month. Please take a look and 2 make sure I've captured everything we discussed." 3 Q. So according to that e-mail there were -- 4 performance plans were still being revised? They had 5 not been completed; correct? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. So Dr. King did not receive a new 8 performance plan within 30 days of her selection 9 with -- in accordance to the policy; correct? The 10 policy that we just discussed earlier, the GSA 11 associate performance plan and appraisal system 12 policy? 13 A. I would want to look at that previous 14 exhibit that Kameshia Freeman -- that -- I believe she 15 stated that she placed all section chiefs on a 16 performance plan on 14 November of 2011. 17 Q. And were those section plans the same as 18 the branch chiefs; correct? 19 A. That's -- they mirror the branch chiefs' 20 performance plan. That's what the e-mail states, 21 correct. 22 Q. So they mirror them, but they were not 23 the official performance plans; correct? 24 A. They were the performance plans that were 25 issued to the employees, which we can tweak up to Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (54) Pages 213 - 216 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 55 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 217 1 May 31 of each year of a fiscal year. 2 Q. But they did not reflect the total -- 3 accurate description of the duties for the section 4 chiefs because they still mirrored the branch chief 5 positions; correct? 6 A. I cannot answer that. I don't have them 7 in front of me. 8 Q. I got it. 9 MS. KING: Your Honor, I'd like to tender 10 Exhibit C-18 into evidence. 11 THE COURT: Any objection? 12 MS. KING: Thank you. 13 MR. CHRISS: No objection, Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: It's admitted. 15 BY MS. KING: 16 Q. I have just a couple more questions for 17 you, Miss Seiler. Were you ever told about Dr. King's 18 service-connected disability? 19 A. No. 20 MS. KING: I have no further questions. 21 THE COURT: Mr. Chriss? 22 MR. CHRISS: Yes, Your Honor. 23 EXAMINATION 24 BY MR. CHRISS: 25 Q. Good afternoon, Miss Seiler. Page 218 1 A. Good afternoon. 2 Q. You were just testifying, just answering 3 some questions about the timing of the finalization of 4 the section chief performance plan for Ms. King; 5 correct? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. Now, is there any reason why it took 8 awhile for the performance plans to be completed for 9 the new section chiefs? 10 A. It was a new position, and we included 11 the section chiefs in the establishment of those 12 plans. 13 Q. And who's involved in drafting a 14 performance plan? 15 A. The supervisor and the employees. 16 Q. Is human resources also part of that 17 process? 18 A. Yes. Yes, they are. 19 Q. So would you say that it took a little 20 while because you wanted to make sure that you had 21 input from all the correct parties to make sure that 22 the plan was accurate and sound? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. Now, was Ms. King the only section chief 25 selected for that initial announcement? Page 219 1 A. No, she was not. 2 Q. Do you recall that there were five people 3 selected for that initial section chief announcement? 4 A. Yes, there was. 5 Q. So to the extent that there was a delay 6 in Ms. King, her performance plan being finalized as a 7 section chief, she was not the only one; correct? 8 A. Correct. 9 Q. Now, there came a point -- at some point 10 in time there was a restructuring that occurred in the 11 leasing division; right? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. And I believe you testified earlier -- 14 you were talking about a movement from team leads to 15 section chiefs; right? 16 A. Yes. 17 (Thereupon, marked for identification, 18 Agency Exhibit A-4.) 19 BY MR. CHRISS: 20 Q. If I can show you this document that's 21 been marked as Agency Exhibit 4. In that e-mail 22 there, is there any discussion in that document about 23 the number of -- well, first of all, is this an e-mail 24 that you received? 25 A. Correct. And it is from Kameshia Page 220 1 Freeman. 2 Q. And what is the subject of that e-mail? 3 A. READ realignment draft. 4 Q. What does read mean? 5 A. Real estate acquisition division. 6 Q. Is that the same as PBS leasing? 7 A. Correct, it is. 8 Q. And what does that e-mail say about the 9 number of section chiefs that you would have per 10 branch after the restructuring? 11 A. Two per branch. 12 Q. And how many section chiefs did you have 13 before the restructuring for each branch? 14 A. None. 15 Q. Tell me about the structure that you had 16 before the restructuring. 17 A. Before the restructuring we had team 18 leaders. We had three sections in each branch, and 19 they each had team leaders, and then we had the branch 20 chief. Team leaders did not have supervisory 21 responsibility. 22 Q. And how many team leads per branch did 23 you have? 24 A. Three. 25 MR. CHRISS: The agency would like to Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (55) Pages 217 - 220 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 56 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 221 1 move for this document to be admitted as Agency 2 Exhibit 4. 3 MS. KING: Okay. Thank you. 4 THE COURT: Any objection? 5 MS. KING: No, Your Honor. 6 THE COURT: It's admitted. 7 (Thereupon, marked for identification, 8 Agency Exhibit A-5.) 9 BY MR. CHRISS: 10 Q. And similar to that, I'm going to hand 11 you another document. Is this a document, an e-mail, 12 that you received or that you saw at some point? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. And what is this document? 15 A. It's the mapping of the various sections 16 and the various organizational -- organizational codes 17 that would be assigned to them. 18 Q. And that's reflected on page 2 of this 19 exhibit? 20 A. Yes, sir. Correct. 21 MR. CHRISS: The agency moves to have 22 this admitted as Agency Exhibit Number 5. 23 THE COURT: Any objection? 24 MS. KING: No, Your Honor. 25 THE COURT: It's admitted. Page 222 1 BY MR. CHRISS: 2 Q. So in making the shift, this 3 organizational shift from team leads to section 4 chiefs, isn't it true that part of that was that you 5 wanted to improve the performance of PBS leasing? 6 A. Yes, it was. 7 Q. Now, why? Why is that important? Why 8 does anybody care how well PBS leasing is doing in 9 Region 4? 10 A. It's -- it's handed down from GSA 11 administrative to PBS commissioner to the regional 12 commissioner. We need to meet measures. It's -- 13 the -- ensuring that we're utilizing the government's 14 taxpayer dollars appropriately. 15 Q. And tell me about performance measures. 16 You're the deputy director of -- 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. -- leasing; correct? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. So tell me about measures and audits and 21 why numbers matter for you and PBS leasing. 22 A. It matters because it's in my performance 23 plan. It's in my supervisor's performance plan. It's 24 in all of the employees' performance plans. It shows 25 that we're doing business and how we measure our Page 223 1 business. 2 Q. So your performance is in part tracked on 3 the measures that Region 4 PBS leasing meets? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Now, I mean, you're deputy director. Is 6 that the same thing with a branch chief who may report 7 to you? 8 A. Yes, they are. 9 Q. And that also applies to section chiefs 10 like Ms. King; correct? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. Now, what about as a team lead? You 13 know, back when we had the team lead structure, would 14 that have been part of the performance plan for Ms. 15 King? In terms of meeting measures, the ability to 16 meet certain measures for her team. 17 A. To the best of my knowledge those 18 performance plans were more on the operational 19 execution of the business. They possibly could have 20 had measures in it. I would have to see a copy of it 21 to recall it. 22 Q. Let me shift to something else. All 23 right. So there came a point in time where there was 24 a selection process where the section chiefs were 25 selected; right? Page 224 1 A. Correct. 2 (Thereupon, marked for identification, 3 Agency Exhibit A-6.) 4 BY MR. CHRISS: 5 Q. And I'm going to hand you this document. 6 Have you ever seen that document before? 7 A. Yes, I have. 8 Q. What is that document? 9 A. It's the selection memo that is typed up 10 for every panel that we have when we make a selection. 11 Q. Who wrote that memorandum? 12 A. I did. 13 Q. Please continue. 14 A. In conjunction with the HR specialist. 15 Q. So was that the selection memorandum that 16 you wrote as a selection official where Ms. King was 17 selected along with others to be a section chief? 18 A. Yes, it is. 19 Q. And if you take a look at that document, 20 is there any indication of scores or how well Ms. King 21 did relevant to the other persons who were selected 22 for that job? 23 A. No, there is not. 24 Q. And in your role as a selection official 25 was there ever a time when you actually reviewed the Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (56) Pages 221 - 224 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 57 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 225 1 announcement -- 2 A. Yes. 3 Q. -- for that selection? 4 A. Yes, there was. 5 MR. CHRISS: And the agency would like to 6 move to have that admitted as Agency Exhibit 6. 7 MS. KING: Thank you. 8 THE COURT: Any objection? 9 MS. KING: No, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT: It's admitted. 11 BY MR. CHRISS: 12 Q. So in terms of the announcement, if I 13 direct your attention to the announcement, which is a 14 -- it's previously been admitted into evidence as an 15 agency exhibit, but I don't have the number right in 16 front of me. If you take a look at that document, was 17 there anything in the announcement that stated 18 applicants who were working in a particular branch in 19 leasing, if selected as a section chief, would remain 20 in that branch? 21 A. No, there is not. 22 Q. Were there any restrictions on that 23 announcement in terms of who could apply? 24 A. No. Anybody that was a GS-12 or 13 could 25 apply for this position with -- based on the selected Page 226 1 factors of warrant, having a warrant. 2 Q. So you did not have to be in PBS leasing 3 previously, to apply for that position? 4 A. No. You just had to meet the selective 5 factors. 6 Q. And did you provide any input in terms of 7 drafting the questions during the interview process or 8 the announcement itself for this selection process? 9 A. I might have, yes. 10 Q. Do you recall any discussion by 11 management about whether team leads competing under 12 this announcement, should be assigned to the same 13 branch that they were in previously if they were to be 14 selected for a section chief position? 15 A. No. No discussions were made. We were 16 waiting to the outcome of the referral and who was 17 selected. 18 Q. And if you did not do that, why didn't 19 you do that? I mean, why not just say, hey, if you 20 are a team lead in Branch B, if you get the section 21 chief job you're going to Branch B? 22 A. I think we're -- as I stated, I think it 23 was -- it would be dependent on who applied and who 24 was selected of then determining which branch that -- 25 that they would go to. Page 227 1 Q. If I could show you another document. 2 This is an agency exhibit that's been marked 3 previously, but I just don't have the number. If you 4 look at the date on the top right-hand corner, this is 5 a PBS leasing organizational chart, 2012; correct? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. So, you know, that shows the section 8 chiefs for each one of the branches and if you recall, 9 there were five selectees for that section chief 10 position. Tell me about management's logic, if you 11 will, in terms of who it was deciding between 12 regarding, you know, the reassignment to Branch D? 13 Were you considering whether to reassign one of the 14 five selectees, or was it really a smaller group of 15 people that you were deciding between? 16 A. It was a smaller group. We had three 17 that were selected for Atlanta. One was in Branch C. 18 That was the only person out of Branch C that was 19 selected. Branch B had two. It was just the numbers 20 in a business case had -- Branch D needed one. Branch 21 B had two. 22 Q. The two in Branch B -- 23 THE COURT: Let me interrupt. Were 24 selections made just for Region 4, or 25 nationwide? Page 228 1 THE WITNESS: Yes. Region 4 only. 2 THE COURT: Did you say you had people in 3 Alaska? 4 THE WITNESS: No. We had people in 5 Sunrise, Florida. Atlanta. 6 THE COURT: Okay. 7 THE WITNESS: I'll try to -- 8 THE COURT: Okay. You can continue. 9 BY MR. CHRISS: 10 Q. As it pertains to the two people in 11 Sunrise, Florida, Michael Ellis and James Thompson, 12 was there any consideration given to assigning one of 13 them to Branch D? 14 A. No. They applied for Fort 15 Lauderdale/Sunrise only, not for Atlanta positions. 16 Q. So as part of the selection process, the 17 application process, the applicants could identify 18 what regions they were or -- 19 A. Which cities. 20 Q. Yes. Geographic locations, cities they 21 were interested in applying for? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. So if you eliminate those two, you were 24 left with the three of Felicia Walker, Karen King, and 25 Maria Dent; right? Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (57) Pages 225 - 228 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 58 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 229 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. And Maria Dent and Ms. King were 3 previously in Branch B, team leads; correct? 4 A. Yes, correct. 5 Q. And Miss Walker was in Branch C; right? 6 A. Yes, a team leader. 7 Q. So at some point there came a time after 8 the persons were selected, that you had some sort of a 9 discussion with Mr. Mowry about reassignments and who 10 would be reassigned to Branch D? 11 A. Correct. 12 Q. Tell me about that. 13 A. We had a discussion, and it basically 14 came down that he had two individuals in -- that were 15 assigned in his branch as -- selected as section 16 chiefs. Branch D had nobody selected, and one of his 17 two individuals would need to go to Branch D as a 18 section chief. 19 Q. And Mr. Mowry, he reported to you -- 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. -- at that point in time; correct? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. So did you essentially direct him to make 24 a decision in terms of who to send to Branch D? 25 A. A decision and a recommendation, yes. Page 230 1 Q. Well, what happened next? 2 A. We -- he established the meeting with 3 Karen King and myself and LaSonya and him. Had a 4 discussion. We then met with Karen King and advised 5 her that she would be the one being assigned to Branch 6 D. 7 Q. Well, let's take it one step at a time. 8 So there was a meeting with yourself, Karen King, and 9 who else? 10 A. LaSonya Glover and Scott Mowry. 11 Q. And what happened at that meeting? 12 A. Scott took the lead and described the 13 situation to Karen and advised her that she would be 14 moving to Branch D. 15 Q. Do you recall, you know, what rationale 16 he provided or explanation in terms of that -- well, 17 I'm sorry. Let me back up a little bit. Was there a 18 meeting that occurred with Scott Mowry, yourself, and 19 LaSonya Glover, a meeting or a phone call, rather, 20 where you spoke about who would be reassigned to 21 Branch D? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And did you provide any input in terms of 24 who you thought should be reassigned to Branch D? 25 A. No. Page 231 1 Q. What about Miss Glover? Did she provide 2 any input? 3 A. Her input was, she was -- would be 4 willing to accept either person. 5 Q. And what do you recall about what input 6 Mr. Mowry provided in terms of suggestions regarding 7 who should be reassigned? 8 A. From what I recall, Scott's suggestion 9 was that Ms. King would be the person to go to Branch 10 D. She had the technical skills, the leadership 11 ability. At that time he was working with Maria Dent 12 on her management and leadership skills and felt that 13 Karen King's section was performing well enough that 14 it could be okay and survive with the acting section 15 chief. 16 Q. So part of what was considered was the 17 ability of a team to continue to perform well without 18 a team leader or a section chief; correct? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. And, you know, we're talking about the 21 two teams in Branch B, one that was headed by 22 Miss Dent, the other one by Ms. King, and the team 23 that would have been headed by Miss Walker in Branch 24 C; correct? 25 A. Correct. Page 232 1 Q. Do you recall any discussion about 2 Miss Walker's skills, management capabilities during 3 that discussion? 4 A. No. 5 Q. So really it was just King versus Dent; 6 right? 7 A. Correct. 8 Q. And you mentioned that Miss Dent -- or, 9 rather, that Mr. Mowry was working with Miss Dent on 10 her management abilities. Is that what you said? 11 A. Management and leadership skills, yes. 12 Q. Can you elaborate a little bit there? 13 A. Miss Dent is very aggressive and strong 14 natured, and he was trying to teach her some political 15 savvy and a more softer way to teach and mentor and 16 guide her employees. 17 Q. So in essence, you know, Miss Dent, who 18 needed some more work or development, I guess, before 19 she would be reassigned to a job like Branch D? 20 A. Yes. She needed more development for -- 21 he wanted to let her go to another branch, correct. 22 Q. Now, how long had you been in PBS? 23 THE COURT: Let me interrupt for a 24 minute. Was there any discussion he had as to 25 how well Branch D was doing and whether or not Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (58) Pages 229 - 232 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 59 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 233 1 that was perceived as an easy assignment -- 2 THE WITNESS: No. 3 THE COURT: -- compared to Branch B? 4 THE WITNESS: No, there was not. 5 THE COURT: Was, in fact, there a 6 difference in the level of performance within 7 Branch D versus Branch B? Was Branch D 8 performing better or worse? 9 THE WITNESS: Not -- I don't think -- 10 there was no significant difference across all 11 four branches, no. 12 THE COURT: Okay, Mr. Chriss. Go ahead. 13 BY MR. CHRISS: 14 Q. So after Mr. Mowry provided his 15 suggestions did you respond or have any response to 16 what he suggested in terms of Ms. King being 17 reassigned to Branch D rather than Ms. Dent or 18 Miss Walker? 19 A. Only that I would support his 20 recommendation. 21 Q. Now, during that discussion, I mean, did 22 Miss King's race come up as something for discussion 23 there? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Was her gender part of the discussion? Page 234 1 A. No. 2 Q. Was the gender or the racial makeup of 3 any of the teams involved in Branch B or D or even C, 4 part of that discussion? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Did you talk a little bit about whether 7 or not she participated in the EEO process previously 8 in making that decision? 9 A. No. 10 Q. And did Mr. Hofstetter, your boss at that 11 point as the director of leasing, did he have anything 12 to do with that decision? 13 A. He would have been the final decision 14 maker. 15 Q. So, you know, he was not present for that 16 meeting or that phone call, so -- 17 A. No. 18 Q. -- how -- I mean, who told him about this 19 decision and -- tell me about that. 20 A. I would have briefed him and given him 21 the circumstances of where we were at on that 22 referral, the selections, where we were at with vacant 23 branch chief in Branch D, and the discussion that 24 myself, LaSonya, and Scott would have had and the 25 recommendation of who to move. Page 235 1 Q. So if I direct your attention to the 2 report of investigation and -- actually, let me strike 3 that. It's going to be a complainant exhibit that you 4 were just handed recently, but -- 5 MR. CHRISS: Attorney King, do you have a 6 copy of the affidavit for Miss Seiler? 7 MS. KING: Oh, yes, the legible -- 8 MR. CHRISS: Legible copy, yeah. 9 MS. KING: There you go. 10 BY MR. CHRISS: 11 Q. Miss Seiler, if you could turn to page 4 12 of 11, the bottom right-hand corner of the affidavit, 13 where it says question 18. 14 A. Four of 11. It says seven. Four of 15 seven, you mean? 16 Q. Let me see. Okay. At the bottom 17 right-hand corner on the first page do you see 18 something that says affidavit B as in boy, page 1 of 19 11? 20 A. No. 21 Q. Well, if you just turn to question 18. 22 A. Okay. 23 Q. And answer 18, does it read, "The 24 complainant was selected"? 25 A. Yes, it does. Page 236 1 Q. So in this section, again, I think you've 2 already testified that it speaks to the fact that she 3 was selected -- Ms. King was selected for the 4 reassignment due to the leadership qualities, 5 technical skills, and experience; correct? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. Now, at this point in time, in 2011 when 8 this decision was made, how long had you been in PBS 9 leasing yourself? 10 A. Since March of that year. 11 Q. March of the same year? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. So we're talking -- you'd been there less 14 than a year yourself? 15 A. Correct. 16 Q. Did you have any knowledge of Ms. King 17 before you started working there in 2011? 18 A. Just as a -- another realty specialist in 19 that division. No personal contact, no. 20 Q. So the section, it says, it was not known 21 how long it would be before we'd be able to 22 reannounce. We knew it would be at least 90 days or 23 longer to repost the position and another 60 to 90 24 days for announcing, interview, and selection process. 25 So tell me about how has it gone since Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (59) Pages 233 - 236 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 60 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 237 1 then in terms of filling all of the eight section 2 chief positions across the four branches? Where are 3 -- you know, tell me about that. 4 A. Last January, February we made our final 5 selection of the eighth one, and in less than 30 days 6 that individual resigned, went to another agency. We 7 just have another one that's leaving next Friday, so 8 now we're down to six. So we've never really had a 9 full staff of eight section chiefs. 10 Q. So you're almost at the point of 11 achieving having eight section chiefs, and you started 12 with this process, this restructuring, in 2011; 13 correct? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. And we're in 2015? 16 A. Correct. 17 (Thereupon, marked for identification, 18 Agency Exhibit A-7.) 19 BY MR. CHRISS: 20 Q. Now I'm going to show you -- let's see. 21 Now I'm going to show you this document. Can you 22 describe this document? 23 A. It's an e-mail from HR to Bridget Rhodes. 24 Q. Do you see the middle section here where 25 it says, "They will remain"? Page 238 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Can you read that section, please? 3 A. "They will remain under their existing 4 branch chiefs until the remaining selections are made. 5 King, slash, Dent." It would be Scott Mowry, Walker, 6 with Liz Williams. 7 Q. And by that language would it be your 8 understanding that what they mean there is that 9 Miss Dent and Miss King would remain in Branch B until 10 the remaining section chief positions for all eight 11 were filled? 12 A. That's the way it reads, correct. 13 Q. And who is it that wrote that e-mail 14 again? 15 A. Bridget Rhodes. 16 Q. What position did she hold? 17 A. She was the branch chief in our program 18 and support branch. 19 Q. Now, is that position -- is her position 20 sort of above you or beneath you in terms of the PBS 21 leasing hierarchy? 22 A. It was a branch chief that reported to 23 the director, so she was not a direct report of mine. 24 Q. Right. Okay. But like in the hierarchy 25 as -- you were what? A deputy director? Page 239 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. So, I mean, wouldn't you state that, I 3 mean, aren't you higher than her in the hierarchy -- 4 A. Correct. 5 Q. -- PBS leasing? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. So her statement that, you know, Ms. King 8 would remain -- and others would remain in Branch B 9 until all the section chiefs were filled, I mean, did 10 that actually happen? 11 A. No, it's not. No, it did not. 12 Q. And why is it that that didn't happen? 13 A. Based on my answer in the affidavit, 18, 14 that it was a business decision to redistribute the 15 personnel that we'd have a permanent section chief in 16 Branch D. 17 Q. So is it your testimony that it would not 18 have made sense for PBS leasing to have kept Miss Dent 19 and Ms. King both in Branch B as section chiefs? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. Now, there was some discussion about some 22 persons who were selected for details to act as 23 section chief, including Ms. Hardiman? 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. And I believe you testified about the Page 240 1 difference between a detail and a permanent selection; 2 right? 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. Do you happen to know if -- do you happen 5 to know if management made a decision about which 6 section to give Ms. King before it decided to fill the 7 other section in Branch D with a detail? 8 A. I cannot say for sure when those -- the 9 selection of the detail assignments were made or 10 interviews were done compared to the notification of 11 hers. I don't recall that timing. 12 MR. CHRISS: Yes. And the agency would 13 like to move to have this document admitted 14 into evidence as Agency Exhibit Number 7. 15 THE COURT: Okay. Any objection? 16 MS. KING: No, Your Honor. 17 THE COURT: It's admitted. 18 MR. CHRISS: Okay. 19 (Thereupon, marked for identification, 20 Agency Exhibit A-8.) 21 BY MR. CHRISS: 22 Q. I'm going to show you this document very 23 quickly just to get this in the record. So would you 24 agree that this is an organizational chart that shows 25 the distribution by teams within the branches? Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (60) Pages 237 - 240 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 61 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 241 1 A. Yes, it does. 2 Q. And what is the date on that document? 3 A. May 27th, 2010. 4 Q. So that was before the reassignment, and 5 does that appear to be an authentic version of an org 6 chart? 7 A. Yes, it does. 8 MR. CHRISS: The agency moves to have 9 that admitted into evidence as Agency Exhibit 10 Number 8. 11 THE COURT: Any objection? 12 MS. KING: No, Your Honor. 13 THE COURT: It's admitted. 14 BY MR. CHRISS: 15 Q. Did there come a time where you were 16 asked to respond to a grievance that Ms. King 17 submitted? 18 A. Yes, there was. 19 Q. Can you tell me about the grievance? 20 A. The grievance was on APPAS score that she 21 was given, her first-line supervisor. 22 Q. If you turn to the report of 23 investigation, page 85, is this the grievance that was 24 submitted? 25 A. Yes, it was. Page 242 1 Q. And are you the management official who 2 responded to the grievance? 3 A. Yes, I am. The first line, yes. 4 Q. Now, you stated before that it was your 5 understanding that there were no major distinctions 6 between the performance level against measures of 7 Branch A versus B versus C versus D. 8 A. Correct. 9 Q. Now, tell me a little bit about the 10 performance measures process in leasing. I mean, are 11 numbers important to leasing again and why in terms of 12 the different branches? How is performance tracked? 13 A. We have a team in our support branch that 14 tracks all the performance measures and matrixes that 15 fall under leasing. 16 Q. So if you look at like page 86 of the ROI 17 under Section B, these are Ms. King's words, but it 18 says, "There were significant amounts of required 19 documents that were missing from lease project files." 20 That sort of thing -- is that the sort of 21 thing that would be tracked in these performance 22 measures for the branch? 23 A. No. It would have been more of vacant 24 space, funds from operations, holdovers, extensions, 25 lease costs relative to market, the performance Page 243 1 indicators would be under performance measures. 2 Q. So she was grieving the fact that she 3 received a three, and do you recall submitting a 4 response to her grievance? 5 A. Yes, I do. 6 (Thereupon, marked for identification, 7 Agency Exhibit A-9.) 8 BY MR. CHRISS: 9 Q. And that's a document that's been marked 10 previously as Agency Exhibit 9. Is that the response 11 that you provided to her grievance? 12 A. Yes, it was. 13 Q. And what is the date on that document? 14 A. January 25th, 2013. 15 Q. So can you describe some of the rationale 16 that you provided in response to her grievance? 17 A. I went by each critical element and spoke 18 of where she did not meet the criteria for a level 19 four and level five and why she was a level three. 20 Q. And you provided some information in 21 detail; correct? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. And Ms. King grieved the level three, but 24 give me some sense of -- you know, what does it mean 25 to have a level three versus level four versus level Page 244 1 five for your overall annual APPAS rating at GSA? 2 A. A level three is acceptable. You've come 3 in and you've done your job every day. Level four, 4 you're occasionally above. Level five, you're 5 consistently above, outstanding. 6 Q. So is a level three rating, is that a 7 negative rating or a mark on your record? 8 A. No, it's not. 9 Q. How is a level three conceived when 10 managers talk about employees' performance and, you 11 know, whether they're strong performers or not? 12 A. Level three is acceptable. You might 13 call somebody -- a four or five might be a little 14 stronger if it's occasionally or consistently 15 throughout the rating period. 16 THE COURT: Do you know how her review 17 compared with the other section chiefs? 18 THE WITNESS: No. Not off the top of my 19 head, no, I don't. 20 BY MR. CHRISS: 21 Q. And, I mean, you did not rate section 22 chiefs; correct? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. They would have been rated by their 25 branch chiefs; correct? Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (61) Pages 241 - 244 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 62 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 245 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. In the shift, the restructuring and going 3 from team lead to -- 4 THE COURT: Mr. Chriss, if you are done 5 with the questions on the document, could I see 6 it, please? Only when you are done. 7 MR. CHRISS: Yes. 8 BY MR. CHRISS: 9 Q. So, for example, going back to your 10 response to the grievance, regarding critical element 11 Number 3, leading change, you know, one of the 12 critical elements that were part of the performance 13 plan for a section chief, you see it states on page 2, 14 "No evidence was provided to support developing 15 strategies that are forward thinking, cross divisional 16 boundaries, and create best practices which are 17 institutionalized at the regional level and recognized 18 at the national level." 19 Do you see that -- 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. -- on page 2 of that document? 22 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). 23 Q. So in reviewing the grievance do you 24 recall whether you looked at the self-assessment or 25 any documentation that Ms. King may have submitted to Page 246 1 her supervisor before her supervisor gave her, her 2 rating? 3 A. Yes. I would have along -- if it was 4 attached to her grievance as well as looking at each 5 critical element, what criteria for each level: 6 Three, four, and five. 7 Q. And did Miss Glover, the Branch D branch 8 chief who rated Ms. King for the performance period 9 that she was grieving, did she report to you? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And, you know, when rating season comes 12 around do you give any -- I mean, do you give any 13 instruction to the branch chiefs about how many fives 14 or fours or threes they should be assigning? 15 A. No. The direction is based on each 16 individual's performance against the critical 17 elements. 18 Q. So would you agree there is some 19 deference or some authority, at least, that the 20 supervisor has in terms of how to rate their own 21 employee; is that right? 22 A. Yes. It's based on the critical elements 23 and the factors within that. 24 Q. And would you say that it's possible for 25 an employee's annual rating to change from year to Page 247 1 year? 2 A. Yes, it is. 3 Q. So could a person who gets a five one 4 year, get a three the next year? 5 A. Yes, they could. 6 Q. And then the next year could they get a 7 five again? 8 A. Yes. 9 MR. CHRISS: The agency moves to enter 10 this document into evidence as Agency Exhibit 11 Number 9. 12 THE COURT: Any objection? 13 MS. KING: No, Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: It's admitted. 15 MR. CHRISS: Your Honor, is it okay for 16 me to continue? 17 THE COURT: Yes. 18 BY MR. CHRISS: 19 Q. Miss Seiler, you've answered some 20 questions and testified about your background before 21 you came to PBS leasing; correct? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. How did you become the -- how did you 24 come to PBS leasing? Did you compete for an 25 announcement and were you selected? I mean, give me Page 248 1 some more information about that. 2 A. No, I was not. I was a branch chief in 3 portfolio management, and my supervisor along with the 4 other two division directors came to me and said, we 5 would like you to go to leasing division and be the 6 acting deputy director. 7 Q. So you were reassigned to that position? 8 A. Yes. After a year of being acting, 9 correct. 10 Q. So, I mean, were you given any 11 opportunity to provide input about that reassignment? 12 A. No. 13 Q. And how did you feel about that? 14 A. That it was going to be challenging, but 15 it was my job as a manager to go where the agency 16 needed me and to perform my duties. 17 Q. Were you concerned about your APPAS 18 ratings? 19 A. Yes, of course. 20 Q. And also we spoke a little about 21 measures. In your current job does the performance of 22 the leasing division have any impact on what rating 23 you receive? 24 A. Yes, it does. It very much directly 25 affects it. Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (62) Pages 245 - 248 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 63 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 249 1 Q. Is that stressful? 2 A. Yes, it is. Very stressful. 3 Q. And when you first assumed the management 4 position at GSA where your performance somehow was 5 tied to how well the group you were managing 6 performed, what was that like? 7 A. That was stressful. I was in portfolio, 8 a branch chief. It was -- every day, or every week, 9 you always would have to look at processes, reports, 10 of -- look at the monthly scores of measures that come 11 out to know where you are and where you could improve 12 and, you know, how you can get the best performance 13 that you can out of your section, your branch, and 14 your division. 15 Q. And that is how you're evaluated in part 16 based on measures; correct? 17 A. Correct. 18 Q. So, I mean, is that the same way that 19 branch chiefs are evaluated? 20 A. To a certain degree, yes. It's part of 21 their critical element. 22 Q. And obviously the same with section 23 chiefs and -- 24 A. Correct. 25 Q. So after you, Miss Glover, and Mr. Mowry Page 250 1 had the decision -- the discussion about who was going 2 to be reassigned to Branch D, did there come a time 3 when Mr. Mowry informed Miss Glover -- I'm sorry; Ms. 4 King -- that she was going to be reassigned? 5 A. Yes, there was. 6 Q. Were you a part of that conversation? 7 A. Yes, I was. 8 Q. What can you tell me about, you know, 9 what was conveyed in that conversation? 10 A. Excuse me. As I stated before, I believe 11 that Mr. Mowry led that discussion and advised Ms. 12 King of her reassignment and our reasonings behind it. 13 Q. And up to that point would you agree that 14 Mr. Mowry and Ms. King had a pretty good, you know, 15 working relationship? 16 A. As far as I knew, yes. 17 Q. How did Ms. King respond when she learned 18 that information at that meeting? 19 A. As I stated before, I believe that she 20 was upset. Did not -- did not understand why we were 21 making that reassignment. 22 Q. But ultimately who had the decision to 23 assign her? 24 A. The division director would have the 25 ultimate decision. Page 251 1 Q. Did Ms. King -- was it Ms. King's 2 decision in terms of where she was going to work, in 3 which branch? 4 A. No, it was not. 5 Q. And shifting to after Ms. King was, you 6 know, selected for the section chief position, she was 7 -- she worked in Branch B for a while before she was 8 reassigned to Branch D; correct? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. After she was reassigned to Branch D tell 11 me about how she did initially in Branch D. 12 A. Through discussions with her supervisor, 13 she was, I guess, struggling to adjust to a new 14 branch. I'm trying to think. She was frustrated, I 15 believe, would be a good word that the supervisor 16 would have used. 17 Q. At that point in time was -- LaSonya 18 Glover was the head of Branch D, and she reports to 19 you; right? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. Did you have any problems with Branch D's 22 leadership? 23 A. No. 24 Q. So you were happy with Miss Glover's 25 management and leadership style and abilities for that Page 252 1 branch? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. And did you know anything about 4 Miss Glover's rating style, if you will? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Do you know if she was particularly a 7 hard rater? 8 A. No. Fair, but I would not know about 9 hard, no. 10 MR. CHRISS: I have no further questions, 11 Your Honor. 12 THE COURT: Okay. Any redirect? 13 MS. KING: Yes, Your Honor. 14 FURTHER EXAMINATION 15 BY MS. KING: 16 Q. You mentioned that you -- prior to 17 working here did you have a prior working relationship 18 with Scott Mowry before you were hired as a branch 19 chief? 20 A. Can you repeat that, please? 21 Q. Yes. What was your prior working 22 relationship with Scott Mowry before you got here? 23 A. Before I got to leasing? 24 Q. Yes. 25 A. I was a branch chief in portfolio. Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (63) Pages 249 - 252 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 64 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 253 1 Q. And so that's how you knew Scott Mowry? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. Now, when it comes to reassignments, was 4 Dr. King the only section chief reassigned? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. Has anyone else been reassigned to date? 7 A. No. 8 Q. Now, were the section chief details that 9 were hired on January 16, 2012, did they have the same 10 performance plan as the section chief positions that 11 were already in place? I'm sorry; the branch chief 12 positions. 13 A. I can't answer that. I'd have to look at 14 a document to know whether they were or not. I don't 15 know. 16 Q. So when it came to hiring the new section 17 hires, you said the reason you placed Dr. Karen King 18 in Branch D was because of -- what was the reasoning? 19 A. Why we reassigned her to Branch D? 20 Q. As a permanent hire why didn't you place 21 one of the details in Branch D, since you already 22 placed Wanda Hardiman in Branch D? 23 A. I think I stated this before. We needed 24 a permanent section chief that was selected off the 25 referral because they have supervisory duties and can Page 254 1 assume half of the branch chiefs' control of -- the 2 span of control. That acting section chief did not 3 have supervisory duties, so they could not do APPAS 4 and that sort of stuff, so they could not have the 5 full scope of the supervisory roles and 6 responsibilities. 7 Q. But isn't it true that all the section 8 hires that were hired as details are now permanent 9 section chiefs? 10 A. I would have to look at the names again. 11 I believe -- I think one is left. If it was Ryan, 12 Wanda, and Scott Ayers, yes, they were all selected 13 eventually after subsequent referrals and 14 announcements. 15 Q. Go ahead. Sorry. 16 A. Scott Ayers has since left a year ago. 17 Q. That's my understanding. Now, Dr. King, 18 she was to work under LaSonya in Branch D; correct? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. LaSonya had the final say-so, correct, 21 over how the structure was ran, the organization, 22 Branch D; correct? 23 A. Yes. She was the branch chief, correct. 24 Q. So her leadership was limited to what 25 LaSonya would have told her what she could and could Page 255 1 not do; correct? 2 A. No. 3 Q. So she could make powers -- she could 4 override LaSonya's powers in Branch D? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Her powers are limited by LaSonya's? 7 A. Her powers are limited by her role as a 8 section chief and her PD and the authority that it has 9 within that. 10 Q. But you testified that you wanted Dr. 11 King in that branch because of her leadership 12 qualities? 13 A. Correct. I believe that's what was in 14 the affidavit, yes. 15 Q. But her leadership qualities were limited 16 under LaSonya; correct? 17 A. No. I mean, to -- to me her leadership 18 duties is the way she performs as a leader. It's not 19 that LaSonya is going to tell her how to act as a 20 leader. That's up to the individual person to use her 21 leadership skills to guide and direct and mentor the 22 employees underneath her. 23 Q. When it came to Branch D, was Branch D 24 failing at the time Dr. King was reassigned to Branch 25 D? Page 256 1 A. No. 2 Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked 3 as Exhibit C-7. If you could take a moment just to 4 review these documents documenting the issues with 5 Branch D, and it is your testimony you were not aware 6 of any of these issues Dr. King being reassigned? 7 A. My testimony is that every section -- I 8 mean, every branch, the whole division, was having 9 issues with performance measures. That's one of the 10 reasons why I was reassigned to this division. 11 Q. If you look at that chart -- 12 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). 13 Q. -- who has -- 14 THE COURT: Elaborate a little bit. Do 15 you understand why it is that you were 16 reassigned due to the problem with performance 17 measures? 18 THE WITNESS: Excuse me, sir. Can you 19 repeat? 20 THE COURT: What was the connection 21 between the problem with performance measures 22 and your reassignment? 23 THE WITNESS: That was the reason why I 24 was reassigned to this division: To improve 25 them, correct. Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (64) Pages 253 - 256 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 65 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 257 1 THE COURT: Okay. And had you spent time 2 concentrating on that in previous assignments? 3 THE WITNESS: I had broad PBS knowledge 4 and made some process improvements in the 5 branch -- I mean, in the division I was in, 6 yes, in portfolio management, yes, and I had 7 reached out and partnered with the financial 8 management and leasing division. 9 THE COURT: Okay. The standards that 10 were in place for fiscal year 2012, how do they 11 compare with prior standards? 12 THE WITNESS: Can you expound on what you 13 mean by standards? 14 THE COURT: Well, let's say the standards 15 for the section chiefs. How did that compare 16 with what previously had been the standard -- 17 let me withdraw that. Was there some 18 connection between the standards for the branch 19 chiefs and the standards for the section 20 chiefs? 21 THE WITNESS: The performance plans? 22 THE COURT: Yes. 23 THE WITNESS: They were similar in 24 nature, yes. 25 THE COURT: And how did they compare with Page 258 1 what you had in place the previous year? Were 2 you more strict? Did you have -- did you 3 create some changes, and if so, what were the 4 changes? 5 THE WITNESS: If the changes were made, 6 they're made to strengthen the critical 7 elements that dealt with performance measures 8 because the performance measures changed each 9 year, so we would have to tweak the performance 10 plans to match whatever performance measures we 11 had that particular year. 12 THE COURT: All right. Miss King, you 13 can continue. 14 BY MS. KING: 15 Q. If you can just describe what this chart 16 displays, Miss Seiler. 17 A. It's a metrics type of system that was 18 used in our -- in the leasing division. 19 Q. If you would look at column Branch B, do 20 they have the most green areas out of all the branches 21 from Branch C, A, and D? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. What does the green indicate? 24 A. That it was passing. 25 Q. And Branch D, how many green areas does Page 259 1 it have? 2 A. Two. 3 Q. And every one has about the same except 4 Branch B where Dr. King was previously at? 5 A. Branch C has two, Branch A has four, and 6 Branch B has seven green ones. 7 Q. So Branch B was succeeding -- 8 A. Slightly above the other ones. 9 Q. Slightly above the others, and Branch D 10 was the worst? 11 A. It -- compared to Branch C, they were the 12 same. 13 THE COURT: May I take a look at that 14 document? 15 BY MS. KING: 16 Q. If you could look -- you said you stand 17 by LaSonya Glover's leadership of Branch D even to 18 this date, even with the state of Branch D? 19 A. State? The state of -- 20 Q. The condition of the -- it not meeting 21 its performance measures. 22 A. Now? 23 Q. Yes. 24 A. It is meeting performance measures now. 25 Q. Do you have any documents to support Page 260 1 that? 2 A. Not in my hand, no, I don't. 3 Q. But at the time it was reassigned, would 4 you acknowledge that it was not meeting performance 5 measures? 6 A. They were not meeting some of the 7 performance measures, correct. 8 Q. Now, you said you -- that a level three 9 is not a negative review; correct? 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. Would you be happy with a three? 12 A. Would I be happy with it? Yes. 13 Q. So you would be happy if you went from a 14 level five to a level three? 15 A. If that was the performance of my duties 16 that year, yes. 17 Q. Have you had discussions with LaSonya 18 Glover, David Hofstetter, or -- about Dr. King's 19 retaliation -- 20 A. No. 21 Q. -- claims? 22 A. No. 23 MS. KING: I have no further questions, 24 Your Honor. 25 THE COURT: Mr. Chriss? Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (65) Pages 257 - 260 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 66 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 261 1 FURTHER EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. CHRISS: 3 Q. Miss Seiler, can you just describe to me 4 in terms of performance measure, when we say 5 performance measure are we talking about the 6 performance measure applicable to an individual's 7 performance, or are we talking about a measure of how 8 well a group or a team is performing? 9 A. It's both. It could be as overarching as 10 what is our amount of vacant space in our lease space, 11 which is at a bigger picture divisional level. Or it 12 would be individuals on their project level of where 13 their projects were. Were they past due? Were they 14 on time? Would be an example. 15 THE COURT: At least part of it is what 16 you would call metrics, where it's somewhat of 17 a cut-and-dried exercise to determine whether 18 or not they met the goal? 19 THE WITNESS: Yes, correct. 20 BY MR. CHRISS: 21 Q. And for PBS leasing, I mean, would you 22 say that you have a lot of metrics and a lot of charts 23 and graphs tracking numbers and all that, or is it 24 just, you know, one or two sheets that you rely upon 25 to track? Page 262 1 A. There is lots. 2 Q. Lots? 3 A. Numerous, yes. 4 Q. Attorney King shared with you a very 5 colorful document that had performance measures and 6 was asking you questions about whether or not that 7 reflected that Branch D's performance was lacking 8 relative to the other branches; correct? 9 A. Correct. 10 Q. So, I mean, give me some -- can you speak 11 to whether that document alone indicates that Branch 12 D's performance across the board was below the others 13 in terms of performance measures? 14 A. No, it was not. That was -- maybe two or 15 three was on that. We would have had, you know, half 16 a dozen, maybe six or seven or eight, measures that we 17 would have been -- would have fell under leasing or we 18 would have tracked or measured. 19 Q. So, I mean, in your role as deputy 20 director for leasing have you seen reports where, you 21 know, other branches other than Branch D may have been 22 lagging, say, relative to Branch D, in some 23 performance measures? 24 A. Yes. 25 Q. So would you say it varies based on what Page 263 1 particular performance metric that you're looking at? 2 A. Yes, it does. 3 THE COURT: The chart that's been the 4 subject of discussion, what part of the 5 standards did that focus in on? Did that deal 6 with just arbitrarily a certain random series 7 of categories, or is that a certain piece of 8 the puzzle? 9 THE WITNESS: This has certain pieces of 10 the puzzle, of the number of leases that we 11 replace with new leases, the number of 12 extensions and holdovers. 13 THE COURT: What are some of the factors 14 that are missing, the metrics that are missing? 15 THE WITNESS: Vacant space, our funds 16 from operations, our lease cost relative to 17 market, our revenue variance; timely OA 18 activations, off the top of my head. 19 THE COURT: Okay. Fair enough. 20 THE WITNESS: Yes. 21 THE COURT: Anything further? 22 MR. CHRISS: Yes, Your Honor. 23 BY MR. CHRISS: 24 Q. So, Miss Seiler, you indicated that one 25 of the reasons why -- well, part of your goals when Page 264 1 you arrived in PBS leasing was to help improve their 2 performance against performance measures; right? 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. So can you give us a sense of PMRs and 5 national audits and how PBS leasing has done on those 6 sort of audits over the past few years? 7 A. Previous to this year, the past three or 8 four years the PMR, we have failed it. 9 Q. And that's pretty well known across 10 Region 4 PBS; correct? 11 A. Yes, it is. 12 Q. So would you say that there is a need for 13 strong management in, you know, PBS leasing Region 4? 14 A. Yes, there is. Correct. 15 Q. People with strong management skills like 16 Ms. King; correct? 17 A. Correct. 18 MR. CHRISS: No further questions, Your 19 Honor. 20 THE COURT: Okay. Miss King? 21 MS. KING: Just one follow-up. 22 FURTHER EXAMINATION 23 BY MS. KING: 24 Q. You testified prior that Dr. King had 25 a -- better leadership than Maria Dent; is that Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (66) Pages 261 - 264 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 67 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 265 1 correct? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. Isn't it true that Maria Dent is now a 4 branch chief? 5 A. Yes. 6 Q. And that's a higher position than Dr. 7 King's position? 8 A. Yes. 9 MS. KING: No further questions. 10 THE COURT: Thank you very much. You're 11 excused. Let's take a five-minute recess. 12 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) 13 THE COURT: I'll ask the court reporter 14 to swear the witness in. 15 LASONYA GLOVER, 16 having been first duly sworn, was examined 17 and testified as follows: 18 THE COURT: Give us your name, please. 19 THE WITNESS: Hi. I'm LaSonya Glover. 20 THE COURT: Counsel, you can proceed. 21 MS. KING: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor. 22 EXAMINATION 23 BY MS. KING: 24 Q. Miss Glover, could you please identify 25 your race for the record? Page 266 1 A. African-American. 2 Q. And your sex? 3 A. Female. 4 Q. And what was your date of hire with the 5 GSA? 6 A. I was hired in 1987 or '88. 7 Q. And what was your position at the time of 8 hire as a branch chief? 9 A. What was my position at the time of hire? 10 Q. Yes. 11 A. Or prior to becoming a branch chief? 12 Q. Prior to. I apologize. 13 A. I was a senior leasing contracting 14 officer. 15 Q. And what is your current job title now? 16 A. My current job title is branch chief. 17 Q. And could you please just for background, 18 go into your job description and the nature of your 19 responsibilities? 20 A. I am responsible for managing a territory 21 that consists of Alabama and North Carolina, square 22 footage approximately -- maybe 46 -- maybe 46 million. 23 I'm not really sure. Two sections that comprised of 24 two section chiefs. Each section chief manages 25 approximately nine to ten lease contracting officers Page 267 1 and leasing specialists. We're responsible for lease 2 acquisition, contracts for federal agencies in the 3 areas of Alabama and North Carolina. 4 Q. Thank you. Ms. Glover, I have just -- 5 okay. Now, were you one of the persons involved in 6 the decision to reassign Dr. King? 7 A. Yes. I did sit in on a conversation. 8 Q. When was this conversation? Who was also 9 present during this conversation? 10 A. The conversation took place December 11 2011. It consisted of myself, Ellen Seiler, and Scott 12 Mowry. 13 Q. And did you guys have a conversation 14 amongst yourselves prior to that December 14, 2011, 15 meeting? 16 A. To that December? 17 Q. December 14, 2011, the date of the actual 18 meeting. 19 A. We may have. I don't recall specifically 20 if it was via conversation or e-mail, but there may 21 have been. 22 Q. Did Ellen Seiler ever consult you about 23 who you'd like transferred or actually reassigned to 24 Branch D? 25 A. No. Page 268 1 Q. So who was the final person who made that 2 decision to reassign to Branch D? 3 A. It was more so of a -- we had the 4 conversation, but the final decision rested upon -- it 5 was either the director or the deputy director. 6 Q. Could you just be a little bit more 7 specific? When you say who -- when you say we had the 8 conversation, who was the conversation between? 9 A. Okay. The conversation between myself, 10 Ellen, and Scott Mowry. We discussed the reassignment 11 of a section chief to my branch. The final authority 12 in terms of who actually would make that in terms of 13 an HR decision, laid with either the deputy director 14 or the director. I'm not sure which one. 15 Q. Who would that be? The deputy director. 16 A. The deputy director, I'm sorry, was Ellen 17 Seiler. The director at the time was Dave Hofstetter. 18 Q. So she -- you guys had input, but Ellen 19 Seiler would be the final decision maker as to who 20 would be transferred to Branch D? Is that your 21 testimony? 22 A. It would either be her or Dave Hofstetter 23 in terms of record, the person making the final 24 decision of record. 25 Q. And who asked for Dr. King to be Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (67) Pages 265 - 268 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 68 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 269 1 reassigned to Branch D? 2 A. I wouldn't say it was asked for her to be 3 reassigned. We discussed -- we discussed that there 4 were two section chiefs selected that resided in 5 Branch B. In terms of who would be reassigned, the 6 branch chief at the time, Scott Mowry, looked at the 7 performance of both sections, and he weighed which 8 section would be able to sustain -- would be able to 9 sustain longer without a permanent section chief as 10 opposed to the other. 11 The section that Ms. King was over, he 12 felt was a stronger team and probably could sustain 13 themself a little longer than the other team, who he 14 felt may -- needed a little bit more work and needed 15 that supervisory personnel. 16 Q. So once Dr. King was reassigned, it was 17 Maria Dent left in that position? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. And Maria Dent, as of today she's 20 actually a branch chief over Branch B; correct? 21 A. Correct. 22 Q. Maria Dent, speaking of her, has she ever 23 worked in your territories before? Specifically, 24 North Carolina? 25 A. That, I don't know. When she was a team Page 270 1 leader, it -- previously in branch -- which was now 2 branch C, I'm not sure what her area was. 3 Q. And why did you guys want to reassign Dr. 4 King to your branch, Branch D? 5 A. Again, it was not to reassign her 6 specifically to Branch D. Branch D was without a 7 section chief at all. We had announced for eight, and 8 at the time only five was selected. 9 Q. So it was more so for a status than her 10 leadership skills or a business need? Is that your 11 testimony? 12 A. No. It was a business need because 13 section D did not have any section chiefs to lead the 14 two newly formed sections, so the discussion was 15 around the assignment of a section chief to Branch D 16 so that at least each branch would have one until we 17 had the opportunity to announce again. 18 Q. So Wanda Hardiman, she was actually in 19 Branch D; correct? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. And she actually applied for the section 22 chief position; correct? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. And she did not get it in October along 25 with Felicia Walker, Maria Dent, Dr. Karen King? She Page 271 1 did not get the position, correct, for Branch D; 2 correct? 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. But a few months later she actually got 5 the position for section chief, on January 16, 2012, 6 to start; correct? 7 A. She actually applied for a detail. 8 Q. A detail. So she got the detail for a 9 section chief position, but just not the actual 10 section chief position? Is that your testimony? 11 A. At that time, yes. 12 Q. And she had the same start date as Dr. 13 Karen King? 14 A. I'm not sure of the start date. That, 15 I'm not sure of. 16 Q. Now, did you give Dr. King a lower 17 evaluation while she was in Branch D? 18 A. When you say lower, I was not privy to 19 her previous ratings. 20 Q. A level three. 21 A. Yes, I gave her a level three. 22 Q. And what was the basis of that 23 evaluation? 24 A. A level three meant that she met the 25 expectations. Page 272 1 Q. But she just wasn't performing at a level 2 five? Is that your testimony? 3 A. No. Not the -- the level five is 4 exceeded, and in terms of exceeding the critical 5 elements, no. 6 MS. KING: I apologize. One minute. I'm 7 trying to find a document. 8 THE COURT: Let me interrupt for a 9 minute. As of January 2012 where did the 10 performance of your branch stand in relation to 11 the other branches? 12 THE WITNESS: In comparison I can't state 13 because I didn't track the performance of the 14 other branches. I basically was focused on how 15 my branch was moving forward in meeting 16 performance measures, replacing expiring 17 leases. 18 THE COURT: Were you having problems? 19 Was it -- 20 THE WITNESS: As in performance issues? 21 THE COURT: Yes. 22 THE WITNESS: None that needed 23 documenting. In terms of working with 24 specialists there are always issues that come 25 up, depending on the particular project that Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (68) Pages 269 - 272 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 69 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 273 1 they're working, but in terms of performance 2 that needed documenting, did I have to write 3 anybody up? No. 4 THE COURT: What was your rating at this 5 time? 6 THE WITNESS: My rating at that time, 7 that year, was a level four. 8 THE COURT: Okay. You can continue. 9 BY MS. KING: 10 Q. Ms. Glover, could you please read the 11 portion that says, "Reassignments," please? 12 A. "If an associate is reassigned to a 13 position within GSA that requires a new performance 14 plan during the rating period and if they've served in 15 their position for a minimum rating period of 120 16 days, an interim appraisal should be prepared. This 17 interim appraisal should be considered when completing 18 the annual performance appraisal." 19 Q. Now, Dr. Karen King was reassigned. Did 20 you actually do an interim appraisal for her? 21 A. No, I didn't. If -- if an interim 22 appraisal would have been needed, then where she was 23 coming from, they would have done it. 24 Q. It would actually be your position to do 25 it because you would be her new supervisor. Page 274 1 A. Her coming into my -- into my branch -- 2 Q. Correct. 3 A. -- to do an interim rating at that time? 4 Q. Correct. Because the way you rate her, 5 you rated her from October 1st, 2011, to October 1st, 6 2012, correct, for her first performance review when 7 she was in your branch? 8 A. Yes. It went through September. 9 Q. So there was some overlap actually when 10 she was actually in Branch B; correct? 11 THE COURT: I'm going to ask this, out of 12 the witness, but if it's 120 days and it starts 13 on October 1, would that not run out at the end 14 of January? 15 MS. KING: Well, the performance plan had 16 yet to be updated, so she would still be 17 required to have that interim appraisal done, 18 per the policy. 19 THE COURT: I mean, are you saying that 20 if you have been working for four months in a 21 job, you go to a new job, they rate you before 22 you leave? 23 MS. KING: They'll rate you on that 24 period in between because you are in that 25 120-day window. Page 275 1 THE COURT: But the 120-day -- well, in 2 the first place, what are you saying? Are you 3 saying Mr. Mowry should have rated her before 4 she left? 5 MS. KING: I'm saying LaSonya should have 6 done an interim appraisal based on that time 7 period so that she had a -- 8 THE COURT: Which time period? 9 MS. KING: I'm sorry. October 1, 2011, 10 through the midterm of -- half of the year of 11 2012. 12 THE COURT: Well, I thought it was 120 13 days -- if what you are saying is that if 14 you're in place for 120 days, you get an 15 interim rating before you leave, that would 16 make sense to me. Are you saying something 17 different? 18 MS. KING: That's what I am saying, Your 19 Honor. 20 THE COURT: Well, then, why would she be 21 entitled to an interim rating if she left in 22 mid-January? 23 MS. KING: The performance plan. Yeah. 24 The performance plan wasn't updated until 25 March, so she was still being graded on the Page 276 1 older performance plan, which would have 2 required her to be still -- get that appraisal 3 based off her prior performance plan. 4 THE COURT: Okay. You can continue. 5 BY MS. KING: 6 Q. Now, you were present during that meeting 7 when Dr. King was reassigned; correct? 8 A. Correct. 9 Q. And what was her reaction to the 10 reassignment? 11 A. She said that the meeting caught her off 12 guard. 13 Q. So she was not welcoming of the 14 assignment? 15 A. No. I didn't feel that she was. 16 Q. And you testified earlier that your 17 branch was actually meeting measures at the time of 18 Dr. King's assignment -- reassignment? 19 A. No, that's not what I said. I was asked, 20 was I having any issues, and I said, any performance 21 issued? And I said, none that needed to be documented 22 where I had to write anybody up. 23 Q. So how old were your projects in around 24 that time, if you can estimate, when Dr. King was 25 reassigned? Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (69) Pages 273 - 276 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 70 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 277 1 A. That, I can't answer. We carry so many 2 projects, depending on new space requests that are 3 coming in or expiring leases that are coming up. 4 Q. Did Dr. King send e-mails to you 5 regarding her frustrations with Branch D? 6 A. I can't think of specific e-mails, but if 7 there were, I'm sure I provided a response. I don't 8 see my responses to these e-mails in here. Let me 9 see. I do remember this one. I did respond to that 10 one. This one wasn't sent to me, but, however, I 11 think when Ellen responded, she copied me on that one. 12 I think this one, I'm not sure if the red is mine or 13 what on this one. 14 Q. The red is indicated as yours? 15 A. As my responses. Okay. And this appears 16 to be a list of projects to be transferred to another 17 section. Okay. 18 Q. Now, according to those e-mails and -- 19 how old were the projects, or how behind were the 20 projects? 21 A. I can't tell from these e-mails, and I 22 don't recall the situation. 23 Q. Right here. 24 THE COURT: Let me ask you this question. 25 What was the racial composition of the unit Page 278 1 that Ms. King was assigned to? 2 THE WITNESS: In terms of the employees, 3 their racial composition? 4 THE COURT: Yeah. 5 THE WITNESS: Initially her section was 6 all African-Americans. One, two -- I'm trying 7 to think in terms of male, female, but it was 8 all African-American initially, and then she 9 received two white males shortly thereafter. 10 THE COURT: Okay. You can continue. 11 BY MS. KING: 12 Q. Could you please describe the exhibit 13 or -- the exhibit you're looking at? 14 A. This right here, this is a tracker of 15 incoming space requests for expiring or new leases 16 coming into the inventory. That's what these are. 17 Q. And how much expiring inventory had you 18 had at that time? Those are over periods of '11, '10, 19 and 2009, I believe. 20 A. I think when Branch D was first 21 established, I may have had -- I believe it was over 22 100 expiring leases. Branch D was a compilation of 23 states from the other branches when it was formed. 24 Q. But you had been at GSA acting as a 25 branch chief two years prior to Dr. King's Page 279 1 reassignment to Branch D? 2 A. One. 3 Q. One year? Okay. So how much of that was 4 inherited issues with Branch D? 5 A. I can't remember. 6 Q. Could you please describe this colored 7 block chart? 8 A. This block chart is -- it's an inventory 9 tracker that we used to track how we are doing along 10 with measures. 11 Q. And who on that -- which branch had the 12 most green areas listed? 13 A. Branch A and B. 14 Q. Branch B actually has three; correct? 15 A. Branch -- 16 Q. They're the highest? 17 A. You say branch what? 18 Q. Branch B has the highest areas colored 19 green; right? It's three; correct? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. And how many areas of green does Branch D 22 have? 23 A. Two. Branch D also has more expiring 24 leases. 25 Q. Thank you. Page 280 1 A. You're welcome. 2 Q. Now, did Dr. King tell you she had a 3 service-connected disability? 4 A. No. I just found out -- I'm sorry. I 5 just found that out probably a month or so ago when 6 she mentioned it to me. 7 Q. And what were the circumstances regarding 8 that? How did you find out that she had a 9 service-connected disability? 10 A. She came to me to give me a heads -- 11 THE COURT: Well, I'm going to interrupt. 12 Counsel, if she just found out about a month 13 ago, what would the relevance be? 14 MS. KING: Just to go into her having to 15 do requested leave, and -- 16 THE COURT: Well -- 17 MS. KING: -- accommodations. 18 THE COURT: -- you're talking about -- 19 how is that part of this complaint? 20 MS. KING: It just goes to damages, but 21 we can skip over it. 22 THE COURT: Okay. 23 MS. KING: Because it's already been 24 established. 25 THE COURT: Please do. Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (70) Pages 277 - 280 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 71 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 281 1 MS. KING: I have no further questions 2 for this witness. 3 THE COURT: Mr. Chriss, how about you? 4 EXAMINATION 5 BY MR. CHRISS: 6 Q. Good afternoon, Ms. Glover. In terms of 7 Ms. King working under you, has there ever been an 8 occasion where you have denied her request to pursue a 9 detail to another part of GSA? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Can you please describe -- 12 A. The first time she approved -- I mean, 13 I'm sorry. The first time that she requested approval 14 for a detail, I explained to her that looking at the 15 -- the condition of her section, that I wanted her to 16 work on really turning some things around, to get I 17 think the number of holdovers and extensions lowered. 18 Q. Have you ever approved a request from Ms. 19 King to pursue a detail? 20 A. Yes. I've actually approved two. 21 Q. And what role do you play in approving or 22 denying, you know, a detail as it pertained to Ms. 23 King? Can you just describe that a little bit? 24 A. Yes. It's PBS policy that supervisor 25 approval be seek before a person applies for one. Page 282 1 Q. Was there ever a time where Ms. King had, 2 you know, more than one detail application out there 3 at the same time? 4 A. Yes. Just recently. 5 Q. And did that have any impact on whether 6 or not you may have approved her to compete for a 7 detail? 8 A. Yes. The latest one that she asked for 9 approval, I did deny because I had just approved one 10 about a week ago and we had not received official 11 notification that she was selected or not selected. 12 Q. So in terms of whether or not you 13 approved her to compete for a detail, do you consider 14 the needs of Branch D -- 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. -- in reviewing those requests? 17 A. Yes, I do. 18 Q. In terms of your rating philosophy, what 19 can you tell me about your rating philosophy when you 20 rate employees? 21 A. I rate them in conjunction with the -- in 22 accordance with the critical elements. 23 (Thereupon, marked for identification, 24 Agency Exhibit A-10.) 25 BY MR. CHRISS: Page 283 1 Q. I'd like to hand this document to you. 2 If you take a look at that document, is that a 3 performance plan for Ms. King? 4 A. Yes, it is. 5 Q. And is that a performance plan for Ms. 6 King during the period of time when you were her 7 supervisor? 8 A. I believe so. 9 MR. CHRISS: The agency would like to 10 move to have that admitted as Agency Exhibit 11 Number 10. 12 THE COURT: Any objection? 13 MS. KING: No, Your Honor. 14 BY MR. CHRISS: 15 Q. Now -- okay. You have rated Ms. King for 16 a few years now; is that correct? 17 A. Correct. 18 Q. And you have rated her a three for more 19 than one annual APPAS review; correct? 20 A. Correct. 21 Q. And is this one of your annual APPAS 22 reviews for Ms. King? 23 A. It is. 24 MR. CHRISS: Your Honor, is it possible 25 to go off the record for one quick second? Page 284 1 THE COURT: Sure. 2 (Thereupon, an off-the-record 3 discussion was held.) 4 MR. CHRISS: Could we go back on the 5 record, Your Honor? 6 THE COURT: Yes. 7 MR. CHRISS: Okay. 8 BY MR. CHRISS: 9 Q. Ms. Glover, I'm going to show you what's 10 previously been marked as Complainant's Exhibit Number 11 4. Is that the first annual APPAS review that you did 12 for Ms. King? 13 A. Yes. There is a page of it missing, 14 though, but this is it. 15 Q. What page is missing? 16 A. When I do an annual rating for the -- the 17 section chiefs there are two measures that are really 18 quantitative, and I usually do a summary of the 19 numbers compared to what's required on the critical 20 elements to show where they fall in terms of what was 21 required and what was actually done over the year. 22 Q. So if you look to -- I'm handing you 23 another document now. The second document is an APPAS 24 for the year after that, the annual APPAS rating where 25 she received a three as well. Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (71) Pages 281 - 284 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 72 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 285 1 A. This actually is the same one. 2 Q. It's the same one? 3 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). 4 Q. Well, if you could take a look at that 5 version of the document, perhaps it has the page that 6 you are referencing. 7 A. Okay. No, it does not. 8 Q. Well, generally if you could tell us, you 9 know, what rationale you use to rate Ms. King a three 10 for that performance period? 11 A. Okay. The critical elements -- there are 12 two critical elements that really weigh high of all 13 the elements, and those are the ones that are 14 really -- they're really high in quantitative 15 measures, and for the first one, customer service, I 16 look at the requirements of each level between a level 17 one, a level two, three, and all on up to five. 18 And based upon the actual performance of 19 the section, I marry them up with where they fall 20 within -- which in the -- I'm sorry. Where they fall 21 in the levels. For example, it asks about project 22 closeout, and we do what we call a TKO, which is a 23 turnkey process closing out the -- closing out the 24 year, and I think the requirement is that they're done 25 on all projects. We have someone who tracks it. I Page 286 1 actually look at, of the leases we awarded, how many 2 did we actually go through this closeout process on? 3 Also it talks about monitoring our 4 contracting officers' technical representative, and we 5 have brokers, and we have to do evaluations, and after 6 milestones are completed, each person is supposed to 7 do an evaluation within a certain number of days. We 8 have our -- we've had a broker team who tracked that. 9 I would use that information to see where each person 10 fell within the levels of that critical element. 11 Q. And would you agree that a level one and 12 level two performance, those are categories for people 13 who are underperforming? 14 A. Correct. 15 Q. Level three is meeting the -- 16 THE COURT: Mr. Chriss, I'm not going to 17 stop you, but I think I understand the 18 significance of what the five different ratings 19 amount to. 20 MR. CHRISS: Okay. Thank you, Your 21 Honor. 22 THE COURT: I realize that the Number 3 23 does not mean you're doing a bad job. 24 MR. CHRISS: Thank you, Your Honor. 25 BY MR. CHRISS: Page 287 1 Q. So can you just describe -- do you hand 2 out a lot of fives in terms of your ratings? 3 A. I've given five in specific elements, but 4 in terms of an overall five, no. 5 Q. So is it your testimony that you have 6 never given any employee that you have rated, a five? 7 A. An overall rating of five? 8 Q. Correct. 9 A. Correct. 10 Q. And about how many employees have you 11 rated, you know, in your history at GSA? 12 A. In -- initially when I became a branch 13 chief I was responsible for rating the entire branch, 14 which consisted of about 20 employees, so I would say 15 anywhere from 30 to 40. I've done maybe 30 to 40 16 ratings. 17 Q. Right. So over 30 or 40 ratings no one 18 has received a five? 19 A. Correct. 20 Q. So Ms. King is not alone in not receiving 21 a five? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. Now, have you ever had any sort of 24 discussions with Miss Seiler or any manager senior to 25 you about the distribution of your ratings -- threes, Page 288 1 fours, fives, ones, twos -- among the people that you 2 have rated? 3 A. Could you rephrase the question? 4 Q. Sure. Has Miss Seiler or Mr. Hofstetter, 5 have they ever spoken to you about the number of -- 6 the distribution of the ratings that you have been 7 assigning over the years in terms of number of ones 8 versus twos versus threes versus fours versus fives? 9 A. No. There was a time where we had to 10 submit our proposed ratings. 11 Q. And it's your understanding that you have 12 discretion in terms of how you rate your employee; 13 right? 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. And performance measures, metrics, all of 16 that is part of your rating process? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. If an employee gets a five in one year, 19 does that mean that they're going to get a five the 20 next year? 21 A. Not if they're not performing at the same 22 level, no. 23 Q. And before the section chief positions 24 were created, did you ever have occasion to rate 25 people who were team leads? Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (72) Pages 285 - 288 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 73 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 289 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. Was the team lead performance plan, the 3 same as the section chief performance plan? 4 A. No. The team lead position -- the team 5 leader still worked projects. They lead the team, but 6 they did not have supervisory responsibility. 7 THE COURT: Was their rating based in 8 part as to how well the team did? 9 THE WITNESS: I can't remember the -- the 10 critical elements of the team lead position, 11 but there was a team lead critical element and 12 it did talk about managing the expiring lease 13 inventory. 14 THE COURT: Were there other areas where 15 they were simply rated as an individual 16 performer? 17 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry? 18 THE COURT: Were they rated on some of 19 the elements the same as the other people on 20 the unit? 21 THE WITNESS: They -- if I'm 22 understanding your question correctly -- 23 THE COURT: Well, let me interrupt. In 24 some cases the team lead is simply first 25 amongst equals and they have their own case Page 290 1 load, so in many ways their workload is similar 2 to that of other people they're supposed to be 3 leading. 4 THE WITNESS: Correct. 5 THE COURT: Was that the case for this 6 position? 7 THE WITNESS: For the team lead position, 8 yes. Some team leaders did carry -- probably 9 all of them did carry projects of their own in 10 addition to leading the team. 11 THE COURT: So if they did a good job on 12 their own individual caseload, how would that 13 factor into their performance? 14 THE WITNESS: It weighed into their 15 performance rating because the critical 16 elements spoke to their handling projects that 17 were assigned to them and managing an expiring 18 inventory that was assigned to them. 19 THE COURT: Mr. Chriss, anything else? 20 MR. CHRISS: Okay. 21 BY MR. CHRISS: 22 Q. Yes. Ms. Glover, if you turn to this 23 binder, page 133. Okay. This document, does this 24 appear to be the -- is this a position description for 25 a team lead position? Page 291 1 A. Yes. It appears to be the position 2 description for the team lead. 3 Q. And if you page through that, in terms of 4 the questions you were just asked from Your Honor, I 5 mean, are you stating that basically the team lead 6 position involved fewer managerial responsibilities? 7 A. It did. 8 Q. And in terms of measures are you stating 9 that measures were less significant for the team lead 10 position relative to the section chief position? 11 A. If I'm understanding your question 12 correctly, yes because the -- the branch chief had the 13 supervisory responsibility of the entire branch as 14 opposed to how it's set up now, whereas the supervisor 15 ratio is spread among the section chiefs and the 16 branch chief. 17 Q. If I could turn your attention to page 72 18 of the report of investigation, page 72, this is an 19 e-mail from you to Ms. King, January 12, 2012. 20 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). 21 Q. This is -- you know, you're welcoming Ms. 22 King to Branch D, your branch; correct? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. Down below at the bottom of this e-mail 25 you actually identify the persons who were going to be Page 292 1 in her section; is that correct? 2 A. Correct. 3 Q. Tell me a little bit about whether there 4 was any thought process given to which of the two 5 sections in your branch that Ms. King would lead up. 6 A. I have to say it's -- I picked one. I 7 mean, if I'm thinking back on how I did it, I just 8 picked the section. I mean, it wasn't, oh, I'm going 9 to give her this person or give her that person. That 10 wasn't the thought process. 11 Q. And when you look at the personnel in 12 Section B, were there any persons in Section B at that 13 point in time who really could have benefited from Ms. 14 King's leadership skills? 15 A. This is not the complete list here, but 16 yeah, there were -- there were several people who 17 could have benefited from her leadership. One person 18 that is not listed on this e-mail, which is probably 19 the second page, she was a former federal specialist 20 coming in to -- in to leasing. There was another one 21 who was a former SMS that would have definitely 22 benefited from her leadership. 23 Q. SMS stands for? 24 A. I'm sorry. Space management specialist. 25 Q. And were you alluding to Miss Peters, by Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (73) Pages 289 - 292 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 74 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 293 1 any chance? 2 A. No. Miss Peters was actually -- she was 3 a former team lead who was now converting back to a 4 senior specialist, and she held an unlimited 5 contracting officer warrant. 6 Q. So would you agree that there were some 7 people in this section that, you know, needed some 8 additional training or management involvement, and Ms. 9 King's arrival actually helped them in some way? 10 A. It would have helped them, yes. 11 Q. Now, you've rated Ms. King for several 12 years now, and you've given her a three each time for 13 an annual APPAS; right? 14 A. Uh-huh (affirmative). 15 Q. Do you have anything against Ms. King 16 personally? 17 A. No, not at all. 18 Q. Have you ever socialized or visited, you 19 know, homes or something in terms of Ms. King? 20 A. Well, we actually used to be a part of 21 book club years ago. We were in the same book club, 22 and I have attended a book club meeting at her home in 23 the past. 24 Q. So in terms of Ms. King's performance in 25 what she has done to the section in your branch, since Page 294 1 she's been there to right now would you say that she's 2 had a positive impact? 3 A. Yes. In terms of the measures and how 4 things are improvement -- for example, our lease 5 replacement. As we -- as a lease is expiring we 6 replace it with a new one. Those are starting -- that 7 number is starting to increase. 8 Q. And you testified previously that you had 9 absolutely no knowledge of Ms. King's prior annual 10 APPAS ratings, you know, when she started to work in 11 your branch; correct? 12 A. Correct. 13 Q. When did you first learn of Ms. King's 14 APPAS ratings before she started working for you? 15 When did you first learn about that? 16 A. I guess I learned about her actual rating 17 when -- I guess when this situation came up. 18 Q. I mean, was that shared with you in some 19 way? You know, by legal or anybody else as part of 20 this case? 21 A. I can't recall exactly who told me or I 22 found out that she was rated higher than how I rated 23 her. 24 Q. Fair enough. All right. So you 25 testified earlier that management had a discussion Page 295 1 between you, Mr. Mowry, and Miss Seiler about who was 2 going to be reassigned to Branch D; right? 3 A. Correct. 4 Q. At that point in time did you have any 5 knowledge of Maria Dent or Miss Walker or their 6 performance? 7 A. In terms of their performance -- their 8 actual performance rating, no. Felicia Walker was 9 previously my team leader. 10 Q. And, I mean, do you agree that the 11 recommendation and the decision in terms of who would 12 be reassigned to Branch D was not made by you? 13 A. I agree. 14 Q. So after Ms. King arrived and started 15 working for you, was she happy to be in Branch D? 16 A. No. It was obvious that she wasn't. 17 Q. Can you tell me a little bit more about 18 that? 19 A. She just wasn't really engaged. Anytime 20 something came up on a project her response was, I 21 don't have any knowledge of that -- of that project; I 22 can't tell you anything about that project. 23 And my response would always be, you 24 know, I understand, but I need you to bring yourself 25 up to speed in terms of being the section chief. When Page 296 1 she arrived, I even offered to meet with her along 2 with the specialist individually to go over projects 3 and to assist her in coming up to speed. 4 Q. And do you have any knowledge of Ms. 5 King's involvement in any prior EEO activity before 6 the decision was made to reassign her to Branch D? 7 A. No. 8 Q. And do you have any reason to believe 9 that a level three rating for an annual APPAS will 10 prevent her from being able to advance in -- 11 THE COURT: Mr. Chriss, I don't think we 12 need -- 13 MR. CHRISS: All right. 14 THE COURT: -- to belabor that more than 15 we have. Everybody has their take on -- I 16 don't think we need to push that further. 17 MR. CHRISS: Okay. I have no further 18 questions, Your Honor. 19 THE COURT: Okay. Any redirect? 20 MS. KING: Yes, Your Honor. 21 (Thereupon, marked for identification, 22 Complainant's Exhibit C-19.) 23 FURTHER EXAMINATION 24 BY MS. KING: 25 Q. I show you what's been marked as C-19. Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (74) Pages 293 - 296 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 75 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 297 1 Could you please describe what that is? 2 A. This is in reference to the -- to the 3 detail that Ms. King asked me for -- to apply for 4 actually this week. She mentioned she did not have my 5 recommendation, but she did not ask me for one. 6 Q. So it is your testimony that Dr. King did 7 not ask for a recommendation prior to applying for 8 that request? 9 A. For this one she asked me for my 10 approval, but she did not ask me for a recommendation. 11 Q. So at that point she had notified you it 12 was an incomplete package, so why wouldn't you let her 13 do the second detail that she requested? For the 14 second detail she requested? 15 A. She also let me know that she contacted 16 human resources and human resources said that her 17 package was advanced, even though they did not have 18 the supervisor recommendation there. I said, that's a 19 good sign that your package was not kicked back at 20 that level. It was still forwarded. Let's see the 21 outcome. 22 Q. But there is the possibility it could 23 have gotten kicked back; correct? 24 A. There was a possibility. 25 Q. So she just was asking you for that Page 298 1 second recommendation, and at that point what was your 2 reason for giving her the denial? 3 A. She did not ask me for a second 4 recommendation on that one. She asked me for my 5 approval to apply for another detail. 6 Q. Well, your reasoning was, there was a 7 possibility that the other one could -- she could get 8 the other one, so we'll just see how that turns out? 9 A. My reasoning was, yes, I've approved you 10 for one. Let's see the outcome of that. For planning 11 purposes I need to know what type of coverage will be 12 needed for your section, and I didn't want multiple 13 opportunities out there that we've -- that she has 14 applied for and we not knowing which one she's going 15 to get. It affects how I plan for coverage. 16 Q. So it had nothing to do with one being 17 internal versus one being external? 18 A. Correct. 19 Q. Even though you approved the external but 20 you refused to approve the internal? 21 A. Until we knew the outcome of the first 22 one that I had approved just the week before. 23 Q. But you would agree that had you not 24 approved it, the time lapse, she would not be able to 25 apply for it past the time frame? Page 299 1 A. I'm sorry. Rephrase that. 2 Q. She would not be able to apply for the 3 detail past the time frame for applying the deadline; 4 correct? 5 A. There was a deadline set. She did bring 6 that up. I said, you may want to ask the contact 7 person on there, is there a possibility after that 8 date? 9 Q. But once that deadline passes, she would 10 no longer be able to apply to that detail; correct? 11 A. We can assume that. 12 MS. KING: No further questions, Your 13 Honor. 14 THE COURT: Mr. Chriss? 15 MR. CHRISS: No further questions, Your 16 Honor. 17 THE COURT: Thank you very much. You're 18 excused. Let's take a five-minute recess. 19 (Thereupon, a recess was taken.) 20 THE COURT: What did you want to raise? 21 MS. KING: I think I forgot to tender 22 into evidence, Exhibit C-19. 23 THE COURT: Any objection? 24 MR. CHRISS: No objection. 25 THE COURT: It's admitted. Page 300 1 MS. KING: Then you or me -- or Mr. -- 2 Attorney Chriss were talking about the team 3 lead description. I think it's missing from 4 both of our exhibits. We're trying to see if 5 there is a way we could come to a realization 6 that not -- 7 THE COURT: Well, I mean, if either side 8 wants to introduce it, it's okay with me, but 9 let's get the testimony in. 10 MR. CHRISS: Right. I'm going to ask the 11 witness to raise your right hand. 12 SCOTT MOWRY, 13 having been first duly sworn by the court 14 via videoteleconference was examined 15 and testified via videoteleconference as follows: 16 THE COURT: Good afternoon. Your voice 17 is a little faint. Try and speak up good and 18 loud, and just try and speak slowly and 19 enunciate clearly. 20 MR. CHRISS: And I'm sorry, Your Honor. 21 Do you want him to move slightly to the left or 22 to the right? 23 THE COURT: Yes. You might want to move 24 to, I think it's your right. Yeah, there you 25 go. You look better on our screen. Okay. Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (75) Pages 297 - 300 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 76 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 301 1 Miss King, you're going to start the 2 questioning; right? 3 MS. KING: Yes, Your Honor. 4 THE COURT: Go ahead. 5 EXAMINATION 6 BY MS. KING: 7 Q. Please state your name for the record. 8 A. Scott Mowry. 9 Q. Please identify your race for the record. 10 A. Caucasian. 11 Q. And please identify your sex for the 12 record. 13 A. Male. 14 Q. Mr. Scott Mowry, what was your evaluation 15 of Dr. King while she was in Branch B? 16 THE COURT: Hold on. We have some fire 17 sirens in the background. Hold on. 18 MR. CHRISS: Attorney King, I think this 19 is the mike. 20 THE COURT: Just wait because the 21 connection is a little faint, and I'm sure any 22 distraction is going to -- well, let's 23 continue. Go ahead. 24 THE WITNESS: If you can repeat that 25 question, that would be great. Page 302 1 BY MS. KING: 2 Q. What was your performance evaluation of 3 Dr. King while she was in Branch B? 4 A. Karen King was a great employee for me, 5 and I gave her an excellent performance evaluation the 6 one evaluation cycle that I had her in my branch, and 7 I rated her a level five under the GSA performance 8 ratings. 9 Q. And what were the team leader's 10 responsibilities while you were acting as -- while you 11 were the branch chief of Branch B? 12 A. Team leaders were to lead a group of 13 employees, leasing specialists, to accomplish the 14 execution of leases, and they would oversee their 15 work. They would mentor them. They would assist them 16 on projects if necessary. They would provide me with 17 feedback on their employees' performance because I was 18 technically the supervisor of all the employees at 19 that time when we had team leads. So they oversaw the 20 work, essentially, of their employees. 21 THE COURT: Ms. King, I'm not sure I 22 actually see a disagreement between the parties 23 as to what the duties associated with these 24 different jobs were, so I just would urge you 25 to try to focus on the matters that are truly Page 303 1 in dispute. 2 MS. KING: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. 3 THE COURT: I mean, I have the 4 background, so let's bear that in mind and just 5 proceed to the matters where this witness truly 6 has some unique contribution to make. 7 MS. KING: Understandable, Your Honor. 8 BY MS. KING: 9 Q. Mr. Mowry, I have just one more question 10 for you. Did you have a meeting -- did you actually 11 consult with Ellen Seiler and LaSonya Duncan prior to 12 Dr. King being reassigned to Branch D? 13 A. Yes, I did. 14 Q. And what was the substance of that 15 meeting or that conversation prior to meeting with Dr. 16 King? 17 THE COURT: How did the meeting come 18 about? 19 THE WITNESS: The meeting came about 20 because I was informed by my supervisor, Ellen 21 Seiler, that I had to essentially give up one 22 of those two section chiefs that were assigned 23 to my branch, Karen King or Maria Dent, and 24 they were -- one of them was to be reassigned 25 to Branch D, and I -- I was not happy with Page 304 1 that. I wanted to keep both of those employees 2 in my branch. We were very successful. 3 However, my supervisor determined that 4 that was going to happen, and we needed to 5 discuss that between myself, the receiving 6 branch, which was headed by LaSonya Glover and 7 Ellen Seiler, who was both mine and LaSonya's 8 boss. So we met to discuss who would be 9 reassigned. 10 BY MS. KING: 11 Q. And when you say your supervisor, who are 12 you referring to? 13 THE COURT: Miss Seiler; correct? 14 THE WITNESS: Miss Seiler. 15 BY MS. KING: 16 Q. And so did she make the decision to 17 reassign Dr. King? 18 THE COURT: Well, he said that it was 19 presented to him that he had to pick one, so it 20 obviously had an impact, but you yourself made 21 the recommendation as to which would be 22 transferred; correct? 23 THE WITNESS: Correct, yes. I mean, I 24 was the losing branch of this, and so my 25 opinion carried a lot of weight in that. Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (76) Pages 301 - 304 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 77 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 305 1 However, I was in New York on a detail at the 2 time, and so we were discussing this sort of on 3 the phone, and we thought it was necessary that 4 all three of us talked about it before the 5 decision was made. 6 BY MS. KING: 7 Q. And one last question, Mr. Mowry. What 8 was the reason given at the time for the reassignment 9 of Dr. King to Branch B (sic)? 10 A. It happened to -- so I had to essentially 11 give a recommendation one way or another. I 12 recommended that Maria Dent remain in Branch B and 13 Karen King be the one to be reassigned, and there is a 14 few reasons for that. Obviously, I didn't want to 15 give up either employee. I felt they were critical to 16 the success of my branch. 17 Two reasons that come to my mind: Maria 18 Dent and I had a very good working relationship, and 19 so did Karen King and I. I felt that Maria and I had 20 a little bit closer working relationship. Maria Dent 21 also was heading up and just starting a very large 22 project where she was actually the one managing the 23 project. It was a Savannah CDP lab lease prospectus, 24 new construction. 25 And also Karen has a very good ability to Page 306 1 mentor new employees. She showed that in my branch. 2 She was an excellent mentor of some junior employees 3 on her team at that time, and Branch D had a large 4 group of newer younger employees that really needed a 5 very good mentor, and those were the reasons that were 6 discussed for who would be reassigned. 7 MS. KING: I have no further questions, 8 Your Honor. 9 THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Chriss, how about 10 you? 11 EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. CHRISS: 13 Q. Mr. Mowry, you were just talking about 14 the rationale relating to the decision of who was 15 going to be reassigned to Branch D; is that right? 16 A. Uh-huh (affirmative), correct. 17 Q. The gender of the persons considered, was 18 that part of the decision making process? You know, 19 Maria's gender versus King's gender versus Walker's 20 gender? 21 A. No. 22 Q. Was the racial background of Miss Dent 23 versus Ms. King versus Miss Walker, was that 24 considered at all in the decision making process? 25 A. No. Page 307 1 Q. Was the racial makeup -- 2 A. No. 3 Q. -- of the branch, Branch D, that she was 4 assigned to, was that part of the decision making for 5 King to go to D? 6 A. No. 7 Q. What about the racial makeup of your 8 branch in Branch B? Was that part of the decision 9 making? 10 A. Not at all, no. 11 Q. Was there any talk about whether or not 12 Ms. King had previously filed an EEO complaint in the 13 decision making process? 14 A. No. 15 Q. Did you talk at all about Branch D and 16 its lagging performance relative to the other branches 17 in leasing? I mean, was that part of the decision 18 making process? 19 A. It -- in an outside way, yes. It was -- 20 it was known that Branch D was lagging in performance, 21 and I think that was what drove my supervisor, Ellen 22 Seiler, to make that decision that somebody needed to 23 be reassigned there, a full-time section chief, and 24 that -- and not necessarily their performance in terms 25 of whether Maria or Karen would be reassigned, but the Page 308 1 fact that, you know, they needed a solid-performing 2 supervisor to go to that branch. 3 Q. Right. Right. And I believe you 4 testified previously that you had rated Ms. King a 5 five before; right? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. Had you rated Miss Dent a five before? 8 A. Yes. They both received a five rating 9 from me that year. 10 MR. CHRISS: No further questions, Your 11 Honor. 12 THE COURT: Any redirect? 13 MS. KING: No, Your Honor. 14 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much. 15 You're excused. 16 DR. KING: Bye, Scott. 17 MR. CHRISS: Thank you, Mr. Mowry. 18 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 19 MR. CHRISS: So Miss Dent is next; right? 20 THE COURT: Yes. 21 (Thereupon, an off-the-record 22 discussion was held.) 23 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon. 24 MS. KING: Hi. 25 THE WITNESS: How are you? Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (77) Pages 305 - 308 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 78 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 Page 309 1 MR. CHRISS: Please have a seat there. 2 THE COURT: I will ask the court reporter 3 to swear the witness in. 4 MARIA DENT, 5 having been first duly sworn, was examined 6 and testified as follows: 7 THE COURT: Give us your name please. 8 THE WITNESS: Maria Dent. 9 THE COURT: Ms. King, you can proceed. 10 EXAMINATION 11 BY MS. KING: 12 Q. Please state your race for the record. 13 A. Hispanic, Mexican origin. 14 Q. And please state your sex for the record. 15 A. Female. 16 Q. I just have one question for you, 17 Miss Dent. Prior to December 14, 2011, the date that 18 Dr. King was actually notified of her reassignment, 19 had you actually worked in the North Carolina 20 territory before while you were in Branch C? 21 A. I did. 22 Q. Yes. So you were familiar with the 23 territory? 24 A. With the North Carolina, yes. 25 MS. KING: All right. I have no further Page 310 1 questions for this witness, Your Honor. 2 THE COURT: Could you elaborate a little 3 bit as to what job you held at the time? Were 4 you a lead? Were you just a regular employee? 5 THE WITNESS: I was a team lead when I 6 was in section -- C? 7 MS. KING: Okay. 8 THE COURT: Mr. Chriss, anything from 9 you? 10 MR. CHRISS: Yes, Your Honor. 11 EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. CHRISS: 13 Q. Miss Dent, you do recall that there came 14 a time where Ms. King was reassigned to Branch D; 15 correct? 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. At that point in time you and Ms. King 18 were both performing as Branch B section chiefs; 19 correct? 20 A. Yes. 21 Q. Did management ever explain to you the 22 rationale as to why Ms. King was assigned to Branch D? 23 A. No. 24 Q. And did management ever explain to you as 25 to why you were allowed to stay in Branch B as a Page 311 1 section chief rather than Ms. King? 2 A. No. 3 MR. CHRISS: No further questions, Your 4 Honor. 5 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much. 6 You're excused. 7 MS. KING: Thank you, Miss Dent. 8 THE WITNESS: Bye. 9 MS. KING: Have a great weekend. 10 MR. CHRISS: Thank you, Ms. Dent. Have a 11 good weekend. 12 THE COURT: Any further evidence, Ms. 13 King? 14 MS. KING: No, Your Honor. No. 15 THE COURT: Mr. Chriss, did you have any 16 other witnesses? 17 MR. CHRISS: No, Your Honor. 18 THE COURT: Let's do this. I'm going to 19 adjourn for the day, and I will schedule -- 20 I'll just adjourn for the day. That's all I'll 21 say. Let's go off the record. 22 (Proceedings adjourned at 4:09 p.m.) 23 - - - 24 25 Page 312 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 I hereby certify that the foregoing 4 transcript was taken down, as stated in the 5 caption; that the colloquies, questions, and 6 answers were reduced to typewriting under my 7 direction; and that the foregoing pages 1 8 through 311 represent a true, correct, and 9 complete record of the hearing. 10 The above certification is expressly 11 withdrawn and denied upon the disassembly or 12 photocopying of the foregoing transcript, 13 unless said disassembly or photocopying is done 14 under the auspices of D'Amico Gershwin, Inc., 15 Certified Court Reporters, and the signature 16 and original seal is attached thereto. 17 I further certify that I am not a 18 relative or employee or attorney of any party, 19 nor am I in any way interested in the result of 20 said case. 21 This, the 11th day of February, 2015. 22 23 24 ________________________________. THOMAS R. BREZINA, CCR-B-2035 25 Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (78) Pages 309 - 312 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 79 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 $ $200 (2) 77:13,21 $3,000 (1) 77:12 $4,000 (3) 77:12,22,22 A A-1 (1) 87:7 A-10 (1) 282:24 A-2 (1) 100:15 A-3 (1) 108:24 A-4 (1) 219:18 A-5 (1) 221:8 A-6 (1) 224:3 A-7 (1) 237:18 A-8 (1) 240:20 A-9 (1) 243:7 abilities (9) 19:13;107:7,16,20; 128:13;182:18; 190:18;232:10; 251:25 ability (6) 42:10;201:12; 223:15;231:11,17; 305:25 able (11) 75:8;76:3;148:11; 204:12;236:21;269:8, 8;296:10;298:24; 299:2,10 above (9) 87:4;127:25;128:1; 151:19;238:20;244:4, 5;259:8,9 absolutely (1) 294:9 academic (1) 128:11 accelerated (1) 29:5 accept (1) 231:4 acceptable (5) 154:9,12,14;244:2, 12 accepted (5) 9:23;10:8;11:25; 12:8,9 accolades (1) 17:12 accommodate (1) 31:4 accommodation (3) 75:1,18,25 accommodations (3) 181:13,19;280:17 accomplish (1) 302:13 accordance (5) 24:14;193:8; 212:22;216:9;282:22 According (12) 63:15;77:19;80:7; 90:2;91:3;151:17; 207:24;214:5;215:17, 25;216:3;277:18 accountability (6) 54:15;55:7;60:7; 84:22;172:22;173:5 accountable (2) 54:10;96:3 accurate (13) 34:17;50:23;51:3; 55:17;59:21;63:24; 68:19;75:24;81:19; 87:10;203:5;217:3; 218:22 accurately (2) 10:7;23:1 accustomed (1) 90:20 achieving (3) 107:7,17;237:11 acknowledge (1) 260:4 acknowledging (1) 212:17 acquire (1) 30:11 acquisition (2) 220:5;267:2 across (4) 233:10;237:2; 262:12;264:9 act (2) 239:22;255:19 acted (2) 84:2;140:4 acting (27) 25:4;36:2,11,17; 40:19,19;41:2;89:20; 133:16;140:5;152:12, 12;166:24;178:18,24; 199:23;205:25; 206:16,22;207:13; 208:11;231:14;248:6, 8;254:2;278:24; 302:10 action (18) 8:8;11:12;25:23; 27:21;31:15;62:4,24; 63:5,22,23;84:15,18; 153:18,24;194:16; 199:1,13;209:20 actions (3) 27:3;28:8;40:4 activations (1) 263:18 activities (2) 25:1;81:9 activity (6) 19:4,16;20:15,21; 133:8;296:5 actual (9) 153:23;176:10; 200:21;214:6;267:17; 271:9;285:18;294:16; 295:8 actually (110) 7:15;17:3,9;18:2,4, 5;24:21;25:24;39:22; 40:5;42:20;45:25; 50:15;52:8,21;53:24; 58:20;59:17;60:14; 61:25,25;62:11,21,25; 65:17;66:3;70:25; 71:13,24;72:23;76:2; 83:5,7;88:25;91:23; 95:4;97:3;109:24; 111:10;114:25; 116:19;120:11,13; 121:13;125:4;127:9, 11,16;129:23;133:14, 16;135:5;141:13; 149:19;152:13; 157:19,24,25;158:1, 19,22;160:7;162:4; 167:3;168:14;174:17; 178:18,23;180:18,19; 182:11;187:3;199:6; 200:6,8;206:3; 208:14;211:7;215:2; 224:25;235:2;239:10; 267:23;268:12; 269:20;270:18,21; 271:4,7;273:20,24; 274:9,10;276:17; 279:14;281:20; 284:21;285:1;286:1, 2;291:25;293:2,9,20; 297:4;302:22;303:10; 305:22;309:18,19 acumen (1) 59:12 adamant (1) 179:10 add (1) 167:6 added (1) 212:9 addition (1) 290:10 additional (6) 46:17;70:4;71:3,7; 75:22;293:8 address (3) 154:4;170:14,16 addressed (1) 62:5 addressing (1) 63:6 adjourn (2) 311:19,20 adjourned (1) 311:22 adjust (1) 251:13 Administration (1) 7:4 administrative (1) 222:11 admissibility (1) 67:12 admit (5) 58:7,8;87:15; 199:24;203:14 admitted (28) 23:11;28:10;35:3; 58:10;60:3;67:19; 69:1;76:9;78:3;102:7; 164:3;200:3;214:16; 217:14;221:1,6,22,25; 225:6,10,14;240:13, 17;241:9,13;247:14; 283:10;299:25 advance (5) 66:14;97:18;98:15, 20;296:10 advanced (2) 105:12;297:17 advancement (4) 159:6;160:14; 184:23,24 adversarially (1) 93:23 adverse (1) 8:7 advised (3) 230:4,13;250:11 Affairs (2) 69:13;70:23 affected (1) 136:14 affects (2) 248:25;298:15 affidavit (14) 13:6,9,13,18,23; 202:25;203:1,18; 204:20;235:6,12,18; 239:13;255:14 affirmative (55) 34:16;78:18;80:14, 17;81:1;82:7,9;87:12; 88:6,20;89:12,16; 90:9;99:24;103:10; 104:15;106:18; 107:10,11;109:9,23; 110:3;111:24;112:23; 115:5;116:24;120:22; 122:19;124:4;125:23; 126:18;128:9;129:19; 130:2;139:16,18,25; 145:12;147:7,19; 149:5;157:3;158:15; 162:8;177:17;180:16; 182:21;194:15; 205:11;245:22; 256:12;285:3;291:20; 293:14;306:16 African-American (3) 10:2;266:1;278:8 African-Americans (1) 278:6 afternoon (5) 217:25;218:1; 281:6;300:16;308:23 Again (38) 20:1,13,20;22:6; 26:21;51:10;62:2; 67:14;70:16;81:24; 83:13;91:8;97:11; 103:2;105:5;109:25; 117:14;122:15; 128:10;129:17; 135:19;136:8,8; 151:7;153:16;158:12; 171:3;180:20;182:4, 5;208:13;236:1; 238:14;242:11;247:7; 254:10;270:5,17 against (16) 10:2;18:13;19:2; 81:13;82:16;90:12; 125:19;141:17; 150:24;151:15; 153:14;161:21;242:6; 246:16;264:2;293:15 age (1) 68:13 agencies (10) 29:13;30:17,19,24; 31:4,17;62:4,24;74:2; 267:2 agency (59) 7:5;8:17,19;9:16; 11:6,11;14:2;19:1,8; 26:9;30:7,8,13;31:15; 32:1;35:11;47:5; 55:14;57:18;65:24; 84:19;87:7,14,15; 100:15;102:3;108:24; 109:11,13;162:23; 167:9;197:3;219:18, 21;220:25;221:1,8,21, 22;224:3;225:5,6,15; 227:2;237:6,18; 240:12,14,20;241:8,9; 243:7,10;247:9,10; 248:15;282:24;283:9, Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (1) $200 - agency Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 80 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 10 agency's (3) 9:12;19:9;63:6 aggressive (1) 232:13 ago (9) 12:21;29:11;93:19; 173:21;254:16;280:5, 13;282:10;293:21 agree (26) 9:20;10:11;85:3; 90:4,19;97:11; 113:12;115:12;118:8; 126:15;129:6,25; 131:22;138:3;150:17; 159:3;170:24;209:14; 240:24;246:18; 250:13;286:11;293:6; 295:10,13;298:23 agreement (1) 86:4 agreements (3) 41:18,19,25 agrees (1) 32:2 ahead (10) 58:8;97:25;123:16; 128:20;148:4;202:3; 233:12;254:15;301:4, 23 Alabama (9) 32:15,24;48:14,18; 116:18,23;145:18; 266:21;267:3 Alaska (1) 228:3 alleged (2) 197:15;209:23 alleges (1) 10:1 alleging (3) 16:15;35:18;194:25 allow (3) 74:24;111:14; 150:25 allowed (3) 74:21;109:16; 310:25 alluding (1) 292:25 almost (3) 156:1;168:11; 237:10 alone (2) 262:11;287:20 along (9) 15:12;47:12;179:2; 224:17;246:3;248:3; 270:24;279:9;296:1 alternate (2) 71:14;74:15 although (2) 7:18;9:3 altogether (1) 138:2 always (15) 32:20,21;35:9; 56:25;123:10;125:7; 145:1;147:20,21; 160:2;186:4,8;249:9; 272:24;295:23 ambush (1) 178:1 ambushed (1) 177:13 among (2) 288:1;291:15 amongst (3) 176:18;267:14; 289:25 amount (13) 37:14;73:25;75:6; 77:9;83:20;120:5; 130:16;161:25;162:3, 20,22;261:10;286:19 amounts (2) 77:5;242:18 analyst (3) 37:4;41:23;46:13 announce (2) 206:5;270:17 announced (3) 174:13;205:20; 270:7 announcement (28) 20:8;39:4,6;108:2, 8,11,13;109:3,8; 110:8,9;112:21,25; 122:14;127:9;135:5; 197:17;207:17; 218:25;219:3;225:1, 12,13,17,23;226:8,12; 247:25 announcements (1) 254:14 announcing (3) 204:15;205:15; 236:24 annual (17) 78:21;79:22;82:11; 98:12;164:18;213:25; 244:1;246:25;273:18; 283:19,21;284:11,16, 24;293:13;294:9; 296:9 anonymous (2) 61:12;130:22 answered (1) 247:19 antiretaliation (1) 194:21 anxiety (12) 68:17;72:12,13,17, 18,21;73:14,15,18; 74:5,8,16 apologize (7) 193:13;197:8; 209:5;211:6;214:24; 266:12;272:6 APPAS (20) 27:22;78:21;79:22; 82:11;98:12,12; 182:6;241:20;244:1; 248:17;254:3;283:19, 21;284:11,23,24; 293:13;294:10,14; 296:9 appear (5) 87:9;101:15;109:3; 241:5;290:24 appears (3) 109:7;277:15;291:1 apple (2) 103:13,18 applicable (2) 104:10;261:6 applicants (2) 225:18;228:17 application (8) 108:2,6;109:5; 134:2,4;175:23; 228:17;282:2 applied (28) 16:6;24:18;36:13; 108:9;119:12;127:13; 134:9,10,12,13,13,21; 138:22,24;139:11; 158:6,8,9;174:4,6,7; 175:19;178:6;226:23; 228:14;270:21;271:7; 298:14 applies (2) 223:9;281:25 apply (11) 158:10;187:23; 206:24;225:23,25; 226:3;297:3;298:5, 25;299:2,10 applying (4) 187:20;228:21; 297:7;299:3 appointment (2) 118:16;214:3 appointments (1) 73:5 appraisal (24) 49:22,24;50:13,19; 52:12;56:10;93:3; 95:15;164:16,17,23; 212:23;213:16,23,25; 216:11;273:16,17,18, 20,22;274:17;275:6; 276:2 appraisals (2) 163:16,19 appreciate (6) 15:2;70:19;143:20; 197:24;203:21; 212:12 approach (2) 102:8;179:12 approached (1) 71:9 appropriately (1) 222:14 approval (8) 129:13;165:4; 198:21;281:13,25; 282:9;297:10;298:5 approve (6) 31:6;154:11;165:3; 181:5,7;298:20 approved (13) 199:9;202:8,10; 281:12,18,20;282:6,9, 13;298:9,19,22,24 approving (1) 281:21 approximately (2) 266:22,25 April (1) 16:6 arbitrarily (1) 263:6 area (2) 61:24;270:2 areas (8) 61:24;258:20,25; 267:3;279:12,18,21; 289:14 Arkansas (1) 22:3 around (8) 46:4;155:24; 197:19,20;246:12; 270:15;276:23; 281:16 array (1) 31:7 arrival (1) 293:9 arrived (9) 141:5,21;150:16; 151:12;152:1;182:13; 264:1;295:14;296:1 arriving (1) 144:4 aside (1) 96:24 asserts (1) 35:9 assessed (1) 19:15 assessing (1) 90:10 assessment (2) 150:17;214:11 assign (5) 11:14;19:10; 116:13;204:7;250:23 assigned (28) 20:10;24:1;49:13; 60:8;100:10;112:18; 118:10,13;123:23; 124:20;127:7;144:4; 149:9;151:12;157:9; 167:6;171:20;172:5; 221:17;226:12; 229:15;230:5;278:1; 290:17,18;303:22; 307:4;310:22 assigning (3) 228:12;246:14; 288:7 assignment (9) 19:22;124:22; 155:12;158:7;200:11; 233:1;270:15;276:14, 18 assignments (9) 25:24;60:13; 154:22;155:13; 157:20;158:1,3; 240:9;257:2 assigns (1) 151:23 assist (2) 296:3;302:15 assistance (2) 81:19;82:2 associate (8) 164:7,12;213:15, 23;214:1,8;216:11; 273:12 associated (5) 17:1,15;38:6;76:13; 302:23 associates (1) 213:21 association (2) 45:5,6 assume (5) 9:8;128:2;194:8; 254:1;299:11 assumed (1) 249:3 Assuming (1) 149:15 assumption (1) 134:24 astonished (3) 46:23;48:3;131:4 Atlanta (15) 32:15,17;115:7,16, 20;116:19;117:11,15; 128:7;131:23;142:5; 204:2;227:17;228:5, 15 attached (1) 246:4 attachment (4) 56:14,17;57:16; 65:19 attain (1) 42:8 Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (2) agency's - attain Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 81 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 attempts (1) 12:12 attend (3) 182:25;194:5; 200:21 attended (1) 293:22 attention (10) 23:13;35:17;40:7; 87:24;106:16;125:14; 195:8;225:13;235:1; 291:17 attorney (7) 7:18;55:25;65:5; 235:5;262:4;300:2; 301:18 audits (3) 222:20;264:5,6 August (8) 10:3;16:14;18:6; 24:1;25:12;40:7; 178:4;194:24 authentic (3) 87:10;109:7;241:5 authority (14) 32:5;54:11;111:3; 128:1;129:7;130:1,4; 152:18;156:9;199:16, 18;246:19;255:8; 268:11 authorize (1) 162:23 available (1) 140:6 award (1) 77:13 awarded (1) 286:1 awards (8) 16:24;28:18,20; 40:5;76:14;77:4,4,12 aware (10) 97:17;148:13; 195:3;196:22;197:14, 19,20,22;208:20; 256:5 awareness (1) 149:7 awhile (2) 121:13;218:8 Ayers (5) 118:25,25;119:8; 254:12,16 A-Y-E-R-S (1) 118:25 B B2 (1) 26:21 bachelor's (2) 22:5,7 back (29) 15:25;32:18;46:19; 62:18;63:17,18;67:7; 77:2;85:1;96:20; 97:16;99:10;103:2; 116:25;140:24;158:8, 11;179:9;191:16; 196:16;207:11; 223:13;230:17;245:9; 284:4;292:7;293:3; 297:19,23 background (10) 21:22;29:17;35:22; 192:23;196:10; 247:20;266:17; 301:17;303:4;306:22 backlog (1) 173:19 bad (5) 13:21;83:4;94:11; 172:10;286:23 based (35) 10:2;18:13;19:3; 24:5;40:24;59:10; 68:12;82:13,15; 93:14,18,25;107:6; 115:16,19;117:7,11; 131:16;132:15; 133:10;134:25;170:5; 193:25;201:8;204:19; 225:25;239:13; 246:15,22;249:16; 262:25;275:6;276:3; 285:18;289:7 baseline (1) 144:4 basic (1) 18:20 basically (10) 11:16;12:24,25; 13:7;14:3;105:1; 127:5;229:13;272:14; 291:5 basis (5) 15:6;94:13,14; 194:9;271:22 bear (1) 303:4 beauty (1) 161:8 became (20) 24:20,22;37:17,24; 39:20,20;46:3;51:21; 69:10;79:3,11,11; 121:20;122:9;143:16; 172:10;179:8;197:18, 20;287:12 become (12) 39:1;57:16;108:3; 114:11,13;121:17; 122:22;134:20; 141:21;142:12; 197:14;247:23 becoming (4) 114:16;142:20; 158:16;266:11 began (4) 40:3,4,4,5 beginning (3) 185:23;186:19; 213:22 behavior (3) 83:23,25;161:17 behind (5) 53:5;62:1;63:13; 250:12;277:19 belabor (1) 296:14 believes (1) 98:21 below (4) 95:24;98:14; 262:12;291:24 beneath (1) 238:20 beneficial (1) 20:4 benefited (3) 292:13,17,22 best (17) 19:9;42:7,10; 170:11,16,18,25; 193:19,25;194:3; 196:1;199:7;207:6; 209:8;223:17;245:16; 249:12 betrayed (1) 48:3 better (10) 94:11;171:10,15, 21;178:16;191:4; 209:12;233:8;264:25; 300:25 beyond (4) 30:1;96:7;128:11; 159:20 big (5) 142:5;162:10,12; 169:16;173:19 bigger (1) 261:11 biggest (1) 161:10 binder (2) 87:25;290:23 bit (22) 29:16;35:21;45:12; 70:8;92:1;102:20,23; 108:5;122:13;140:24; 230:17;232:12;234:6; 242:9;256:14;268:6; 269:14;281:23;292:3; 295:17;305:20;310:3 black (7) 19:23;21:21,21; 132:13,17;135:16; 176:22 blank (1) 200:25 block (2) 279:7,8 board (2) 151:19;262:12 body (1) 215:22 bonus (1) 159:18 bonuses (3) 17:12;105:19; 159:16 book (3) 293:21,21,22 boss (2) 234:10;304:8 both (17) 13:3;14:3;22:2; 37:21;59:8;121:3; 131:25;165:16; 171:12;239:19;261:9; 269:7;300:4;304:1,7; 308:8;310:18 bottom (10) 12:25;88:2;106:22; 198:19;203:3;205:4; 213:18;235:12,16; 291:24 boundaries (1) 245:16 box (1) 186:11 boy (6) 88:8;110:1,5; 115:23,24;235:18 Branch (731) 10:6;11:14;16:19; 17:2,13,15,22,25,25; 18:15,16;19:10,14; 20:4,20;25:2,2,4,5,6, 9,9,10,13,14,15,16,24, 25;26:1;27:4;28:13, 16,22,23;29:1,4; 32:13,14,20,22,23,24; 33:3,21;36:2,3,6,7,8, 9,10,11,16,22,22,25; 37:6;38:4;40:6,15,19, 23;41:2,2,23;42:3,4; 43:11,17,20,22;44:2, 2,4,5,7,9,11,16,17,18, 21,24,25;45:1,2,2,3, 15,15,22;46:1,10,15, 17;47:10,11,12,13,13, 13,21,23,24;48:10; 49:2,6,8,11,13,15,20, 24;50:4,4,16;51:17; 52:6;53:3,16,17;54:6, 12,20;55:12,12;59:5, 6,10;60:11,12;61:9, 11,17,19,21,23;62:1, 11,15,17;63:9,13; 64:8,12,18,20,21; 65:12;66:3;68:15; 69:25;71:9;73:19,20; 74:7;75:7;77:6,7,15; 78:22;79:19;83:13, 14,22;85:8,10,17,19; 87:2;88:7,14,17;89:1, 7,19,20;92:22;93:2, 16,18;94:25;96:14,16, 17;101:5,21;103:9,12, 18;104:2,3,5,9,10,14, 16,17,21,22;105:22; 106:4,4,5,8,11,12,14; 107:5;109:21;110:1, 4,11,12,17,24;111:1, 12,22,23,25;112:1,3, 19;113:2,3,14,15,16; 115:13;116:8,16,18; 117:2,19,21,25; 118:10,13,17,17,21, 22,23;119:3,4,5,25; 120:1,6,6,9,10,13,21; 121:1,2,18;122:8; 123:24,25;124:6,12, 21,22;125:11,21; 126:13;127:7,15,22; 129:3,4,4,4,7,8,9,10; 132:8;133:16;134:6, 23;135:1,3,4,8,10,11, 20,21,21;136:3,4,5, 10,11,14,15,16,21,21; 138:15,16;139:10,10, 24;140:5,5,8,12,14, 19,20,23,25;141:6,21, 22;142:2,14,17; 143:23,25;144:5,5,10, 13,15,18,18,19,23,24; 145:1,2,4,4,6,9,13,20, 20,21,22;146:3,6,7, 12,14,20,22;147:15, 17,20,23;148:7,8,14, 19;149:6,8,9,11,12, 12,13,15,16;150:11, 14,14,16,18;151:12, 18,24;152:1,5,11,12, 15,17;154:9,15,16; 156:21;157:1,1,5; 158:14,14,17;159:5; 160:8,10,13;161:3; 162:1,8,9,13;165:1,4; 166:1,24,25;167:2,3, 16,18,20;169:17; 170:2,3,16,18,21,22; 172:2,2,4,11,16; 173:3,10,13,16,22,24; 174:4,7,8,17,18,19,20, 21,23;175:7,11,14,15, 20,24;176:10;178:15, 17,18,22,23,24;179:4, 5,5,8,11,16,21,24; 180:8;181:14,16,17, 20,21;182:6,8,13; 184:24;185:1,8; 186:23,23,24;187:3,9, Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (3) attempts - Branch Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 82 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 10;188:14;189:22; 190:19;193:2,3; 195:4;198:10;199:2, 17;200:8;201:7,20, 22;203:23;204:7,9,11, 17,24;205:1,18;206:8, 10,11,12,14,15,17,18; 207:1,8,13,17,19,25; 208:4,21,25;209:13; 210:11,11,13,13,16, 17,22;211:15;212:5, 8;216:18,19;217:4; 220:10,11,13,18,19, 22;223:6;225:18,20; 226:13,20,21,24; 227:12,17,18,19,20, 20,22;228:13;229:3,5, 10,15,16,17,24;230:5, 14,21,24;231:9,21,23; 232:19,21,25;233:3,7, 7,7,17;234:3,23,23; 238:4,9,17,18,22; 239:8,16,19;240:7; 242:7,13,22;244:25; 246:7,7,13;248:2; 249:8,13,19;250:2; 251:3,7,8,10,11,14,18, 21;252:1,18,25; 253:11,18,19,21,22; 254:1,18,22,23;255:4, 11,23,23,24;256:5,8; 257:5,18;258:19,21, 25;259:4,5,5,6,7,9,11, 17,18;262:7,11,21,22; 265:4;266:8,11,16; 267:24;268:2,11,20; 269:1,5,6,20,20; 270:1,2,4,4,6,6,15,16, 19;271:1,17;272:10, 15;274:1,7,10; 276:17;277:5;278:20, 22,25;279:1,4,11,13, 14,15,17,18,21,23; 282:14;287:12,13; 291:12,13,16,22,22; 292:5;293:25;294:11; 295:2,12,15;296:6; 301:15;302:3,6,11,11; 303:12,23,25;304:2,6, 24;305:9,12,16;306:1, 3,15;307:3,3,8,8,15, 20;308:2;309:20; 310:14,18,22,25 Branches (31) 19:14;20:10;33:7,9, 11;53:11;59:9;90:8; 103:23;111:9,10; 115:15;117:7;134:10, 18;149:17;191:4; 193:3,4;227:8; 233:11;237:2;240:25; 242:12;258:20;262:8, 21;272:11,14;278:23; 307:16 brand-new (2) 44:23;173:17 breakdown (1) 32:4 breakout (1) 32:6 Bridget (12) 41:20,22;46:13; 88:15;110:22,23; 135:2,6;142:16; 211:16;237:23; 238:15 brief (1) 192:23 briefed (1) 234:20 Briefly (2) 32:12,13 bright (1) 105:10 bring (9) 183:20,23;188:19, 24;190:1,2,8;295:24; 299:5 brings (2) 42:13,15 broad (1) 257:3 broker (1) 286:8 brokers (1) 286:5 brought (7) 36:22;39:5,6;43:16, 18;44:25;47:18 budget (2) 31:1,5 build (2) 30:16;31:13 building (8) 7:19;18:18;31:7,11, 11,19;39:19;59:9 buildings (8) 30:10,17,20;31:13, 13,14;39:19;142:10 builds (3) 74:3,3,3 built (3) 73:14;142:9;189:19 bunch (1) 66:25 business (21) 30:25;31:2;59:12; 61:9;73:17;86:1; 131:7,10;204:5,7; 207:13,16;209:16,19; 222:25;223:1,19; 227:20;239:14; 270:10,12 Bye (2) 308:16;311:8 C C-1 (3) 22:19;23:5,7 C-10 (3) 75:11,14;76:6 C-11 (3) 76:18,24;77:25 C-12 (4) 163:10,13,22,25 C-13 (3) 198:16,19;199:25 C-14 (4) 202:19,22;203:11; 211:6 C-15 (3) 205:7,10,13 C-16 (3) 211:3,8;212:14 C-17 (1) 213:9 C-18 (5) 213:14;214:13; 215:6,9;217:10 C-19 (3) 296:22,25;299:22 C-2 (4) 25:18,21;26:23,25 C-3 (3) 33:23,25;34:21 C-4 (3) 50:7,12;51:6 C-5 (5) 54:23;55:1,20; 58:10,15 C-5A (1) 58:18 C-6 (4) 58:18,24;59:2,25 C-7 (7) 62:7,9;64:4;65:1,8; 67:15;256:3 C-8 (3) 68:4,7,23 C-9 (3) 69:18,21;72:3 calendar (1) 200:22 call (17) 7:25;8:2,18,19; 85:1,1;86:11;88:23; 130:20;183:15; 195:10;197:1;230:19; 234:16;244:13; 261:16;285:22 called (11) 14:12;29:6;30:6; 63:5;126:4,7;129:21, 23;132:11;135:12; 137:16 calling (10) 14:5,13,14,15,15, 16,17;54:3;63:22; 84:16 came (72) 23:25;24:2,3,11; 38:2;41:10;42:3;47:1; 50:4;52:6;53:2;62:13; 64:17,18,19,21;69:11; 73:19,20;86:13,14; 96:17;104:20;105:22; 108:5;110:21;111:1; 112:5;120:1;125:3,6; 126:3;127:9,12,14,17; 131:19;138:8;144:14, 14,18,22;145:2;147:6, 13;165:19,20;166:3, 5;167:16;172:5,15; 173:12,15;184:20; 186:13;189:21,22; 196:10;219:9;223:23; 229:7,14;247:21; 248:4;253:16;255:23; 280:10;294:17; 295:20;303:19; 310:13 can (93) 9:20;12:16;14:6,7; 17:9;21:2,4,15;22:10; 26:2,12;28:6;30:20, 20;31:13,14;33:13; 39:10;45:8;47:8; 65:13;68:7;70:12; 79:4;85:4;91:21,21; 94:2;97:7;99:10,16, 19;101:21;114:25; 127:1,19;151:5,6; 156:12;161:10,14,17; 173:25;176:5;180:14; 187:2;190:20;192:4; 193:10,12,23;194:8; 196:13;200:2;202:3; 205:9,12;212:5; 213:10;216:25; 219:20;228:8;232:12; 237:21;238:2;241:19; 243:15;249:12,13; 250:8;252:20;253:25; 256:18;257:12; 258:13,15;261:3; 262:10;264:4;265:20; 273:8;276:4,24; 278:10;280:21; 281:11,23;282:19; 287:1;295:17;299:11; 301:24;309:9 candidate (1) 41:6 candidates (2) 19:11;124:5 capabilities (5) 20:2;182:19; 206:18,21;232:2 capable (1) 105:10 capacity (2) 37:22;40:16 captured (1) 216:2 care (2) 166:18;222:8 career (19) 17:2;23:14;24:10, 13;35:6;79:1;139:9; 159:5;160:6,14; 184:23,24,25;185:2; 186:16;187:1,17; 188:22;191:8 Carolina (30) 18:2;32:20,25; 47:19,20;48:14; 116:8,10,18,23; 120:12;144:16,19,20; 145:3,5,15,17,19,23, 25;146:14;172:3; 209:1,3;266:21; 267:3;269:24;309:19, 24 carried (1) 304:25 carry (3) 277:1;290:8,9 case (17) 7:3;8:1;9:24;10:18, 22;11:10;12:2,5;16:4, 4;18:25;67:22;94:1; 227:20;289:25;290:5; 294:20 caseload (1) 290:12 cases (1) 289:24 cash (3) 77:4,4,12 categories (2) 263:7;286:12 category (1) 81:2 Caucasian (2) 192:10;301:10 caught (1) 276:11 cause (1) 73:2 CC (1) 211:16 CDP (1) 305:23 cellular (1) 126:19 Center (3) 70:22,25;162:11 central (1) 153:12 certain (12) 98:15;100:11; 121:22;127:20; 148:17;213:5;223:16; Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (4) Branches - certain Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 83 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 249:20;263:6,7,9; 286:7 certainly (1) 12:5 certificate (1) 27:23 cervical (1) 71:25 chain (1) 156:19 challenge (2) 35:10;157:15 challenges (1) 172:13 challenging (1) 248:14 chance (3) 27:7;187:22;293:1 change (14) 37:19;59:10;92:23; 93:8;95:6,17;98:10; 113:23;129:23; 152:18;163:17; 185:21;245:11; 246:25 changed (13) 37:16;39:8;86:12; 87:12,21,21;89:6; 92:25;93:5;114:4; 147:3,4;258:8 changes (10) 61:1;152:20;154:4; 161:18,18;213:24; 214:9;258:3,4,5 changing (3) 95:15;98:3;152:6 chaotic (2) 72:13;73:16 charge (14) 33:6,8;43:14,20; 44:6,8,16,17,18,21; 64:12;105:2;170:11; 173:10 Charlie (1) 115:21 chart (17) 37:12;44:19; 100:19;101:3;102:13; 116:5;118:3,6;125:4; 227:5;240:24;241:6; 256:11;258:15;263:3; 279:7,8 charts (1) 261:22 checking (1) 15:7 Cherell (1) 7:5 chief (264) 10:5;18:16,17; 24:25;25:4,4,5;34:10; 36:2,8,9,10,11,16,17, 23,25,25;37:6,11,13, 24;38:2,3,9,10,20; 39:7;40:2,6,20;41:2,3, 23;42:4;43:18;44:2; 45:1;46:1,4,10,10; 48:23;49:3,10,12; 59:11;60:11,11; 64:18,20,21;78:24; 79:12,18;88:12,14,17, 23,24;89:1,2,5,8,8,19, 20,22,24;90:1;92:11, 12,19,25;101:8;104:2, 9,18;108:3,6,12,21, 22;109:22;110:2,13; 111:12,22,23,25; 112:22;113:23;114:2, 5,8,16;118:10,13,18; 119:10,19;120:21; 121:9,19,20,23;122:9, 14,23;123:3,8,10,24; 124:17,21,22,25; 125:2,5,11,21;127:7; 128:1;129:9,10; 133:16;134:5,11,14, 21,23;135:1,21;136:3, 10,21;138:15;139:11; 140:5;141:24;143:23; 150:17;152:13; 156:21;158:14,17; 161:3;164:20;166:1, 24,24;170:16,18,19, 21,22,24;173:13,16; 174:4,11;175:1,5,20, 24;176:11;178:19,23, 24;179:5,8,11,16,21; 180:8;182:7,14; 187:13;191:5;204:2, 10,16,24;206:24,25; 207:8,14,20,21;208:1; 210:11,13,14,16,21, 24;211:20;212:18; 214:19;215:14,24; 217:4;218:4,24; 219:3,7;220:20; 223:6;224:17;225:19; 226:14,21;227:9; 229:18;231:15,18; 234:23;237:2;238:10, 17,22;239:15,23; 245:13;246:8;248:2; 249:8;251:6;252:19, 25;253:4,8,10,11,24; 254:2,23;255:8; 265:4;266:8,11,16,24; 268:11;269:6,9,20; 270:7,15,22;271:5,9, 10;278:25;287:13; 288:23;289:3;291:10, 12,16;295:25;302:11; 307:23;311:1 chiefs (85) 20:6,6,9;28:24; 29:2;37:7,18;46:14, 17;47:20;85:8,10; 110:24;112:25; 113:10,15,19;114:11, 14,21;115:7;117:1, 15;119:7;121:6,21; 124:6;128:7;129:7; 134:18;135:3,4; 136:15;174:4,7; 176:17;178:23; 201:19;204:18,21; 205:17;206:10; 210:22;211:15,23; 212:3,7,8,9;215:25; 216:15,18;217:4; 218:9,11;219:15; 220:9,12;222:4; 223:9,24;227:8; 229:16;237:9,11; 238:4;239:9,19; 244:17,22,25;246:13; 249:19,23;254:9; 257:15,19,20;266:24; 269:4;270:13;284:17; 291:15;303:22; 310:18 chiefs' (3) 212:5;216:19;254:1 chief's (1) 92:22 choice (3) 155:9,15,16 chose (1) 206:8 CHRIS (2) 77:19;212:4 Chriss (222) 7:6;8:19;9:14,16, 19,22;10:10,12,24,25; 11:4,6,23;12:18; 13:14,20,25;14:18,23; 15:2,4,7,15,23;18:9, 10;22:11,12,14; 23:10;26:2,9,17,20; 27:6,8,14,17;28:2,4,5, 9;34:23;35:2,9,12; 51:8;55:22,24;56:12, 16;57:13,18;58:1,4; 60:2;65:3,8,21;66:23; 67:8,17,18;68:25; 72:5;76:8;78:2,6,8,10, 12;82:3;87:8,14,22; 89:9;97:7,9;98:6,23; 99:16,18;100:16; 101:25;102:2,8,11; 108:25;109:11,17,18; 112:15,16;115:21,24; 116:1,3;117:13,23; 120:14,17;122:11; 123:12,15,18,19; 127:1,4;128:21; 135:17;136:9;148:4, 5,6;150:6,25;151:3,4; 156:12,14;158:23,25; 159:2;160:11;162:25; 163:7;164:2;181:24; 182:1,3;185:20,21; 186:20,21,22;187:25; 190:13,14,16;191:10; 200:2;203:13;212:15; 214:15;217:13,21,22, 24;219:19;220:25; 221:9,21;222:1; 224:4;225:5,11; 228:9;233:12,13; 235:5,8,10;237:19; 240:12,18,21;241:8, 14;243:8;244:20; 245:4,7,8;247:9,15, 18;252:10;260:25; 261:2,20;263:22,23; 264:18;281:3,5; 282:25;283:9,14,24; 284:4,7,8;286:16,20, 24,25;290:19,20,21; 296:11,13,17;299:14, 15,24;300:2,10,20; 301:18;306:9,12; 308:10,17,19;309:1; 310:8,10,12;311:3,10, 15,17 circled (1) 213:19 circumstances (2) 234:21;280:7 cities (2) 228:19,20 city (1) 86:2 claim (3) 125:18;138:5;210:7 claiming (3) 187:22,23;188:4 claims (1) 260:21 clarification (4) 11:11;27:8;55:25; 65:4 clarify (16) 39:13;41:8;45:21; 48:9,13;72:8;116:4; 122:12;123:15;139:9; 165:3;175:17;182:4; 188:1;193:12,24 clear (3) 19:9;20:18;196:21 clearly (3) 40:14;105:7;300:19 clients (1) 53:4 Clinic (1) 72:23 clinics (1) 73:13 close (1) 77:17 closed (2) 47:6;180:20 closeout (3) 31:16;285:22;286:2 closer (1) 305:20 closing (2) 285:23,23 club (3) 293:21,21,22 clue (1) 168:4 CO (2) 143:1,3 coalitions (1) 59:9 codes (1) 221:16 collaborate (1) 30:25 collaborations (1) 31:8 colored (2) 279:6,18 colorful (1) 262:5 column (10) 101:5;102:25; 103:5,11,23;104:3,8, 10,17;258:19 columns (1) 80:23 coming (15) 54:2;73:23;83:13, 22;172:19;179:6; 185:1;196:17;273:23; 274:1;277:3,3; 278:16;292:20;296:3 command (1) 156:19 commencement (2) 25:25;162:17 commendations (1) 28:19 comment (1) 11:20 comments (6) 10:20;11:17;65:16, 18;212:7,11 commissioner (2) 222:11,12 communicate (1) 98:15 communicated (3) 99:20;110:16;214:1 communicating (1) 15:11 communication (7) 50:21;59:9;111:19; 112:2;123:21;135:2; 137:17 communications (4) 81:6;134:8,25; 183:9 compare (3) Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (5) certainly - compare Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 84 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 257:11,15,25 compared (5) 233:3;240:10; 244:17;259:11; 284:19 comparison (1) 272:12 compete (5) 114:10;134:4; 247:24;282:6,13 competed (6) 20:8;108:1,11; 122:15;125:10; 138:15 competing (3) 110:10;184:12; 226:11 compilation (1) 278:22 complainant (23) 7:4,7,25;9:11;10:1; 12:9;14:1,2,4,6;16:2; 18:12,19;67:10; 193:19;195:23; 197:14;203:23,25; 204:1,7;235:3,24 complainant's (21) 9:15;22:19;25:18; 33:23;50:7;54:23; 58:24;62:7;68:4; 69:18;75:11;76:18; 163:10;198:16; 202:19;205:7;211:3; 213:9;215:6;284:10; 296:22 complained (3) 69:4;197:15;209:24 complaining (1) 169:14 complaint (25) 16:15;17:20;18:7; 35:18;40:8,12,13; 42:16;68:11,20; 81:13,13;125:17; 169:13;178:5;182:5, 11;194:25;195:3,7,8; 196:22;197:22; 280:19;307:12 complaints (7) 73:24;74:1;81:20, 25;84:10,12;166:8 complete (7) 31:10,15;56:3; 59:22;75:25;81:19; 292:15 completed (6) 32:2;149:3,4;216:5; 218:8;286:6 completely (1) 81:7 completing (2) 164:17;273:17 completion (1) 81:9 complex (1) 39:18 composition (2) 277:25;278:3 comprised (1) 266:23 conceived (1) 244:9 concentrating (1) 257:2 concern (10) 47:9;92:9;155:14, 14;166:20,23;169:5; 171:6,17;175:13 concerned (3) 63:8;140:22;248:17 concerns (1) 140:19 concise (1) 65:11 concludes (1) 78:4 condition (6) 72:9;74:12,13; 155:17;259:20; 281:15 conditions (6) 68:17;69:25;70:5; 71:16;160:20,23 conference (2) 86:11;183:15 confused (2) 7:19;123:17 confusion (1) 72:17 Congress (1) 85:22 conjunction (2) 224:14;282:21 connection (3) 256:20;257:18; 301:21 consecutive (1) 16:21 consecutively (2) 17:14;29:2 consider (2) 180:24;282:13 consideration (1) 228:12 considered (6) 19:18;164:17; 231:16;273:17; 306:17,24 considering (1) 227:13 consisted (2) 267:11;287:14 consistently (5) 25:13,14;185:6; 244:5,14 consists (1) 266:21 constant (1) 152:2 constantly (1) 17:16 constraints (1) 161:24 construction (6) 31:1,12;39:19; 85:21;156:5;305:24 consult (3) 197:4;267:22; 303:11 contact (2) 236:19;299:6 contacted (1) 297:15 content (1) 12:4 contention (3) 89:25;90:15;137:19 context (1) 112:18 continue (16) 39:11;63:2;97:8; 99:17;156:13;176:6; 196:14;224:13;228:8; 231:17;247:16; 258:13;273:8;276:4; 278:10;301:23 continued (1) 83:25 contracting (12) 41:9,11,13,20;42:8; 79:10;196:17;201:13; 266:13,25;286:4; 293:5 contracts (3) 143:19;171:20; 267:2 contributed (1) 70:4 contribution (1) 303:6 control (11) 66:2;152:10,10,14, 15;154:10;155:23; 170:7;207:19;254:1,2 controls (1) 60:14 conversation (21) 46:24;54:16,20; 93:12;98:5;99:2,8; 130:21;250:6,9; 267:7,8,9,10,13,20; 268:4,8,8,9;303:15 conversations (5) 133:10;137:9; 138:11,12;177:24 converting (1) 293:3 conveyed (2) 40:14;250:9 copied (1) 277:11 copies (1) 63:19 copy (17) 13:5,16,17,22;26:3, 4,17,19;57:9,10; 69:12;101:25;102:9; 110:25;223:20;235:6, 8 corner (4) 213:18;227:4; 235:12,17 Correction (1) 211:7 correctly (8) 35:25;37:6;40:2; 44:14;45:17;156:11; 289:22;291:12 correspondence (1) 12:21 cost (1) 263:16 costs (1) 242:25 counsel (5) 13:3;102:17; 196:13;265:20; 280:12 counseling (2) 95:16,19 counselor (3) 67:25;195:11;197:2 counted (1) 153:13 couple (10) 24:23;27:19;44:17, 21;47:25;56:5;78:13; 82:8;92:10;217:16 course (10) 12:2;16:14;36:13; 40:19;60:11;66:6; 84:17,21;159:23; 248:19 COURT (414) 7:2,11,16,24;8:5,10, 13,17,23;9:14,17,20, 23;10:10,13,24;11:1, 4,21,24;13:11,15,19; 14:10,19,23;15:4,13, 17,21,25;18:9;20:24; 21:6,6,13,15;22:5,9; 23:6,9,11;24:9;26:8, 11,21,25;27:2,6; 28:10;29:15,25;30:3; 32:4,9,12,23;33:2,6, 13;34:22;35:1,3,7,13, 21;36:6,24;37:2,5,20, 23;38:5,13,19,25; 39:10;43:13,20,25; 44:4,6,10,14;45:4,8; 51:7,24;55:22;56:18; 57:2,5,23;58:2,6,12, 14,17;60:1,3;64:10, 22;65:2;66:5,13,18, 21;67:7,16,19;68:24; 69:1;70:7,10;71:17; 72:4,6;76:7,9;78:1,3, 6;89:4;91:5,8,11,13, 15,25;93:11,13,24; 94:1,7,10,18,21;95:8, 10,13;96:5,7,13,19; 97:5,7,21,24;98:17; 99:12,16;102:5,7,10; 109:14,16;112:12; 115:19,23,25;116:2; 117:6,10,19,22; 118:23;119:8,14,17, 20,24;120:2,7,16; 121:5,8,22;122:1,4, 10,22;123:1,5,8,14, 16;126:22;127:1; 128:17,20;135:14; 144:22,25;145:8,10, 24;146:2,5,8,11,16, 18,21,25;147:5,8,11, 17,20,25;148:3; 149:14,19,24;150:4, 25;152:20,23,25; 153:6,15;154:2,17,24; 156:12;158:23;159:9, 14,16,20;163:2,23; 164:1,3;165:13,25; 166:16;167:12,17,19; 169:10,13,21;170:9, 14,20;171:4,9,14,23; 172:7;173:7,14,18,25; 175:18,22,25;176:5; 178:20;181:24;185:9, 13,15,18;186:20; 187:21;188:4,7; 189:3,5,17;190:13; 191:12,15,21,21; 192:1,4;195:6,12,19, 22;196:3,9,13; 198:25;200:1,3; 201:15,25;202:3; 203:12,14;209:3; 213:6,10;214:14,16; 217:11,14,21;221:4,6, 23,25;225:8,10; 227:23;228:2,6,8; 232:23;233:3,5,12; 240:15,17;241:11,13; 244:16;245:4;247:12, 14,17;252:12;256:14, 20;257:1,9,14,22,25; 258:12;259:13; 260:25;261:15;263:3, 13,19,21;264:20; 265:10,13,13,18,20; 272:8,18,21;273:4,8; 274:11,19;275:1,8,12, 20;276:4;277:24; 278:4,10;280:11,16, 18,22,25;281:3; Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (6) compared - COURT Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 85 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 283:12;284:1,6; 286:16,22;289:7,14, 18,23;290:5,11,19; 296:11,14,19;299:14, 17,20,23,25;300:7,13, 16,23;301:4,16,20; 302:21;303:3,17; 304:13,18;306:9; 308:12,14,20;309:2,2, 7,9;310:2,8;311:5,12, 15,18 courtesy (1) 130:19 coverage (2) 298:11,15 covered (6) 48:10;51:16,18,20; 208:20,25 create (2) 245:16;258:3 created (5) 172:12;213:3; 214:7,20;288:24 criteria (3) 83:2;243:18;246:5 critical (20) 82:17;204:16; 243:17;245:10,12; 246:5,16,22;249:21; 258:6;272:4;282:22; 284:19;285:11,12; 286:10;289:10,11; 290:15;305:15 criticism (1) 167:13 cross (5) 10:15;78:7;163:6; 190:6;245:15 current (9) 46:15;192:17; 193:12,13,14;200:10; 248:21;266:15,16 currently (6) 13:10,15;79:18; 101:16;104:23; 110:11 customary (2) 178:22;179:19 customer (7) 59:14,14;81:5,6; 103:9;124:6;285:15 customers (2) 81:7;84:16 cut-and-dried (1) 261:17 cycle (1) 302:6 D damages (2) 8:11;280:20 date (40) 9:10;11:11;25:25; 49:7,9;51:24;52:1; 89:14;101:12;118:5, 6;119:6;126:13,15; 127:5;177:1;192:15; 196:25;197:13; 198:19,21;199:9,9; 200:9;203:8;205:2, 21;206:4;215:15; 227:4;241:2;243:13; 253:6;259:18;266:4; 267:17;271:12,14; 299:8;309:17 dated (3) 62:18;197:5;209:20 Dave (11) 33:10;53:10;62:12; 129:11,14;185:5; 189:14;197:13;210:1; 268:17,22 David (9) 8:20;19:24;193:17; 197:19;198:4,6; 204:5;211:16;260:18 Dawkins (1) 91:11 Dawn (1) 193:14 day (25) 39:24,25;42:20; 53:3,8;55:3;63:22; 74:11;84:16;99:21; 118:2,3,16,17,19,22; 126:2;163:7;172:8; 174:16,20;244:3; 249:8;311:19,20 days (27) 70:3;71:3,15;74:15, 24;75:2;92:15,18; 124:3;125:1;164:16, 20;173:2;204:13,14; 214:3,6,10;216:8; 236:22,24;237:5; 273:16;274:12; 275:13,14;286:7 day-to-day (1) 193:5 deadline (3) 299:3,5,9 deadlines (1) 153:2 deal (3) 67:11;156:8;263:5 dealing (3) 22:8;41:17;69:24 dealt (2) 67:13;258:7 death (1) 73:1 December (27) 10:4;11:15,19; 18:12;46:20;55:18; 75:17,18;125:20,25; 135:13;174:14; 198:11,12;199:6,9,14; 200:7,14;209:17; 212:6,10;267:10,14, 16,17;309:17 decide (2) 111:13;137:8 decided (7) 43:24;75:22; 126:12;145:18,19; 174:14;240:6 deciding (2) 227:11,15 decision (50) 10:18;11:14;19:5, 15,22;20:16,22;48:2; 130:8;131:18;132:2, 12;197:25;201:16,23; 202:7;204:6,8; 207:16;229:24,25; 234:8,12,13,19;236:8; 239:14;240:5;250:1, 22,25;251:2;267:6; 268:2,4,13,19,24; 295:11;296:6;304:16; 305:5;306:14,18,24; 307:4,8,13,17,22 decisions (1) 182:23 deem (1) 156:10 defeated (1) 161:23 defeating (3) 161:22,23,24 defense (1) 175:25 deference (1) 246:19 deficiencies (2) 53:2;65:12 deficiency (1) 187:11 deficient (2) 63:20;65:18 definitely (7) 41:5;69:15;72:13; 161:13;169:11;178:1; 292:21 degree (3) 21:24;22:1;249:20 DeKalb (2) 70:22,24 delay (1) 219:5 demonstrate (1) 18:23 demonstrated (1) 195:24 denial (3) 180:15,23;298:2 denied (3) 180:14;187:22; 281:8 Dent (65) 8:4,21;14:16;18:1; 47:18,18;48:22; 112:11,18;113:1; 115:9,10,13;117:2,16; 119:17;122:15;128:8, 15;129:1;131:24; 132:23;133:8,12,14; 139:23;145:21; 175:19;180:1,2; 208:19,23;228:25; 229:2;231:11,22; 232:5,8,9,13,17; 233:17;238:5,9; 239:18;264:25;265:3; 269:17,19,22;270:25; 295:5;303:23;305:12, 18,20;306:22;308:7, 19;309:4,8,17; 310:13;311:7,10 deny (1) 282:9 denying (1) 281:22 Department (3) 69:13;70:23,24 dependent (1) 226:23 depending (2) 272:25;277:2 depends (1) 30:22 deputy (19) 33:11;105:1;111:8; 129:18,19;135:21; 136:17;190:1;192:19; 193:1;222:16;223:5; 238:25;248:6;262:19; 268:5,13,15,16 describe (32) 14:11;22:22;25:21; 34:1;50:14;55:1;59:2; 62:10;68:7;69:21; 75:14;76:25;79:4; 148:11;154:17; 192:24;198:24; 202:23;205:12;211:8; 213:13;215:9;237:22; 243:15;258:15;261:3; 278:12;279:6;281:11, 23;287:1;297:1 described (2) 82:20;230:12 describes (1) 125:18 describing (2) 13:22;169:22 description (15) 34:17;55:17;59:21; 63:24;65:11;68:19; 75:24;88:15;92:20, 23;217:3;266:18; 290:24;291:2;300:3 deserved (1) 189:4 design (1) 31:1 desk (16) 53:12,23;62:3,20; 63:1,21;83:17;84:14, 24;165:15;167:22; 168:2,5,21,22;172:21 desks (3) 54:2;168:9;169:5 Desmond (4) 166:5;168:12,13,17 detail (64) 29:11,22;69:5; 118:15,18;120:19; 121:20;123:2,23; 124:3,20;125:1,8,10, 12;127:8,10,11,14,17, 21;174:12,15,16; 179:23;180:15,17,20, 23,25;181:1,6,6,7; 184:10;186:14; 205:16,24;206:2,3,6, 22;208:7;240:1,7,9; 243:21;271:7,8,8; 281:9,14,19,22;282:2, 7,13;297:3,13,14; 298:5;299:3,10;305:1 detailed (4) 121:9;122:4;123:6; 203:24 details (9) 127:13;159:25; 160:17;180:14; 184:12;239:22;253:8, 21;254:8 determination (4) 43:10;47:7,16; 129:11 determine (5) 80:2;128:2;129:7; 130:4;261:17 determined (3) 127:6;150:18;304:3 determining (2) 12:3;226:24 develop (1) 10:14 developed (7) 11:19;89:1;145:9; 160:21,24;161:1; 214:1 developing (2) 29:13;245:14 development (3) 141:25;232:18,20 diagnosis (2) 69:14,15 die (1) 148:4 difference (10) Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (7) courtesy - difference Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 86 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 45:15;124:19; 142:1,2,5;162:9; 182:19;233:6,10; 240:1 different (38) 28:3,7,23,23;29:13, 13,19;30:19;31:2,8; 32:7,8;39:15,16; 40:16,21;67:2;70:1,2; 73:18;77:14;83:12; 85:8;95:18;105:11; 108:22;114:7;130:16; 138:2;157:12;178:7; 179:2;184:18,19; 242:12;275:17; 286:18;302:24 differently (2) 137:21;138:2 difficult (4) 92:2;159:11; 190:18,19 difficulties (1) 94:25 dire (1) 56:18 direct (9) 87:24;193:4,23; 196:4;225:13;229:23; 235:1;238:23;255:21 direction (1) 246:15 directly (5) 64:19;142:13; 189:15;193:22; 248:24 director (34) 29:9;33:8,10;55:4; 105:1;111:8,8,17; 129:15,16,20;135:22; 136:17;163:8;179:9; 192:19;193:1;199:20, 22;222:16;223:5; 234:11;238:23,25; 248:6;250:24;262:20; 268:5,5,13,14,15,16, 17 directors (6) 184:16;185:5; 186:15;188:6,9;248:4 director's (1) 152:3 disabilities (2) 70:22;71:1 disability (12) 17:7;23:20;68:16; 69:6,7;71:12,18; 72:10;73:6;217:18; 280:3,9 disabled (2) 23:22;69:12 disagree (3) 107:13,19;169:23 disagreed (1) 170:1 disagreement (1) 302:22 disappointed (1) 138:18 discharge (2) 23:17;69:8 discharged (2) 17:4;69:7 disciplinary (1) 40:4 disciplined (1) 35:5 discovery (4) 66:8,9;102:18; 137:12 discrepancy (2) 199:8,12 discretion (8) 92:5;94:8;97:3,6, 12,15;169:15;288:12 discriminate (1) 19:2 discriminated (3) 10:1;18:13;125:19 discrimination (9) 16:16;18:21,21; 41:6;138:3;178:4; 195:1;197:15;209:24 discriminatory (1) 157:16 discuss (10) 11:7;76:11;80:23; 137:8;140:16;183:15, 17;210:2;304:5,8 discussed (14) 43:9;47:4,6;61:13; 132:11;138:9;140:13; 199:14;216:2,10; 268:10;269:3,3;306:6 discussing (4) 46:21;164:24; 201:1;305:2 discussion (38) 21:9;43:11;48:2; 78:16;126:25;132:10, 15,21;134:16,19; 163:18;183:22; 200:16,18;201:21; 215:4;216:1;219:22; 226:10;229:9,13; 230:4;232:1,3,24; 233:21,22,25;234:4, 23;239:21;250:1,11; 263:4;270:14;284:3; 294:25;308:22 discussions (7) 140:16;183:20; 209:23;226:15; 251:12;260:17; 287:24 dismayed (1) 55:15 disorder (1) 71:21 disoriented (1) 72:17 displays (1) 258:16 dispute (4) 128:11;169:16,17; 303:1 disseminate (1) 155:20 distinctions (1) 242:5 distinguish (1) 7:17 distraction (1) 301:22 distribution (3) 240:25;287:25; 288:6 division (26) 18:17;30:6;90:5; 101:16;105:3;111:9; 188:24;189:25; 192:19;199:20,22; 205:15;219:11;220:5; 236:19;248:4,5,22; 249:14;250:24;256:8, 10,24;257:5,8;258:18 divisional (2) 245:15;261:11 DNC (3) 189:10,12,14 doctor (3) 71:14;74:14;76:2 doctorate (1) 22:2 doctors (4) 70:3;71:6,12;73:11 doctors' (1) 73:5 document (62) 26:22;57:19,20; 58:3,6;76:25;77:1; 79:16;80:13,16,22; 89:11;100:17,18,19; 101:12;102:3,16,21; 103:17;104:25; 108:15;109:2,2; 123:13,21;124:2,11; 165:23;219:20,22; 221:1,11,11,14;224:5, 6,8,19;225:16;227:1; 237:21,22;240:13,22; 241:2;243:9,13; 245:5,21;247:10; 253:14;259:14;262:5, 11;272:7;283:1,2; 284:23,23;285:5; 290:23 documentation (9) 69:13;70:20;71:11; 74:18;83:15;84:2; 140:17;170:8;245:25 documented (11) 33:18,19;49:18; 52:23,24,24;68:1; 69:14,15,16;276:21 documenting (3) 256:4;272:23;273:2 documents (18) 11:9;56:6;65:6,9, 22;66:23;67:1,9;83:7; 102:17;105:6;143:12; 165:19;168:22; 190:22;242:19;256:4; 259:25 dog (4) 101:6;104:10; 115:22;118:1 dollar (4) 161:25;162:3,19,20 dollars (3) 84:20;162:6;222:14 done (72) 10:21;25:1,10; 29:18,20;31:12;40:1; 47:5,10;48:4;49:24; 52:13;53:6,9,10; 54:10;55:11,14;59:8, 13,16,17;60:15;62:4, 14,16,25;63:4;64:9; 66:15;73:25;83:11, 12,15;86:25;118:14; 130:15;148:22;149:2; 159:24;163:20; 165:21;166:8,10; 167:8,11,13;169:7,12; 173:5;187:2,13,14,18; 190:20,25;191:5,6; 199:15;214:6;240:10; 244:3;245:4,6;264:5; 273:23;274:17;275:6; 284:21;285:24; 287:15;293:25 dosages (1) 68:18 double (2) 27:9,19 down (23) 37:4;43:7;45:12,16, 17;47:2;52:11,13; 70:8,17;77:12;93:9, 16;95:21;97:1;98:9; 137:6;148:4;164:10; 222:10;229:14;237:8; 291:24 downgraded (1) 59:19 dozen (1) 262:16 Dr (93) 7:8,10,14,15,21;8:2, 20;13:4;14:13,20; 16:6,15;17:6,18,21, 23,24;20:25;21:14, 19;22:21,25;26:15; 27:10;29:23;34:3; 70:7,15;72:8;75:15; 76:12,25;78:11; 97:10;164:5;165:11; 176:8;193:16,19; 194:25;195:16; 196:22;198:1,9; 199:2,16;200:5,15; 201:6;202:13;205:1, 22;206:14;208:3; 209:16,24;210:10; 212:21;216:7;217:17; 253:4,17;254:17; 255:10,24;256:6; 259:4;260:18;264:24; 265:6;267:6;268:25; 269:16;270:3,25; 271:12,16;273:19; 276:7,18,24;277:4; 278:25;280:2;297:6; 301:15;302:3;303:12, 15;304:17;305:9; 308:16;309:18 draft (1) 220:3 drafting (2) 218:13;226:7 drastically (1) 77:14 drawing (7) 23:13;35:17;40:7; 46:19;60:6;193:18; 194:24 drawings (1) 31:5 driven (2) 59:8;81:5 dropped (4) 50:1,2,19;52:9 dropping (2) 50:21;52:13 drove (1) 307:21 D's (5) 148:7;149:8; 251:21;262:7,12 due (6) 69:8;204:4;208:15; 236:4;256:16;261:13 duly (5) 21:11;191:24; 265:16;300:13;309:5 Duncan (16) 43:7;64:6,11;91:7, 9,10,12;104:9,22; 136:1,10,21;156:24; 159:24;160:4;303:11 during (21) 10:21;15:12;33:17; 59:16;66:6;86:7; 100:4,13;164:9,14; 171:25;194:14; Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (8) different - during Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 87 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 200:11;202:14;226:7; 232:2;233:21;267:9; 273:14;276:6;283:6 duties (12) 39:13,16;40:6; 124:9;204:4;217:3; 248:16;253:25;254:3; 255:18;260:15; 302:23 duty (4) 87:1;92:19,22; 157:24 E earlier (8) 61:4;104:13;130:6; 180:13;216:10; 219:13;276:16; 294:25 easier (3) 142:7,11;171:19 easy (1) 233:1 economy (1) 65:10 education (3) 105:12,12;178:14 educational (2) 21:22;40:18 EEO (22) 18:14,21;19:4,6,16; 20:14,21;35:17; 67:23;68:9,11;133:8, 9;194:5,9,12;195:11; 197:2;202:24;234:7; 296:5;307:12 EEOC (1) 67:25 effect (1) 115:6 Effective (3) 107:4;121:17; 161:20 eight (8) 194:5;207:21; 237:1,9,11;238:10; 262:16;270:7 Eighteen (1) 214:25 eighth (1) 237:5 either (12) 19:7;21:2;48:17; 58:18;154:5;201:21; 231:4;268:5,13,22; 300:7;305:15 elaborate (3) 232:12;256:14; 310:2 Elaine (1) 86:21 element (6) 243:17;245:10; 246:5;249:21;286:10; 289:11 elements (18) 18:20,24;81:4; 82:17;245:12;246:17, 22;258:7;272:5; 282:22;284:20; 285:11,12,13;287:3; 289:10,19;290:16 elevate (1) 68:17 eliminate (1) 228:23 Ellen (43) 8:3;13:6;14:14; 17:19;19:23;33:12; 43:1,3;46:20;53:1; 54:8,9;55:4;61:13; 62:12;89:3;105:1; 119:1;121:11;129:10, 17;130:23;135:21,23; 136:17;137:1,2; 191:23;192:3;197:13, 18;212:7,11;267:11, 22;268:10,16,18; 277:11;303:11,20; 304:7;307:21 Ellen's (2) 129:21;137:5 Ellis (4) 113:5;115:3; 122:16;228:11 else (15) 15:5;80:6;113:3,4; 117:11;118:21; 159:20;168:18;171:5; 179:25;223:22;230:9; 253:6;290:19;294:19 e-mail (45) 11:8;63:15;64:9; 88:16;99:23,24; 110:21;119:1;123:21; 126:14,15,16,17; 135:7,9;137:11,12; 177:6,23;183:5,16; 200:23;205:15; 207:24;211:10,19,22; 215:11,15,17,22,22; 216:3,20;219:21,23; 220:2,8;221:11; 237:23;238:13; 267:20;291:19,24; 292:18 e-mailing (1) 63:23 e-mails (16) 15:10;53:4,9;62:11; 73:24;138:8,8;152:2; 165:20;166:12; 167:25;277:4,6,8,18, 21 emergency (1) 72:20 Emory (1) 72:23 employed (1) 192:13 employee (42) 47:5;50:18;55:8; 56:6;65:16;83:1; 85:12,14;86:5,16,17, 19;89:11;95:7;97:12, 19;98:11,24;99:5,6; 130:12,14,15,20,20; 131:12,15;155:5; 156:7;163:16,18; 178:12,14;184:5; 213:4;246:21;287:6; 288:12,18;302:4; 305:15;310:4 employees (30) 63:16;74:1;83:9; 95:20;98:4;131:7,11; 140:14;142:4;155:18; 173:9;183:10;184:2; 187:4;204:9;216:25; 218:15;232:16; 255:22;278:2;282:20; 287:10,14;302:13,18, 20;304:1;306:1,2,4 employees' (5) 114:17;184:1; 222:24;244:10; 302:17 employee's (3) 86:20;184:5;246:25 employment (3) 23:23,25;91:1 empower (1) 187:14 end (22) 21:2;49:25;51:21; 53:20;59:3;93:9; 95:22;97:2;98:9; 103:22;121:11,15; 167:24,25;168:11; 169:2,3;182:7; 185:16;188:12; 195:13;274:13 ended (4) 125:12,13;168:14; 185:10 ends (1) 212:1 engaged (3) 133:9;158:1;295:19 engineers (1) 31:5 enhance (2) 17:9;160:6 enhancing (2) 185:2;190:17 enormous (1) 130:16 enough (7) 14:10;132:19,22; 138:14;231:13; 263:19;294:24 enrichment (1) 81:9 ensuring (2) 124:7;222:13 enter (4) 63:5;102:3;109:12; 247:9 enters (2) 213:23;214:8 entire (11) 28:17,17;35:6;65:9; 96:17;103:11;104:3; 178:13;193:2;287:13; 291:13 entitled (1) 275:21 entitlement (1) 90:24 enunciate (3) 45:16;70:10;300:19 episode (1) 74:4 episodes (2) 74:5,8 equal (1) 194:15 equals (1) 289:25 escalated (1) 24:4 especially (1) 95:17 essence (1) 232:17 essentially (5) 208:3;229:23; 302:20;303:21; 305:10 establish (1) 144:3 established (6) 128:10;178:20; 213:22;230:2;278:21; 280:24 establishment (1) 218:11 estate (5) 30:1;40:23;41:11; 124:7;220:5 estimate (2) 162:5;276:24 Europe (6) 23:16;157:20,21, 22,24,25 Evaluated (5) 28:24;29:3;49:23; 249:15,19 evaluating (1) 90:6 evaluation (25) 16:23;50:16;51:2, 19;52:20;53:18; 56:10;57:1,10,17; 83:7;92:11,15,17,19; 95:16;98:8;171:13; 271:17,23;286:7; 301:14;302:2,5,6 evaluations (15) 28:21,21;33:20; 34:6,7,18;40:3;49:16, 17;51:10;79:14; 107:22;193:21;194:2; 286:5 even (48) 13:20;25:4;38:8,9, 23;43:23;50:3,18; 51:17;53:21,23;54:1; 62:20;74:19;75:5; 93:6;97:13;101:23; 130:19,20,25;131:3; 134:11;139:1;140:3; 151:6;158:18;167:25; 169:7,8;171:15,25; 177:5;181:10;184:16; 185:3,4,5;188:4,5; 189:13,15;234:3; 259:17,18;296:1; 297:17;298:19 event (3) 30:15;72:25;73:2 eventually (3) 20:10;169:8;254:13 everybody (14) 47:12;84:1;99:13; 103:12;117:10; 134:13,17,19,21,22; 177:22;189:2;190:12; 296:15 everyone (1) 102:22 every-year (1) 24:16 evidence (40) 11:9,17;12:4,15; 17:6;18:7,23;19:1; 23:5,8;26:7;34:21; 51:6;55:21;59:25; 64:4;65:1;68:23;72:3; 76:6;77:25;81:8; 87:15;102:3;109:12; 163:22,25;170:6; 199:25;212:14; 214:13,24;217:10; 225:14;240:14;241:9; 245:14;247:10; 299:22;311:12 exact (4) 49:4;88:16;162:3; 196:25 exactly (8) 57:6;60:12;86:6; 101:1;106:6;198:25; 201:10;294:21 Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (9) duties - exactly Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 88 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 examination (19) 10:15,15;21:17; 78:7,9;163:4;182:2; 192:6;217:23;252:14; 261:1;264:22;265:22; 281:4;296:23;301:5; 306:11;309:10; 310:11 examined (5) 21:11;191:24; 265:16;300:14;309:5 example (10) 116:7,17;155:4,4, 22;162:6;245:9; 261:14;285:21;294:4 exceeded (2) 196:1;272:4 exceeding (1) 272:4 exceeds (1) 151:20 Excellence (1) 29:6 excellent (3) 187:7;302:5;306:2 except (1) 259:3 exceptional (9) 83:1,1;86:4,16; 107:21;151:23;186:1, 4;187:12 exchange (3) 66:14,16;136:8 exchanged (1) 66:6 exclusively (1) 8:11 excuse (14) 17:25;23:6;37:2; 45:11;81:22;96:13; 136:7;149:24;163:23; 165:25;173:14;214:2; 250:10;256:18 excused (5) 191:16;265:11; 299:18;308:15;311:6 execution (3) 124:7;223:19; 302:14 executives (1) 29:12 exemplary (3) 130:12,15,20 exercise (1) 261:17 exhausted (1) 187:15 exhibit (118) 13:24;22:19,22; 23:5;25:18,20,21,22; 26:7,10;33:23;34:1,2, 21;50:7,10,15;51:6; 54:23;55:1,2,3,20; 58:7,10,24;59:2,2,25; 62:7,9,10;64:4;65:1; 66:16;67:15,17;68:4, 7,7,8,23;69:18,21,22, 23;72:3;75:11,14,16; 76:6,18,24;77:25; 87:7,16;100:15; 102:4;108:24;109:13; 163:10,13,14,15,22, 24;198:13,16,18,20; 199:25;202:19,22,23; 203:11;205:7,10,12; 211:3,5,8;212:14,17; 213:9,13,14;214:13, 23;215:6,9;216:14; 217:10;219:18,21; 221:2,8,19,22;224:3; 225:6,15;227:2; 235:3;237:18;240:14, 20;241:9;243:7,10; 247:10;256:3;278:12, 13;282:24;283:10; 284:10;296:22; 299:22 exhibits (8) 34:3;65:14,17; 66:14,18;75:15; 149:23;300:4 existence (1) 171:25 existing (1) 238:3 expectations (2) 151:20;271:25 experience (2) 106:11;236:5 expertise (1) 204:4 expire (1) 153:19 expired (1) 75:19 expiring (9) 272:16;277:3; 278:15,17,22;279:23; 289:12;290:17;294:5 explain (7) 74:20;106:10; 124:23;180:14; 184:15;310:21,24 explained (3) 54:9;55:5;281:14 explaining (1) 62:12 explains (1) 60:13 explanation (5) 143:21;147:12; 181:9;203:24;230:16 explicitly (1) 154:18 expound (1) 257:12 express (1) 106:12 expressed (4) 140:19,21;177:14, 16 extended (2) 71:3;72:20 extending (1) 153:23 extension (1) 154:1 extensions (4) 154:21;242:24; 263:12;281:17 extensive (2) 83:19;155:6 extent (5) 14:1;57:19;182:21, 23;219:5 external (3) 85:24;298:17,19 extremely (2) 54:7;61:19 F face-to-face (1) 183:9 facilities (2) 30:12;31:19 facility (1) 30:13 fact (12) 7:7;18:7;86:8;93:5; 104:14;120:8,8; 143:23;233:5;236:2; 243:2;308:1 factor (6) 12:3;19:5,6,7; 178:8;290:13 factors (4) 226:1,5;246:23; 263:13 facts (3) 11:18;16:3;18:24 failed (1) 264:8 failing (10) 16:19;17:15,17,22; 53:17;61:17,19; 63:25;106:14;255:24 failure (1) 94:5 faint (2) 300:17;301:21 fair (9) 10:17;14:10;77:16; 132:19,22;138:14; 252:8;263:19;294:24 fall (4) 242:15;284:20; 285:19,20 familiar (3) 49:1;67:11;309:22 family (1) 73:2 far (13) 10:21;71:8;93:3; 102:25;103:5;148:21; 152:5;153:12;154:21; 184:25;187:12;196:1; 250:16 fast (4) 9:4;45:13;70:13,13 FBI (1) 30:18 feasible (1) 214:2 February (3) 67:23;210:8;237:4 federal (4) 30:10,19;267:2; 292:19 feedback (1) 302:17 feel (11) 55:12;161:21,23; 178:7;184:24;186:9, 11;187:2,15;248:13; 276:15 feet (3) 155:25;156:1,2 Felicia (17) 8:3,22;14:16;113:2; 115:8;117:16;122:16; 128:8,17;129:3,5; 133:4,22,25;228:24; 270:25;295:8 fell (2) 262:17;286:10 fellow (2) 19:3;48:23 felt (24) 40:24;41:5;46:24; 48:3,7;53:15;130:13; 131:5,13;152:14,14, 19;177:13,20,25; 179:14,16;182:10; 189:22;231:12; 269:12,14;305:15,19 female (14) 10:3;19:23,23; 21:21;128:19;132:14, 17;133:5;135:16; 176:22;192:12;266:3; 278:7;309:15 females (3) 131:23,25;176:18 few (14) 24:4;54:1;66:23; 73:22;119:23;158:25; 165:11;175:4;180:12; 209:22;264:6;271:4; 283:16;305:14 fewer (1) 291:6 Fifth (1) 14:16 fighting (1) 161:21 figure (1) 144:3 file (8) 27:11;35:18;40:8; 52:21;54:8;68:9,11; 74:17 filed (14) 16:15;42:16;52:22; 55:18;59:22;67:23; 68:20;182:11;184:14; 194:25;195:7,9; 210:8;307:12 files (1) 242:19 filing (2) 18:6;58:21 fill (1) 240:6 filled (4) 118:20;127:16; 238:11;239:9 filling (2) 179:20;237:1 final (14) 43:10;60:20;97:1; 165:9;190:14;204:6; 234:13;237:4;254:20; 268:1,4,11,19,23 finalization (1) 218:3 finalized (1) 219:6 Finally (2) 14:1;104:8 financial (2) 59:12;257:7 find (6) 12:13;30:20;53:11; 170:25;272:7;280:8 finding (1) 168:1 fine (5) 7:10;87:23;140:1,2; 181:21 finish (1) 136:8 Finished (1) 29:10 fire (2) 112:13;301:16 first (48) 14:13;16:2;21:11; 22:15;24:16;26:10; 35:17;37:10;39:3; 42:25;46:23;52:2; 53:20;56:1;61:15; 65:23,25;92:11; 102:14;107:1;141:5, 21;143:7;182:7; Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (10) examination - first Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 89 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 183:17;184:14; 189:21;191:24;196:5, 6;219:23;235:17; 242:3;249:3;265:16; 274:6;275:2;278:20; 281:12,13;284:11; 285:15;289:24; 294:13,15;298:21; 300:13;309:5 first-line (2) 212:25;241:21 fiscal (3) 185:10;217:1; 257:10 fit (5) 106:7,9,15;171:21; 209:12 five (112) 16:20;28:21,21,21, 22,23,23,25;29:3,3; 33:19;34:2,4,5,5,6,6, 7,7,14,15;41:24; 49:20,23;51:18,21; 52:5,9,17,18,18;77:3; 78:20,21;79:2,6,25; 80:4,10,24;81:3,10; 83:2,3;84:17,23;85:3, 7,8,8,9,10,14;86:5,18, 20,23;90:1,17,21,22, 22,25;91:4,22;92:4; 93:6;95:3,7;97:13; 99:4,11;100:2,5,12; 113:6;114:20,22; 117:24;122:13,18; 159:23;171:8,13; 219:2;227:9,14; 243:19;244:1,4,13; 246:6;247:3,7; 260:14;270:8;272:2, 3;285:17;286:18; 287:3,4,6,7,18,21; 288:18,19;302:7; 308:5,7,8 five-minute (5) 15:21;66:21;67:3; 265:11;299:18 fives (16) 16:22;33:20;76:13, 14;77:7,9;79:13; 91:23;100:1;130:18; 141:9,10;246:13; 287:2;288:1,8 fixed (1) 169:18 floor (2) 116:12,14 Florida (12) 32:20,21,22; 101:22;103:9,19; 114:22;117:7,8; 209:1;228:5,11 focus (8) 46:19;60:6;107:7, 17;193:18;194:24; 263:5;302:25 focused (1) 272:14 folks (5) 15:1;20:5;114:22, 24,25 follow (1) 164:19 followed (1) 201:25 following (1) 62:18 follows (6) 9:25;21:12;191:25; 265:17;300:15;309:6 follow-up (2) 163:2;264:21 footage (1) 266:22 forgot (1) 299:21 formal (2) 52:22;125:17 formed (2) 270:14;278:23 former (3) 292:19,21;293:3 Fort (1) 228:14 forth (1) 9:6 forward (4) 9:21;211:14; 245:15;272:15 forwarded (1) 297:20 found (5) 130:22;280:4,5,12; 294:22 four (27) 29:1;73:18;80:4,24; 95:9;97:13;98:11,14, 22;99:5,6,10;193:2,4; 233:11;235:14,14; 237:2;243:19,25; 244:3,13;246:6; 259:5;264:8;273:7; 274:20 fours (4) 91:23;246:14; 288:1,8 Fourth (1) 14:15 frame (3) 198:11;298:25; 299:3 Freeman (2) 216:14;220:1 Friday (1) 237:7 front (3) 57:7;217:7;225:16 frowned (1) 153:12 frowns (1) 153:13 frustrate (1) 177:19 frustrated (5) 55:16;63:16;130:7; 168:16;251:14 frustrations (1) 277:5 full (3) 63:10;237:9;254:5 full-fledged (1) 122:23 full-time (1) 307:23 fully (1) 182:22 functioned (1) 83:24 funds (4) 31:6,7;242:24; 263:15 furious (1) 62:4 further (34) 10:19;12:10;29:22; 69:5;162:25;163:4; 181:22,24;182:2; 185:19;186:20; 190:13;191:10,13; 217:20;252:10,14; 260:23;261:1;263:21; 264:18,22;265:9; 281:1;296:16,17,23; 299:12,15;306:7; 308:10;309:25;311:3, 12 fusion (1) 71:25 future (1) 158:17 G gave (21) 41:24;48:5;55:8,9; 56:24;59:11,18; 63:18;74:23;75:17, 19;89:23;91:6,23; 108:18,19;159:22; 173:2;246:1;271:21; 302:5 gender (15) 18:13,21;19:4,6,15; 20:14,21;131:18,20; 233:25;234:2;306:17, 19,19,20 General (3) 7:3;29:18,20 generally (1) 285:8 generic (1) 11:21 geographic (2) 157:10;228:20 Georgia (11) 21:25;48:18,19; 115:7,16;116:8,10,19; 117:16;142:6;162:10 gets (2) 247:3;288:18 given (24) 48:5;49:22,25; 56:22;91:17,22; 93:15;94:24;130:7, 18;147:11;180:22; 181:9,10;212:24; 228:12;234:20; 241:21;248:10;287:3, 6;292:4;293:12;305:8 giving (2) 166:6;298:2 Glover (44) 8:3,9,21;14:15; 17:22;19:22;46:21; 58:21;60:8;75:17; 91:9,10,12,13;97:2; 165:5;166:18;167:13; 169:16;172:7,12; 173:10;177:23;198:2, 7;201:18;202:6; 230:10,19;231:1; 246:7;249:25;250:3; 251:18;260:18; 265:15,19,24;267:4; 273:10;281:6;284:9; 290:22;304:6 Glover's (6) 52:25;56:10;96:21; 251:24;252:4;259:17 goal (2) 188:22;261:18 goals (7) 59:8;60:13,16,17; 141:17;191:3;263:25 goes (6) 74:2;97:15,16; 165:24;190:12; 280:20 Good (33) 18:10;35:10;78:11, 12;83:4;105:15; 133:13,13,17;139:19, 20;149:16;168:7; 179:16;190:3;193:20; 194:1;211:25;212:2; 217:25;218:1;250:14; 251:15;281:6;290:11; 297:19;300:16,17; 305:18,25;306:5; 308:23;311:11 Government (1) 29:6 government's (1) 222:13 GPA (1) 22:4 grade (7) 38:5,15;39:8,14; 50:20,21;53:20 graded (1) 275:25 grades (2) 39:8;52:14 graduated (1) 105:11 graduating (1) 21:23 grain (1) 161:22 granted (3) 75:4,5;187:24 graphs (1) 261:23 great (7) 36:15;172:9; 178:12,14;301:25; 302:4;311:9 green (7) 258:20,23,25; 259:6;279:12,19,21 grievance (30) 52:19,21,22;53:1, 14;54:8;55:5,6,18; 56:1,4,8,13;57:3,6,21; 58:14;106:19;107:14; 241:16,19,20,23; 242:2;243:4,11,16; 245:10,23;246:4 grieved (1) 243:23 grieving (2) 243:2;246:9 groom (1) 179:15 group (13) 77:4,13;84:1; 102:22;116:12,14; 143:24;227:14,16; 249:5;261:8;302:12; 306:4 grow (2) 191:6,7 growth (5) 185:7,8;186:16; 187:17;191:8 GS-11 (1) 24:6 GS-12 (5) 24:7,13,15;79:15; 225:24 GS-12s (1) 38:18 GS-13 (11) 18:15,16;24:8,17, 18,20;29:9;38:8,11; 39:1;79:14 Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (11) first-line - GS-13 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 90 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 GS-14 (4) 29:8;35:19;195:2; 197:17 GS-7 (2) 24:2,3 GS-9 (1) 24:5 GSA (50) 16:25;17:2;19:3; 23:24,25;24:3;28:17, 19;33:17;36:20; 41:15;48:4,5;69:11; 79:1;90:25;95:4; 128:14;138:22,24; 139:9,11;159:5; 164:8,13;179:22; 181:1,3;184:2; 192:13,18,25;194:2,7; 196:10,17,19;212:22; 213:15,15;216:10; 222:10;244:1;249:4; 266:5;273:13;278:24; 281:9;287:11;302:7 guard (1) 276:12 guess (20) 12:7;27:18;35:8; 56:19;57:2,23;66:24; 102:14;116:22;123:5; 141:11;151:9;159:10; 161:15;185:11;186:2; 232:18;251:13; 294:16,17 guidance (1) 99:3 guide (3) 39:25;232:16; 255:21 guidelines (3) 165:6,8,13 guides (1) 12:2 guy (1) 166:4 guys (3) 267:13;268:18; 270:3 H habits (1) 86:4 half (6) 16:17;168:15; 173:21;254:1;262:15; 275:10 halted (1) 160:9 hand (17) 49:18;50:9;62:9; 68:6;69:20;102:9; 109:1;197:5;198:13, 18;202:21;221:10; 224:5;260:2;283:1; 287:1;300:11 handbook (1) 194:18 handed (2) 222:10;235:4 handing (8) 22:21;25:20;33:25; 54:25;59:1;213:13; 215:9;284:22 handle (7) 32:7,15,16,16,17, 19,22 handled (5) 32:15,20;137:20; 138:1;145:3 handles (1) 32:24 handling (1) 290:16 hands (2) 91:16;96:21 happen (10) 93:21,22;123:1; 133:7;137:16;239:10, 12;240:4,4;304:4 happened (5) 182:10;203:7; 230:1,11;305:10 happening (1) 179:3 happens (1) 95:2 happy (6) 251:24;260:11,12, 13;295:15;303:25 hard (4) 9:4;154:13;252:7,9 Hardiman (22) 118:15;120:19; 121:16;122:1,20,22; 123:22;124:20;125:5; 127:6,20;134:11; 135:15;174:10,23; 175:15;206:11,20; 207:7;239:23;253:22; 270:18 head (8) 44:11;157:1,5; 194:22;207:9;244:19; 251:18;263:18 headed (3) 231:21,23;304:6 heading (1) 305:21 heads (1) 280:10 hear (13) 17:6,10,18,21;18:1, 5;19:8,12,19;20:5,17; 70:12;147:25 heard (3) 8:23,25;106:13 hearing (4) 10:14;15:12;66:15; 146:8 held (10) 21:9;79:5;126:25; 196:16;199:10;215:4; 284:3;293:4;308:22; 310:3 help (16) 7:17;39:24;55:12, 12,14;100:10;102:21; 107:12;151:24;152:1; 186:24,25;188:19; 190:8,21;264:1 helped (4) 143:22;184:18; 293:9,10 helping (1) 187:1 herself (1) 172:12 hey (1) 226:19 hi (4) 133:21,23;265:19; 308:24 hidden (1) 138:8 hierarchy (4) 156:19;238:21,24; 239:3 high (5) 21:23;85:20;152:4; 285:12,14 higher (5) 77:9;97:3;239:3; 265:6;294:22 highest (4) 85:4;141:7;279:16, 18 high-level (1) 86:24 highly (2) 91:19;92:7 hindered (1) 185:7 hire (7) 25:12;192:15; 206:15;253:20;266:4, 8,9 hired (9) 46:16;138:16; 174:19;177:5;205:21; 252:18;253:9;254:8; 266:6 hires (3) 206:9;253:17;254:8 hiring (1) 253:16 Hispanic (2) 132:25;309:13 history (7) 19:6;23:2,23,25; 193:20;194:1;287:11 hit (1) 162:10 Hofstetter (21) 8:20;9:8;19:24; 33:10;53:10;62:12; 129:14;130:3;189:14; 193:17;197:14,19; 198:6;204:5;210:1; 211:17;234:10; 260:18;268:17,22; 288:4 Hold (10) 26:15;41:9;53:13; 63:9;112:12;120:9; 213:6;238:16;301:16, 17 holding (1) 96:3 holdover (5) 63:5;153:15,17,20; 154:11 holdovers (22) 62:22,23,23;63:1, 10,11;83:20,20; 84:25;153:8,9,10,10, 11,12,13,14;154:5,8; 242:24;263:12; 281:17 holidays (2) 200:11;208:17 home (7) 71:15;74:15,25; 75:2;181:13,19; 293:22 homes (1) 293:19 honest (1) 172:15 Honor (113) 8:16;9:13;10:9,12, 23,25;11:3,6;14:1; 15:3,9,16,19;16:3; 18:10;21:5;23:4;26:6, 9,24;33:14;34:20,23; 35:15;45:10;51:5; 55:24;58:11,16; 59:24;62:23;64:3,25; 65:3,21;66:8,17;67:5, 15;68:22;69:2;72:2,5; 76:5;77:24;78:2,5,8; 87:19;102:2,6,8; 109:15;120:14; 123:12;148:5;159:1; 163:1,3,21;164:2; 176:7;181:23;182:1; 186:21;191:14,18; 192:5;199:24;202:4; 203:10,13;214:12,15; 217:9,13,22;221:5,24; 225:9;240:16;241:12; 247:13,15;252:11,13; 260:24;263:22; 264:19;265:21; 275:19;283:13,24; 284:5;286:21,24; 291:4;296:18,20; 299:13,16;300:20; 301:3;303:2,7;306:8; 308:11,13;310:1,10; 311:4,14,17 honorable (1) 69:8 honorably (1) 17:4 honors (4) 21:25;22:2,4; 105:11 Honor's (2) 11:10,17 hoping (1) 13:7 hostile (1) 53:4 hot (1) 94:19 hour (1) 14:22 hours (1) 194:5 house (1) 30:17 HR (14) 55:4;69:12,16; 77:20;97:18;98:1,14; 99:3;111:5,16,20; 224:14;237:23; 268:13 huge (1) 162:12 human (8) 74:17;110:18,19; 111:1;163:8;218:16; 297:16,16 hurting (1) 160:14 I idea (10) 62:17,20;93:14; 134:5;138:9;147:5; 166:12;168:7;169:17; 196:9 identical (2) 32:10;88:16 identification (29) 22:18;25:17;33:22; 50:6;54:22;58:23; 62:6;68:3;69:17; 75:10;76:17;87:6; 100:14;108:23;163:9; 198:15;202:18;205:6; 211:2;213:8;215:5; 219:17;221:7;224:2; 237:17;240:19;243:6; Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (12) GS-14 - identification Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 91 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 282:23;296:21 identified (1) 127:21 identifier (1) 116:5 identify (10) 21:19;81:7;99:19; 163:13;192:8;228:17; 265:24;291:25;301:9, 11 identifying (2) 103:23;123:22 illegible (2) 12:23;13:10 imagine (1) 157:8 immediate (1) 71:24 immediately (2) 16:21;52:16 impact (4) 248:22;282:5; 294:2;304:20 impacted (2) 93:22;159:5 impartial (3) 10:18;48:8;131:13 impeded (1) 186:10 impeding (1) 187:17 important (3) 204:23;222:7; 242:11 impression (3) 166:17,19;181:2 improve (6) 186:24;190:18; 222:5;249:11;256:24; 264:1 improved (4) 59:14;182:15,17; 187:10 improvement (4) 150:21;151:10,14; 294:4 improvements (1) 257:4 include (2) 103:12;194:20 included (2) 59:18;218:10 includes (1) 101:6 including (5) 19:22;28:24;47:3; 177:22;239:23 incoming (1) 278:15 incomplete (1) 297:12 incorrect (1) 91:2 increase (1) 294:7 increased (6) 68:18;70:1;71:10; 72:13;73:14,17 increasing (1) 73:10 indeed (1) 32:1 independently (4) 81:17,25;85:19,22 indicate (2) 107:23;258:23 indicated (7) 68:12;109:20; 142:17;160:12; 180:24;263:24; 277:14 indicates (1) 262:11 indicating (2) 27:4;112:2 indication (2) 131:17;224:20 indicator (1) 150:8 indicators (1) 243:1 individual (5) 77:4;237:6;255:20; 289:15;290:12 individually (1) 296:2 individuals (5) 150:22;205:16; 229:14,17;261:12 individual's (2) 246:16;261:6 informality (1) 124:24 information (12) 55:10;59:7;81:20; 99:21;106:23;107:3; 127:24;206:4;243:20; 248:1;250:18;286:9 informed (8) 10:4;11:13;16:8; 125:20,24;148:14; 250:3;303:20 ingrained (3) 83:23,24;154:13 inherently (1) 161:6 inherited (1) 279:4 initial (4) 78:15;166:4; 218:25;219:3 initially (4) 251:11;278:5,8; 287:12 injections (3) 71:6;72:24;73:13 injured (1) 23:18 injuries (1) 69:9 input (10) 19:21;130:8; 218:21;226:6;230:23; 231:2,3,5;248:11; 268:18 inquiry (1) 35:14 inside (3) 161:8,9;181:1 inspected (1) 31:22 inspection (1) 31:23 inspections (1) 31:16 instance (4) 153:5,8;154:20; 155:3 Instead (6) 16:9;19:7;36:21; 37:12;43:17;47:25 institutionalized (1) 245:17 instructing (1) 154:3 instruction (1) 246:13 intact (1) 189:20 integrity (1) 186:7 intend (4) 7:25;8:2,17;66:19 intends (2) 8:19;67:10 interact (1) 39:23 interest (1) 158:16 interested (1) 228:21 interests (1) 19:10 interim (21) 49:22,23;50:13,19; 52:12;92:24;93:3; 95:14;163:19;164:16, 17,23;273:16,17,20, 21;274:3,17;275:6,15, 21 internal (5) 180:17;181:1,6; 298:17,20 interrogatories (1) 197:4 interrupt (12) 29:15;35:7;64:10; 117:6;135:14;166:16; 201:15;227:23; 232:23;272:8;280:11; 289:23 interval (1) 24:16 interview (7) 46:6,9;195:25; 206:3;208:6;226:7; 236:24 interviewed (2) 45:25;208:9 interviewing (1) 204:15 interviews (3) 184:19;196:7; 240:10 into (58) 10:5;12:6,7,10; 19:21;23:5,7;26:7; 29:22;34:21;36:22; 43:5;51:6;53:3;55:21; 59:25;63:5;64:4;65:1; 66:25;68:23;69:5; 72:3;73:19,20;76:6; 77:25;87:15;94:19; 102:3;109:12;126:4, 7;129:24;130:8; 135:12;137:5;163:22, 25;187:3;199:25; 212:13;213:23; 214:13,23;217:10; 225:14;240:14;241:9; 247:10;266:18;274:1, 1;278:16;280:14; 290:13,14;299:22 introduce (4) 12:15;13:23;57:24; 300:8 introduced (1) 12:16 inundated (1) 168:13 invalid (1) 44:19 inventory (5) 278:16,17;279:8; 289:13;290:18 investigation (12) 9:25;12:20,23; 27:24;56:2;87:25; 106:17,20;125:15; 235:2;241:23;291:18 investigative (1) 202:24 invite (13) 43:1,8;46:25;47:1; 61:11;126:3;130:23; 135:24;136:24,25; 137:7;177:7;200:22 involve (3) 31:9;85:24,25 involved (8) 31:24;86:24; 197:25;198:4;218:13; 234:3;267:5;291:6 involvement (2) 293:8;296:5 issue (10) 9:24;10:8;11:25; 12:2,9;41:1,4;84:1; 182:4;183:15 issued (2) 216:25;276:21 issues (31) 36:18;41:3;53:2,21, 22,25;54:6;55:6; 62:13;72:19;75:7; 83:14;140:9,11,20; 148:8,12,15,18,21,24; 152:3,5;158:5;256:4, 6,9;272:20,24; 276:20;279:4 items (1) 116:22 J James (6) 113:3;114:24; 115:2,3;122:16; 228:11 January (51) 28:16;29:4;42:19; 49:20,21;50:4,5; 51:19;52:6;53:19; 63:19,20;75:20; 93:20;96:17;107:4; 118:14,18,20;120:24; 121:3,4,17,18;123:3; 125:25;126:11,14; 127:16;148:19; 172:19,20;174:12,15; 197:5,20;198:11,12; 199:6,10;205:2,22; 206:4;208:7;237:4; 243:14;253:9;271:5; 272:9;274:14;291:19 Jaron (1) 7:6 job (31) 29:19;35:10;36:24; 38:14;40:20;43:23; 110:10;123:8;125:4, 10;161:7,9,13,23; 174:12;190:6;195:20; 224:22;226:21; 232:19;244:3;248:15, 21;266:15,16,18; 274:21,21;286:23; 290:11;310:3 jobs (4) 115:15;116:7; 187:20;302:24 Johnson (2) 119:5;121:16 joined (1) 114:16 Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (13) identified - joined Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 92 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 judicial (1) 65:10 July (1) 197:19 June (2) 62:18;75:20 junior (1) 306:2 jury (1) 107:14 K Kameshia (3) 211:15;216:14; 219:25 Karen (45) 7:3;8:2;16:6,15; 17:6,18,21,23,24; 21:10,14,14,19;22:25; 89:11;113:1;115:7; 117:2;119:2;124:12; 189:8;193:16;199:2; 201:21;205:18; 206:14;211:12,12,16; 228:24;230:3,4,8,13; 231:13;253:17; 270:25;271:13; 273:19;302:4;303:23; 305:13,19,25;307:25 Kathy (3) 55:3;99:21;163:7 keep (10) 54:7;63:5;153:19, 20,21;173:25;185:2; 205:9;206:14;304:1 Kentucky (2) 33:4,4 kept (1) 239:18 kicked (2) 297:19,23 kind (10) 14:25;29:17;71:6; 72:18;84:1;86:6; 95:19;98:20;138:8; 148:21 King (415) 7:3,5,8,10,14,15,21, 23;8:2,3,7,12,15,20; 9:13;10:7,9,19,23; 11:1,3,13;13:4,15,17; 14:13,13,20,21;15:17, 19;16:3,6,15;17:6,19, 21,23,24;19:2,6,10, 16;20:2,12,19,25; 21:1,4,10,14,14,15,18, 19;22:9,11,13,17,20, 21,25;23:4,7,12;25:7, 19;26:6,14,15,16,19, 23;27:1,3;28:11; 29:21,23;33:14,15,24; 34:3,20;35:4,15,16; 39:10,12;45:8,10,20; 50:8;51:5,9;52:3; 54:24;55:20,23,25; 56:9,15;58:7,10,13, 16,19,25;59:24;60:4, 5;62:8;64:3,25;65:5, 7,10;66:2,7,11,16,20; 67:5,14,15,20,21; 68:5,22;69:2,3,19; 70:7,14,15;72:2,7,8; 75:12,15;76:5,10,12, 19,25;77:24;78:4,11; 83:8;87:9,17,19,23; 89:11;90:4;97:10; 99:25;102:1,6,12; 105:5;108:19;109:15, 19;110:25,25;113:2; 115:7;117:2;119:2; 120:18;122:12; 123:20;124:12;148:7; 156:15;159:8;163:3, 5,11,21,24;164:4,5; 165:11;173:25;174:2; 176:5,7,8,9;178:21; 181:22;185:19; 191:12,13,18;192:4,5, 7;193:16,19;194:25; 195:15,16;196:15,22; 198:1,9,17;199:2,17, 24;200:4,5,15;201:6; 202:3,4,5,20;203:10, 15;205:1,8,18,22; 206:14;208:3;209:4, 16,24;210:10;211:4, 12,12,16;212:13,16, 21;213:6,11;214:12, 17,22;215:1,7;216:7; 217:9,12,15,20;218:4, 24;219:6;221:3,5,24; 223:10,15;224:16,20; 225:7,9;228:24; 229:2;230:3,4,8; 231:9,22;232:5; 233:16;235:5,7,9; 236:3,16;238:5,9; 239:7,19;240:6,16; 241:12,16;243:23; 245:25;246:8;247:13; 250:4,12,14,17;251:1, 5;252:13,15;253:4, 17;254:17;255:11,24; 256:6;258:12,14; 259:4,15;260:23; 262:4;264:16,20,21, 23,24;265:9,21,23; 267:6;268:25;269:11, 16;270:4,25;271:13, 16;272:6;273:9,19; 274:15,23;275:5,9,18, 23;276:5,7,24;277:4; 278:1,11;280:2,14,17, 20,23;281:1,7,19,23; 282:1;283:3,6,13,15, 22;284:12;285:9; 287:20;291:19,22; 292:5;293:11,15,19; 295:14;296:20,24; 297:3,6;299:12,21; 300:1;301:1,3,6,15, 18;302:1,3,4,21; 303:2,7,8,12,16,23; 304:10,15,17;305:6,9, 13,19;306:7,23;307:5, 12;308:4,13,16,24; 309:9,11,18,25;310:7, 14,17,22;311:1,7,9, 13,14 King's (19) 19:12;27:10; 202:13;217:17; 231:13;233:22; 242:17;251:1;260:18; 265:7;276:18;278:25; 292:14;293:9,24; 294:9,13;296:5; 306:19 Kingstream (1) 7:22 knew (22) 17:19;53:12;54:3; 61:15;92:23;94:17; 129:1;140:14;142:5, 5,23,24;152:11; 161:19;170:8;171:18; 189:2;204:13;236:22; 250:16;253:1;298:21 knowing (3) 36:13;161:9;298:14 knowledge (21) 42:7;128:23;129:5; 132:2;133:6;173:7; 193:20;194:1,3; 201:9;207:6;209:8, 11,13;223:17;236:16; 257:3;294:9;295:5, 21;296:4 known (8) 88:11;140:12; 142:18;169:3;204:11; 236:20;264:9;307:20 knows (2) 12:11;56:20 L lab (1) 305:23 labeled (2) 176:12,13 lack (3) 96:7,23,24 lacking (1) 262:7 ladder (2) 24:10,13 lagging (3) 262:22;307:16,20 laid (1) 268:13 language (7) 81:3;107:9;110:9; 194:15,21;212:8; 238:7 lapse (1) 298:24 large (2) 305:21;306:3 LaSonya (56) 8:3,9,21;14:15; 17:22;19:22;43:7; 44:1;46:20;47:1; 52:25;55:9;56:10; 57:11,11;58:20;60:7; 61:12;62:12;64:6; 75:17;91:7;93:6; 104:9,22;130:24; 135:24;136:1,10; 137:6,12;145:5; 165:5;177:22;198:2, 7;201:18,20;202:6; 230:3,10,19;234:24; 251:17;254:18,20,25; 255:16,19;259:17; 260:17;265:15,19; 275:5;303:11;304:6 LaSonya's (3) 255:4,6;304:7 last (16) 14:17;54:11;67:13; 76:11;91:8;136:8; 180:18;181:12; 189:10,11,12;191:4; 214:23;216:1;237:4; 305:7 later (12) 9:9;16:8,17;24:19; 54:1;121:20;125:9; 173:4;174:12;175:4; 208:14;271:4 latest (1) 282:8 Latino (1) 132:25 Lauderdale/Sunrise (1) 228:15 lay (1) 29:16 LCOs (1) 143:9 lead (84) 24:22;37:17;38:1,6, 7,21;39:1,5,20;79:11; 80:11,19;82:21; 100:5,8;109:25; 113:18;114:2,7; 119:11,12,21,22; 120:3,5,10;134:3,3, 10,12,12;139:17,23; 140:12,25;141:5,9,12, 18,22,24;142:12,19, 20;143:5,16,22,25; 145:2;146:16,19,22, 24;147:14,15,17,23; 179:14,15;187:14; 201:12;223:12,13; 226:20;230:12;245:3; 270:13;289:2,4,5,10, 11,24;290:7,25;291:2, 5,9;292:5;293:3; 300:3;302:12;310:4,5 leader (11) 24:22,23;37:10; 63:11;229:6;231:18; 255:18,20;270:1; 289:5;295:9 leaders (7) 204:17;212:3; 220:18,19,20;290:8; 302:12 leader's (1) 302:9 leadership (43) 16:12;29:5,6;36:14; 40:17;41:1;61:6;87:3, 4;105:15;107:7,16, 20;128:3,12;130:17; 164:24;178:11,15; 190:9,17;195:25; 196:8;201:8,10; 204:3;231:10,12; 232:11;236:4;251:22, 25;254:24;255:11,15, 17,21;259:17;264:25; 270:10;292:14,17,22 leading (12) 59:10,15,17;86:8; 87:3;100:9;130:17; 152:16;161:11; 245:11;290:3,10 leads (24) 37:9,13,14,17,24; 38:1;68:17;108:10; 113:10,14,17,18,22; 114:10,13;134:20; 179:11;219:14; 220:22;222:3;226:11; 229:3;288:25;302:19 learn (3) 180:4;294:13,15 learned (4) 18:14;135:19; 250:17;294:16 lease (22) 30:12,13;31:14,19; 41:13;63:3;79:9; 153:18,24,25;154:6; 201:13;242:19,25; 261:10;263:16; 266:25;267:1;289:12; 294:4,5;305:23 leases (13) 116:22;142:9; Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (14) judicial - leases Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 93 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 154:5;162:2;263:10, 11;272:17;277:3; 278:15,22;279:24; 286:1;302:14 leasing (78) 18:17;19:14,20; 30:5,6,7;41:17;79:7; 90:5;100:20;101:16; 102:13;105:2;110:11, 23;111:6,15;113:13; 114:2;128:14;129:16, 20;139:6,8;161:5,5,8, 9;179:7,7,13,24; 180:3,5;188:14; 192:19,21;193:1,2,6; 196:12;201:12; 219:11;220:6;222:5, 8,18,21;223:3; 225:19;226:2;227:5; 234:11;236:9;238:21; 239:5,18;242:10,11, 15;247:21,24;248:5, 22;252:23;257:8; 258:18;261:21; 262:17,20;264:1,5,13; 266:13;267:1;292:20; 302:13;307:17 least (16) 13:4;62:2;64:16; 67:10;94:14;146:23; 165:16;187:23; 189:18;194:5;204:13, 16;236:22;246:19; 261:15;270:16 leave (9) 9:17;13:19,24; 17:16;21:1;168:15; 274:22;275:15; 280:15 leaving (3) 83:17;95:5;237:7 led (6) 39:20,22;86:7,9; 200:18;250:11 left (17) 36:10;42:8;71:18; 89:10;103:1,6; 171:24;200:25; 201:23;202:6;228:24; 254:11,16;269:17; 275:4,21;300:21 legal (2) 12:1;294:19 legible (6) 13:5,8,16,17;235:7, 8 legitimate (1) 20:18 length (2) 36:4;120:2 less (5) 79:25;90:20; 236:13;237:5;291:9 lessor (4) 31:21;63:4,6; 153:20 lessors (1) 74:1 letter (1) 103:22 letters (2) 74:23;146:9 letting (1) 184:21 level (147) 16:22,23;19:16; 20:14;28:20,22,25; 29:2,3;34:2,4,4,5,7, 14,15;38:20;40:18; 41:24;49:19,23;50:1, 3,18;51:15,16,18,20, 21;53:17;54:13; 55:15;59:20;70:1; 71:8,10;72:13,21; 73:15,18;74:9,16; 76:13,14;77:3,7,9,21; 80:24,24,25;81:3,10, 16,16;82:10,19,22; 83:2,3,4,7,9,21,22; 84:6,17,22;85:3,9,14; 86:5,17,19,23,23; 90:1,16;91:4;92:3,4; 95:3,7,23;97:20; 98:13,22;99:11; 111:21;128:1;129:10; 141:1,7,9,12,23; 143:13;151:24;152:4; 159:23;163:17;171:8, 12;181:21;186:5,6; 188:20;189:1;233:6; 242:6;243:18,19,19, 23,25,25,25;244:2,3, 4,6,9,12;245:17,18; 246:5;260:8,14,14; 261:11,12;271:20,21, 24;272:1,3;273:7; 285:16,16,17;286:11, 12,15;288:22;296:9; 297:20;302:7 levels (12) 50:1,3,20,22;52:14; 93:9;95:18,24;98:9; 105:12;285:21; 286:10 liability (4) 8:6,8,14,15 life (1) 73:1 light (2) 14:24;151:1 likewise (1) 104:1 limitation (1) 162:20 limited (5) 162:16;254:24; 255:6,7,15 Lindsey (2) 110:21;111:20 line (1) 242:3 lined (2) 14:25;15:1 lines (2) 30:25;31:2 list (6) 14:4,7;53:25;54:5; 277:16;292:15 listed (3) 101:10;279:12; 292:18 lists (2) 25:23;166:13 litigation (1) 66:6 little (33) 29:16;35:21;45:12; 70:8,11;81:23;92:1; 102:20,23;108:5; 122:13;140:24; 154:17,24;162:9; 218:19;230:17; 232:12;234:6;242:9; 244:13;248:20; 256:14;268:6;269:13, 14;281:23;292:3; 295:17;300:17; 301:21;305:20;310:2 live (1) 7:22 Liz (7) 104:6;145:13,21, 22;146:4,7;238:6 load (1) 290:1 located (2) 114:22;116:23 locations (2) 157:12;228:20 logged (6) 165:23;166:2,2; 167:3;172:18,18 logic (1) 227:10 logs (1) 166:6 long (9) 14:19;64:11; 119:20,24;146:21; 204:12;232:22;236:8, 21 longer (10) 42:5,6;99:4;120:10; 158:23;204:14; 236:23;269:9,13; 299:10 look (47) 26:18;28:4;30:9,16; 31:5;34:24;67:4; 80:15;81:2;83:6,6; 89:10;90:11;100:18, 23;102:25;103:5; 106:22;108:15;109:2; 110:7;123:20;146:7; 172:22;207:4,10; 216:1,13;224:19; 225:16;227:4;242:16; 249:9,10;253:13; 254:10;256:11; 258:19;259:13,16; 283:2;284:22;285:4, 16;286:1;292:11; 300:25 looked (3) 109:10;245:24; 269:6 looking (17) 12:8;65:23;82:19; 84:21;126:17;132:16; 134:8;166:25;167:10; 170:23;198:25;211:9; 215:10;246:4;263:1; 278:13;281:14 looks (1) 65:5 losing (1) 304:24 lot (25) 65:6;70:2,3;71:7,7, 21,23;85:23;86:1; 90:5;101:18;142:4; 143:11;152:4,10; 155:19,19;162:7,9; 187:5;190:5;261:22, 22;287:2;304:25 lots (2) 262:1,2 loud (1) 300:18 low (2) 16:19;17:1 lower (9) 38:20;111:21; 159:9,17,18;162:7; 211:13;271:16,18 lowered (1) 281:17 lowest (1) 161:11 low-performing (2) 140:23;152:17 lunch (1) 191:19 M ma'am (3) 7:12;99:12;167:12 maintain (1) 156:2 major (1) 242:5 maker (2) 234:14;268:19 makeup (3) 234:2;307:1,7 making (19) 20:16,22;40:1; 103:11;125:13; 131:18;132:3;150:7; 152:23;222:2;234:8; 250:21;268:23; 306:18,24;307:4,9,13, 18 male (4) 19:24,25;278:7; 301:13 males (1) 278:9 manage (4) 155:18;156:5; 162:1,11 managed (6) 60:15;64:8;74:9; 170:3,4,5 management (56) 19:3,20;20:3,12,17; 22:3;59:12;70:3;71:6; 73:8,11;97:18;106:1; 109:20;110:16;111:6, 16,21;114:17;118:9; 126:12;127:6,25; 128:4;129:6;132:3; 148:21,24;150:13; 151:22;160:12; 182:18;183:25; 184:11;187:19; 203:22;204:6;226:11; 231:12;232:2,10,11; 240:5;242:1;248:3; 249:3;251:25;257:6, 8;264:13,15;292:24; 293:8;294:25;310:21, 24 management's (4) 19:5;20:16;170:10; 227:10 manager (19) 19:13;20:2;82:4,5; 84:22;90:11;97:11; 98:13;110:22,24; 111:13;152:19;161:5, 15;166:23;182:24; 184:3;248:15;287:24 managerial (2) 196:8;291:6 managers (7) 98:2,2;99:20,22; 169:23;194:4;244:10 manages (1) 266:24 managing (7) 142:10;161:16; 249:5;266:20;289:12; 290:17;305:22 Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (15) leasing - managing Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 94 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 mandate (1) 107:5 manner (3) 48:7;73:10;84:4 many (32) 31:12;53:22,22; 62:1,22;63:13;66:18; 73:10;79:21;83:14, 14;86:7,22;161:12, 12;165:20;166:7; 167:22,23;169:22; 176:18;190:21,22; 220:12,22;246:13; 258:25;277:1;279:21; 286:1;287:10;290:1 mapping (1) 221:15 March (6) 93:1;215:16,17; 236:10,11;275:25 Maria (52) 8:4,21;14:16;18:1; 47:18,18;48:22; 111:1;112:11,17; 113:1;115:9,10; 117:2,16;122:15; 128:8,15;129:1; 132:23;133:22; 139:23;144:7,10; 145:21;146:13,16; 171:7;180:1,2; 201:22;208:19,23; 209:9;228:25;229:2; 231:11;264:25;265:3; 269:17,19,22;270:25; 295:5;303:23;305:12, 17,19,20;307:25; 309:4,8 Maria's (1) 306:19 mark (1) 244:7 marked (51) 22:18,21;25:17,20; 33:22,25;50:6,9; 54:22,25;58:23;59:1; 62:6;68:3,6;69:17,20; 75:10,13;76:17,21,24; 87:6;100:14;108:23; 163:9,12;198:15,18; 202:18,22;205:6,10; 211:2,5;213:8;215:5; 219:17,21;221:7; 224:2;227:2;237:17; 240:19;243:6,9; 256:2;282:23;284:10; 296:21,25 market (2) 242:25;263:17 marketing (1) 22:3 marry (1) 285:19 master's (1) 22:1 match (1) 258:10 matrixes (1) 242:14 matter (12) 11:7,12,22;12:18; 18:11;43:2;78:15; 83:3;93:14;116:15; 130:23;222:21 matters (5) 12:6;184:19; 222:22;302:25;303:5 may (17) 11:18;102:8; 180:24;183:19,20; 217:1;223:6;241:3; 245:25;259:13; 262:21;267:19,20; 269:14;278:21;282:6; 299:6 Maybe (6) 14:21;262:14,16; 266:22,22;287:15 mean (82) 32:15;36:16;52:20; 53:8;65:8,24;66:5; 79:18;82:4,24,25; 90:19;92:17;97:11, 17;99:25;100:22; 105:21,25;106:4; 107:13,14,14;108:1; 113:12;116:9;118:8, 24;125:24;127:25; 128:22;138:2;141:6, 22;143:23;148:12; 149:11;157:4;160:16; 161:4;162:5;178:12; 180:17;181:6;188:2; 220:4;223:5;226:19; 233:21;234:18; 235:15;238:8;239:2, 3,9;242:10;243:24; 244:21;246:12; 247:25;248:10; 249:18;255:17;256:8; 257:5,13;261:21; 262:10,19;274:19; 281:12;286:23; 288:19;291:5;292:7, 8;294:18;295:10; 300:7;303:3;304:23; 307:17 means (5) 39:23;62:23;63:2; 82:22;162:19 meant (4) 106:6,9;153:9; 271:24 measure (5) 222:25;261:4,5,6,7 measured (1) 262:18 measures (53) 16:19;17:17;90:6, 13,16;100:11;141:1,3, 14,17;150:9,14,24; 151:16;222:12,15,20; 223:3,15,16,20;242:6, 10,14,22;243:1; 248:21;249:10,16; 256:9,17,21;258:7,8, 10;259:21,24;260:5, 7;262:5,13,16,23; 264:2;272:16;276:17; 279:10;284:17; 285:15;288:15;291:8, 9;294:3 medical (6) 23:17;70:22,24,25; 160:20,23 medication (5) 68:16;71:3;73:8,14; 74:10 medications (4) 69:5;70:2;71:7; 73:18 meet (18) 18:24;30:21,24; 43:3;53:9;60:16; 85:22;100:10;137:1, 2,2,15;141:2;222:12; 223:16;226:4;243:18; 296:1 meeting (61) 43:8;46:20;47:2; 61:12;82:23,25;84:7, 19;112:8;135:18,22; 136:11,18,22;137:7; 150:2,13,14;169:20; 177:6,12,15,21; 182:25;183:1,4,10,11; 191:3;199:10;200:13, 15,19,21;201:6; 202:15;223:15;230:2, 8,11,18,19;234:16; 250:18;259:20,24; 260:4,6;267:15,18; 272:15;276:6,11,17; 286:15;293:22; 303:10,15,15,17,19 meetings (4) 31:21;47:6;86:1; 137:4 meets (3) 135:3,4;223:3 memo (1) 224:9 memorandum (2) 224:11,15 memory (1) 197:21 mention (2) 12:19;133:11 mentioned (10) 76:12;93:7;121:22; 163:7;174:10;180:12; 232:8;252:16;280:6; 297:4 mentor (11) 188:18,25;189:1, 24;191:6;232:15; 255:21;302:15;306:1, 2,5 mentors (1) 188:25 merits (1) 10:18 met (8) 18:22;44:1;83:2; 153:1;230:4;261:18; 271:24;304:8 metric (1) 263:1 metrics (6) 150:11;258:17; 261:16,22;263:14; 288:15 Mexican (3) 132:24;133:1; 309:13 Michael (1) 228:11 middle (1) 237:24 mid-January (1) 275:22 midterm (7) 96:8,23,25;98:18, 25;99:14;275:10 midyear (5) 93:6;99:2,4;163:16; 164:22 might (9) 12:7;99:9;171:2,21; 183:22;226:9;244:12, 13;300:23 Mike (5) 113:5;115:2,3; 122:16;301:19 mildly (1) 151:2 milestones (1) 286:6 military (19) 17:3;23:14,14,15, 18,18;69:8,9;71:19, 22,23;72:1,10;156:16, 18;157:8;158:4; 160:21,24 million (3) 162:6;171:4;266:22 mind (3) 9:10;303:4;305:17 mine (5) 13:21;203:2; 238:23;277:12;304:7 minimum (2) 164:15;273:15 minute (13) 29:16;45:11;64:11; 112:13;117:7;120:9; 126:23;135:15;139:5; 173:23;232:24;272:6, 9 minutes (3) 14:21,24;158:25 miracles (1) 53:19 mirror (4) 212:4,9;216:19,22 mirrored (1) 217:4 Miss (105) 7:5;8:20;10:7,19; 11:1,13;22:9;64:11; 96:21;97:2;111:20, 20,25;115:13;117:20; 119:17;120:19;122:1; 123:22;124:19; 127:20;128:24,25; 130:1;131:23,24; 133:8,12,14,19; 135:15;136:21; 156:24;159:24;160:4; 166:18;167:13; 169:16;172:7,12; 173:10;175:19; 191:12;197:6,12,24, 25;198:14;201:11; 202:21;203:16; 204:19;211:6,19,22; 212:12;213:12; 214:18;215:8;217:17, 25;229:5;231:1,22, 23;232:2,8,9,13,17; 233:18,22;235:6,11; 238:9,9;239:18; 246:7;247:19;249:25; 250:3;251:24;252:4; 258:12,16;261:3; 263:24;264:20; 265:24;287:24;288:4; 292:25;293:2;295:1, 5;301:1;304:13,14; 306:22,23;308:7,19; 309:17;310:13;311:7 missing (7) 212:8;242:19; 263:14,14;284:13,15; 300:3 Mississippi (4) 32:17,19;33:3,4 mixed (1) 209:6 moment (4) 201:16;203:16; 213:7;256:3 monetary (2) 105:18;162:22 money (2) Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (16) mandate - money Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 95 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 77:5,10 monitored (1) 167:7 monitoring (2) 168:3;286:3 month (12) 16:8;127:10,12,14, 15,17;200:7,13; 208:14;216:1;280:5, 12 monthly (1) 249:10 months (10) 16:17;24:4;54:1; 62:14;73:23;174:12; 175:4;180:25;271:4; 274:20 more (49) 9:2;18:3;39:17; 56:3;66:20;70:11; 81:12,20,23,24;83:25; 84:10,11;85:20,20,21; 91:19;92:7;97:24; 143:16;144:2;145:24; 146:5;154:17,24; 159:11;165:11; 171:19;175:18; 180:12;209:22; 217:16;223:18; 232:15,18,20;242:23; 248:1;258:2;268:3,6; 269:14;270:9;279:23; 282:2;283:18;295:17; 296:14;303:9 morning (6) 18:10;78:11,12,17; 211:25;212:2 most (9) 61:23,24;75:8; 77:20;133:15;142:7; 180:14;258:20; 279:12 move (23) 9:21;15:11;43:10; 47:7,14,25;87:15; 102:2;104:1;111:14; 122:7,8;186:11,14; 187:16;206:14;221:1; 225:6;234:25;240:13; 283:10;300:21,23 moved (7) 38:1,2,10;47:10; 49:24;141:24;172:20 movement (1) 219:14 moves (3) 221:21;241:8;247:9 moving (9) 28:22;43:9;61:14; 135:13;140:22;169:8; 179:11;230:14; 272:15 Mowry (76) 8:4,21;14:17;16:9; 19:24;28:24;36:19; 40:21;43:1,6,13; 45:22;46:21;47:3; 49:22;80:20;85:10; 88:7;93:5;104:2,17; 112:8;118:24;119:3; 121:16;134:17;135:1, 20;136:24;138:16; 139:15,19,20;140:5; 157:5;176:15;178:2; 179:20;195:20,23; 196:16;198:2,6; 200:18,22;201:3,18; 202:7;215:13;229:9, 19;230:10,18;231:6; 232:9;233:14;238:5; 249:25;250:3,11,14; 252:18,22;253:1; 267:12;268:10;269:6; 275:3;295:1;300:12; 301:8,14;303:9; 305:7;306:13;308:17 Mowry's (1) 41:8 Mrs (5) 19:2,12,16;20:12, 19 much (21) 20:24;30:3;39:21; 47:5,11;48:6;72:22; 142:6,11;158:23; 160:16;168:14;180:7; 191:15;248:24; 265:10;278:17;279:3; 299:17;308:14;311:5 multiple (1) 298:12 myself (11) 22:24;113:1;198:3, 8;210:1;211:17; 230:3;234:24;267:11; 268:9;304:5 N name (18) 21:13;43:2;64:23; 86:20;89:11;91:8; 101:8,18;161:10; 166:3;189:10,11,13; 192:1;193:10;265:18; 301:7;309:7 names (4) 91:10;100:23; 101:10;254:10 namesake (1) 7:19 narrow (1) 35:14 national (7) 59:15;86:9,9,9; 87:4;245:18;264:5 nationwide (1) 227:25 nature (6) 71:17;73:16;74:21; 192:24;257:24; 266:18 natured (1) 232:14 near (1) 77:23 necessarily (2) 161:7;307:24 necessary (3) 156:10;302:16; 305:3 need (35) 15:5;31:4,4,5; 41:18;45:12;61:9,15; 62:24;81:8;99:9; 137:1,1,2;152:20; 161:19;168:18,20; 183:14,16,22;191:7; 204:5;207:13;209:17, 19;222:12;229:17; 264:12;270:10,12; 295:24;296:12,16; 298:11 needed (36) 36:15;53:6;106:3; 118:21;150:18,19,20; 151:24;152:1,10,18, 19;153:1;169:18; 174:18;179:15; 181:11,13;206:17; 227:20;232:18,20; 248:16;253:23; 269:14,14;272:22; 273:2,22;276:21; 293:7;298:12;304:4; 306:4;307:22;308:1 needs (10) 19:13;32:3;62:25; 63:7;81:8;84:19; 169:7;186:24,25; 282:14 negative (7) 82:22;153:3; 167:12;169:25;210:9; 244:7;260:9 negatively (1) 159:5 neither (1) 37:1 Nerve (2) 71:20,21 nerves (2) 71:21,22 new (41) 10:5;31:12;35:23; 39:19;45:2;85:21; 86:13;101:18;142:14; 154:6;156:5;157:9, 10,10;164:8,13; 168:16;206:9,9; 210:25;212:18,21; 213:2;214:3,9,18; 216:7;218:9,10; 251:13;253:16; 263:11;273:13,25; 274:21;277:2;278:15; 294:6;305:1,24;306:1 newer (1) 306:4 newly (3) 121:6;213:2;270:14 next (11) 42:15;133:24; 147:15,22;188:20; 230:1;237:7;247:4,6; 288:20;308:19 Nine (2) 79:23;266:25 nobody (10) 47:15;54:3;168:3,3; 170:8;172:23,23; 177:11;178:15; 229:16 nondiscriminatory (1) 20:18 None (8) 66:12;131:19; 201:20;204:11; 207:14;220:14; 272:22;276:21 nonexistent (1) 18:25 nonroutine (2) 81:18;82:1 nonselection (5) 35:18;195:1,19; 197:16;209:25 normal (1) 86:3 normally (2) 214:2,10 Norman (1) 193:14 North (26) 32:25;47:19,19; 48:14;116:18,23; 120:12;144:15,19,20; 145:3,5,15,16,19,22, 25;146:14;172:3; 209:3,5;266:21; 267:3;269:24;309:19, 24 notated (1) 213:18 note (2) 9:23;10:13 noted (2) 64:5;88:13 notes (2) 89:2;183:23 nother (1) 186:5 notice (5) 14:8;96:7;97:19; 98:20;212:7 notification (4) 130:25;199:1; 240:10;282:11 notifications (1) 27:20 notified (6) 42:23,24;127:15; 200:20;297:11; 309:18 notify (1) 200:16 November (12) 16:18;42:24;87:13, 21;88:5;89:14;92:20; 100:20;101:13; 199:15;200:6;216:16 nowhere (1) 77:23 number (24) 67:14;102:4; 109:13;176:1;213:20; 219:23;220:9;221:22; 225:15;227:3;240:14; 241:10;245:11; 247:11;263:10,11; 281:17;283:11; 284:10;286:7,22; 288:5,7;294:7 numbers (12) 12:24;54:18,19; 88:2;92:3,8;94:10; 222:21;227:19; 242:11;261:23; 284:19 numeration (1) 213:19 Numerous (1) 262:3 O OA (1) 263:17 object (9) 9:11,15,16;57:18; 65:24,24;66:1;94:2; 96:23 objection (58) 8:24;12:16;15:13; 22:13,16;23:9,10; 26:8;28:9;34:22;35:2; 51:7,8;57:24;58:3,4; 60:1,2;65:2;67:16,18; 68:24,25;72:4,5;76:7, 8;78:1,2;87:17,19; 93:13;94:14;95:13; 96:10,24;102:5; 109:14;164:1,2; 200:1,2;203:12,13; 212:15;214:14,15; Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (17) monitored - objection Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 96 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 217:11,13;221:4,23; 225:8;240:15;241:11; 247:12;283:12; 299:23,24 objectionable (1) 12:13 objections (6) 8:25;9:2,4;10:20; 15:9;96:8 objectives (1) 60:13 obtain (1) 66:4 obvious (1) 295:16 obviously (3) 249:22;304:20; 305:14 occasion (5) 79:24;85:13;184:1; 281:8;288:24 occasionally (2) 244:4,14 occasions (2) 40:21;184:4 occurred (6) 93:18;112:6; 157:14;188:22; 219:10;230:18 o'clock (4) 43:3,5;137:3,5 October (11) 46:4;51:19;92:12; 174:22,23;185:10; 270:24;274:5,5,13; 275:9 off (21) 41:20,22,25;42:1; 70:3;71:4;126:20,22; 135:2;145:10;194:22; 207:9,17;213:6; 244:18;253:24; 263:18;276:3,11; 283:25;311:21 offending (1) 13:11 offered (2) 40:17;296:1 office (17) 27:24;43:4,5;75:8; 112:7;126:4,7; 129:22,24;130:21; 135:12;137:5,17; 152:3;153:13;183:10; 196:12 officer (5) 41:13,20;79:10; 266:14;293:5 officers (2) 201:13;266:25 officers' (1) 286:4 official (13) 10:17;19:3;27:10; 57:3;67:8;92:5; 183:25;203:22; 216:23;224:16,24; 242:1;282:10 officials (5) 19:20;67:23;86:2; 204:6;207:17 off-the-record (5) 21:8;126:24;215:3; 284:2;308:21 often (2) 12:5;154:18 old (7) 54:3;62:3;145:17; 166:14,15;276:23; 277:19 older (1) 276:1 once (13) 22:6;26:21;30:24; 31:14;49:14;67:14; 91:8;135:9;153:15; 160:9;201:24;269:16; 299:9 one (169) 8:25;9:7;11:7; 13:12;15:7;28:4,4,7; 35:18;36:9;37:1,23, 25;47:20;50:2,2,3; 52:2,2,14;53:24; 56:16,19;58:12,18; 63:15;65:25;66:24; 67:12,13;72:20; 75:19;79:17;80:3,25; 81:4,12;85:7;86:8,23; 89:1,4,7,23;95:13; 97:13,22;103:23; 104:1,8;106:13; 108:17,19,22;109:9; 117:5;118:19;119:8; 121:5;122:2;123:22; 132:17;138:25; 145:24;146:5;149:22, 22,25;155:5,8,22,23; 156:6,7;168:12; 172:8;175:18;178:3; 181:11;183:9;187:11, 11;189:7,9;190:14; 193:3;201:18;203:16; 204:16;206:8,9,11,17; 207:16;213:4;215:1; 219:7;227:8,13,17,20; 228:12;229:16;230:5, 7;231:21,22;237:5,7; 245:11;247:3;253:21; 254:11;256:9;259:3; 261:24;263:24; 264:21;267:5;268:14; 270:16;272:6;277:9, 10,10,11,12,13;278:6; 279:2,3;281:25; 282:2,8,9;283:19,21, 25;285:1,2,15,17; 286:11;287:17; 288:18;292:6,17,20; 294:6;297:5,9;298:4, 7,8,10,14,16,17,22; 302:6;303:9,21,24; 304:19;305:7,11,13, 22;309:16 ones (7) 27:12;115:19; 259:6,8;285:13; 288:1,7 one-year (1) 29:11 on-line (1) 86:14 only (56) 17:11;32:7,14;36:3; 37:16,18;38:12; 39:15;43:6;47:24; 48:17,18;49:7;50:4; 53:18;54:17,19; 55:12;56:16;57:9; 61:10;73:7;81:17,18; 82:1;122:18;129:4; 132:13,14,17,17; 134:7;135:1;152:11; 162:17;171:21; 174:18;176:18,22,24; 177:1;181:7,18; 185:7;186:13;188:13; 205:25;218:24;219:7; 227:18;228:1,15; 233:19;245:6;253:4; 270:8 open (3) 125:3;190:2,10 opening (1) 16:1 operating (1) 86:11 operation (1) 193:5 operational (3) 193:3,4;223:18 operations (2) 242:24;263:16 opinion (1) 304:25 opportunities (1) 298:13 opportunity (8) 19:21;31:25; 127:12,17;130:8; 194:15;248:11; 270:17 opposed (5) 94:23;120:3; 195:23;269:10; 291:14 opposing (2) 13:3;102:16 optimum (1) 141:12 option (1) 107:6 options (1) 157:23 order (6) 14:7,11;30:21;31:2; 179:15;213:15 org (1) 241:5 organization (5) 29:18;48:6;61:1; 102:21;254:21 organizational (14) 37:12,19;44:19; 100:19;101:3;102:12; 116:5;161:17,18; 221:16,16;222:3; 227:5;240:24 organized (1) 103:17 origin (1) 309:13 original (8) 64:13,18,20;71:18; 145:13,14,14;182:11 originally (5) 32:18;121:12; 145:7;169:19;186:12 others (7) 49:5;66:1;177:5; 224:17;239:8;259:9; 262:12 otherwise (1) 140:6 out (51) 29:16;30:9,15;31:6, 14,17,24;32:21; 46:25;53:11;58:3,6; 65:13;72:1;95:23; 98:2;99:21;119:1; 125:6;126:3;127:9, 12,14,17;135:7; 136:24;144:3;161:8, 9;168:1;176:17; 200:10;206:3;227:18; 249:11,13;257:7; 258:20;274:11,13; 280:4,5,8,12;282:2; 285:23,23;287:2; 294:22;298:8,13 outcome (4) 226:16;297:21; 298:10,21 outside (14) 24:17;43:11;73:11; 86:2,3,25;149:12; 160:1;180:25;181:3, 5,7;184:2;307:19 outspoken (1) 183:13 Outstanding (5) 24:2,12;85:11; 152:4;244:5 over (48) 12:21;23:21;25:6; 33:10;48:4,5;54:12; 62:13;69:10,23;71:2; 73:21;83:13;111:10; 112:4;133:15;142:20; 146:24;147:23; 152:16;154:8,10,14; 161:1;162:5;166:5; 170:7;172:15;173:19; 189:10,11,14;190:1,2, 6;200:6;208:14; 254:21;264:6;269:11, 20;278:18,21;280:21; 284:21;287:17;288:7; 296:2 overall (7) 150:23;151:15,18; 182:14;244:1;287:4,7 overarching (1) 261:9 overlap (2) 52:8;274:9 overlooked (1) 66:24 override (4) 60:23;154:14,15; 255:4 overrode (1) 154:12 overruled (4) 154:19,21,21;156:9 oversaw (1) 302:19 oversee (1) 302:14 oversees (1) 193:2 own (11) 28:8;39:17;85:18; 155:10;184:22,23; 188:22;246:20; 289:25;290:9,12 P package (5) 58:14;66:22; 297:12,17,19 pad (1) 183:23 page (32) 9:24;12:1,24,25; 27:22;56:3;87:25; 88:2;106:17,22; 107:1,3;125:15; 165:16;203:18; 213:17;221:18; 235:11,17,18;241:23; 242:16;245:13,21; 284:13,15;285:5; 290:23;291:3,17,18; Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (18) objectionable - page Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 97 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 292:19 pages (12) 12:22;13:5,9;27:9, 20;55:6,6,10;62:22; 63:10;153:10;169:2 pain (9) 69:25;70:2;71:3,5, 7;72:17;73:8,10;74:9 panel (4) 139:2;195:25; 196:6;224:10 panels (1) 184:19 paper (2) 13:12;211:8 pardon (1) 185:20 parenthesis (2) 212:3,3 parentheticals (1) 116:6 Part (55) 11:24;20:15,22; 24:10;27:25;51:17; 56:7,12,21,22,24; 57:21;59:19;76:11; 86:15;90:11;94:14; 100:8;106:20;131:18; 132:2,9;135:22; 137:11;149:22,25; 150:12;152:7;165:19; 182:5;218:16;222:4; 223:2,14;228:16; 231:16;233:25;234:4; 245:12;249:15,20; 250:6;261:15;263:4, 25;280:19;281:9; 288:16;289:8;293:20; 294:19;306:18;307:4, 8,17 participate (1) 201:16 participated (1) 234:7 particular (9) 20:10;80:23;90:12; 116:16;155:1;225:18; 258:11;263:1;272:25 particularly (1) 252:6 parties (4) 66:13;200:20; 218:21;302:22 partition (1) 65:13 partnered (1) 257:7 passes (1) 299:9 passing (2) 57:5;258:24 past (11) 17:13;105:16,20; 159:21;178:25; 261:13;264:6,7; 293:23;298:25;299:3 pay (5) 38:5,14;39:8,14; 63:4 paying (4) 63:2,6;153:20,21 PBS (35) 18:17;19:19; 100:19;101:15; 102:13;110:11;111:5, 15;113:13;114:1; 129:16;161:5,5; 220:6;222:5,8,11,21; 223:3;226:2;227:5; 232:22;236:8;238:20; 239:5,18;247:21,24; 257:3;261:21;264:1, 5,10,13;281:24 PD (1) 255:8 Peachtree (1) 162:11 penalty (1) 203:6 Pentagon (2) 157:23;158:2 people (77) 19:17;35:23;38:13, 16;39:22;54:3;59:17; 62:15,17;63:22; 79:21;82:5,12,13; 83:16;84:25;85:22; 88:22;91:22,23; 101:18,22,23;103:14; 114:20;116:9;119:9; 121:23;122:2,13; 131:23;140:14,18,18; 142:16,21;143:24; 152:6,6;153:1; 154:22;155:8;156:10; 165:14,21;168:5,8; 169:4;172:10;173:2; 174:3,6;183:14; 185:4;187:14;188:5, 16;189:6;191:6; 205:21,23;206:8,10; 207:20;219:2;227:15; 228:2,4,10;264:15; 286:12;288:1,25; 289:19;290:2;292:16; 293:7 people's (10) 53:12,23;54:2;62:3; 63:1,21;167:22; 168:2;172:21;186:6 per (9) 88:15;113:14,15, 15;212:17;220:9,11, 22;274:18 perceived (1) 233:1 percent (4) 23:21;69:10,12; 100:25 percentagewise (1) 187:12 perform (10) 24:14;79:21;84:4; 90:12;99:3;124:8; 170:4;204:4;231:17; 248:16 performance (244) 16:19;17:1,13,17; 24:5,14;27:22;33:17; 34:6,18;40:3;49:15, 17,25;50:1,16,25; 51:19,25;52:14,20; 53:18;55:9;56:6;57:1, 10,12,17,20;58:21; 59:11;79:14;80:5,8, 10,18,24,24,25;81:4, 16;82:14,16,16,20,23; 83:5,6,21,22;84:3,6; 87:11;88:4,10,22,23, 25;89:17,21;90:2,6,7, 10,16;91:3,17;92:13, 18;93:18,20;97:16; 100:11;105:18,19; 107:22;114:6,18; 124:25;125:2,8; 128:14,23;129:1,2; 140:9,11;141:1,3,14, 14,17;148:8,8,12,14, 18;149:8,13;150:9,13, 22,23,24;151:11,15, 16,20;159:10;163:17; 164:8,9,13,14,18; 171:13;182:14,15,16, 16;183:4,6;184:2,5,7; 193:20;194:2;210:22, 25;211:20,23;212:4,5, 19,22,23;213:2,16,21, 25;214:6,10,19; 215:13,14,18,23,25; 216:4,8,11,16,20,23, 24;218:4,8,14;219:6; 222:5,15,22,23,24; 223:2,14,18;233:6; 242:6,10,12,14,21,25; 243:1;244:10;245:12; 246:8,16;248:21; 249:4,12;253:10; 256:9,16,21;257:21; 258:7,8,9,10;259:21, 24;260:4,7,15;261:4, 5,6,7;262:5,7,12,13, 23;263:1;264:2,2; 269:7;272:10,13,16, 20;273:1,13,18;274:6, 15;275:23,24;276:1,3, 20;283:3,5;285:10, 18;286:12;288:15; 289:2,3;290:13,15; 293:24;295:6,7,8; 302:2,5,7,17;307:16, 20,24 performed (3) 84:3;116:7;249:6 performer (4) 100:1;105:8; 171:10;289:16 performers (2) 172:11;244:11 performing (20) 61:25;83:5,16;91:3; 96:1,2;98:22;141:6,8, 22,23;151:23;172:9; 178:16;231:13;233:8; 261:8;272:1;288:21; 310:18 performs (1) 255:18 perhaps (9) 7:18;12:10,12;13:2; 35:13,22;67:2;92:1; 285:5 period (34) 41:3;50:22;51:18, 20,22;52:8,15;54:14; 59:16;69:24;71:2; 73:21;86:7;95:6;98:3; 100:4;147:3;152:13; 164:14;168:1;169:3, 12;213:5,23,25; 244:15;246:8;273:14, 15;274:24;275:7,8; 283:6;285:10 periodic (1) 194:9 periods (1) 278:18 perjury (1) 203:6 permanent (22) 74:22;76:3,4;121:8, 10,21;123:10;124:14, 15,21;125:3,4,13; 206:6,17;207:20; 239:15;240:1;253:20, 24;254:8;269:9 permanently (2) 178:23;205:24 person (47) 36:3;39:20;47:17, 17;64:6,14;95:2;98:8, 21;105:2;106:5; 110:19;113:4;127:21; 132:14;138:10; 145:15;167:6;170:11, 25;172:24;174:17; 176:24;177:2;186:3, 4;189:8,9;196:1; 198:7;199:23;207:21; 209:12;227:18;231:4, 9;247:3;255:20; 268:1,23;281:25; 286:6,9;292:9,9,17; 299:7 personal (1) 236:19 personally (6) 17:24;184:16,17, 20;188:10;293:16 personnel (14) 25:22;27:3,11,21; 28:8;157:13,22; 199:1;204:8;207:22; 209:20;239:15; 269:15;292:11 persons (17) 20:20;53:24;84:5; 110:10;112:24; 116:19;117:14; 123:22;128:6;151:11; 224:21;229:8;239:22; 267:5;291:25;292:12; 306:17 perspective (1) 170:10 pertained (1) 281:22 pertains (3) 97:10;184:10; 228:10 Peters (3) 86:21;292:25;293:2 PhD (2) 7:7,14 Phillips (1) 29:10 philosophy (2) 282:18,19 phone (3) 230:19;234:16; 305:3 pick (2) 195:22;304:19 picked (3) 195:23;292:6,8 picture (1) 261:11 piece (2) 56:7;263:7 pieces (2) 13:12;263:9 pinched (2) 71:20,22 place (12) 119:7;148:1;155:1; 174:20;209:12; 253:11,20;257:10; 258:1;267:10;275:2, 14 placed (6) 195:20;207:25; 212:2;216:15;253:17, 22 plan (63) 24:15;27:22;59:11; 80:8,10,18;82:16,20; Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (19) pages - plan Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 98 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 87:11;88:4,10,22,23; 89:1,17,21;90:2; 92:13,18;97:16; 114:6;124:25;125:2, 8;164:8,14;210:25; 212:19,22,23;213:16, 25;214:6,10,19; 215:13,14,18,23; 216:8,11,16,20;218:4, 14,22;219:6;222:23, 23;223:14;245:13; 253:10;273:14; 274:15;275:23,24; 276:1,3;283:3,5; 289:2,3;298:15 planning (2) 98:13;298:10 plans (19) 33:17;210:22; 211:20,23;212:4,5; 213:2,21;215:25; 216:4,17,23,24;218:8, 12;222:24;223:18; 257:21;258:10 play (1) 281:21 please (62) 14:10;21:13,19; 22:22;25:21;29:16, 22;34:1;50:14;55:1; 59:2;62:10;68:7; 69:21;70:17;75:14; 163:13;164:5,10; 192:2,8,11;197:6,7,9; 198:24;202:22; 203:18,21,24;205:12; 211:8;212:1,6,11; 213:13,17;215:8,9,21; 216:1;224:13;238:2; 245:6;252:20;265:18, 24;266:17;273:10,11; 278:12;279:6;280:25; 281:11;297:1;301:7, 9,11;309:1,7,12,14 plus (2) 145:16;156:5 pm (3) 191:20,20;311:22 PMR (5) 187:7,7,10;191:3; 264:8 PMRs (1) 264:4 point (40) 12:14,17;24:24; 35:11;37:10;41:5; 43:14,15;44:7,12; 71:13;72:19;74:3,4,5; 84:23;108:1;111:21; 125:9,14;129:16; 138:23;140:4;146:11; 219:9,9;221:12; 223:23;229:7,21; 234:11;236:7;237:10; 250:13;251:17; 292:13;295:4;297:11; 298:1;310:17 policies (4) 22:8;86:13;112:4; 187:4 policy (29) 21:24;22:7,8;41:23; 46:13;95:3,4;97:18, 23;98:1;99:19; 110:22,23;135:3,4; 154:15;187:6;190:24; 191:1;194:16,20; 212:23;213:1;214:5; 216:9,10,12;274:18; 281:24 political (1) 232:14 poorly (3) 170:4,5,6 portfolio (9) 31:1;36:20;37:4; 41:16;43:19;248:3; 249:7;252:25;257:6 portion (4) 56:1;205:4;211:13; 273:11 pose (1) 12:16 posed (1) 9:5 position (130) 10:6;16:7,10,14; 18:16,17;35:19,23; 36:2,11,17,21;39:3, 14;40:9,15,20;41:7; 42:11;44:23;45:2; 46:1,6,9,10;60:8,10; 79:4,14;82:21;88:15; 89:13;108:1,7; 109:22;112:22; 118:20;119:13; 123:11;124:10;125:6, 7,21;127:16;134:5,11, 13;138:15,19,21,24, 25;139:7,11;140:6; 157:11;160:1;164:8, 13,15,20;174:14,18; 175:2,5;176:11,11; 178:7,24;179:21; 180:10;190:2;192:17, 20;193:8;195:1,2; 202:13;204:2,10,14; 205:20,25;206:1,6,22, 25;207:23;208:4,11; 213:24,24;214:4,7,9; 218:10;225:25;226:3, 14;227:10;236:23; 238:16,19,19;248:7; 249:4;251:6;265:6,7; 266:7,9;269:17; 270:22;271:1,5,9,10; 273:13,15,24;289:4, 10;290:6,7,24,25; 291:1,6,10,10 positions (27) 39:9;46:15;88:14; 108:12;114:2,3; 121:19;122:14;125:3; 134:14;139:12;157:9; 178:6;208:1,7; 210:21,24;212:18; 213:3;214:20;217:5; 228:15;237:2;238:10; 253:10,12;288:23 positive (1) 294:2 possession (1) 66:3 possibility (4) 297:22,24;298:7; 299:7 possible (9) 14:5;26:2;85:4; 171:9,14;209:15; 214:2;246:24;283:24 possibly (2) 141:7;223:19 post (2) 127:17;196:11 Postal (1) 196:18 posted (3) 36:12;40:20;108:8 posting (1) 121:15 potential (2) 160:14;188:16 powers (4) 255:3,4,6,7 practice (1) 154:13 practices (1) 245:16 preceding (2) 16:21;52:16 precipitated (1) 178:4 precluding (1) 184:11 preexisting (1) 72:9 prehearing (1) 8:24 preliminary (1) 15:5 prepared (4) 164:16;183:18,24; 273:16 presence (1) 184:3 present (12) 9:8;49:9;74:11,11, 13;100:17;136:11,17, 22;234:15;267:9; 276:6 presentation (1) 86:14 presented (4) 18:23;107:5; 172:12;304:19 presiding (1) 10:17 presumably (1) 14:5 pretty (6) 39:21;105:6; 156:18;160:16; 250:14;264:9 prevail (1) 18:19 prevent (1) 296:10 preventing (1) 187:19 previous (7) 96:20;151:1; 216:13;257:2;258:1; 264:7;271:19 previously (23) 109:19,25;113:9; 139:11;140:8;158:12; 160:20;189:19; 225:14;226:3,13; 227:3;229:3;234:7; 243:10;257:16;259:4; 270:1;284:10;294:8; 295:9;307:12;308:4 print (1) 64:15 printout (1) 77:19 Prior (63) 16:20;17:2;18:3; 19:4,16;20:21;28:12, 18,20,21;29:2,3; 33:20;34:6,10,18; 41:15;44:25;45:4,6; 46:25;48:15;61:9; 76:12;77:8;120:12; 128:13,14;133:8; 163:6;179:20;192:20; 195:3,16;196:17,22; 199:5;206:4;207:11; 208:7,10;209:17,20; 210:11,17,18;212:9; 252:16,17,21;257:11; 264:24;266:11,12; 267:14;276:3;278:25; 294:9;296:5;297:7; 303:11,15;309:17 private (1) 137:16 privy (4) 132:20;138:7,12; 271:18 Probably (11) 26:3;120:4;129:9, 10;162:7;168:15; 171:19;269:12;280:5; 290:8;292:18 problem (10) 65:15;92:21;94:22; 136:23,24;154:7; 170:1;185:21;256:16, 21 problems (8) 84:13;93:15;94:12; 169:18;171:25;172:8; 251:21;272:18 procedures (2) 60:15;86:12 proceed (13) 11:2;16:1;20:25; 21:16;22:10;33:13; 45:9;127:1;192:4; 213:10;265:20;303:5; 309:9 Proceedings (1) 311:22 process (35) 16:16;20:7,13,22; 31:9,10;110:16; 131:18;132:3;133:9; 141:25;142:20;169:6; 199:13;204:15; 218:17;223:24;226:7, 8;228:16,17;234:7; 236:24;237:12; 242:10;257:4;285:23; 286:2;288:16;292:4, 10;306:18,24;307:13, 18 processes (3) 60:14;152:24;249:9 processing (1) 10:21 procurement (1) 31:9 procurements (1) 30:9 produced (1) 102:17 productivity (2) 60:17;150:2 professional (1) 185:7 professor (1) 161:16 Program (10) 24:3,12;29:6,7,10; 30:5;37:3;86:13; 110:23;238:17 programs (2) 29:13;40:17 progress (1) 85:18 project (22) 32:2;59:15;62:14, 15;83:18;155:13,24; 156:7;161:10,11; Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (20) planning - project Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 99 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 168:4;172:21,25; 242:19;261:12; 272:25;285:21; 295:20,21,22;305:22, 23 projects (69) 39:17,18,19,24,25; 53:4,7,12,22;62:1,2, 19;63:17,21;83:17; 84:13,15,24;85:19,20, 21,25;86:25;106:12; 130:17;142:7,8,13,23; 143:11,19;144:7,16; 145:3,5;148:21,22; 149:1,2;154:23,23; 155:8,19,20,25;156:5, 6;161:12;162:10,12; 165:14,22;166:13; 168:2,8,10;169:8; 261:13;276:23;277:2, 16,19,20;285:25; 289:5;290:9,16; 296:2;302:16 promote (2) 175:14;179:5 promoted (7) 24:7,21;35:23; 119:9,17;121:23; 159:12 promoting (1) 179:10 promotion (7) 24:4,10,16;25:11; 38:8,9,11 promotions (1) 25:8 proposed (1) 288:10 prospectus (1) 305:23 protocol (1) 83:25 prove (1) 18:20 provide (19) 14:6,8;19:21;31:18, 20;40:5;53:25;54:5; 79:22;97:18;130:8; 165:14;203:24;212:7; 226:6;230:23;231:1; 248:11;302:16 provided (11) 36:21;53:1;83:15; 230:16;231:6;233:14; 243:11,16,20;245:14; 277:7 provides (3) 60:18;81:8,19 provisional (5) 74:22,23;75:18,20, 23 provisionally (2) 74:24,25 Public (2) 18:18;31:7 pulled (1) 56:23 purpose (3) 10:13;43:8;47:14 purposes (1) 298:11 pursue (2) 281:8,19 push (1) 296:16 put (25) 45:1;46:13;55:5,13; 59:4,5,6;62:21;68:13, 13,14;85:9;92:2; 126:21;135:5;154:25; 155:17;157:19,19; 170:11;173:10;183:4; 201:1;206:3,8 puts (1) 186:10 putting (1) 151:2 puzzle (2) 263:8,10 Q qual (1) 178:10 qualifications (6) 16:13;23:2;40:25; 41:4,9;128:12 qualified (1) 139:2 qualities (9) 61:6;164:25; 182:19;190:9,18; 204:3;236:4;255:12, 15 quantitative (4) 90:5,13;284:18; 285:14 quarters (1) 189:18 quick (1) 283:25 quickly (2) 34:24;240:23 quite (1) 131:4 R race (25) 10:2;18:13,20;19:3, 4,15;20:14,21;21:19; 68:14;128:17;132:1, 2,13,16,23;133:4; 135:15;138:7;178:7; 192:9;233:22;265:25; 301:9;309:12 racial (6) 234:2;277:25; 278:3;306:22;307:1,7 raise (2) 299:20;300:11 ran (5) 47:13;60:12;166:4; 178:15;254:21 random (1) 263:6 rang (1) 126:19 ranking (1) 176:10 rapport (5) 133:12,13,17,18; 139:19 rate (22) 80:3;82:12,13,15; 85:13;86:5,17;92:7; 97:3,12,19;98:13; 244:21;246:20;274:4, 21,23;282:20,21; 285:9;288:12,24 rated (28) 79:25;83:9;84:5; 86:19,22;90:1;91:2, 19;171:7;175:22; 176:1;244:24;246:8; 274:5;275:3;283:15, 18;287:6,11;288:2; 289:15,18;293:11; 294:22,22;302:7; 308:4,7 rater (1) 252:7 rather (7) 19:10;20:19;144:5; 230:19;232:9;233:17; 311:1 rating (73) 50:22;51:22;52:15; 54:14;59:16;78:18, 19,21;79:2,2,5,22; 82:5,11;85:4;87:5; 91:6,17;92:4,9;93:8, 16;94:23,23;95:6; 96:9,11,22;97:1,2; 98:3,4,10,12;114:17; 159:10;164:14;168:1; 169:3,12;182:6; 185:9,13,16;244:1,6, 7,15;246:2,11,25; 248:22;252:4;273:4, 6,14,15;274:3;275:15, 21;282:18,19;284:16, 24;287:7,13;288:16; 289:7;290:15;294:16; 295:8;296:9;308:8 ratings (16) 78:16;97:10; 128:13;139:20; 248:18;271:19; 286:18;287:2,16,17, 25;288:6,10;294:10, 14;302:8 ratio (1) 291:15 rationale (5) 230:15;243:15; 285:9;306:14;310:22 re (1) 170:21 reached (1) 257:7 reaction (3) 46:22;202:14;276:9 read (25) 11:24;44:12;52:4; 81:3,6,15,16,22; 106:25;124:2;164:5; 197:11;198:19; 203:17,19;205:4; 211:21;213:12,19; 215:21;220:3,4; 235:23;238:2;273:10 reading (1) 9:24 reads (1) 238:12 ready (2) 11:2;153:19 real (10) 30:1;40:22;41:10; 55:10;94:22;124:7; 140:19;142:19; 147:10;220:5 realignment (1) 220:3 realistic (1) 168:19 realization (1) 300:5 realize (4) 7:21;72:14;94:11; 286:22 really (67) 11:12;13:11;18:25; 20:3,15;47:15;48:8; 56:20;71:9;73:17,22, 23;74:9;83:3;99:5,8; 100:25;111:7;127:14; 129:12,22;131:3,4; 132:10;133:21,22; 142:10,12,21;143:18; 152:12;153:23,24; 154:9;155:17;157:21, 21;158:22;160:3,8; 167:24;168:6;169:16; 170:3;172:6;178:10, 12;179:10,12;183:21, 23;186:7,10;187:12; 201:22;227:14;232:5; 237:8;266:23;281:16; 284:17;285:12,14,14; 292:13;295:19;306:4 realty (28) 16:7;24:1,20;25:3; 30:5;35:19;38:23; 39:3,16;40:9;79:7; 88:11,21;89:14; 108:20;124:9;141:11; 142:3;143:7,8;178:3, 8;179:12,14;195:2; 197:16;209:25; 236:18 reannounce (3) 204:13,21;236:22 reason (24) 11:24;20:18;43:4; 83:11,12,12;124:24; 140:21;147:10; 151:25;160:7;165:1; 172:16;180:22; 183:17;184:23; 200:12;201:6;218:7; 253:17;256:23;296:8; 298:2;305:8 reasonable (1) 169:23 reasoning (3) 253:18;298:6,9 reasonings (1) 250:12 reasons (8) 12:6;92:6;203:24; 256:10;263:25; 305:14,17;306:5 reassign (10) 19:5;198:1;199:16; 227:13;267:6;268:2; 270:3,5;296:6;304:17 reassigned (103) 10:5;16:18;17:11, 20,23,25;18:15; 19:18;20:20;34:7; 42:16,18,19;44:3; 45:22;49:5,8,10,14; 59:6;61:5,18;64:1,16; 73:1;78:22;104:21; 105:21,22;106:2; 111:5;119:2,6; 124:12;125:21; 127:22;129:8;130:4; 132:4,14,15,18; 135:19;157:6;164:7, 12;172:4;175:8; 176:24;177:2;195:17; 196:23;198:10;200:6, 8;202:16;203:23,25; 205:18;208:10,14; 210:11,13;229:10; 230:20,24;231:7; 232:19;233:17;248:7; 250:2,4;251:8,10; 253:4,6,19;255:24; 256:6,10,16,24;260:3; 267:23;269:1,3,5,16; 273:12,19;276:7,25; Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (21) projects - reassigned Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 100 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 295:2,12;303:12,24; 304:9;305:13;306:6, 15;307:23,25;310:14 reassigning (5) 61:9;131:2;152:6; 199:2;201:7 reassignment (32) 16:20;34:18;46:21, 22;77:8,17,18; 125:25;129:12; 157:15;159:4;163:19; 182:5;193:15;195:3; 200:17,19;201:1; 202:14;227:12;236:4; 241:4;248:11;250:12, 21;256:22;268:10; 276:10,18;279:1; 305:8;309:18 reassignments (6) 157:14;164:6,12; 229:9;253:3;273:11 rebuttal (1) 56:9 recall (26) 101:11;105:25; 108:10;110:9;112:24; 132:1;194:23;197:1; 200:24;210:6;214:21; 219:2;223:21;226:10; 227:8;230:15;231:5, 8;232:1;240:11; 243:3;245:24;267:19; 277:22;294:21; 310:13 receive (12) 16:9,11;24:15; 79:13;85:4;90:22; 92:18;98:25;193:7; 194:14;216:7;248:23 received (58) 13:3,4;16:9,22,23; 17:4;21:24;22:1,2; 23:17;24:6,6;28:18, 20,22;29:5;33:16; 34:13;43:1;46:3; 49:17;51:3;52:19; 64:7,24;72:9;77:3,8, 17,22;78:20;79:1,5; 80:10;90:17;92:10, 17,21;98:11;100:1,5, 12;105:18;111:19; 112:1;164:22;171:12; 178:6;182:6;195:10; 219:24;221:12;243:3; 278:9;282:10;284:25; 287:18;308:8 receiving (8) 17:11,16;40:9; 76:14;77:18;90:20; 287:20;304:5 recent (2) 155:4;180:14 recently (5) 9:2;74:14;119:9; 235:4;282:4 recess (11) 15:22,24;66:22; 67:3,6;191:16,19; 265:11,12;299:18,19 recognized (2) 105:16;245:17 recollection (2) 107:13;199:7 recommendation (17) 181:10;201:24; 202:1,9,10;229:25; 233:20;234:25; 295:11;297:5,7,10,18; 298:1,4;304:21; 305:11 recommendations (1) 159:22 recommended (2) 29:9;305:12 record (32) 7:2;10:14;15:25; 21:20;50:14;51:3; 67:7;70:17;96:25; 122:12;126:22;192:9, 11;198:25;202:23; 211:7;213:14;214:22; 215:22;240:23;244:7; 265:25;268:23,24; 283:25;284:5;301:7, 9,12;309:12,14; 311:21 records (1) 56:23 red (2) 277:12,14 redirect (3) 252:12;296:19; 308:12 redistribute (2) 204:8;239:14 refer (2) 7:17;72:22 reference (2) 150:8;297:2 referencing (2) 103:18;285:6 referral (5) 207:4,10;226:16; 234:22;253:25 referrals (1) 254:13 referred (3) 7:8;71:5;73:12 referring (5) 78:19;79:15;126:5; 201:11;304:12 reflect (8) 23:1;84:3;85:1; 93:19;100:19;101:15; 107:22;217:2 reflected (3) 51:10;221:18;262:7 reflecting (1) 31:25 reflection (4) 83:21;96:11,15,15 refresh (1) 197:21 refreshing (1) 107:12 refused (1) 298:20 regard (2) 91:18;165:16 regarding (10) 11:11,17,18;81:14; 197:16;227:12;231:6; 245:10;277:5;280:7 regards (4) 40:8;67:22;83:21; 213:2 Region (9) 42:6;86:15;200:10; 222:9;223:3;227:24; 228:1;264:10,13 regional (3) 130:18;222:11; 245:17 regions (2) 157:10;228:18 regular (1) 310:4 regulation (1) 190:24 relate (1) 116:6 related (3) 13:12;17:8,8 relating (1) 306:14 relation (2) 175:23;272:10 relationship (6) 133:25;250:15; 252:17,22;305:18,20 relationships (1) 144:3 relative (7) 149:8;242:25; 262:8,22;263:16; 291:10;307:16 release (1) 188:8 relevance (1) 280:13 relevant (3) 11:9,12;224:21 relocated (2) 29:4;33:21 rely (1) 261:24 remain (12) 46:14;62:24; 109:20;110:11;112:3; 225:19;237:25;238:3, 9;239:8,8;305:12 remained (2) 28:13;110:4 remaining (3) 110:17;238:4,10 remember (8) 78:17;100:22; 132:10;138:13,23; 277:9;279:5;289:9 render (1) 10:17 renovate (1) 30:20 rent (2) 63:2;153:21 repeat (3) 252:20;256:19; 301:24 repeatedly (4) 184:22;185:1,3; 186:17 rephrase (10) 100:20;103:15; 141:13;148:13; 149:12;159:4;161:4; 184:3;288:3;299:1 replace (3) 119:4;263:11;294:6 replaced (4) 118:23;119:1; 208:3,4 replacement (3) 13:5;208:9;294:5 replacing (2) 13:8;272:16 report (18) 9:25;12:20,22;13:6; 37:7;56:2;83:9;87:24; 106:16,20;112:7; 125:15;223:6;235:2; 238:23;241:22;246:9; 291:18 reported (5) 37:14,15;157:4; 229:19;238:22 REPORTER (9) 7:12;21:6;45:11; 81:22;136:7;191:21; 214:25;265:13;309:2 reports (9) 31:23;62:14,15; 83:18;182:25;190:22; 249:9;251:18;262:20 repost (2) 204:14;236:23 representation (1) 203:5 representative (1) 286:4 represented (2) 7:4,6 reprisal (1) 10:3 reputation (3) 16:25;105:7;189:19 request (10) 30:14;75:1,4,5; 173:1;179:25;188:1; 281:8,18;297:8 requested (16) 17:24;66:7,8,10; 76:1;158:6;179:21, 23;180:1;181:18; 184:17;186:13; 280:15;281:13; 297:13,14 requesting (2) 180:4;184:20 requests (6) 62:5;75:25;187:24; 277:2;278:15;282:16 require (2) 210:25;212:18 required (10) 18:24;114:10; 144:2;194:4,10; 242:18;274:17;276:2; 284:19,21 requirement (4) 83:19;98:14;173:3; 285:24 requirements (17) 30:8,8,21,22;31:3, 11;63:3;64:7;84:19; 92:14;167:1,2,8,9; 173:15;194:8;285:16 requires (6) 81:19;82:2;97:18; 164:8,13;273:13 resided (1) 269:4 resigned (1) 237:6 resource (1) 180:18 resources (8) 74:18;110:18,20; 111:2;163:8;218:16; 297:16,16 respect (1) 173:9 respond (6) 58:20;151:5; 233:15;241:16; 250:17;277:9 responded (3) 197:4;242:2;277:11 response (11) 9:5;173:3;204:1; 233:15;243:4,10,16; 245:10;277:7;295:20, 23 responses (2) 277:8,15 responsibilities (6) Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (22) reassigning - responsibilities Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 101 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 114:7;192:25; 254:6;266:19;291:6; 302:10 responsibility (7) 81:14;100:9; 161:24;162:1;220:21; 289:6;291:13 responsible (6) 40:1;81:7;124:7; 266:20;267:1;287:13 responsiveness (1) 81:21 rest (1) 122:23 restate (1) 113:24 rested (1) 268:4 restrictions (1) 225:22 restructuring (9) 113:13;114:1; 219:10;220:10,13,16, 17;237:12;245:2 result (1) 108:12 results (3) 59:7;107:8,17 resume (1) 22:24 retain (2) 21:2,4 retaliation (12) 16:5;18:6,14,22; 67:22;138:4,5; 182:10,12;184:14; 210:7;260:19 retribution (1) 16:5 revealed (1) 171:17 revenue (1) 263:17 review (22) 18:11;27:7;51:25; 55:9;56:7;57:12,20; 59:12,19;98:18,25; 99:2,14;164:22; 187:7;212:6;244:16; 256:4;260:9;274:6; 283:19;284:11 reviewed (2) 67:9;224:25 reviewing (2) 245:23;282:16 reviews (1) 283:22 revised (3) 215:14,24;216:4 rewarded (1) 55:14 Rhodes (12) 41:21,22;46:13; 110:22,23;111:20,25; 135:2;142:17;211:16; 237:23;238:15 Rhodes' (1) 88:15 rid (1) 170:22 ridiculous (1) 168:25 right (145) 9:17,19,22;12:18; 13:25;14:18,23; 15:15;21:15;22:9,17; 27:14;28:5,15;34:15; 35:8;38:3;42:22; 43:24;46:5;47:17; 48:25;49:2;51:4; 57:13;76:2;78:6; 82:13,15;83:11;89:7; 90:13,21;94:6,9; 95:12;96:5,19;98:24; 99:1,12;100:24; 101:2,5,13,20,24; 103:4,15;104:1,5,8, 11,23;105:3;106:5,7, 9,15;109:17,22; 111:17;116:11,21; 117:18;118:5,6,7; 119:15,19;121:25; 123:18;124:10;126:6, 9,12;128:3;131:6,9, 14;132:19;139:8,17, 21,24;140:3,9,10; 144:1,5,9,11,14; 149:14;150:24; 151:16,17;156:22; 157:6;159:13,15; 162:19,21;166:16; 184:5;185:19;188:8, 9;191:10;198:9; 219:11,15;223:23,25; 225:15;228:25;229:5; 232:6;238:24;240:2; 246:21;251:19; 258:12;264:2;277:23; 278:14;279:19; 287:17;288:13; 293:13;294:1,24; 295:2;296:13;300:10, 11,22,24;301:2; 306:15;308:3,3,5,19; 309:25 right-hand (4) 213:18;227:4; 235:12,17 Robert (1) 134:13 ROI (5) 12:22,25;13:10,22; 242:16 role (11) 10:16;87:1;143:3,5, 17;161:12;207:23; 224:24;255:7;262:19; 281:21 roles (4) 114:4,6;157:10; 254:5 room (4) 72:20;150:21; 151:10,14 Rosemary (2) 29:9;179:10 rotate (1) 157:12 rotated (1) 41:2 round (2) 196:6,7 row (1) 100:2 ruin (1) 16:5 ruined (1) 16:25 rule (1) 12:17 ruling (1) 9:10 run (3) 111:9,9;274:13 running (2) 171:23;173:8 Ryan (3) 119:4;121:16; 254:11 S same (84) 12:1;14:3;25:9; 27:12;35:24;37:11, 12,14,15;38:3;39:13, 14;47:21,22,23; 48:25;49:2,4;50:22; 51:22;54:14;81:15; 84:2,2;86:7;88:13,14, 14,15,16;89:7;95:6; 104:5;108:17;110:12; 116:11,12,14,14; 118:16,17,19,22; 120:4,23;121:24; 123:3;124:10,11; 126:2;127:15;135:8, 10,11;141:23;147:1; 157:11;165:16;167:1, 19;174:16,20;175:7, 10;205:21;210:22; 216:17;220:6;223:6; 226:12;236:11; 249:18,22;253:9; 259:3,12;271:12; 282:3;285:1,2; 288:21;289:3,19; 293:21 sat (3) 43:7;47:2;137:5 satisfactory (1) 84:7 satisfied (2) 31:18;32:3 satisfying (1) 84:18 Savannah (1) 305:23 savvy (1) 232:15 saw (5) 44:10,19;85:18; 200:5;221:12 saying (35) 45:14;53:4;61:13; 64:24;65:18;70:25; 74:23;84:8;89:3;93:4; 94:3;95:16;98:17; 116:15;119:2;124:24; 127:3;130:23;133:21; 135:7;145:10;159:10; 165:21;167:15; 172:17,19;188:12; 207:12;274:19;275:2, 3,5,13,16,18 say-so (3) 60:20;165:9;254:20 scale (1) 85:5 schedule (3) 74:15;75:8;311:19 scheduled (1) 71:14 Scholar (2) 24:3,12 school (1) 21:23 Science (1) 72:23 scope (1) 254:5 score (1) 241:20 scores (2) 224:20;249:10 Scott (67) 8:4,21;14:17;16:9; 19:24;28:24;36:19; 40:21;41:8;43:1,6; 45:22;46:21;47:3; 49:22;61:13;80:20; 85:10;88:7;93:5; 104:2,17;118:24,24, 25;119:3;121:16; 134:13,17;135:1,20, 23;136:24;137:6,12; 138:16;139:15; 176:15;178:2;179:20; 196:16;198:2,6; 200:18,22;201:3,18, 19;202:7;215:13; 230:10,12,18;234:24; 238:5;252:18,22; 253:1;254:12,16; 267:11;268:10;269:6; 300:12;301:8,14; 308:16 Scott's (1) 231:8 screen (1) 300:25 seam (1) 142:16 seamless (4) 142:17,20,25; 143:17 season (1) 246:11 seat (3) 21:2,4;309:1 Second (14) 14:14;15:8;45:12; 80:15;105:2;157:25; 196:7;283:25;284:23; 292:19;297:13,14; 298:1,3 second-best (1) 170:22 section (290) 10:5;18:15,16;20:6, 6,8;24:25;25:3;34:8; 36:16,25;37:6,9,11, 13,18,24;38:2,3,8,10, 20;39:7;40:2;46:1,3, 10,14,17;47:20; 48:23;49:3,7,10,12; 60:10,14;78:24; 79:11,18;81:15; 88:12,23,23;89:2,5,8, 22,23;90:1;92:11,12, 19,25;96:1;101:6,8, 11,12;108:3,6,11,21, 22;109:21;110:2,12; 112:22,25;113:10,15, 18,22,23;114:2,4,8, 11,13,16,21;115:6; 117:1,15;118:10,13, 18;119:7,10,19; 120:21;121:6,9,18,20, 21,23;122:9,14,23; 123:3,8,10,24,24; 124:5,17,21,22,25; 125:2,5,11,21;127:7, 7;128:1,7;134:4,11, 14,18,20,20,23; 141:24;142:21; 143:23;150:17,19,23, 23;151:11,13,18,24; 152:8;156:11,21; 161:3,20,25;164:6,20; 166:24;170:19,23; 174:4,7,11;175:1,5; 176:17;182:7,13,14, 20;186:24;187:13; 190:19,21;191:5,5; Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (23) responsibility - section Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 102 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 201:19;204:2,10,16, 18,21,23;205:17; 206:10,24,25;207:8, 13,21;208:1;210:10, 12,14,16,21,24; 211:20,23;212:2,6,9, 18;214:19;215:14,23, 25;216:15,17;217:3; 218:4,9,11,24;219:3, 7,15;220:9,12;222:3; 223:9,24;224:17; 225:19;226:14,20; 227:7,9;229:15,18; 231:13,14,18;236:1, 20;237:1,9,11,24; 238:2,10;239:9,15,19, 23;240:6,7;242:17; 244:17,21;245:13; 249:13,22;251:6; 253:4,8,10,16,24; 254:2,7,9;255:8; 256:7;257:15,19; 266:24,24;268:11; 269:4,8,9,11;270:7, 13,13,15,21;271:5,9, 10;277:17;278:5; 281:15;284:17; 285:19;288:23;289:3; 291:10,15;292:1,8,12, 12;293:7,25;295:25; 298:12;303:22; 307:23;310:6,18; 311:1 sections (10) 32:5;90:12;128:2; 213:3;220:18;221:15; 266:23;269:7;270:14; 292:5 section's (3) 151:15;182:15,16 security (1) 27:24 seeing (5) 22:15;70:2;73:8; 100:22;102:14 seek (1) 281:25 seeking (3) 11:10,16;13:2 seems (4) 9:1;14:2;35:22; 94:12 Seiler (65) 8:3,20;13:7;14:14; 17:19;19:23;33:12; 43:3;46:20;53:1;55:4; 89:3;105:1;121:12; 129:11,17;130:1,24; 135:21,23;136:17; 191:23;192:3,8; 197:6,7,8,12,13,18,24, 25;198:14;201:11; 202:21;203:16; 204:19;211:6,19,22; 212:12;213:12; 214:18;215:8;217:17, 25;235:6,11;247:19; 258:16;261:3;263:24; 267:11,22;268:17,19; 287:24;288:4;295:1; 303:11,21;304:7,13, 14;307:22 Seiler's (1) 43:2 select (1) 121:13 selected (80) 20:9;24:19,25; 36:18;40:21;43:17, 18;46:16;47:21,22; 49:3;106:7;108:12; 109:21;110:2,12; 112:25;114:20;117:1, 15,20,24,25;118:15, 16;120:19;121:6,15; 122:13,19;127:20; 128:7;134:6;138:19, 21,25;139:3,7,10,12, 14;158:13;176:19; 196:2;204:2,10,11; 205:16,24;207:7,16; 210:10,15;218:25; 219:3;223:25;224:17, 21;225:19,25;226:14, 17,24;227:17,19; 229:8,15,16;235:24; 236:3,3;239:22; 247:25;251:6;253:24; 254:12;269:4;270:8; 282:11,11 selectees (2) 227:9,14 selecting (1) 20:19 selection (23) 16:16;20:7;110:1, 16;118:2,4,5;204:15; 210:18;216:8;223:24; 224:9,10,15,16,24; 225:3;226:8;228:16; 236:24;237:5;240:1,9 selections (3) 227:24;234:22; 238:4 selective (1) 226:4 self-assessment (6) 57:19;58:21;59:3,4, 22;245:24 send (4) 30:14;63:17; 229:24;277:4 sending (2) 15:10;46:25 sends (1) 99:21 senior (12) 20:11;29:12;38:23; 39:3,16;79:12;143:7, 8;179:13;266:13; 287:24;293:4 sense (9) 18:3;104:3;118:9, 12;151:22;239:18; 243:24;264:4;275:16 sent (16) 11:7;27:13;52:25; 54:8;55:3;62:11; 63:16;98:2;119:1; 135:2,7,9;136:24; 168:23;169:1;277:10 separate (3) 13:23;65:13;80:23 separately (2) 57:25;58:8 September (5) 185:11;206:25; 207:2,3;274:8 series (1) 263:6 seriously (1) 169:17 serve (2) 10:16;124:5 served (12) 17:3;23:14,15; 24:23;25:2,16;37:21; 40:16;133:16;164:15; 193:22;273:14 Service (11) 18:18;23:21;27:4; 31:24;59:14,14; 103:9;120:3;124:6; 196:18;285:15 service-connected (10) 17:5;23:19,22; 68:16;69:10;70:21; 71:1;217:18;280:3,9 Services (4) 7:3;30:5;31:2,19 serving (6) 36:2,8,10;69:9; 71:22;193:21 set (8) 9:6;96:24;190:11; 191:7;196:6;201:3; 291:14;299:5 sets (3) 60:17;165:6,8 setting (1) 94:4 seven (5) 23:16;235:14,15; 259:6;262:16 Seventy-five (1) 88:3 several (15) 35:23;37:6;71:5; 73:10;105:11;108:10, 11;166:13;172:21; 174:3;188:10;200:11; 211:15;292:16; 293:11 sex (6) 10:2;68:12;192:11; 266:2;301:11;309:14 shall (2) 164:16,17 Shania (1) 7:5 share (2) 74:19;167:23 shared (4) 102:16;166:19; 262:4;294:18 Shaw (1) 166:5 sheet (3) 151:17;166:9;167:7 sheets (1) 261:24 shift (6) 113:13;135:18; 222:2,3;223:22;245:2 shifting (1) 251:5 shortly (1) 278:9 show (27) 18:5,8;19:1;26:12; 55:22;66:22;75:13; 76:20,24;79:16; 80:13;86:4;123:13; 150:8;168:18,20; 197:3;211:5;219:20; 227:1;237:20,21; 240:22;256:2;284:9, 20;296:25 showed (4) 105:6;108:17; 112:21;306:1 showing (5) 25:24;50:17;55:10; 83:15;205:9 shows (11) 34:2;68:8;75:16; 77:1,3;118:3;150:2; 165:23;222:24;227:7; 240:24 shrink (1) 207:18 sic (10) 25:6;47:11,12,13, 14;53:16;93:3; 162:16;167:18;305:9 side (4) 8:25;9:6;30:13; 300:7 sided (2) 27:9,19 sign (1) 297:19 signature (2) 64:24;203:3 signed (6) 41:20,22,25;42:1; 168:23;203:6 significance (3) 174:11;177:9; 286:18 significant (4) 12:3;233:10; 242:18;291:9 signing (2) 143:11,18 silent (2) 126:21,21 Similar (4) 157:4;221:10; 257:23;290:1 similarly (2) 20:5;143:21 simple (1) 16:4 simply (7) 9:5;12:8;94:23; 123:6;153:1;289:15, 24 single (5) 25:23;50:2;53:8; 90:25;161:10 sirens (3) 112:14;148:4; 301:17 sit (2) 95:21;267:7 sitting (15) 53:12,23;62:3;63:1, 21;84:14,24;133:24; 153:22;165:14; 166:15;168:2,5,8; 169:4 situated (1) 20:5 situation (8) 91:15;92:2;94:21; 96:21;99:13;230:13; 277:22;294:17 situations (2) 91:25;170:17 six (5) 29:11;119:7; 180:25;237:8;262:16 Sixty-two (1) 208:16 skill (2) 190:11;191:7 skilled (1) 20:2 skills (21) 16:13;19:13;36:15; 40:18;41:1;105:15; 128:12;178:15; 195:25;201:8,10; 204:3;231:10,12; Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (24) sections - skills Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 103 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 232:2,11;236:5; 255:21;264:15; 270:10;292:14 skip (1) 280:21 slash (1) 238:5 Slightly (3) 259:8,9;300:21 slot (1) 44:11 slow (5) 45:12,16;70:8,17; 164:10 slowly (2) 81:23;300:18 small (1) 162:10 smaller (2) 227:14,16 smoothly (2) 171:24;173:8 SMS (2) 292:21,23 socialized (1) 293:18 softer (1) 232:15 sole (1) 18:11 solid (2) 128:11,12 solid-performing (1) 308:1 solution (1) 170:23 somebody (12) 92:1;111:8;113:4; 118:22;174:19; 177:20;179:4,6; 182:24;190:7;244:13; 307:22 somehow (3) 97:19;157:16;249:4 someone (13) 46:24;79:25;80:3; 106:3;110:16;118:9, 12,21;121:13;147:12; 151:23;207:25; 285:25 Sometimes (7) 30:16,19;31:13; 77:13;133:23;180:13; 188:15 somewhat (2) 141:25;261:16 somewhere (1) 44:10 soon (4) 42:11;71:25;214:1, 2 sorry (32) 7:12;22:14;26:23; 28:2,5;68:11;70:13, 20;76:23;103:15; 164:11,11,11;197:8; 202:14;208:23;209:1, 5;211:6;230:17; 250:3;253:11;254:15; 268:16;275:9;280:4; 281:13;285:20; 289:17;292:24;299:1; 300:20 sort (16) 11:16;13:8;14:6; 128:11;133:11,18; 150:8;162:22;229:8; 238:20;242:20,20; 254:4;264:6;287:23; 305:2 sound (2) 152:25;218:22 South (5) 18:2;32:19;116:8,9; 209:1 space (21) 30:8,9,14,16;31:22; 62:5,24;63:3;121:14; 153:22,22;167:8,10; 172:25;242:24; 261:10,10;263:15; 277:2;278:15;292:24 span (3) 69:24;207:18;254:2 speak (7) 45:13;68:10;98:7; 128:6;262:10;300:17, 18 speaking (1) 269:22 speaks (1) 236:2 special (1) 179:14 specialist (35) 16:7;24:2,20;25:3; 35:19;38:24;39:4,17; 40:9;72:22;79:7,8; 88:11,22;89:14; 108:20;124:9;141:11; 142:3;143:8,8;178:3, 9;179:13,13,13; 195:2;197:17;209:25; 224:14;236:18; 292:19,24;293:4; 296:2 specialists (5) 161:12;201:13; 267:1;272:24;302:13 specific (5) 97:25;154:25; 268:7;277:6;287:3 specifically (5) 148:20;185:4; 267:19;269:23;270:6 specifics (1) 194:7 speed (2) 295:25;296:3 spent (3) 112:10,17;257:1 spinal (3) 72:24;73:12,13 split (3) 145:4,10,20 spoke (4) 230:20;243:17; 248:20;290:16 spoken (2) 184:4;288:5 spread (1) 291:15 spreadsheet (2) 95:25;150:7 spreadsheets (1) 150:1 square (4) 155:25;156:1,1; 266:21 squatting (1) 153:21 SSA (1) 30:18 staff (1) 237:9 stage (2) 8:14,15 stagnated (1) 184:25 stakeholders (3) 31:8;85:23,24 stand (3) 186:9;259:16; 272:10 standard (8) 82:23;83:5;86:11, 16;87:1,5;180:3; 257:16 standards (9) 60:17;81:8;257:9, 11,13,14,18,19;263:5 stands (1) 292:23 start (11) 118:16;186:2; 205:1,21;206:4; 213:24;214:9;271:6, 12,14;301:1 started (32) 32:18;42:21;45:2; 64:15;73:22;92:12, 13;118:17,18,20; 120:25;121:19;123:2; 125:7,8;139:14; 141:10,20;148:18; 152:6;173:23;174:15, 16,17;181:19;185:24; 199:11;236:17; 237:11;294:10,14; 295:14 starting (5) 75:18;77:2;294:6,7; 305:21 starts (2) 211:25;274:12 state (12) 10:7;21:25;22:1; 30:22;239:2;259:18, 19,19;272:12;301:7; 309:12,14 stated (19) 54:17;78:20;83:8; 107:6,15,20,21; 135:20;148:24; 156:15;160:23; 190:20;216:15; 225:17;226:22;242:4; 250:10,19;253:23 statement (4) 12:8;67:24;209:14; 239:7 statements (1) 16:1 states (9) 70:21;125:18; 202:24;213:2;214:8; 215:24;216:20; 245:13;278:23 stateside (4) 23:17;158:8,10,11 stating (6) 71:12;84:6;110:15; 205:17;291:5,8 statistics (1) 91:18 status (2) 69:11;270:9 stay (8) 46:18;111:1;135:8, 10,11;157:20,25; 310:25 stayed (8) 47:10;123:10; 125:7;157:11,12,20; 174:8;175:14 stellar (2) 17:12;47:4 stemmed (1) 172:16 step (1) 230:7 still (39) 38:7,11,17,23;42:4; 43:22;49:15;53:21; 54:2;87:3;92:22;93:5; 97:15;98:21;107:21; 113:21,21;116:13; 118:21;143:10,12,15; 152:15,16;156:2; 168:1;169:1,4,6; 189:20;208:11; 215:18;216:4;217:4; 274:16;275:25;276:2; 289:5;297:20 stipulate (2) 13:2,8 stood (2) 176:2,4 stop (7) 17:11;96:5,19; 99:12;149:14;154:3; 286:17 stopped (2) 16:24;86:8 straight (1) 77:22 strategies (1) 245:15 strengthen (1) 258:6 stress (7) 17:8;71:8,10;72:21; 74:16;160:25;181:21 stressful (14) 54:7;68:17;69:24; 70:5;71:15;155:17; 161:6,13,14,20,22; 249:1,2,7 stressors (5) 17:7;72:11,12,16; 73:3 strict (2) 156:19;258:2 strike (1) 235:2 strikes (1) 169:21 strong (6) 100:1;105:8; 232:13;244:11; 264:13,15 stronger (2) 244:14;269:12 structural (1) 161:18 structure (6) 37:16;145:17; 187:3;220:15;223:13; 254:21 structured (5) 102:22;103:20,21; 153:4,7 struggling (1) 251:13 studies (2) 21:25;22:8 stuff (10) 53:5,9;54:1,4,14; 152:5;168:14;169:2; 187:5;254:4 style (2) 251:25;252:4 subject (15) 43:2;130:23; 136:25;177:7,10,20; Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (25) skip - subject Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 104 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 183:11;200:23;201:1; 211:21;213:15; 215:13,23;220:2; 263:4 submit (2) 108:6;288:10 submitted (15) 56:7,13;57:11,21; 68:18;108:2;109:5; 134:2,4;149:23; 150:1;214:19;241:17, 24;245:25 submitting (1) 243:3 subordinates (1) 154:3 subsequent (2) 125:9;254:13 substance (6) 40:11,13;200:15; 211:18;215:21; 303:14 succeeding (3) 61:23;153:25;259:7 success (1) 305:16 successful (1) 304:2 successfully (1) 160:7 sudden (1) 172:10 suffocated (1) 186:12 suggest (2) 92:8;189:17 suggested (1) 233:16 suggestion (1) 231:8 suggestions (2) 231:6;233:15 suitable (1) 41:6 sum (2) 20:17;77:17 summary (1) 284:18 Sunrise (4) 103:19;114:22; 228:5,11 superior (2) 159:22;193:12 superiors (1) 188:7 supervise (3) 38:17;43:19;193:5 supervised (2) 38:14,16 supervisor (55) 39:21;40:2;41:24; 43:16;45:23;47:3; 50:20;52:25;60:22; 61:8;74:20;91:21,22; 130:13;141:10;143:2, 4,6;152:16;156:24; 157:13,22;160:5; 161:15;172:18; 193:13,14,16,23; 200:10;206:18,18; 207:18,22;209:23; 212:25;218:15; 241:21;246:1,1,20; 248:3;251:12,15; 273:25;281:24;283:7; 291:14;297:18; 302:18;303:20;304:3, 11;307:21;308:2 supervisors (4) 28:23;159:22; 193:11;194:5 supervisor's (1) 222:23 supervisory (28) 16:7;35:19;40:9,18; 54:11;88:11,21; 89:13;108:20;124:8; 141:11;142:3;143:17; 178:3,8;193:7;195:2; 197:16;206:21; 207:23;209:25; 220:20;253:25;254:3, 5;269:15;289:6; 291:13 support (10) 65:17;81:9;116:20; 160:4;193:3;233:19; 238:18;242:13; 245:14;259:25 supporting (4) 71:11;106:23; 107:1,3 supportive (1) 160:5 supports (1) 193:4 supposed (11) 46:18;66:14;92:15; 98:17,19,25;99:14; 167:5;190:23;286:6; 290:2 sure (34) 9:3;11:25;13:20; 31:3,16,17,22,23; 40:1;45:14;59:18; 153:1;183:21,24; 187:4,6,10,13;193:25; 216:2;218:20,21; 240:8;266:23;268:14; 270:2;271:14,15; 277:7,12;284:1; 288:4;301:21;302:21 surgery (1) 71:24 surprise (1) 95:22 survive (1) 231:14 Susan (2) 189:9,12 Susan's (1) 189:10 sustain (3) 269:8,9,12 swear (4) 21:7;191:22; 265:14;309:3 switched (1) 147:2 switching (1) 160:19 sworn (5) 21:11;191:24; 265:16;300:13;309:5 symptoms (1) 72:15 system (4) 212:23;213:16; 216:11;258:17 systematic (1) 179:12 T table (1) 21:3 talk (16) 70:12,13;95:21; 102:20;133:23; 140:18;177:23;183:5, 7,14;184:1;234:6; 244:10;289:12; 307:11,15 talked (8) 129:23;138:6; 153:9;178:11,11; 189:15,16;305:4 talking (26) 65:20;95:18;98:11; 103:3;105:6;112:11, 17;126:3,16;141:13; 163:15,16,19;166:12; 178:13,14;184:7; 186:2;219:14;231:20; 236:13;261:5,7; 280:18;300:2;306:13 talks (1) 286:3 taxpayer (2) 84:20;222:14 teach (2) 232:14,15 team (154) 24:22,22,23;37:9, 10,13,14,17,17,23,25; 38:1,6,7,21;39:1,5,20; 79:11;80:11,19; 82:21;86:9,9,10,12; 100:5,8,9,10,11; 108:10;109:25; 111:16;113:10,14,17, 18,18,22;114:2,7,10, 13,17;119:11,12,20, 22;120:3,5,10,11; 122:5;130:17;134:3, 3,10,10,12,12,18,20; 139:17,23,24;140:12, 25;141:2,5,6,9,12,15, 16,18,18,20,21,22,24; 142:12,19,20;143:5, 16,22,25;144:12,12; 145:2;146:16,19,22, 23;147:6,14,15,17,23; 179:11,14,15;201:12; 204:17;206:25;212:3; 219:14;220:17,19,20, 22;222:3;223:12,13, 16;226:11,20;229:3, 6;231:17,18,22; 242:13;245:3;261:8; 269:12,13,25;286:8; 288:25;289:2,4,4,5,8, 10,11,24;290:7,8,10, 25;291:2,5,9;293:3; 295:9;300:2;302:9, 12,19;306:3;310:5 teams (13) 59:15,15;86:7;87:3, 4;113:15;130:18; 134:9;137:4;161:11; 231:21;234:3;240:25 team's (1) 141:15 technical (7) 57:23;196:7;201:9; 204:3;231:10;236:5; 286:4 technically (1) 302:18 telephone (1) 126:19 telework (3) 71:15;75:3,17 telling (2) 182:25;183:11 temporary (3) 123:23;206:9;208:1 ten (17) 17:3,13;23:15;25:2, 16;36:4;40:15;47:10, 24;48:15,21;66:20; 69:9;104:14;156:5; 207:21;266:25 tenant (4) 41:18,19,25;154:6 tend (2) 189:17;195:12 tender (21) 23:4,7;26:7;34:20; 51:5;55:20;59:24; 64:3,25;68:22;72:2; 76:5;77:24;163:12, 21,24;203:10;212:13; 214:12;217:9;299:21 tendered (1) 214:23 Tennessee (1) 33:5 tenure (4) 25:6;28:17;33:17; 171:25 ten-year (1) 25:6 terms (67) 11:8;12:1;27:25; 29:17;67:12,13;80:3; 82:19;90:10;97:12; 98:10;101:11;105:12; 111:4;128:13;132:3; 141:15;144:4;148:24; 150:22;151:10,15; 162:2;175:23;223:15; 225:12,23;226:6; 227:11;229:24; 230:16,23;231:6; 233:16;237:1;238:20; 242:11;246:20;251:2; 261:4;262:13;268:12, 12,23;269:5;272:4, 23;273:1;278:2,7; 281:6;282:12,18; 284:20;287:2,4; 288:7,12;291:3,8; 293:19,24;294:3; 295:7,11,25;307:24 territorial (1) 60:12 territories (10) 48:10,12,23;116:6; 142:6;145:16;208:20, 25;209:2;269:23 territory (29) 18:3;32:8,25;40:24; 47:19;48:19;54:13; 116:13;142:24;144:9, 20;145:23;146:2; 147:1;154:22;155:5, 7,10,11,12;156:2; 162:12;171:18;172:4, 5;209:13;266:20; 309:20,23 test (1) 70:6 testified (34) 21:12;33:16;99:25; 105:5;109:19;112:6, 10;120:18;130:6; 138:14;140:4,8; 148:7,13;158:12; 160:19;178:2,5; 191:25;199:5;205:19; 219:13;236:2;239:25; 247:20;255:10; 264:24;265:17; 276:16;294:8,25; Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (26) submit - testified Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 105 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 300:15;308:4;309:6 testify (4) 8:14;20:1,11,14 testifying (4) 22:22,24;104:13; 218:2 testimony (39) 9:9;11:8,18;17:10, 18,21;18:1,4;19:8,12, 19;20:5,25;28:12; 48:22;52:7;61:4; 76:13;78:17;90:23; 131:8;136:20;151:2; 163:6;174:22;180:13; 184:11;186:25; 207:11;239:17;256:5, 7;268:21;270:11; 271:10;272:2;287:5; 297:6;300:9 Thanks (2) 26:20;212:1 theory (1) 161:16 therapy (1) 71:8 thereafter (1) 278:9 therefore (2) 92:3,6 Thereupon (39) 15:24;21:8;22:18; 25:17;33:22;50:6; 54:22;58:23;62:6; 67:6;68:3;69:17; 75:10;76:17;87:6; 100:14;108:23; 126:24;163:9;191:19; 198:15;202:18;205:6; 211:2;213:8;215:3,5; 219:17;221:7;224:2; 237:17;240:19;243:6; 265:12;282:23;284:2; 296:21;299:19; 308:21 thinking (4) 15:8;201:23; 245:15;292:7 Third (2) 14:14;198:7 Thompson (4) 113:3;115:3; 122:16;228:11 though (15) 43:23;50:3;74:19; 75:5;83:12;139:1,6; 144:15;152:21; 173:13;177:5;185:3; 284:14;297:17; 298:19 thought (18) 20:3;44:10;84:1; 85:9;126:21;144:7; 158:18,20,22;170:3, 17;171:10,15;230:24; 275:12;292:4,10; 305:3 three (89) 23:16;39:7,9;47:2; 50:1,3,18;51:16,21; 52:11;53:5,17;54:13; 55:15;59:20;71:15; 74:15,24;75:2;77:14, 21;80:4;81:16,20,24; 82:11,19,22;83:4,9; 84:6,10,11,14;86:10; 92:3;95:23;97:13,20; 99:7;113:14,15; 115:6;116:25;117:14; 137:2,17;146:24; 169:6;176:21;185:14, 17,18;186:3,3;205:16, 21;220:18,24;227:16; 228:24;243:3,19,23, 25;244:2,6,9,12; 246:6;247:4;260:8, 11,14;262:15;264:7; 271:20,21,24;279:14, 19;283:18;284:25; 285:9,17;286:15; 293:12;296:9;305:4 threes (4) 16:24;246:14; 287:25;288:8 throughout (6) 20:13;31:10;57:15; 77:5;87:2;244:15 tie (1) 90:6 tied (3) 91:16;96:22;249:5 timely (1) 263:17 times (2) 157:9;190:5 timing (2) 218:3;240:11 Tina (1) 110:21 title (2) 266:15,16 titles (1) 29:19 TKO (2) 212:8;285:22 today (6) 18:8,11;175:17; 184:16;186:18; 269:19 told (30) 16:11;48:1;60:12; 106:1,3;107:15,19; 126:7;131:19;132:20; 133:1;135:12;138:10; 155:1,7,15;156:7; 160:2;180:20;181:4; 184:21;185:3,5,6; 186:17;202:15; 217:17;234:18; 254:25;294:21 took (8) 36:24;148:1; 173:19;200:13;218:7, 19;230:12;267:10 top (11) 89:10;101:12; 103:8;104:2,25; 116:4;194:22;207:9; 227:4;244:18;263:18 total (2) 113:6;217:2 totally (8) 54:15,15;55:15,15; 63:11;126:20;160:9; 184:25 touched (1) 208:19 towards (2) 8:7;195:12 track (3) 261:25;272:13; 279:9 tracked (5) 223:2;242:12,21; 262:18;286:8 tracker (2) 278:14;279:9 tracking (3) 167:7;168:3;261:23 tracks (2) 242:14;285:25 trained (2) 86:14;190:25 training (6) 193:7;194:6,9,12, 14;293:8 traits (1) 80:23 transaction (1) 81:18 transactions (2) 82:1;124:8 transfer (18) 18:4;25:10,15;26:1; 43:24;44:20;61:16; 93:14;94:2,15,22; 107:6;112:6;118:14; 137:14,18;174:14; 177:25 transferred (32) 25:15;28:14,15; 42:12;49:20;61:5; 63:19;68:15;73:16; 77:6;93:2;94:3;107:4, 15;121:18;123:4; 126:10;136:15,16; 137:10;138:12; 147:22;154:23; 164:25;165:1;173:17; 182:12;199:6;267:23; 268:20;277:16; 304:22 transferring (2) 61:14;126:8 transfers (1) 25:8 transition (3) 142:15;143:22; 204:17 transitioned (1) 142:25 traumatic (2) 72:25;73:2 Treat (3) 131:11,12,14 treated (2) 20:12;48:7 treatment (3) 48:8;131:14;137:25 tried (1) 154:19 trigger (1) 30:15 triggered (2) 17:7;72:10 triggering (1) 73:22 triggers (1) 17:9 trouble (1) 45:13 Troy (1) 22:1 true (11) 7:22;83:7;96:11,15; 114:21;139:22;140:3; 206:2;222:4;254:7; 265:3 truly (3) 9:4;302:25;303:5 try (11) 70:7;136:7,8; 167:19;170:24;171:2, 5;228:7;300:17,18; 302:25 trying (13) 12:14;53:10,10; 100:10;141:2;170:12; 172:23;188:21; 232:14;251:14;272:7; 278:6;300:4 turn (11) 106:16;126:20; 191:8;197:6,9; 213:17;235:11,21; 241:22;290:22; 291:17 turning (1) 281:16 turnkey (2) 31:25;285:23 turns (1) 298:8 tweak (2) 216:25;258:9 tweaks (1) 212:5 two (95) 14:24;16:17;24:7, 19;36:20;40:20; 44:22,25;50:1,2,19, 21;51:12;52:13,14; 53:5,13;54:2,11;62:2, 16;64:13,14,16;74:22, 23;75:21;77:22;80:4; 83:17;84:14;91:10; 93:8,19;95:18,24; 97:13;98:9;112:13; 113:15,17;114:21,24, 25;117:1;128:2,6; 131:22;135:22; 136:14;146:24; 152:16;153:10;156:6; 165:15;166:14;169:1; 170:4;173:4,21; 175:10;194:6;201:19; 204:9;206:16;220:11; 227:19,21,22;228:10, 23;229:14,17;231:21; 248:4;259:2,5; 261:24;262:14; 266:23,24;269:4; 270:14;278:6,9,25; 279:23;281:20; 284:17;285:12,17; 286:12;292:4;303:22; 305:17 twos (2) 288:1,8 type (9) 29:20;61:15;86:17; 152:14;163:18; 184:17;196:3;258:17; 298:11 typed (1) 224:9 typically (7) 89:5;95:2,5;178:25; 179:1,9;183:14 U Uh-uh (3) 153:3;169:25;210:9 ultimate (1) 250:25 ultimately (2) 111:3;250:22 unacceptable (1) 63:12 under (60) 24:2,12;25:2;30:6; 33:11;45:3;53:25; 59:11;60:7,9,10;64:8; 80:19;88:5,7;104:6, 22;106:23;111:7,15, Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (27) testify - under Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 106 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 17;112:25;113:2,2; 124:25;125:2,7; 134:16;139:15,20; 145:13,17,20,22,22, 25;146:3,4,6,14; 152:7,16;165:4; 180:2,3;188:19,25; 193:21,22;203:6; 226:11;238:3;242:15, 17;243:1;254:18; 255:16;262:17;281:7; 302:7 undergraduate (1) 21:24 underneath (1) 255:22 underperforming (1) 286:13 Understandable (1) 303:7 unfair (6) 53:15;54:15;96:4; 137:24,25;157:18 unique (1) 303:6 unit (4) 91:17;94:4;277:25; 289:20 University (3) 21:25;22:1,3 unjust (1) 54:16 unjustly (1) 93:23 unlimited (3) 143:9;162:14;293:4 unprofessional (4) 131:6,9;137:20,25 unusual (2) 81:18;82:1 up (61) 13:19,24;15:1,5,18; 21:1;38:1;47:18;48:2; 54:2,7;68:10;72:22; 75:7;86:13;94:4; 111:12,13;121:11,15; 123:25;125:13; 131:19;135:5;138:23; 140:24;145:4,20; 164:19;168:14; 179:11;186:13; 188:12;189:19;201:4; 207:11;209:6;212:6; 216:25;224:9;230:17; 233:22;250:13; 255:20;272:25;273:3; 276:22;277:3;285:17, 19;291:14;292:5; 294:17;295:20,25; 296:3;299:6;300:17; 303:21;305:15,21 update (1) 83:18 updated (3) 215:24;274:16; 275:24 updates (1) 62:19 upon (5) 153:12,13;261:24; 268:4;285:18 upset (4) 130:7;158:13; 202:17;250:20 upward (1) 184:25 urge (1) 302:24 urgent (1) 74:21 use (11) 66:19;67:10;80:2,6; 81:17;89:7;91:10; 155:4;255:20;285:9; 286:9 used (13) 29:19;32:16,16,17, 19;89:5;144:19,20; 150:13;251:16; 258:18;279:9;293:20 using (1) 84:20 usually (2) 77:9;284:18 utilizing (1) 222:13 V VA (2) 70:24;73:11 vacancy (2) 197:17;206:6 vacant (9) 44:11,22;121:14; 140:6;205:17;234:22; 242:23;261:10; 263:15 valid (4) 92:6;101:1;107:23; 140:19 variable (1) 106:13 variance (1) 263:17 varies (1) 262:25 variety (2) 12:5;124:8 various (3) 77:5;221:15,16 verbally (1) 183:8 verifiable (6) 81:12,13,13,20,25; 84:10 verified (1) 84:12 verify (3) 101:18,21;176:8 version (6) 56:4;87:10,10; 109:7;241:5;285:5 versus (18) 7:3;80:24;232:5; 233:7;242:7,7,7; 243:25,25;288:8,8,8, 8;298:17;306:19,19, 23,23 vet (3) 17:5;23:22;69:10 veteran (3) 69:12,13;70:23 Veterans (1) 70:24 via (3) 267:20;300:14,15 videoteleconference (2) 300:14,15 view (1) 168:19 visited (1) 293:18 voice (1) 300:16 voiced (2) 9:2;155:14 voir (1) 56:18 W Wait (8) 115:23;139:5; 144:22;145:24; 147:17;148:3;200:6; 301:20 waiting (1) 226:16 walk (2) 43:6;130:24 walked (8) 43:7;44:9;61:12; 135:24,25;136:2,6; 137:5 Walker (26) 8:4,22;14:16;113:2; 115:8;117:16,20; 122:16;128:8,18,24, 25;131:23;133:4,8, 19;134:1;228:24; 229:5;231:23;233:18; 238:5;270:25;295:5, 8;306:23 Walker's (2) 232:2;306:19 walks (3) 130:24;137:6,7 Wanda (16) 118:14;119:3; 121:15;122:20,22; 125:5;134:11;174:10, 23;175:15;206:11,20; 207:7;253:22;254:12; 270:18 wants (2) 12:9;300:8 warn (3) 61:8;209:16,19 warning (1) 95:10 warrant (17) 41:9,11,13,19;42:1, 4,8,9;143:9,13; 162:14,16,17;196:17; 226:1,1;293:5 Warrior (1) 189:8 Washington (2) 29:12;86:10 water (1) 94:20 way (35) 7:16,22;14:7;25:25; 32:18;54:9;60:18,19; 63:18;77:2;93:21; 98:15;103:17;131:1, 6,9,14;152:22;153:4, 4,6;159:8;168:6; 170:2;172:8;232:15; 238:12;249:18; 255:18;274:4;293:9; 294:19;300:5;305:11; 307:19 ways (1) 290:1 week (8) 74:16,25;168:15; 180:19;249:8;282:10; 297:4;298:22 weekend (2) 311:9,11 weeks (2) 62:16;75:21 weigh (1) 285:12 weighed (2) 269:7;290:14 weight (1) 304:25 welcome (1) 280:1 welcoming (2) 276:13;291:21 weren't (1) 130:7 what's (20) 22:21;50:9;53:11; 54:25;59:1;68:6; 69:20;75:13;76:20, 24;90:2;163:12; 168:21;182:4;202:21; 205:10;256:2;284:9, 19;296:25 whereas (1) 291:14 white (5) 19:23,25;128:19; 133:5;278:9 whole (21) 31:10;57:15;66:22, 25;70:2;86:13,15; 96:2,16;142:14; 147:1;151:13;152:1; 156:2;162:11;172:3; 182:9;186:5;187:5, 16;256:8 who's (3) 33:6;151:23;218:13 whose (1) 203:1 Williams (5) 104:6;145:13; 146:4,7;238:6 willing (2) 190:7;231:4 window (1) 274:25 wisely (1) 84:20 withdraw (1) 257:17 Within (25) 24:4,21;25:9;50:2, 22;52:14;54:14; 101:10;124:6;146:18; 162:1;164:13;196:19; 214:3,6,10;216:8; 233:6;240:25;246:23; 255:9;273:13;285:20; 286:7,10 without (8) 58:11;129:12; 165:4;182:25;183:11; 231:17;269:9;270:6 witness (241) 8:5;9:7;14:3,7,7; 21:7,14;22:7;24:11; 26:5,12;27:12,15; 28:1,3,6;30:2,4;32:6, 10,13,24;33:3,8;36:1, 7;37:1,3,8,21,25;38:7, 16,22;39:2;43:15,22; 44:1,5,8,13,15;45:6, 18;52:1;56:19,21; 57:4,8,14,22;58:9; 64:5,13,23;65:15; 66:9,12;70:9,12; 71:20;78:4;81:24; 87:18,20;89:6;91:7,9, 12,14,20;92:9;93:12, 17,25;94:6,9,16,19; 95:1,9,12,14;96:6,10, 14;97:4,6,23;98:1,19; 99:15;117:9,12,21; Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (28) undergraduate - witness Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 107 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 118:24;119:11,15,19, 22,25;120:4,8;121:7, 10,25;122:3,6,25; 123:2,7,9;126:20; 127:2;128:19;135:16; 144:24;145:1,9,12; 146:1,3,6,10,13,17,19, 23;147:2,7,9,13,19, 21;148:2;149:18,21, 25;150:5;152:22,24; 153:3,8,17;154:7,20; 155:3;159:13,15,18, 21;165:18;166:1,21; 167:15,18,21;169:11, 19,25;170:13,15; 171:1,6,12,16;172:1, 14;173:12,15,20; 175:21,24;176:3; 185:12,14,17,23; 188:6,9;189:4,7,21; 191:22;192:3;195:10, 14,21,24;196:5,11; 201:17;202:2;228:1, 4,7;233:2,4,9;244:18; 256:18,23;257:3,12, 21,23;258:5;261:19; 263:9,15,20;265:14, 19;272:12,20,22; 273:6;274:12;278:2, 5;281:2;289:9,17,21; 290:4,7,14;300:11; 301:24;303:5,19; 304:14,23;308:18,23, 25;309:3,8;310:1,5; 311:8 witness' (1) 13:13 witnesses (12) 8:1,11;9:1,12,15; 10:16;14:5,8,12,25; 15:11;311:16 wondering (1) 169:15 word (1) 251:15 words (1) 242:17 work (75) 17:8;29:17,20,24; 30:4,12;39:17;40:1; 53:10,16,19;70:4,5; 71:14,14,16;73:15,24; 74:15,17,24;75:2,8; 85:21;86:3,4;101:16; 104:21;106:4;111:4; 116:9,15,19;118:10, 12;120:19;123:23; 127:20;129:3;130:17; 143:12;144:2,20; 149:11;150:18,19,20; 155:20;156:7,11; 160:13;161:5;172:1, 6;179:21;180:1; 181:3,13,19;185:25; 186:4,5;188:5;190:7, 9,11;192:24;232:18; 251:2;254:18;269:14; 281:16;294:10; 302:15,20 worked (48) 17:14;18:2;29:12; 40:22,23;45:7;47:18; 48:9,15,17,18,19,23; 53:24;80:19;88:5; 104:14;106:11; 128:25;129:1,2,4; 133:20,22,22;139:22, 25;140:2;142:21; 144:6,15;145:22,25; 146:3,6;155:25; 188:13,14;192:21; 196:11;208:20,22,24; 209:9;251:7;269:23; 289:5;309:19 worker (1) 184:18 working (55) 28:19;36:19;41:15, 16;47:24;53:6;62:17; 74:15;92:12,14; 117:2,20;120:12,25; 133:14;139:15;140:1; 141:1;142:4,8,13; 143:9,11,16,18,24; 148:18;155:21,23,24; 161:10;171:20; 181:14,20;186:23,24; 190:4,18;205:1; 225:18;231:11;232:9; 236:17;250:15; 252:17,17,21;272:23; 273:1;274:20;281:7; 294:14;295:15; 305:18,20 workload (2) 75:6;290:1 workloads (1) 173:9 workmanship (1) 48:4 works (6) 42:5,6;81:17,25; 155:13;188:15 world (1) 172:25 worse (3) 72:15;160:25;233:8 worsened (1) 71:2 worst (4) 149:19,21;150:3; 259:10 write (5) 40:3,4;157:23; 273:2;276:22 writing (5) 46:13;55:13;68:1; 109:24;110:18 written (1) 140:17 wrong (4) 79:17;82:10,13; 153:6 wrote (4) 53:14;224:11,16; 238:13 Y year (63) 12:21;24:5,6,15,21; 25:23;34:13;49:25; 50:2,2,3,18;52:16,21; 55:11;56:11,25; 57:15;59:4;62:19; 90:25;95:22;96:2,17; 97:2;98:12;130:18; 162:6;166:14;168:11; 169:2;182:7;185:10; 187:11;191:4;207:2; 217:1,1;236:10,11,14; 246:25;247:1,4,4,6; 248:8;254:16;257:10; 258:1,9,11;260:16; 264:7;273:7;275:10; 279:3;284:21,24; 285:24;288:18,20; 308:9 years (75) 16:21;17:3,13; 23:16,16,16;24:7,19, 23;25:2,16;29:11; 34:11;36:5,20;40:15; 44:17,21,22,25;47:10, 24,25;48:4,5,16,21; 51:11;52:18;53:5,13; 54:2,11;62:2;63:13; 64:14,16;69:9;73:25; 77:1,5,22;78:21; 79:13;80:9;82:8; 83:17;84:14;85:9; 86:10,22;90:22; 93:19;100:2;104:14; 119:23;146:24; 151:20;152:17;161:2; 165:15;166:8,14; 170:5;171:5;173:4, 21;194:6;264:6,8; 278:25;283:16;288:7; 293:12,21 yesterday (4) 11:8;180:17,19,20 York (2) 168:16;305:1 you-all (1) 27:13 younger (1) 306:4 1 1 (7) 9:24;22:22;87:16; 125:15;235:18; 274:13;275:9 1,050 (2) 77:23,23 1/15/2012 (1) 59:6 1:30 (1) 191:17 1:32 (1) 191:20 10 (3) 34:5;278:18;283:11 10/1/2011 (1) 59:5 100 (3) 12:25;100:25; 278:22 107 (1) 13:1 11 (9) 24:9;34:5;75:17; 87:21;198:12;235:12, 14,19;278:18 11/6 (1) 209:20 11/6/2011 (1) 198:23 11/8 (1) 52:5 110405525 (1) 197:17 12 (3) 24:9;143:10;291:19 12/30 (1) 213:19 12:25 (1) 191:20 120 (6) 164:15,20;273:15; 274:12;275:12,14 120-day (2) 274:25;275:1 12s (3) 143:11;155:10,20 13 (18) 39:3,9;79:3,12,13; 90:22;141:10;143:7, 10,10,15;155:6,7; 156:3;188:3,13; 197:5;225:24 133 (1) 290:23 13s (5) 38:17,18,19,22,24 13th (1) 16:6 14 (16) 11:19;18:12;46:20; 51:11;89:14;125:20; 188:20;189:1;190:5; 200:7,14;209:17; 216:16;267:14,17; 309:17 14th (4) 10:4;11:15;197:19; 199:9 15 (5) 66:20;75:18;107:4; 212:6,10 15s (1) 189:1 16 (11) 42:19;49:21;50:5; 118:14;174:12;205:2, 22;206:4;208:7; 253:9;271:5 17 (2) 215:2,2 18 (7) 203:17,17;207:20; 235:13,21,23;239:13 1987 (1) 266:6 1st (2) 274:5,5 2 2 (10) 26:7;43:3,5;102:4; 137:3,5;213:20; 221:18;245:13,21 2/13/1989 (1) 192:16 20 (2) 207:20;287:14 200,000 (1) 156:1 2001 (6) 24:1;25:12,25;27:4; 28:13;179:4 2006 (2) 34:4,11 2007 (2) 34:4;77:2 2009 (2) 34:5;278:19 2010 (6) 34:5;63:18,19; 65:19;172:19;241:3 2011 (49) 10:3,4;11:15,20; 16:6,14,18;18:7,12; 27:5;28:13;34:12; 40:8;42:24;46:4,20; 49:9;50:17;51:11; 52:20;56:11;87:13; 88:5;89:15;92:20; 125:20,25;177:4; 178:4;182:7;194:25; 195:13;197:19;200:6, Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (29) witness' - 2011 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 108 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 1 January 30, 2015 7,14;207:3;209:17, 20;216:16;236:7,17; 237:12;267:11,14,17; 274:5;275:9;309:17 2012 (42) 28:14,16;29:4; 42:19;49:21,21;50:5, 17,17;52:5,21;56:11; 63:20;64:17;67:23; 93:1;100:20;101:1, 13;102:13;107:4; 125:25;126:14; 148:19;172:20; 174:12;198:12;205:2, 22;206:4;208:7; 210:8;215:16,18; 227:5;253:9;257:10; 271:5;272:9;274:6; 275:11;291:19 2013 (6) 50:17;51:11,12; 185:11;197:20; 243:14 2014 (2) 185:16;197:5 2015 (2) 49:9;237:15 22 (2) 40:7;178:4 22nd (6) 10:3;16:14;18:6; 67:23;194:24;210:8 25 (1) 46:4 25th (1) 243:14 26 (1) 197:9 26th (2) 25:12;75:20 27th (1) 241:3 3 3 (3) 109:13;245:11; 286:22 3.9 (1) 22:4 30 (15) 14:21;23:21;69:10, 12;92:15,18;173:2; 214:3,6,10;216:8; 237:5;287:15,15,17 30-day (1) 75:17 31 (1) 217:1 3rd (1) 101:13 4 4 (13) 42:6;55:18;203:18; 219:21;221:2;222:9; 223:3;227:24;228:1; 235:11;264:10,13; 284:11 4:09 (1) 311:22 40 (3) 287:15,15,17 400,000 (1) 156:1 46 (2) 266:22,22 46,000 (1) 155:25 4PR1 (1) 103:22 4PR1A (1) 103:8 5 5 (1) 221:22 52 (1) 199:13 6 6 (6) 16:18;176:1;200:6; 215:16,17;225:6 60 (2) 204:14;236:23 7 7 (2) 197:20;240:14 72 (2) 291:17,18 75 (1) 87:25 8 8 (2) 34:4;241:10 81 (1) 30:14 85 (4) 56:3;106:17;107:3; 241:23 86 (1) 242:16 88 (1) 266:6 9 9 (2) 243:10;247:11 90 (6) 124:3;125:1; 204:13,14;236:22,23 90-day (1) 124:20 Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (30) 2012 - 90-day Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 109 of 140 In The Matter Of: King v. Tangherlini Proceedings Vol. 2 February 5, 2015 D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. Court Reporters & Videoconferencing 11475 West Rd, Roswell, GA 30075 (770) 645-6111 or toll-free (888) 355-6111 Min-U-Script® with Word Index Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 110 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 2 February 5, 2015 Page 313 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ATLANTA DISTRICT OFFICE KAREN KING, ) EEOC HEARING NUMBER ) 410-2014-0056X Complainant, ) ) vs. ) ) DAN M. TANGHERLINI, ) ADMINISTRATOR, ) AGENCY NUMBER GENERAL SERVICES ) 12-R04-PBS-KMK-01 ADMINISTRATION, ) ) Agency. ) Volume II ___________________________) Pages 313-349 The above-entitled case came on for hearing before the Honorable Timothy G. Hagan and was reported via teleconference by Thomas R. Brezina, Certified Court Reporter, at 100 Alabama Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia, on the 5th day of February, 2015, resuming at the hour of 1:36 p.m. * * * D'AMICO GERSHWIN, INC. Court Reporters & Videoconferencing 11475 West Road Roswell, Georgia 30075 (770) 645-6111 www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com Page 314 1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL: 2 On behalf of the Complainant: (present via teleconference) 3 SHANIA CHERELL KING 4 Attorney at Law 2180 Satellite Boulevard 5 Suite 400 Duluth, Georgia 30097 6 (678) 793-7975 shaniacking@gmail.com 7 8 On behalf of the Agency: (present via teleconference) 9 JARON E. CHRISS 10 Attorney at Law Assistant Regional Counsel 11 Office of Regional Counsel (4L) U.S. General Services Administration 12 GSA Region 4 Southeast Sunbelt Region 13 77 Forsyth Street, SW Suite 600 14 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 (404) 331-7910 15 fax: (404) 331-1231 jaron.chriss@gsa.gov 16 17 Also Present (via teleconference): Karen King, Ph.D. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 315 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 THE COURT: Let's go back on the record in the case 3 of King versus General Services Administration. This is 4 the date and time set down for the rendering of closing 5 arguments and the bench decision. The complainant is 6 represented by Miss Shania King. The agency is 7 represented by Mr. Jaron Chriss. Ms. King, are you ready 8 to proceed? 9 MS. KING: Yes, Your Honor, I am. 10 THE COURT: And, Mr. Chriss, how about you? 11 MR. CHRISS: Yes, Your Honor. 12 THE COURT: Okay. We'll then proceed to the closing 13 arguments, and I will have the agency go first. 14 MR. CHRISS: Good afternoon, Your Honor and Attorney 15 King and Ms. King. The sole matter for review in this 16 case was whether on December 14, 2011, the complainant was 17 discriminated against based on race, gender, or EEO 18 retaliation when she learned that she was going to be 19 reassigned from Branch B to Branch D, GS-13 positions as a 20 section chief in the Public Buildings Service leasing 21 division. 22 For complainant to prevail she would have had to have 23 proved the basic elements of race discrimination, gender 24 discrimination, or EEO retaliation had been met, but the 25 evidence that was presented during the hearing in the Page 316 1 report of investigation and through witness testimony has 2 demonstrated that the facts required to meet those 3 elements, you know, are just nonexistent in this case. 4 The evidence has indicated that the agency did not 5 discriminate against Mrs. King's fellow -- management 6 official based on race, gender, or her prior EEO activity. 7 Race was not a factor in management's decision to reassign 8 Ms. King to Branch D. I don't believe that complainant 9 through her witness testimony, presented any real evidence 10 to indicate that race had anything to do with management's 11 reassignment decision. 12 And you heard testimony from GSA management 13 officials, including Mr. Mowry, the Branch B branch chief 14 who had been Ms. King's supervisor; Miss Seiler, the 15 leasing division deputy director; and Miss Glover, the 16 Branch D branch chief who would have been Ms. King's 17 supervisor after the reassignment. 18 Those are the three persons who provided input into 19 the reassignment decision, and you heard testimony from 20 each of them that race had nothing to do with management's 21 decision to reassign King to Branch D. Gender was not a 22 factor in management's decision to reassign Ms. King to 23 Branch D. 24 Again, I do not believe that the complainant through 25 her witness testimony presented any evidence to indicate Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (1) Pages 313 - 316 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 111 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 2 February 5, 2015 Page 317 1 that gender had anything to do with management's 2 reassignment decision, and again you heard testimony from 3 Miss Seiler, Mr. Mowry, and Miss Glover that gender had 4 nothing to do with their decision. 5 After all, they were deciding who to reassign between 6 three females who had been selected to be section chief in 7 Atlanta, Georgia. They were trying to decide whether to 8 reassign Maria Dent, Felicia Walker, or Ms. King to Branch 9 D. Thus, gender really had nothing to do with 10 management's decision making process. 11 Finally, EEO history was not a factor in management's 12 decision to assign Ms. King to Branch D. You heard 13 testimony from GSA management officials that most of the 14 key management decision makers either lacked any knowledge 15 that Ms. King had engaged in any prior EEO activity before 16 they made their decision in 2011 to reassign her to Branch 17 D, and to the extent that there was any evidence -- 18 THE COURT: And be a little more specific. Who is 19 it that knew about it, and who did not? 20 MR. CHRISS: Well, Your Honor -- 21 THE COURT: Did Mr. Mowry know? 22 MR. CHRISS: Mr. Mowry -- I don't believe that Mr. 23 Mowry knew in terms of the testimony that was presented. 24 I believe that Miss Seiler did know that she engaged in 25 prior EEO activity, and Miss Glover did not know that she Page 318 1 had engaged in prior EEO activity, and to the -- 2 THE COURT: And also as long as I have interrupted 3 you, please refresh my recollection as to how they went 4 about -- before they decided between Dent and the 5 complainant as to going from B to D. If I remember it, 6 there were four slots that had to be filled; correct? 7 MR. CHRISS: Yeah. Let me just clarify that. There 8 were a total of five persons who were selected to be 9 section chiefs as a result of the first announcement that 10 PBS leasing Region 4 had for -- 11 THE COURT: And then how many of those were down in 12 Florida? Did that include the people in Florida? 13 MR. CHRISS: The five actually includes persons in 14 Florida. Two of the five persons selected were in the 15 Sunrise, Florida, office. 16 THE COURT: Okay. 17 MR. CHRISS: And those two persons were slotted and 18 were basically interested in the two Sunrise, Florida, 19 positions, which left three section chiefs who were 20 selected for Atlanta, Georgia, positions: Felicia Walker, 21 female who had worked in Branch C; Maria Dent, a female 22 who had worked in Branch B; and Ms. Karen King, a female, 23 obviously, who worked in Branch B as well. 24 THE COURT: Now, did the three -- there also was a 25 Branch A. Was that in Florida or -- Page 319 1 MR. CHRISS: Correct. 2 THE COURT: -- in Georgia? 3 MR. CHRISS: Branch A was the branch in Sunrise, 4 Florida. 5 THE COURT: Oh, it was one branch in Sunrise, 6 Florida? 7 MR. CHRISS: That's correct. 8 THE COURT: Then three branches in Atlanta? 9 MR. CHRISS: That's right. 10 THE COURT: Okay. You can continue. 11 MR. CHRISS: So to the extent that there was any 12 evidence of discrimination presented by Ms. King as it 13 pertains to race, gender, or EEO retaliation, the agency 14 had a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for any, you 15 know, branch decision to reassign Ms. King to Branch D 16 rather than someone else. You heard evidence that Ms. 17 King was touted for her management skills and leadership 18 abilities, and the decision came down to whether to 19 reassign Ms. King or, frankly -- or Miss Dent, two persons 20 who both were in Branch B under Scott Mowry as their 21 supervisor. 22 You heard testimony that management decided to 23 reassign Ms. King because it was thought that she would be 24 better than Miss Dent, a better person to train the group 25 of leasing specialists that were in Branch D. Page 320 1 You also heard testimony from Miss Seiler that 2 management determined Ms. King's team, the team that she 3 was leading in Branch B, would be able to survive longer 4 without a permanent team leader or a section chief than 5 Miss Dent's team because the agency did not know which of 6 the people to fill the leadership position for the other 7 team left remaining in Branch B. 8 Mr. Mowry also testified that he'd been working with 9 Miss Dent to improve on her management style or 10 communications skills, so that was part of the rationale 11 for recommending Ms. King rather than Miss Dent as the 12 person to be reassigned. So again, these are legitimate 13 nondiscriminatory reasons for management's reassignment 14 decision. 15 Ms. King may have disagreed with the reassignment. 16 She may have disagreed with how management communicated 17 the reassignment decision to her. She may have thought it 18 was unfair. However, the agency had legitimate 19 nondiscriminatory reasons for the reassignment decision. 20 On that basis the agency requests, Your Honor, that you 21 rule in the agency's favor and deny any of the relief that 22 complainant has requested for Ms. King. Thank you. 23 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much. Before we 24 proceed further, did the court reporter have any 25 difficulty taking that down? Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (2) Pages 317 - 320 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 112 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 2 February 5, 2015 Page 321 1 THE REPORTER: Your Honor, there was a little bit of 2 interference in the last couple of minutes. It appears to 3 be getting a little bit worse as we go along. I'm not 4 sure -- I think I -- 5 THE COURT: There is something odd going on in the 6 background. Mr. Chriss, could you take a speakerphone off 7 from your end at this point? 8 MR. CHRISS: Yes. I'm off the speakerphone. 9 THE COURT: Hopefully that helps. I don't know -- 10 MR. CHRISS: I don't know if anyone else is on 11 speakerphone. 12 THE COURT: Ms. King, are you on a speakerphone? 13 MS. KING: I am. I'll take it off. 14 THE COURT: Since you're going to be doing pretty 15 much all the talking, why don't you take that off and see 16 if it helps? Before that happens I'm going to encourage 17 you to start out by addressing the couple of points that I 18 raised with Mr. Chriss, and I'd be interested in hearing 19 from you on whether or not you disagree with what he had 20 to say about those couple points I asked him about, but I 21 will turn it over to you. You can proceed with your 22 closing argument. 23 MS. KING: Your Honor, just to refresh my memory, 24 which points are you -- 25 THE COURT: Well, just where the people were located Page 322 1 beforehand and where they got sent to. 2 MS. KING: Okay, Your Honor. 3 THE COURT: I mean, what he said was -- he said 4 there were five people selected. There are three branches 5 in Atlanta, one branch in Florida. Two of the new section 6 chiefs were hired down in Florida, so they just filled 7 both of those slots, which left three slots in Atlanta in 8 Branches B, C, and D, that needed to be filled. So that 9 is my understanding of what went on, and if you think the 10 record shows otherwise, please say so. 11 MS. KING: Yes, Your Honor. It will be addressed in 12 my closing argument. 13 THE COURT: Okay. 14 MS. KING: Your Honor, at the beginning of this -- 15 go ahead. 16 THE COURT: Oh, I was just about to tell you to go 17 ahead, so I'll stop talking. Go ahead. 18 MS. KING: Okay. Your Honor, at the beginning of 19 the case during opening statements we said that this was a 20 case about discrimination and retaliation. What has the 21 evidence we brought you proved? We now know that Dr. King 22 complained to an EEO counselor about her nonselection of 23 the supervisor realty specialist position on June 23rd of 24 2011. 25 We know that the agency reassigned Dr. King on Page 323 1 November 6 of 2011, and we know that Ellen Seiler was one 2 of the management officials who made the decision to 3 reassign Dr. King, and she knew Dr. King complained to an 4 EEO counselor about her nonselection on July 13th of 2011. 5 In short, we have shown and the defense concedes that Dr. 6 King was reassigned after she filed an EEO complaint, 7 which Ellen Seiler knew about. 8 Now, explain why Dr. King's reassignment was 9 retaliation. Now, how did Dr. King come to such a 10 low-performing branch where the stress levels have 11 worsened her service-connected disability? Well, from the 12 beginning Dr. King worked in Branch B for ten consecutive 13 years starting as a realty specialist, a contracting 14 officer, a senior contracting officer, and a team leader 15 and then an acting branch chief. Wanting to be 16 promoted -- 17 THE COURT: And I'm going to interrupt you for a 18 moment and ask you to refresh my recollection. When she 19 became a -- I think it was a lead was the first 20 supervisory-type job that she had. Was that a pay grade 21 promotion, or does the lead specialist have the same GS -- 22 did she already reach a GS-13 before she became a lead? 23 MS. KING: Dr. King -- I mean, Dr. King is here, and 24 correct me if I'm wrong, but did you get a pay grade with 25 that? Page 324 1 DR. KING: No, I didn't. 2 MS. KING: You did not? 3 THE COURT: So the specialist and the leads are both 4 GS-13s? 5 DR. KING: Yes, Your Honor, that's correct. 6 THE COURT: Okay. You can proceed, and actually, as 7 long as I've interrupted you, I'm going to ask one other 8 question. What did the evidence show in terms of Mr. 9 Mowry knowing about the EEO complaint? 10 MS. KING: The evidence was not clear on whether he 11 knew about the filing of the complaint prior to her 12 being -- 13 THE COURT: And then also my recollection was, in 14 effect, that the EEO complaint was over the exact job that 15 Mr. Mowry was in effect promoted to -- 16 MS. KING: Correct. 17 THE COURT: -- be in charge of Branch B, and that's 18 what the EEO complaint was about? 19 MS. KING: Correct. 20 THE COURT: Okay. You can proceed. 21 MS. KING: Wanting to be promoted, Dr. King applied 22 for the supervisory realty specialist position, GS-14. 23 The position was instead given to Scott Mowry, who had 24 never worked in leasing before and had only been at GSA 25 for two years as a program specialist in portfolio where Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (3) Pages 321 - 324 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 113 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 2 February 5, 2015 Page 325 1 Ellen Seiler served as his branch chief. 2 Scott Mowry also never received a contracting warrant 3 and had asked to be mentored in leasing prior to his 4 promotion to branch chief. Realizing that she had been 5 discriminated against, Dr. King filed an EEO complaint on 6 August 22, 2011, and for the first time since being hired 7 ten years ago, Dr. King was reassigned to Branch D about 8 two and a half months later, on November 6, 2011. 9 As a result, Dr. King had to go to the doctor more 10 frequently because of the stress of the low-performing 11 Branch D worsened her service-connected disability, which 12 caused her to have to work from home three days a week, an 13 accommodation that she never needed while working in 14 Branch B. She also lost monetary compensation since her 15 performance evaluations were immediately lowered from 16 level five to level three. 17 She is the only section chief reassigned to another 18 branch, and she's the only person reassigned to this day. 19 That in a nutshell is what our evidence has proved here. 20 That evidence has proved beyond a preponderance of the 21 evidence that Dr. King was retaliated against for filing 22 an EEO complaint. 23 But how do we know it really happened this way? 24 Well, Dr. King testified. What did she tell us? She told 25 us that she did not believe Branch D needed her because of Page 326 1 her leadership skills. Dr. King also testified her 2 leadership skills were limited because LaSonya Duncan, her 3 immediate supervisor, could overrule everything that she 4 wanted to implement. 5 Additionally Dr. King provided documentation to 6 support her claims that Branch D was a low-performing 7 branch when she was reassigned there and that her 8 performance was tied to the productivity level of her 9 section. 10 Dr. King also provided documentation that she had 11 previously received level fives for the previous five 12 years from five different branch chiefs. Since she was 13 reassigned she has only received level threes even though 14 her supervisor received a level four when the branch was 15 failing. 16 Who else told us it happened this way? Well, Maria 17 Dent, an agency witness. She told us she had worked in 18 the North Carolina territory prior to January 2012 and 19 even served as a team leader. Who else testified? We 20 have Ellen Seiler. She knew Scott Mowry prior to coming 21 to leasing and was even his supervisor in portfolio, and 22 Ellen Seiler wrote the questions for the supervisor realty 23 specialist position, the very same job that Scott Mowry 24 received over Dr. King. 25 What else did Ellen Seiler tell us? Ellen said that Page 327 1 she reassigned Dr. King due to a business need and Dr. 2 King's leadership qualities. Yet Ellen Seiler testified 3 that she, Scott Mowry, and LaSonya Duncan made a decision 4 to reassign her and make the transfer official by 5 submitting a personnel action to reassign Dr. King on 6 November 6, 2011. 7 They waited over a month to tell Dr. King that she 8 had been officially reassigned. Why not be transparent if 9 you have nothing to hide? Why not tell Dr. King the 10 subject of the meeting would be her reassignment prior to? 11 Why not reassign Dr. King immediately if there was such an 12 urgent business need? 13 Well, the agency did have something to hide, which is 14 why they tried to stack the odds in their favor after Dr. 15 King filed her complaint. The agency tried to prevent Dr. 16 King's claim from being valid by placing her under the 17 only black branch chief and pairing her with another black 18 section chief, a Wanda Hardiman. They also assigned her 19 to a section chief with all black employees. 20 How could the agency discriminate against Dr. King 21 when her supervisor and co-section chief is a black female 22 too? Well, the proof is in the promotion. Ellen Seiler 23 testified Maria did not have the finesse and leadership 24 qualities to lead people even though she served as a team 25 leader in Branch C. Now, Maria Dent is in a leadership Page 328 1 position as a branch chief in Section B, a higher position 2 than Dr. King. 3 Ellen Seiler even testified that the agency 4 interviewed for Dr. King's section chief position in 5 Branch B while she was still in Branch B. Ellen Seiler 6 started three new hires on the same day, January 16, 2012, 7 as Dr. King started in Branch D: One in Branch B where 8 Dr. King left, one in Branch D where she was assigned to, 9 and one in Branch C. 10 Why not just keep Dr. King in Branch D (sic) and put 11 the new hire in Branch D since they had the same start 12 date anyway, and why not just reassign Maria Dent to 13 Branch D? Wouldn't it make more business sense to put 14 someone in Branch D who had previously worked in the 15 territory before? 16 Who else told us what happened? Well, we have a 17 LaSonya Duncan. She testified that she just needed a 18 body. Well, if she just needed a body why choose Dr. 19 King? Wouldn't any old body do? There were two team 20 leaders -- GS-13s, by the way -- already in the section in 21 Branch D. Why not hire one of them if you only needed a 22 body? LaSonya also confirmed that Dr. King could not 23 implement changes without her approval and that she rated 24 Dr. King a level three for two years. 25 Adding insult to injury, LaSonya testified that she Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (4) Pages 325 - 328 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 114 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 2 February 5, 2015 Page 329 1 received a level four the same year and Dr. King received 2 a level three, which does not make sense because the 3 performance of your branch is a reflection of the branch 4 chief. Also LaSonya testified that she did not mind if 5 Dr. King would get a denial for incomplete rotational 6 package because LaSonya didn't give her a recommendation, 7 and was willing to risk that Dr. King not receiving a 8 detail due to the fact that the agency would overlook the 9 incomplete package. Well, they didn't, by the way, and 10 Dr. King was denied yet again. 11 And the last witness, what did he have to say, Scott 12 Mowry? Well, he admitted that Branch D was a 13 low-performing branch and admitted that Ellen Seiler knew 14 Branch D was not meeting performance measures when she 15 signed off on Dr. King's reassignment. She conveyed that 16 to him. Also, immediately before Dr. King's reassignment 17 he gave Maria Dent a level five on her performance 18 evaluation and Dr. King a level five too, so why not just 19 reassign Maria Dent who had worked in North Carolina 20 before? 21 I'll tell you why. Scott Mowry admitted that he 22 liked Maria, so he picked Dr. King to reassign to Branch 23 D. So there you have it. When the agency's own witness 24 testifies in court under oath, tells us what happened, and 25 his testimony totally contradicts the defense, you know Page 330 1 for certain which side has to be telling the truth here. 2 Accordingly, we ask that you return a verdict finding that 3 the agency discriminated and retaliated against Dr. King. 4 Thank you. 5 THE COURT: Okay. And just so I'm clear, the two 6 accepted issues relate to the transfer from section -- or 7 rather, Branch B to D as well as the -- at least the 8 initial performance rating of three; correct? 9 MR. CHRISS: No, Your Honor. No, Your Honor. The 10 only issue -- 11 THE COURT: Well, then let me ask the plaintiff 12 first. In the first place, it does involve the transfer; 13 correct? 14 MS. KING: Correct. 15 THE COURT: Does it include anything besides the 16 transfer? 17 MS. KING: Could you please repeat that question, 18 Your Honor? 19 THE COURT: Yeah. Are there any other accepted 20 issues besides the transfer? 21 MS. KING: No, Your Honor. 22 THE COURT: Okay. Then, Mr. Chriss, I guess perhaps 23 she has corrected my misguided notion. Apparently it is 24 just the transfer that's in front of me. 25 MR. CHRISS: Yes, Your Honor. But, Your Honor, the Page 331 1 only issue before you is the reassignment. I know you 2 used the language "transfer," but that's it. I mean, the 3 APPAS, the review, the evaluation, the agency's contention 4 throughout has been that it's completely irrelevant. 5 THE COURT: Well -- 6 MS. KING: Well -- 7 THE COURT: Well, let me -- and both sides are going 8 to get a chance to answer. There is no need to cut each 9 other off. Ms. King, did you have something to add? 10 MS. KING: Yes, Your Honor. The level threes as 11 well the accommodations that relate to the harm caused by 12 the retaliation, so it is -- 13 THE COURT: Okay. As opposed to a separate cause of 14 action? 15 MS. KING: Yes, Your Honor. 16 THE COURT: Okay. Fair enough. Okay. Hold on for 17 just a moment. I'm going to collect my thoughts and then 18 render a decision. I'm going to instruct the court 19 reporter to type up the bench decision as a separate 20 transcript. Let's go off the record. 21 (Thereupon, an off-the-record 22 discussion was held.) 23 THE COURT: Let's go back on the record. I will now 24 render the bench decision. Section one, issue: The 25 complainant alleges that she was discriminated against Page 332 1 based on race, African-American; sex, female; and reprisal 2 for prior EEO activity when on December 14, 2011, she was 3 informed that she would be reassigned into a new section 4 chief position in Branch D. Section two, findings of 5 fact: The complainant is a GS-13 supervisory leasing 6 specialist. She works for the agency's -- no. At the 7 time that this complaint arose, the complainant -- 8 THE REPORTER: Hello? 9 THE COURT: No. I'm sorry. I'm just trying to 10 figure out my wording. At the time the complaint arose 11 the complainant was a GS-13 section chief. She worked for 12 the agency's Region 4 within the leasing division of the 13 Public Buildings Service, which provides leased real 14 estate space for federal offices in the Southeast. 15 This complaint arose in December of 2012. At that 16 time Mr. David Hofstetter was the director of the leasing 17 division. Miss Ellen Seiler was the deputy director. The 18 leasing operation in Region 4 was divided into four 19 branches known as A, B, C, and D. One of the branches, 20 Branch A, was located in Florida. 21 The other three branches were located in Atlanta, 22 Georgia, and those branches were known as B, C, and D, and 23 they oversaw federal leases in Georgia, Alabama, 24 Mississippi, and North and South Carolina. The branches 25 were each supervised by a supervisory leasing specialist, Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (5) Pages 329 - 332 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 115 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 2 February 5, 2015 Page 333 1 GS-14, also known as a branch chief. The branch chiefs 2 reported directly to Miss Seiler, the deputy. 3 The complainant achieved the GS-13 level when she was 4 promoted to the job of leasing specialist. She was 5 subsequently promoted to the position of lead leasing 6 specialist. However, that was also a GS-13 position. The 7 complainant applied for the job of supervisory leasing 8 specialist, GS-14, for her branch when it became vacant in 9 the summer of 2012. 10 She filed an EEO complaint on August 22nd, 2012, 11 after the job was awarded to Mr. Scott Mowry who became 12 her boss. She dropped the complaint within a couple of 13 months. The agency decided to restructure the leasing 14 operation in Region 4. It replaced the position of lead 15 leasing specialist with that of section chief and reduced 16 the number of quasi-supervisory jobs in each branch from 17 three to two. Thus, the structure went from three leads 18 in each branch to two section chiefs. The section chiefs 19 were responsible for issuing performance reviews, which 20 the leads had not been. 21 The agency needed to hire a total of ten section 22 chiefs, including eight section chiefs -- or, rather, the 23 agency needed to hire eight section chiefs, including six 24 section chiefs for the three branches that were based in 25 Atlanta. The agency announced and filled the section Page 334 1 chief positions without reference to the branch that the 2 selectee would end up being assigned to. 3 The complainant applied for the job of section chief 4 and was selected. Management wanted to pick all section 5 chiefs and then decide where it would place them. 6 However, it only managed to fill five slots during the 7 first round of selections. Therefore, it decided that it 8 would go ahead and make section chief assignments in the 9 short term, in the November to December of 2012 time 10 frame, rather than wait until all the section chiefs had 11 been selected, which had been the original plan. 12 The complainant kept her spot in Branch B after she 13 was told that she was picked as a section chief and then 14 was informed of her placement within section -- rather, 15 Branch D -- in December of 2012. Miss Seiler decided that 16 she wanted to have at least one permanent section chief in 17 place in each branch so that the branch managers could 18 transfer first-line supervisory responsibility for at 19 least some of their employees to the section heads, who 20 had performance rating authority that the leads had not 21 held. 22 The agency had filled five section chief positions at 23 the same time. Two of those were located in Florida, so 24 those two individuals were assigned to be section chiefs 25 at Branch A in Florida. That left three branches based in Page 335 1 Atlanta, Georgia: B, C, and D. 2 And the agency had three section chiefs that had been 3 selected who were in the same geographic location as those 4 three branches and -- however, one of those individuals, 5 newly selected individuals, Miss Walker, was already in 6 place in Branch C, so Miss Seiler elected to leave her in 7 place in Branch C. 8 The agency then needed to assign a permanent section 9 chief to assist Miss LaSonya Glover, who was the branch 10 chief for Branch D. Miss Glover did not have any -- none 11 of the newly selected section chiefs worked in 12 Miss Glover's area. However, there were two section 13 chiefs working under Mr. Mowry; that is, the complainant 14 and Miss Maria Dent. 15 Therefore, Miss Seiler decided at least tentatively 16 that what she would do would be to leave Ms. Walker in 17 place in Branch D and make -- and select one of the -- 18 keep one of the two section chiefs in place in Branch B 19 and take the other one of those two and move -- assign 20 them to the section chief -- to be a section chief within 21 Branch D under Miss Glover. That she wanted to meet with 22 Miss -- Mr. Mowry and Miss Glover to decide, since they 23 were the section chiefs in charge of the -- rather, the 24 branch chiefs in charge of the branches that would be 25 affected. Page 336 1 She was unable to arrange a face-to-face meeting 2 because Mr. Mowry was on detail in New York City, so 3 instead she arranged for a conference phone call, at which 4 they met and decided what to do. They reached agreement 5 that the best solution was to take one of the two 6 branch -- rather, one of the two section chiefs currently 7 employed in Branch B and move them over to Branch D under 8 Miss Glover. 9 They deferred to the judgment of Mr. Mowry because he 10 was the one who was most familiar with the two potential 11 candidates and because he was at least one of the two who 12 would be directly affected by the transfer. Mr. Mowry -- 13 rather, at the hearing Miss Seiler, Mr. Mowry, and Miss 14 Glover all testified credibly and consistently that they 15 agreed to the -- that this was the best plan of action, 16 and they agreed that -- well, they at least agreed to ask 17 Mr. Mowry for his opinion and ended up deferring to that 18 opinion. 19 Mr. Mowry recommended that the complainant be 20 assigned to Branch D. At the hearing he testified 21 credibly to the reasons for his decision. He understood 22 that Branch D had many new employees, and he thought that 23 the complainant was a good mentor. Moreover, he thought 24 that he simply got along better with Miss Dent, and it was 25 on that basis that he recommended that the complainant be Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (6) Pages 333 - 336 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 116 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 2 February 5, 2015 Page 337 1 the one who was transferred. 2 The complainant asserts that Miss Dent was a more 3 likely candidate for transfer to Branch D because she had 4 worked there a couple years back. However, Miss Seiler 5 and Mr. Mowry, who had each joined the leasing division 6 within the last couple of years, both testified credibly 7 that they were not aware of that fact. 8 Moreover, even if they were aware of that fact I fail 9 to see how that factor is more compelling than the reason 10 that Mr. Mowry actually relied upon. The leasing division 11 has an ongoing list of federal agencies that need to be 12 housed. However, the list changes as space is found for 13 potential tenants. Thus, there is no reason to think that 14 the book of business as of January of 2013 had much in 15 common with the book of business as it existed when 16 Miss Dent left Branch B. 17 Therefore, if in point of fact Mr. Mowry had been 18 aware of that background fact, perhaps that would have 19 been a reason he would have acted on. If so, it would 20 have made just as much sense as the reason that he cited, 21 but I fail to see where it is a more significant fact than 22 the fact that he cited. By the agency's description this 23 was -- the complainant asserts that Branch B was highly 24 desirable since it was the highest-performing branch and 25 Branch D was highly undesirable. Page 338 1 She claims that Branch D was entirely mismanaged, so 2 much so that she stood no realistic chance of receiving a 3 performance rating of five like she was used to. In fact, 4 she has been rated as a three in each of the performance 5 reviews that she has received since she was transferred. 6 And she claims that the situation in Branch D was so 7 dire that, in effect, everyone knew in advance that she 8 was doomed to receive a rating of three and no higher due 9 to problems beyond her control that existed within the 10 branch. The complainant did not demonstrate by a 11 preponderance of the evidence that anyone else shared -- 12 the complainant clearly made a convincing case that this 13 was her opinion. She did not prove by a preponderance of 14 the evidence that anyone else shared her opinion. 15 Mr. Mowry did testify that he was aware that Branch D 16 had a number of new employees. However, that is a far cry 17 from the complainant's claim that it was staffed with a 18 series of misfits who could never be brought around to 19 performing at a high level. 20 And the complainant has demonstrated -- well, also 21 the evidence -- the complainant made a -- certainly 22 provided sincere testimony that she was extremely 23 distraught to be transferred to Branch D. Her testimony 24 is corroborated at least in part by the participants in 25 the meeting that was held to announce the transfer to her. Page 339 1 Ms. Glover testified, and I believe Miss Seiler gave 2 similar testimony, that the complainant seemed to be 3 perturbed immediately upon being informed about the 4 transfer, so it is clear that that is her sincere opinion, 5 and, quite frankly, when you listen to her testimony 6 standing all by itself, it was sufficient to make 7 considerable headway towards proving the ultimate point 8 she was trying to prove; i.e., that this was a very 9 undesirable assignment. 10 However, by the time that all the testimony was in, 11 the complainant's -- the point that the complainant was 12 trying to make was far less convincing than what it was at 13 the end of her testimony. Ms. Glover testified that she 14 received a performance rating of four. I fail to see how 15 it is that that could have happened if things were half as 16 bad as the complainant has made them out to be. 17 And in point of fact, I don't know if she comes right 18 out and says so, but clearly the clear inference behind 19 her posture regarding Branch D is that Miss Glover was a 20 poor manager, she had mismanaged things, the complainant 21 was now going to be stuck with the fruits of her 22 mismanagement, and that the mismanagement was so bad that 23 the complainant stood no realistic chance of success. 24 That being the case, I find it quite surprising to 25 learn that Miss Glover had been rated as a four, and if Page 340 1 Miss Glover had been rated as a four, I fail to see why 2 the complainant could not have gotten at least that high 3 of a rating, at least as a possibility. 4 And the complainant did not challenge the assertion 5 of that Miss Glover had been rated as a four. Nor in 6 light of that testimony did she give a logical explanation 7 as to how Branch D could have been even half as bad as 8 she's portrayed it as. Moreover, the complainant did 9 introduce a color-coded chart that contains statistics 10 that show that Branch B was performing the best of any of 11 the branches with respect to the color-coded chart, and 12 Branch D was performing lowest. 13 I would say even the chart is not as extreme as you 14 would -- you don't get quite the extreme impression from 15 the chart that you would get from the complainant's 16 testimony. Clearly Branch B was the best on the chart and 17 Branch D was the lowest, but it is not as extreme as you'd 18 expect from the way the complainant has portrayed things. 19 Moreover, the chart was presented to the management 20 witnesses. They readily admitted that the chart was 21 accurate insofar as it went, but they testified without 22 contradiction from the complainant that the chart only 23 represented a portion of the statistics that the branches 24 are rated on. 25 And I find that if -- therefore it really doesn't Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (7) Pages 337 - 340 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 117 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 2 February 5, 2015 Page 341 1 prove on an objective basis that Branch D was even the 2 worst branch, let alone that it -- and the complainant has 3 not portrayed this as Branch D being slightly worse than 4 the third-ranking branch. She expresses the problems 5 there in very dire terms. 6 So if in point of fact if things were as bad as she 7 appears to believe, I would think she would come -- should 8 have been able to come forward with other statistics 9 showing that Branch D was performing poorly across the 10 board as opposed to simply in the portion of the 11 statistics that were the subject of objective proof at the 12 hearing. 13 The complainant also challenges the structural way 14 that management approached this. However, I didn't find 15 her arguments on that point to be convincing. It made 16 perfect sense. Miss Seiler testified that she recently 17 hired three new section chiefs that were going to be in 18 place in Atlanta, Georgia. She had three branches in 19 Atlanta, Georgia, and she decided that she would make sure 20 that each of the branch managers had at least one 21 full-fledged section chief working for them. That makes 22 perfect sense from my standpoint. 23 Moreover, if the complainant is at least partially 24 correct in her negative viewpoint as to the problems in 25 Branch D, then you'd think that Miss Seiler would want to Page 342 1 take special care to make sure that Miss Glover had the 2 benefit of the assistance of one of these full-fledged 3 section chiefs. 4 So that part of the equation made perfect sense, and 5 the complainant's attempts to argue that -- well, that 6 some of the people holding lower-ranking positions or 7 placed on details as section chiefs should have been 8 assigned to Branch D instead of herself is not convincing, 9 and, in point of fact, there was one alternative that 10 would make more sense. 11 Perhaps they should have sent both the complainant 12 and Miss Dent over to section D -- rather, to Branch D, 13 but the idea that Branch D should have been -- the 14 higher-performing branches should have each gotten one of 15 the new section chiefs, who are the people that management 16 had decided were the best employees or at least the ones 17 with the best degree of supervisory skills amongst the 18 GS-13 specialists -- the idea that those folks should be 19 placed in other branches and Branch D should be left to 20 get by with people that -- the folks that had not, in 21 effect, won the competition for the permanent section 22 chief slot is not convincing to me. 23 The complainant also asserts she has been subject to 24 unequal treatment because she's the only one transferred, 25 and that argument is premised upon the idea that somehow Page 343 1 she's comparable to the people down in Florida, and that 2 is another argument that is not convincing. 3 They had two branch chiefs down in Florida. It made 4 perfect sense that the branch chiefs selected in Florida 5 would remain in Florida, and if the complainant had been 6 told -- congratulated on her assignment or selection for 7 the job of section chief and then told that she was being 8 transferred down to Florida, perhaps we would have a 9 different case. 10 Next, section three, applicable law: Rather than 11 read it to the parties I'll include it in the transcript 12 after it's been presented to myself for my edit and 13 review. 14 Section four is the decision and analysis. I find 15 that the complainant has not established a prima facie 16 case of discrimination based on race, sex, or EEO 17 retaliation. To the extent that she has, the agency has 18 presented a logical explanation for its actions, and the 19 complainant has failed to show that the agency's stated 20 explanation is a pretext for invidious discrimination. 21 One of the central points that the complainant attempted 22 to prove was the idea that Branch D was an extremely 23 undesirable assignment. 24 As I've indicated, she -- her posture is more than 25 this was something that was slightly less than desirable Page 344 1 in relation to the other two branches in Atlanta. She 2 describes this as a situation where she stood -- as a 3 mismanaged department. She strongly implies that 4 Miss Glover was a poor manager, and she presents the case 5 that she stood no realistic chance of success in that 6 department. 7 In point of fact, she was rated as a three when she 8 was sent there. She makes it sound as though she was 9 doomed from the start to receive such a rating, and if in 10 fact the complainant could show that everyone agreed that 11 Branch D was as bad as the complainant thinks it is or if 12 she could show by some objective showing that that was the 13 case, then her case would be more convincing. 14 If you start with the assumption that it is -- it is 15 almost a fate worse than death to be transferred to Branch 16 D, then perhaps some of the complainant's arguments become 17 more compelling. Certainly you would think that 18 management would spend more time and effort deciding 19 exactly who would be assigned to this particular 20 problematic branch, but the complainant has not shown that 21 anyone shared her opinion as to how dire things in Branch 22 D were. Nor did she even prove by a preponderance of the 23 evidence that her subjective opinion is objectively based. 24 There is a fatal conflict between the complainant's 25 portrait of Branch D as hopelessly mismanaged and the fact Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (8) Pages 341 - 344 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 118 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 2 February 5, 2015 Page 345 1 that Miss Glover received a rating of four. Moreover, it 2 would be -- while the complainant attempted to present 3 statistics, she did not to show the situation in branch 4 four -- the statistics that she presented were not as bad 5 as she portrayed Branch D as being. 6 Moreover, she did not challenge the assertion of the 7 agency witnesses that she was only relying on partial 8 statistics for the three branches. Therefore, the 9 complainant did not show that on an objective basis, this 10 was -- the branch was as problematic as she portrayed it 11 as being. The agency pretty much admits that this was 12 almost an off-the-cuff decision, and there is no reason 13 why it had to be something more than that. 14 Well, in the first place there is really no reason 15 why it had to be something more than that. Even if Branch 16 D was an undesirable assignment, somebody had to do it, 17 and management was called upon to make a choice between 18 Miss Dent and the complainant, each of whom had a very 19 similar profile in terms of many years with the agency and 20 similar performance ratings. 21 The complainant attempts to show that there was a 22 much more logical reason for assigning Miss Dent; i.e., 23 she'd worked in Branch D a couple of years back, and once 24 again, I think that's a perfectly logical explanation, and 25 if the agency had known that and made a decision on that Page 346 1 basis, its decision would have made at least as much sense 2 as the decision it made. 3 I'm not convinced, though, that that potential reason 4 is one bit more compelling than the factor that Mr. Mowry 5 relied on in the decision which he pretty much admits that 6 he made, which he pretty much admits was made in an 7 off-the-cuff fashion in an attempt to sort of split hairs 8 between two individuals whose performance profile was 9 quite similar. 10 Therefore, and I really don't -- the complainant has 11 not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that she 12 experienced a change in the terms and conditions of 13 employment by being assigned to Branch D as opposed to 14 Branch B. Nor has she shown, based on the way that the 15 agency -- management viewed those branches, that the 16 assignment to Branch D was something that the selected 17 individual would view as punishment and therefore would 18 tend to dissuade somebody from filing an EEO complaint. 19 So she really hasn't established a prima facie case 20 in the first place. To the extent that the agency is 21 required to give an explanation, the agency has given one. 22 There are really two halves to the agency's explanation, 23 and the first half is almost a structural explanation 24 where the agency indicates that it decided to make 25 decisions in Atlanta from amongst the section man -- or, Page 347 1 rather, section chiefs that had been selected in Atlanta. 2 They had picked three section chiefs and decided to 3 put one section chief in each branch. That is a decision 4 that makes perfect sense, and the complainant's contrary 5 suggestion that they should have put some of the 6 second-tier people, the ones who had failed to be selected 7 for the section chief slot in the first place -- that some 8 of those folks should have been pressed into service 9 instead of the section chiefs, is not something that makes 10 sense from my standpoint. Certainly the agency's 11 explanation on that part of it makes more sense than the 12 logic of the complainant's counterargument. 13 As to the decision between Miss Dent and the 14 complainant, Mr. Mowry's testimony was entirely credible. 15 His explanation, although -- does not rise above the level 16 of something that could be quite easily argued both ways, 17 but this is simply a situation where he had to make a 18 choice between two supervisors who were in place, both 19 working underneath him with similar performance ratings, 20 and there was not that much difference between the two. 21 Therefore, you would not expect that there would be a 22 highly compelling decision when he made his decision as to 23 which of the two would go into Branch D, and if he had 24 sent Miss Dent, I doubt he could have come up with much 25 more of a compelling explanation than what he came up to Page 348 1 explain -- came up with to explain the selection of the 2 complainant. 3 If he had sent Miss Dent and cited her prior service 4 in that branch two years previously, that would have made 5 a reasonable amount of sense but would have been no more 6 logical or compelling than his explanation to why the 7 complainant was selected, so I find the complainant has 8 not carried her burden of proof by a preponderance of the 9 evidence, and my decision is in favor of the agency. 10 Thank you very much. 11 (Proceedings concluded at 2:36 p.m.) 12 - - - 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (9) Pages 345 - 348 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 119 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 2 February 5, 2015 Page 349 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 I hereby certify that the foregoing 4 script was taken down, as stated in the caption; 5 the colloquies, questions, and answers were 6 ced to typewriting under my direction; and that 7 foregoing pages 313 through 348 represent a true, 8 ect, and complete record of the hearing. 9 The above certification is expressly 10 drawn and denied upon the disassembly or 11 ocopying of the foregoing transcript, unless said 12 ssembly or photocopying is done under the auspices 13 'Amico Gershwin, Inc., Certified Court Reporters, 14 the signature and original seal is attached 15 eto. 16 I further certify that I am not a relative 17 mployee or attorney of any party, nor am I in any 18 interested in the result of said case. 19 This, the 15th day of February, 2015. 20 21 22 ________________________________ THOMAS R. BREZINA, CCR-B-2035 23 24 25 Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (10) Page 349 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 120 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 2 February 5, 2015 A abilities (1) 319:18 able (2) 320:3;341:8 above (1) 347:15 accepted (2) 330:6,19 accommodation (1) 325:13 accommodations (1) 331:11 Accordingly (1) 330:2 accurate (1) 340:21 achieved (1) 333:3 across (1) 341:9 acted (1) 337:19 acting (1) 323:15 action (3) 327:5;331:14; 336:15 actions (1) 343:18 activity (5) 316:6;317:15,25; 318:1;332:2 actually (3) 318:13;324:6; 337:10 add (1) 331:9 Adding (1) 328:25 Additionally (1) 326:5 addressed (1) 322:11 addressing (1) 321:17 Administration (1) 315:3 admits (3) 345:11;346:5,6 admitted (4) 329:12,13,21; 340:20 advance (1) 338:7 affected (2) 335:25;336:12 African-American (1) 332:1 afternoon (1) 315:14 Again (5) 316:24;317:2; 320:12;329:10; 345:24 against (7) 315:17;316:5; 325:5,21;327:20; 330:3;331:25 agencies (1) 337:11 agency (32) 315:6,13;316:4; 319:13;320:5,18,20; 322:25;326:17; 327:13,15,20;328:3; 329:8;330:3;333:13, 21,23,25;334:22; 335:2,8;343:17; 345:7,11,19,25; 346:15,20,21,24; 348:9 agency's (9) 320:21;329:23; 331:3;332:6,12; 337:22;343:19; 346:22;347:10 ago (1) 325:7 agreed (4) 336:15,16,16; 344:10 agreement (1) 336:4 ahead (4) 322:15,17,17;334:8 Alabama (1) 332:23 alleges (1) 331:25 almost (3) 344:15;345:12; 346:23 alone (1) 341:2 along (2) 321:3;336:24 alternative (1) 342:9 although (1) 347:15 amongst (2) 342:17;346:25 amount (1) 348:5 analysis (1) 343:14 announce (1) 338:25 announced (1) 333:25 announcement (1) 318:9 Apparently (1) 330:23 APPAS (1) 331:3 appears (2) 321:2;341:7 applicable (1) 343:10 applied (3) 324:21;333:7;334:3 approached (1) 341:14 approval (1) 328:23 area (1) 335:12 argue (1) 342:5 argued (1) 347:16 argument (4) 321:22;322:12; 342:25;343:2 arguments (4) 315:5,13;341:15; 344:16 arose (3) 332:7,10,15 around (1) 338:18 arrange (1) 336:1 arranged (1) 336:3 assertion (2) 340:4;345:6 asserts (3) 337:2,23;342:23 assign (3) 317:12;335:8,19 assigned (8) 327:18;328:8; 334:2,24;336:20; 342:8;344:19;346:13 assigning (1) 345:22 assignment (5) 339:9;343:6,23; 345:16;346:16 assignments (1) 334:8 assist (1) 335:9 assistance (1) 342:2 assumption (1) 344:14 Atlanta (13) 317:7;318:20; 319:8;322:5,7; 332:21;333:25;335:1; 341:18,19;344:1; 346:25;347:1 attempt (1) 346:7 attempted (2) 343:21;345:2 attempts (2) 342:5;345:21 Attorney (1) 315:14 August (2) 325:6;333:10 authority (1) 334:20 awarded (1) 333:11 aware (4) 337:7,8,18;338:15 B back (4) 315:2;331:23; 337:4;345:23 background (2) 321:6;337:18 bad (6) 339:16,22;340:7; 341:6;344:11;345:4 based (8) 315:17;316:6; 332:1;333:24;334:25; 343:16;344:23; 346:14 basic (1) 315:23 basically (1) 318:18 basis (5) 320:20;336:25; 341:1;345:9;346:1 became (4) 323:19,22;333:8,11 become (1) 344:16 beforehand (1) 322:1 beginning (3) 322:14,18;323:12 behind (1) 339:18 bench (3) 315:5;331:19,24 benefit (1) 342:2 besides (2) 330:15,20 best (6) 336:5,15;340:10, 16;342:16,17 better (3) 319:24,24;336:24 beyond (2) 325:20;338:9 bit (3) 321:1,3;346:4 black (4) 327:17,17,19,21 board (1) 341:10 body (4) 328:18,18,19,22 book (2) 337:14,15 boss (1) 333:12 both (8) 319:20;322:7; 324:3;331:7;337:6; 342:11;347:16,18 Branch (134) 315:19,19;316:8, 13,13,16,16,21,23; 317:8,12,16;318:21, 22,23,25;319:3,3,5, 15,15,20,25;320:3,7; 322:5;323:10,12,15; 324:17;325:1,4,7,11, 14,18,25;326:6,7,12, 14;327:17,25;328:1,5, 5,7,7,8,9,10,11,13,14, 21;329:3,3,12,13,14, 22;330:7;332:4,20; 333:1,1,8,16,18; 334:1,12,15,17,17,25; 335:6,7,9,10,17,18,21, 24;336:6,7,7,20,22; 337:3,16,23,24,25; 338:1,6,10,15,23; 339:19;340:7,10,12, 16,17;341:1,2,3,4,9, 20,25;342:8,12,13,19; 343:3,4,22;344:11,15, 20,21,25;345:3,5,10, 15,23;346:13,14,16; 347:3,23;348:4 branches (20) 319:8;322:4,8; 332:19,19,21,22,24; 333:24;334:25;335:4, 24;340:11,23;341:18; 342:14,19;344:1; 345:8;346:15 brought (2) 322:21;338:18 Buildings (2) 315:20;332:13 burden (1) 348:8 business (5) 327:1,12;328:13; 337:14,15 C call (1) 336:3 called (1) 345:17 Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (1) abilities - called Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 121 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 2 February 5, 2015 came (3) 319:18;347:25; 348:1 can (4) 319:10;321:21; 324:6,20 candidate (1) 337:3 candidates (1) 336:11 care (1) 342:1 Carolina (3) 326:18;329:19; 332:24 carried (1) 348:8 case (13) 315:2,16;316:3; 322:19,20;338:12; 339:24;343:9,16; 344:4,13,13;346:19 cause (1) 331:13 caused (2) 325:12;331:11 central (1) 343:21 certain (1) 330:1 certainly (3) 338:21;344:17; 347:10 challenge (2) 340:4;345:6 challenges (1) 341:13 chance (4) 331:8;338:2; 339:23;344:5 change (1) 346:12 changes (2) 328:23;337:12 charge (3) 324:17;335:23,24 chart (8) 340:9,11,13,15,16, 19,20,22 chief (35) 315:20;316:13,16; 317:6;320:4;323:15; 325:1,4,17;327:17,18, 19,21;328:1,4;329:4; 332:4,11;333:1,15; 334:1,3,8,13,16,22; 335:9,10,20,20; 341:21;342:22;343:7; 347:3,7 chiefs (30) 318:9,19;322:6; 326:12;333:1,18,18, 22,22,23,24;334:5,10, 24;335:2,11,13,18,23, 24;336:6;341:17; 342:3,7,15;343:3,4; 347:1,2,9 choice (2) 345:17;347:18 choose (1) 328:18 Chriss (21) 315:7,10,11,14; 317:20,22;318:7,13, 17;319:1,3,7,9,11; 321:6,8,10,18;330:9, 22,25 cited (3) 337:20,22;348:3 City (1) 336:2 claim (2) 327:16;338:17 claims (3) 326:6;338:1,6 clarify (1) 318:7 clear (4) 324:10;330:5; 339:4,18 clearly (3) 338:12;339:18; 340:16 closing (4) 315:4,12;321:22; 322:12 collect (1) 331:17 color-coded (2) 340:9,11 coming (1) 326:20 common (1) 337:15 communicated (1) 320:16 communications (1) 320:10 comparable (1) 343:1 compelling (6) 337:9;344:17; 346:4;347:22,25; 348:6 compensation (1) 325:14 competition (1) 342:21 complainant (56) 315:5,16,22;316:8, 24;318:5;320:22; 331:25;332:5,7,11; 333:3,7;334:3,12; 335:13;336:19,23,25; 337:2,23;338:10,12, 20,21;339:2,11,16,20, 23;340:2,4,8,18,22; 341:2,13,23;342:11, 23;343:5,15,19,21; 344:10,11,20;345:2,9, 18,21;346:10;347:14; 348:2,7,7 complainant's (8) 338:17;339:11; 340:15;342:5;344:16, 24;347:4,12 complained (2) 322:22;323:3 complaint (14) 323:6;324:9,11,14, 18;325:5,22;327:15; 332:7,10,15;333:10, 12;346:18 completely (1) 331:4 concedes (1) 323:5 concluded (1) 348:11 conditions (1) 346:12 conference (1) 336:3 confirmed (1) 328:22 conflict (1) 344:24 congratulated (1) 343:6 consecutive (1) 323:12 considerable (1) 339:7 consistently (1) 336:14 contains (1) 340:9 contention (1) 331:3 continue (1) 319:10 contracting (3) 323:13,14;325:2 contradiction (1) 340:22 contradicts (1) 329:25 contrary (1) 347:4 control (1) 338:9 conveyed (1) 329:15 convinced (1) 346:3 convincing (7) 338:12;339:12; 341:15;342:8,22; 343:2;344:13 corrected (1) 330:23 corroborated (1) 338:24 co-section (1) 327:21 counselor (2) 322:22;323:4 counterargument (1) 347:12 couple (7) 321:2,17,20; 333:12;337:4,6; 345:23 COURT (42) 315:2,10,12; 317:18,21;318:2,11, 16,24;319:2,5,8,10; 320:23,24;321:5,9,12, 14,25;322:3,13,16; 323:17;324:3,6,13,17, 20;329:24;330:5,11, 15,19,22;331:5,7,13, 16,18,23;332:9 credible (1) 347:14 credibly (3) 336:14,21;337:6 cry (1) 338:16 currently (1) 336:6 cut (1) 331:8 D date (2) 315:4;328:12 David (1) 332:16 day (2) 325:18;328:6 days (1) 325:12 death (1) 344:15 December (5) 315:16;332:2,15; 334:9,15 decide (3) 317:7;334:5;335:22 decided (11) 318:4;319:22; 333:13;334:7,15; 335:15;336:4;341:19; 342:16;346:24;347:2 deciding (2) 317:5;344:18 decision (34) 315:5;316:7,11,19, 21,22;317:2,4,10,12, 14,16;319:15,18; 320:14,17,19;323:2; 327:3;331:18,19,24; 336:21;343:14; 345:12,25;346:1,2,5; 347:3,13,22,22;348:9 decisions (1) 346:25 defense (2) 323:5;329:25 deferred (1) 336:9 deferring (1) 336:17 degree (1) 342:17 demonstrate (1) 338:10 demonstrated (2) 316:2;338:20 denial (1) 329:5 denied (1) 329:10 Dent (22) 317:8;318:4,21; 319:19,24;320:9,11; 326:17;327:25; 328:12;329:17,19; 335:14;336:24;337:2, 16;342:12;345:18,22; 347:13,24;348:3 Dent's (1) 320:5 deny (1) 320:21 department (2) 344:3,6 deputy (3) 316:15;332:17; 333:2 describes (1) 344:2 description (1) 337:22 desirable (2) 337:24;343:25 detail (2) 329:8;336:2 details (1) 342:7 determined (1) 320:2 difference (1) 347:20 different (2) 326:12;343:9 difficulty (1) 320:25 dire (3) 338:7;341:5;344:21 directly (2) 333:2;336:12 director (3) Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (2) came - director Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 122 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 2 February 5, 2015 316:15;332:16,17 disability (2) 323:11;325:11 disagree (1) 321:19 disagreed (2) 320:15,16 discriminate (2) 316:5;327:20 discriminated (4) 315:17;325:5; 330:3;331:25 discrimination (6) 315:23,24;319:12; 322:20;343:16,20 discussion (1) 331:22 dissuade (1) 346:18 distraught (1) 338:23 divided (1) 332:18 division (6) 315:21;316:15; 332:12,17;337:5,10 doctor (1) 325:9 documentation (2) 326:5,10 doomed (2) 338:8;344:9 doubt (1) 347:24 down (8) 315:4;318:11; 319:18;320:25;322:6; 343:1,3,8 Dr (48) 322:21,25;323:3,3, 5,8,9,12,23,23;324:1, 5,21;325:5,7,9,21,24; 326:1,5,10,24;327:1, 1,5,7,9,11,14,15,20; 328:2,4,7,8,10,18,22, 24;329:1,5,7,10,15, 16,18,22;330:3 dropped (1) 333:12 due (3) 327:1;329:8;338:8 Duncan (3) 326:2;327:3;328:17 during (3) 315:25;322:19; 334:6 E easily (1) 347:16 edit (1) 343:12 EEO (20) 315:17,24;316:6; 317:11,15,25;318:1; 319:13;322:22;323:4, 6;324:9,14,18;325:5, 22;332:2;333:10; 343:16;346:18 effect (4) 324:14,15;338:7; 342:21 effort (1) 344:18 eight (2) 333:22,23 either (1) 317:14 elected (1) 335:6 elements (2) 315:23;316:3 Ellen (13) 323:1,7;325:1; 326:20,22,25,25; 327:2,22;328:3,5; 329:13;332:17 else (8) 319:16;321:10; 326:16,19,25;328:16; 338:11,14 employed (1) 336:7 employees (5) 327:19;334:19; 336:22;338:16; 342:16 employment (1) 346:13 encourage (1) 321:16 end (3) 321:7;334:2;339:13 ended (1) 336:17 engaged (3) 317:15,24;318:1 enough (1) 331:16 entirely (2) 338:1;347:14 equation (1) 342:4 established (2) 343:15;346:19 estate (1) 332:14 evaluation (2) 329:18;331:3 evaluations (1) 325:15 even (11) 326:13,19,21; 327:24;328:3;337:8; 340:7,13;341:1; 344:22;345:15 everyone (2) 338:7;344:10 evidence (19) 315:25;316:4,9,25; 317:17;319:12,16; 322:21;324:8,10; 325:19,20,21;338:11, 14,21;344:23;346:11; 348:9 exact (1) 324:14 exactly (1) 344:19 existed (2) 337:15;338:9 expect (2) 340:18;347:21 experienced (1) 346:12 explain (3) 323:8;348:1,1 explanation (11) 340:6;343:18,20; 345:24;346:21,22,23; 347:11,15,25;348:6 expresses (1) 341:4 extent (4) 317:17;319:11; 343:17;346:20 extreme (3) 340:13,14,17 extremely (2) 338:22;343:22 F face-to-face (1) 336:1 facie (2) 343:15;346:19 fact (15) 329:8;332:5;337:7, 8,17,18,21,22;338:3; 339:17;341:6;342:9; 344:7,10,25 factor (5) 316:7,22;317:11; 337:9;346:4 facts (1) 316:2 fail (4) 337:8,21;339:14; 340:1 failed (2) 343:19;347:6 failing (1) 326:15 Fair (1) 331:16 familiar (1) 336:10 far (2) 338:16;339:12 fashion (1) 346:7 fatal (1) 344:24 fate (1) 344:15 favor (3) 320:21;327:14; 348:9 federal (3) 332:14,23;337:11 Felicia (2) 317:8;318:20 fellow (1) 316:5 female (5) 318:21,21,22; 327:21;332:1 females (1) 317:6 figure (1) 332:10 filed (4) 323:6;325:5; 327:15;333:10 filing (3) 324:11;325:21; 346:18 fill (2) 320:6;334:6 filled (5) 318:6;322:6,8; 333:25;334:22 Finally (1) 317:11 find (5) 339:24;340:25; 341:14;343:14;348:7 finding (1) 330:2 findings (1) 332:4 finesse (1) 327:23 first (11) 315:13;318:9; 323:19;325:6;330:12, 12;334:7;345:14; 346:20,23;347:7 first-line (1) 334:18 five (12) 318:8,13,14;322:4; 325:16;326:11,12; 329:17,18;334:6,22; 338:3 fives (1) 326:11 Florida (18) 318:12,12,14,15,18, 25;319:4,6;322:5,6; 332:20;334:23,25; 343:1,3,4,5,8 folks (3) 342:18,20;347:8 forward (1) 341:8 found (1) 337:12 four (11) 318:6;326:14; 329:1;332:18;339:14, 25;340:1,5;343:14; 345:1,4 frame (1) 334:10 frankly (2) 319:19;339:5 frequently (1) 325:10 front (1) 330:24 fruits (1) 339:21 full-fledged (2) 341:21;342:2 further (1) 320:24 G gave (2) 329:17;339:1 gender (8) 315:17,23;316:6, 21;317:1,3,9;319:13 General (1) 315:3 geographic (1) 335:3 Georgia (8) 317:7;318:20; 319:2;332:22,23; 335:1;341:18,19 given (2) 324:23;346:21 Glover (18) 316:15;317:3,25; 335:9,10,21,22;336:8, 14;339:1,13,19,25; 340:1,5;342:1;344:4; 345:1 Glover's (1) 335:12 Good (2) 315:14;336:23 grade (2) 323:20,24 group (1) 319:24 GS (1) 323:21 GS-13 (7) 315:19;323:22; Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (3) disability - GS-13 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 123 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 2 February 5, 2015 332:5,11;333:3,6; 342:18 GS-13s (2) 324:4;328:20 GS-14 (3) 324:22;333:1,8 GSA (3) 316:12;317:13; 324:24 guess (1) 330:22 H hairs (1) 346:7 half (4) 325:8;339:15; 340:7;346:23 halves (1) 346:22 happened (5) 325:23;326:16; 328:16;329:24; 339:15 happens (1) 321:16 Hardiman (1) 327:18 harm (1) 331:11 heads (1) 334:19 headway (1) 339:7 heard (7) 316:12,19;317:2, 12;319:16,22;320:1 hearing (5) 315:25;321:18; 336:13,20;341:12 held (3) 331:22;334:21; 338:25 Hello (1) 332:8 helps (2) 321:9,16 herself (1) 342:8 hide (2) 327:9,13 high (2) 338:19;340:2 higher (2) 328:1;338:8 higher-performing (1) 342:14 highest-performing (1) 337:24 highly (3) 337:23,25;347:22 hire (4) 328:11,21;333:21, 23 hired (3) 322:6;325:6;341:17 hires (1) 328:6 history (1) 317:11 Hofstetter (1) 332:16 Hold (1) 331:16 holding (1) 342:6 home (1) 325:12 Honor (20) 315:9,11,14; 317:20;320:20;321:1, 23;322:2,11,14,18; 324:5;330:9,9,18,21, 25,25;331:10,15 Hopefully (1) 321:9 hopelessly (1) 344:25 housed (1) 337:12 I idea (4) 342:13,18,25; 343:22 ie (2) 339:8;345:22 immediate (1) 326:3 immediately (4) 325:15;327:11; 329:16;339:3 implement (2) 326:4;328:23 implies (1) 344:3 impression (1) 340:14 improve (1) 320:9 include (3) 318:12;330:15; 343:11 includes (1) 318:13 including (3) 316:13;333:22,23 incomplete (2) 329:5,9 indicate (2) 316:10,25 indicated (2) 316:4;343:24 indicates (1) 346:24 individual (1) 346:17 individuals (4) 334:24;335:4,5; 346:8 inference (1) 339:18 informed (3) 332:3;334:14;339:3 initial (1) 330:8 injury (1) 328:25 input (1) 316:18 insofar (1) 340:21 instead (4) 324:23;336:3; 342:8;347:9 instruct (1) 331:18 insult (1) 328:25 interested (2) 318:18;321:18 interference (1) 321:2 interrupt (1) 323:17 interrupted (2) 318:2;324:7 interviewed (1) 328:4 into (5) 316:18;332:3,18; 347:8,23 introduce (1) 340:9 investigation (1) 316:1 invidious (1) 343:20 involve (1) 330:12 irrelevant (1) 331:4 issue (3) 330:10;331:1,24 issues (2) 330:6,20 issuing (1) 333:19 J January (3) 326:18;328:6; 337:14 Jaron (1) 315:7 job (8) 323:20;324:14; 326:23;333:4,7,11; 334:3;343:7 jobs (1) 333:16 joined (1) 337:5 judgment (1) 336:9 July (1) 323:4 June (1) 322:23 K Karen (1) 318:22 keep (2) 328:10;335:18 kept (1) 334:12 key (1) 317:14 King (83) 315:3,6,7,9,15,15; 316:8,21,22;317:8,12, 15;318:22;319:12,15, 17,19,23;320:11,15, 22;321:12,13,23; 322:2,11,14,18,21,25; 323:3,3,6,9,12,23,23, 23;324:1,2,5,10,16, 19,21,21;325:5,7,9, 21,24;326:1,5,10,24; 327:1,5,7,9,11,15,20; 328:2,7,8,10,19,22, 24;329:1,5,7,10,18, 22;330:3,14,17,21; 331:6,9,10,15 King's (10) 316:5,14,16;320:2; 323:8;327:2,16; 328:4;329:15,16 knew (8) 317:19,23;323:3,7; 324:11;326:20; 329:13;338:7 knowing (1) 324:9 knowledge (1) 317:14 known (4) 332:19,22;333:1; 345:25 L lacked (1) 317:14 language (1) 331:2 LaSonya (8) 326:2;327:3; 328:17,22,25;329:4,6; 335:9 last (3) 321:2;329:11;337:6 later (1) 325:8 law (1) 343:10 lead (6) 323:19,21,22; 327:24;333:5,14 leader (4) 320:4;323:14; 326:19;327:25 leaders (1) 328:20 leadership (7) 319:17;320:6; 326:1,2;327:2,23,25 leading (1) 320:3 leads (4) 324:3;333:17,20; 334:20 learn (1) 339:25 learned (1) 315:18 leased (1) 332:13 leases (1) 332:23 leasing (19) 315:20;316:15; 318:10;319:25; 324:24;325:3;326:21; 332:5,12,16,18,25; 333:4,5,7,13,15; 337:5,10 least (13) 330:7;334:16,19; 335:15;336:11,16; 338:24;340:2,3; 341:20,23;342:16; 346:1 leave (2) 335:6,16 left (7) 318:19;320:7; 322:7;328:8;334:25; 337:16;342:19 legitimate (3) 319:14;320:12,18 less (2) 339:12;343:25 level (15) 325:16,16;326:8, 11,13,14;328:24; 329:1,2,17,18;331:10; 333:3;338:19;347:15 levels (1) 323:10 Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (4) GS-13s - levels Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 124 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 2 February 5, 2015 light (1) 340:6 liked (1) 329:22 likely (1) 337:3 limited (1) 326:2 list (2) 337:11,12 listen (1) 339:5 little (3) 317:18;321:1,3 located (4) 321:25;332:20,21; 334:23 location (1) 335:3 logic (1) 347:12 logical (5) 340:6;343:18; 345:22,24;348:6 long (2) 318:2;324:7 longer (1) 320:3 lost (1) 325:14 lowered (1) 325:15 lower-ranking (1) 342:6 lowest (2) 340:12,17 low-performing (4) 323:10;325:10; 326:6;329:13 M makers (1) 317:14 makes (5) 341:21;344:8; 347:4,9,11 making (1) 317:10 man (1) 346:25 managed (1) 334:6 management (17) 316:5,12;317:13, 14;319:17,22;320:2,9, 16;323:2;334:4; 340:19;341:14; 342:15;344:18; 345:17;346:15 management's (8) 316:7,10,20,22; 317:1,10,11;320:13 manager (2) 339:20;344:4 managers (2) 334:17;341:20 many (3) 318:11;336:22; 345:19 Maria (10) 317:8;318:21; 326:16;327:23,25; 328:12;329:17,19,22; 335:14 matter (1) 315:15 may (3) 320:15,16,17 mean (3) 322:3;323:23;331:2 measures (1) 329:14 meet (2) 316:2;335:21 meeting (4) 327:10;329:14; 336:1;338:25 memory (1) 321:23 mentor (1) 336:23 mentored (1) 325:3 met (2) 315:24;336:4 mind (1) 329:4 minutes (1) 321:2 misfits (1) 338:18 misguided (1) 330:23 mismanaged (4) 338:1;339:20; 344:3,25 mismanagement (2) 339:22,22 Miss (49) 315:6;316:14,15; 317:3,3,24,25;319:19, 24;320:1,5,9,11; 332:17;333:2;334:15; 335:5,6,9,10,12,14,15, 21,22,22;336:8,13,13, 24;337:2,4,16;339:1, 19,25;340:1,5;341:16, 25;342:1,12;344:4; 345:1,18,22;347:13, 24;348:3 Mississippi (1) 332:24 moment (2) 323:18;331:17 monetary (1) 325:14 month (1) 327:7 months (2) 325:8;333:13 more (18) 317:18;325:9; 328:13;337:2,9,21; 342:10;343:24; 344:13,17,18;345:13, 15,22;346:4;347:11, 25;348:5 Moreover (7) 336:23;337:8; 340:8,19;341:23; 345:1,6 most (2) 317:13;336:10 move (2) 335:19;336:7 Mowry (30) 316:13;317:3,21, 22,23;319:20;320:8; 324:9,15,23;325:2; 326:20,23;327:3; 329:12,21;333:11; 335:13,22;336:2,9,12, 13,17,19;337:5,10,17; 338:15;346:4 Mowry's (1) 347:14 Mrs (1) 316:5 much (13) 320:23;321:15; 337:14,20;338:2; 345:11,22;346:1,5,6; 347:20,24;348:10 myself (1) 343:12 N need (4) 327:1,12;331:8; 337:11 needed (9) 322:8;325:13,25; 328:17,18,21;333:21, 23;335:8 negative (1) 341:24 new (9) 322:5;328:6,11; 332:3;336:2,22; 338:16;341:17; 342:15 newly (2) 335:5,11 Next (1) 343:10 nondiscriminatory (3) 319:14;320:13,19 none (1) 335:10 nonexistent (1) 316:3 nonselection (2) 322:22;323:4 Nor (3) 340:5;344:22; 346:14 North (3) 326:18;329:19; 332:24 notion (1) 330:23 November (4) 323:1;325:8;327:6; 334:9 number (2) 333:16;338:16 nutshell (1) 325:19 O oath (1) 329:24 objective (4) 341:1,11;344:12; 345:9 objectively (1) 344:23 obviously (1) 318:23 odd (1) 321:5 odds (1) 327:14 off (7) 321:6,8,13,15; 329:15;331:9,20 office (1) 318:15 officer (2) 323:14,14 offices (1) 332:14 official (2) 316:6;327:4 officially (1) 327:8 officials (3) 316:13;317:13; 323:2 off-the-cuff (2) 345:12;346:7 off-the-record (1) 331:21 old (1) 328:19 once (1) 345:23 one (29) 319:5;322:5;323:1; 324:7;328:7,8,9,21; 331:24;332:19; 334:16;335:4,17,18, 19;336:5,6,10,11; 337:1;341:20;342:2, 9,14,24;343:21;346:4, 21;347:3 ones (2) 342:16;347:6 ongoing (1) 337:11 only (12) 324:24;325:17,18; 326:13;327:17; 328:21;330:10;331:1; 334:6;340:22;342:24; 345:7 opening (1) 322:19 operation (2) 332:18;333:14 opinion (7) 336:17,18;338:13, 14;339:4;344:21,23 opposed (3) 331:13;341:10; 346:13 original (1) 334:11 otherwise (1) 322:10 out (4) 321:17;332:10; 339:16,18 over (6) 321:21;324:14; 326:24;327:7;336:7; 342:12 overlook (1) 329:8 overrule (1) 326:3 oversaw (1) 332:23 own (1) 329:23 P package (2) 329:6,9 pairing (1) 327:17 part (4) 320:10;338:24; 342:4;347:11 partial (1) 345:7 partially (1) 341:23 participants (1) 338:24 particular (1) Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (5) light - particular Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 125 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 2 February 5, 2015 344:19 parties (1) 343:11 pay (2) 323:20,24 PBS (1) 318:10 people (10) 318:12;320:6; 321:25;322:4;327:24; 342:6,15,20;343:1; 347:6 perfect (5) 341:16,22;342:4; 343:4;347:4 perfectly (1) 345:24 performance (14) 325:15;326:8; 329:3,14,17;330:8; 333:19;334:20;338:3, 4;339:14;345:20; 346:8;347:19 performing (4) 338:19;340:10,12; 341:9 perhaps (5) 330:22;337:18; 342:11;343:8;344:16 permanent (4) 320:4;334:16; 335:8;342:21 person (3) 319:24;320:12; 325:18 personnel (1) 327:5 persons (6) 316:18;318:8,13, 14,17;319:19 pertains (1) 319:13 perturbed (1) 339:3 phone (1) 336:3 pick (1) 334:4 picked (3) 329:22;334:13; 347:2 place (12) 330:12;334:5,17; 335:6,7,17,18;341:18; 345:14;346:20;347:7, 18 placed (2) 342:7,19 placement (1) 334:14 placing (1) 327:16 plaintiff (1) 330:11 plan (2) 334:11;336:15 please (3) 318:3;322:10; 330:17 pm (1) 348:11 point (9) 321:7;337:17; 339:7,11,17;341:6,15; 342:9;344:7 points (4) 321:17,20,24; 343:21 poor (2) 339:20;344:4 poorly (1) 341:9 portfolio (2) 324:25;326:21 portion (2) 340:23;341:10 portrait (1) 344:25 portrayed (5) 340:8,18;341:3; 345:5,10 position (12) 320:6;322:23; 324:22,23;326:23; 328:1,1,4;332:4; 333:5,6,14 positions (6) 315:19;318:19,20; 334:1,22;342:6 possibility (1) 340:3 posture (2) 339:19;343:24 potential (3) 336:10;337:13; 346:3 premised (1) 342:25 preponderance (6) 325:20;338:11,13; 344:22;346:11;348:8 present (1) 345:2 presented (9) 315:25;316:9,25; 317:23;319:12; 340:19;343:12,18; 345:4 presents (1) 344:4 pressed (1) 347:8 pretext (1) 343:20 pretty (4) 321:14;345:11; 346:5,6 prevail (1) 315:22 prevent (1) 327:15 previous (1) 326:11 previously (3) 326:11;328:14; 348:4 prima (2) 343:15;346:19 prior (11) 316:6;317:15,25; 318:1;324:11;325:3; 326:18,20;327:10; 332:2;348:3 problematic (2) 344:20;345:10 problems (3) 338:9;341:4,24 proceed (6) 315:8,12;320:24; 321:21;324:6,20 Proceedings (1) 348:11 process (1) 317:10 productivity (1) 326:8 profile (2) 345:19;346:8 program (1) 324:25 promoted (5) 323:16;324:15,21; 333:4,5 promotion (3) 323:21;325:4; 327:22 proof (3) 327:22;341:11; 348:8 prove (5) 338:13;339:8; 341:1;343:22;344:22 proved (4) 315:23;322:21; 325:19,20 proven (1) 346:11 provided (4) 316:18;326:5,10; 338:22 provides (1) 332:13 proving (1) 339:7 Public (2) 315:20;332:13 punishment (1) 346:17 put (4) 328:10,13;347:3,5 Q qualities (2) 327:2,24 quasi-supervisory (1) 333:16 quite (5) 339:5,24;340:14; 346:9;347:16 R race (9) 315:17,23;316:6,7, 10,20;319:13;332:1; 343:16 raised (1) 321:18 rated (7) 328:23;338:4; 339:25;340:1,5,24; 344:7 rather (12) 319:16;320:11; 330:7;333:22;334:10, 14;335:23;336:6,13; 342:12;343:10;347:1 rating (8) 330:8;334:20; 338:3,8;339:14; 340:3;344:9;345:1 ratings (2) 345:20;347:19 rationale (1) 320:10 reach (1) 323:22 reached (1) 336:4 read (1) 343:11 readily (1) 340:20 ready (1) 315:7 real (2) 316:9;332:13 realistic (3) 338:2;339:23;344:5 Realizing (1) 325:4 really (7) 317:9;325:23; 340:25;345:14; 346:10,19,22 realty (4) 322:23;323:13; 324:22;326:22 reason (9) 319:14;337:9,13, 19,20;345:12,14,22; 346:3 reasonable (1) 348:5 reasons (3) 320:13,19;336:21 reassign (16) 316:7,21,22;317:5, 8,16;319:15,19,23; 323:3;327:4,5,11; 328:12;329:19,22 reassigned (12) 315:19;320:12; 322:25;323:6;325:7, 17,18;326:7,13;327:1, 8;332:3 reassignment (13) 316:11,17,19; 317:2;320:13,15,17, 19;323:8;327:10; 329:15,16;331:1 receive (2) 338:8;344:9 received (10) 325:2;326:11,13, 14,24;329:1,1;338:5; 339:14;345:1 receiving (2) 329:7;338:2 recently (1) 341:16 recollection (3) 318:3;323:18; 324:13 recommendation (1) 329:6 recommended (2) 336:19,25 recommending (1) 320:11 record (4) 315:2;322:10; 331:20,23 reduced (1) 333:15 reference (1) 334:1 reflection (1) 329:3 refresh (3) 318:3;321:23; 323:18 regarding (1) 339:19 Region (4) 318:10;332:12,18; 333:14 relate (2) 330:6;331:11 relation (1) 344:1 relied (2) 337:10;346:5 relief (1) Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (6) parties - relief Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 126 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 2 February 5, 2015 320:21 relying (1) 345:7 remain (1) 343:5 remaining (1) 320:7 remember (1) 318:5 render (2) 331:18,24 rendering (1) 315:4 repeat (1) 330:17 replaced (1) 333:14 report (1) 316:1 reported (1) 333:2 reporter (4) 320:24;321:1; 331:19;332:8 represented (3) 315:6,7;340:23 reprisal (1) 332:1 requested (1) 320:22 requests (1) 320:20 required (2) 316:2;346:21 respect (1) 340:11 responsibility (1) 334:18 responsible (1) 333:19 restructure (1) 333:13 result (2) 318:9;325:9 retaliated (2) 325:21;330:3 retaliation (7) 315:18,24;319:13; 322:20;323:9;331:12; 343:17 return (1) 330:2 review (3) 315:15;331:3; 343:13 reviews (2) 333:19;338:5 right (2) 319:9;339:17 rise (1) 347:15 risk (1) 329:7 rotational (1) 329:5 round (1) 334:7 rule (1) 320:21 S same (7) 323:21;326:23; 328:6,11;329:1; 334:23;335:3 Scott (9) 319:20;324:23; 325:2;326:20,23; 327:3;329:11,21; 333:11 second-tier (1) 347:6 section (61) 315:20;317:6; 318:9,19;320:4; 322:5;325:17;326:9; 327:18,19;328:1,4,20; 330:6;331:24;332:3, 4,11;333:15,18,18,21, 22,23,24,25;334:3,4, 8,10,13,14,16,19,22, 24;335:2,8,11,12,18, 20,20,23;336:6; 341:17,21;342:3,7,12, 15,21;343:7,10,14; 346:25;347:1,2,3,7,9 seemed (1) 339:2 Seiler (25) 316:14;317:3,24; 320:1;323:1,7;325:1; 326:20,22,25;327:2, 22;328:3,5;329:13; 332:17;333:2;334:15; 335:6,15;336:13; 337:4;339:1;341:16, 25 select (1) 335:17 selected (15) 317:6;318:8,14,20; 322:4;334:4,11; 335:3,5,11;343:4; 346:16;347:1,6;348:7 selectee (1) 334:2 selection (2) 343:6;348:1 selections (1) 334:7 senior (1) 323:14 sense (13) 328:13;329:2; 337:20;341:16,22; 342:4,10;343:4; 346:1;347:4,10,11; 348:5 sent (5) 322:1;342:11; 344:8;347:24;348:3 separate (2) 331:13,19 series (1) 338:18 served (3) 325:1;326:19; 327:24 Service (4) 315:20;332:13; 347:8;348:3 service-connected (2) 323:11;325:11 Services (1) 315:3 set (1) 315:4 sex (2) 332:1;343:16 Shania (1) 315:6 shared (3) 338:11,14;344:21 short (2) 323:5;334:9 show (8) 324:8;340:10; 343:19;344:10,12; 345:3,9,21 showing (2) 341:9;344:12 shown (3) 323:5;344:20; 346:14 shows (1) 322:10 sic (1) 328:10 side (1) 330:1 sides (1) 331:7 signed (1) 329:15 significant (1) 337:21 similar (5) 339:2;345:19,20; 346:9;347:19 simply (3) 336:24;341:10; 347:17 sincere (2) 338:22;339:4 situation (4) 338:6;344:2;345:3; 347:17 six (1) 333:23 skills (5) 319:17;320:10; 326:1,2;342:17 slightly (2) 341:3;343:25 slot (2) 342:22;347:7 slots (4) 318:6;322:7,7; 334:6 slotted (1) 318:17 sole (1) 315:15 solution (1) 336:5 somebody (2) 345:16;346:18 somehow (1) 342:25 someone (2) 319:16;328:14 sorry (1) 332:9 sort (1) 346:7 sound (1) 344:8 South (1) 332:24 Southeast (1) 332:14 space (2) 332:14;337:12 speakerphone (4) 321:6,8,11,12 special (1) 342:1 specialist (13) 322:23;323:13,21; 324:3,22,25;326:23; 332:6,25;333:4,6,8,15 specialists (2) 319:25;342:18 specific (1) 317:18 spend (1) 344:18 split (1) 346:7 spot (1) 334:12 stack (1) 327:14 staffed (1) 338:17 standing (1) 339:6 standpoint (2) 341:22;347:10 start (4) 321:17;328:11; 344:9,14 started (2) 328:6,7 starting (1) 323:13 stated (1) 343:19 statements (1) 322:19 statistics (7) 340:9,23;341:8,11; 345:3,4,8 still (1) 328:5 stood (4) 338:2;339:23; 344:2,5 stop (1) 322:17 stress (2) 323:10;325:10 strongly (1) 344:3 structural (2) 341:13;346:23 structure (1) 333:17 stuck (1) 339:21 style (1) 320:9 subject (3) 327:10;341:11; 342:23 subjective (1) 344:23 submitting (1) 327:5 subsequently (1) 333:5 success (2) 339:23;344:5 sufficient (1) 339:6 suggestion (1) 347:5 summer (1) 333:9 Sunrise (4) 318:15,18;319:3,5 supervised (1) 332:25 supervisor (9) 316:14,17;319:21; 322:23;326:3,14,21, 22;327:21 supervisors (1) 347:18 supervisory (6) 324:22;332:5,25; 333:7;334:18;342:17 supervisory-type (1) 323:20 Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (7) relying - supervisory-type Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 127 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 2 February 5, 2015 support (1) 326:6 sure (3) 321:4;341:19;342:1 surprising (1) 339:24 survive (1) 320:3 T talking (2) 321:15;322:17 team (9) 320:2,2,4,5,7; 323:14;326:19; 327:24;328:19 telling (1) 330:1 tells (1) 329:24 ten (3) 323:12;325:7; 333:21 tenants (1) 337:13 tend (1) 346:18 tentatively (1) 335:15 term (1) 334:9 terms (5) 317:23;324:8; 341:5;345:19;346:12 territory (2) 326:18;328:15 testified (17) 320:8;325:24; 326:1,19;327:2,23; 328:3,17,25;329:4; 336:14,20;337:6; 339:1,13;340:21; 341:16 testifies (1) 329:24 testify (1) 338:15 testimony (20) 316:1,9,12,19,25; 317:2,13,23;319:22; 320:1;329:25;338:22, 23;339:2,5,10,13; 340:6,16;347:14 Therefore (8) 334:7;335:15; 337:17;340:25;345:8; 346:10,17;347:21 Thereupon (1) 331:21 third-ranking (1) 341:4 though (4) 326:13;327:24; 344:8;346:3 thought (4) 319:23;320:17; 336:22,23 thoughts (1) 331:17 three (28) 316:18;317:6; 318:19,24;319:8; 322:4,7;325:12,16; 328:6,24;329:2; 330:8;332:21;333:17, 17,24;334:25;335:2, 4;338:4,8;341:17,18; 343:10;344:7;345:8; 347:2 threes (2) 326:13;331:10 throughout (1) 331:4 Thus (3) 317:9;333:17; 337:13 tied (1) 326:8 told (7) 325:24;326:16,17; 328:16;334:13;343:6, 7 total (2) 318:8;333:21 totally (1) 329:25 touted (1) 319:17 towards (1) 339:7 train (1) 319:24 transcript (2) 331:20;343:11 transfer (12) 327:4;330:6,12,16, 20,24;331:2;334:18; 336:12;337:3;338:25; 339:4 transferred (6) 337:1;338:5,23; 342:24;343:8;344:15 transparent (1) 327:8 treatment (1) 342:24 tried (2) 327:14,15 truth (1) 330:1 trying (4) 317:7;332:9;339:8, 12 turn (1) 321:21 Two (30) 318:14,17,18; 319:19;322:5;324:25; 325:8;328:19,24; 330:5;332:4;333:17, 18;334:23,24;335:12, 18,19;336:5,6,10,11; 343:3;344:1;346:8, 22;347:18,20,23; 348:4 type (1) 331:19 U ultimate (1) 339:7 unable (1) 336:1 under (6) 319:20;327:16; 329:24;335:13,21; 336:7 underneath (1) 347:19 understood (1) 336:21 undesirable (4) 337:25;339:9; 343:23;345:16 unequal (1) 342:24 unfair (1) 320:18 up (6) 331:19;334:2; 336:17;347:24,25; 348:1 upon (4) 337:10;339:3; 342:25;345:17 urgent (1) 327:12 used (2) 331:2;338:3 V vacant (1) 333:8 valid (1) 327:16 verdict (1) 330:2 versus (1) 315:3 view (1) 346:17 viewed (1) 346:15 viewpoint (1) 341:24 W wait (1) 334:10 waited (1) 327:7 Walker (4) 317:8;318:20; 335:5,16 Wanda (1) 327:18 warrant (1) 325:2 way (7) 325:23;326:16; 328:20;329:9;340:18; 341:13;346:14 ways (1) 347:16 week (1) 325:12 whose (1) 346:8 willing (1) 329:7 within (6) 332:12;333:12; 334:14;335:20;337:6; 338:9 without (4) 320:4;328:23; 334:1;340:21 witness (6) 316:1,9,25;326:17; 329:11,23 witnesses (2) 340:20;345:7 won (1) 342:21 wording (1) 332:10 work (1) 325:12 worked (12) 318:21,22,23; 323:12;324:24; 326:17;328:14; 329:19;332:11; 335:11;337:4;345:23 working (5) 320:8;325:13; 335:13;341:21; 347:19 works (1) 332:6 worse (3) 321:3;341:3;344:15 worsened (2) 323:11;325:11 worst (1) 341:2 wrong (1) 323:24 wrote (1) 326:22 Y year (1) 329:1 years (10) 323:13;324:25; 325:7;326:12;328:24; 337:4,6;345:19,23; 348:4 York (1) 336:2 1 13th (1) 323:4 14 (2) 315:16;332:2 16 (1) 328:6 2 2:36 (1) 348:11 2011 (9) 315:16;317:16; 322:24;323:1,4; 325:6,8;327:6;332:2 2012 (7) 326:18;328:6; 332:15;333:9,10; 334:9,15 2013 (1) 337:14 22 (1) 325:6 22nd (1) 333:10 23rd (1) 322:23 4 4 (4) 318:10;332:12,18; 333:14 6 6 (3) 323:1;325:8;327:6 Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (8) support - 6 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 128 of 140 In The Matter Of: King v. Tangherlini Proceedings Vol. 3 February 5, 2015 D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. Court Reporters & Videoconferencing 11475 West Rd, Roswell, GA 30075 (770) 645-6111 or toll-free (888) 355-6111 Min-U-Script® with Word Index Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 129 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 3 February 5, 2015 Page 334 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ATLANTA DISTRICT OFFICE KAREN KING, ) EEOC HEARING NUMBER ) 410-2014-0056X Complainant, ) ) vs. ) ) DAN M. TANGHERLINI, ) ADMINISTRATOR, ) AGENCY NUMBER GENERAL SERVICES ) 12-R04-PBS-KMK-01 ADMINISTRATION, ) ) Agency. ) Volume III of III ___________________________) Pages 334-354 The above-entitled case came on for hearing before the Honorable Timothy G. Hagan and was reported via teleconference by Thomas R. Brezina, Certified Court Reporter, at 100 Alabama Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia, on the 5th day of February, 2015, resuming at the hour of 2:01 p.m. * * * D'AMICO GERSHWIN, INC. Court Reporters & Videoconferencing 11475 West Road Roswell, Georgia 30075 (770) 645-6111 www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com Page 335 1 INDEX TO BENCH DECISION 2 Ruling By the Court Page/Line 3 337/1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 336 1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL: 2 On behalf of the Complainant: (present via teleconference) 3 SHANIA CHERELL KING 4 Attorney at Law 2180 Satellite Boulevard 5 Suite 400 Duluth, Georgia 30097 6 (678) 793-7975 shaniacking@gmail.com 7 8 On behalf of the Agency: (present via teleconference) 9 JARON E. CHRISS 10 Attorney at Law Assistant Regional Counsel 11 Office of Regional Counsel (4L) U.S. General Services Administration 12 GSA Region 4 Southeast Sunbelt Region 13 77 Forsyth Street, SW Suite 600 14 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 (404) 331-7910 15 fax: (404) 331-1231 jaron.chriss@gsa.gov 16 17 Also Present (via teleconference): Karen King, Ph.D. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 337 1 THE COURT: Let's go back on the record. I will now 2 render the bench decision. Section one, issue: The 3 complainant alleges that she was discriminated against 4 based on race, African-American; sex, female; and reprisal 5 for prior EEO activity when on December 14, 2011, she was 6 informed that she would be reassigned into a new section 7 chief position in Branch D. Section two, findings of 8 fact: The complainant is a GS-13 supervisory leasing 9 specialist. She works for the agency's -- no. At the 10 time that this complaint arose, the complainant -- 11 THE REPORTER: Hello? 12 THE COURT: No. I'm sorry. I'm just trying to 13 figure out my wording. At the time the complaint arose 14 the complainant was a GS-13 section chief. She worked for 15 the agency's Region 4 within the leasing division of the 16 Public Buildings Service, which provides leased real 17 estate space for federal offices in the Southeast. 18 This complaint arose in December of 2012. At that 19 time Mr. David Hofstetter was the director of the leasing 20 division. Miss Ellen Seiler was the deputy director. The 21 leasing operation in Region 4 was divided into four 22 branches known as A, B, C, and D. One of the branches, 23 Branch A, was located in Florida. 24 The other three branches were located in Atlanta, 25 Georgia, and those branches were known as B, C, and D, and Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (1) Pages 334 - 337 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 130 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 3 February 5, 2015 Page 338 1 they oversaw federal leases in Georgia, Alabama, 2 Mississippi, and North and South Carolina. The branches 3 were each supervised by a supervisory leasing specialist, 4 GS-14, also known as a branch chief. The branch chiefs 5 reported directly to Miss Seiler, the deputy. 6 The complainant achieved the GS-13 level when she was 7 promoted to the job of leasing specialist. She was 8 subsequently promoted to the position of lead leasing 9 specialist. However, that was also a GS-13 position. The 10 complainant applied for the job of supervisory leasing 11 specialist, GS-14, for her branch when it became vacant in 12 the summer of 2012. 13 She filed an EEO complaint on August 22nd, 2012, 14 after the job was awarded to Mr. Scott Mowry who became 15 her boss. She dropped the complaint within a couple of 16 months. The agency decided to restructure the leasing 17 operation in Region 4. It replaced the position of lead 18 leasing specialist with that of section chief and reduced 19 the number of quasi-supervisory jobs in each branch from 20 three to two. Thus, the structure went from three leads 21 in each branch to two section chiefs. The section chiefs 22 were responsible for issuing performance reviews, which 23 the leads had not been. 24 The agency needed to hire a total of ten section 25 chiefs, including eight section chiefs -- or, rather, the Page 339 1 agency needed to hire eight section chiefs, including six 2 section chiefs for the three branches that were based in 3 Atlanta. The agency announced and filled the section 4 chief positions without reference to the branch that the 5 selectee would end up being assigned to. 6 The complainant applied for the job of section chief 7 and was selected. Management wanted to pick all section 8 chiefs and then decide where it would place them. 9 However, it only managed to fill five slots during the 10 first round of selections. Therefore, it decided that it 11 would go ahead and make section chief assignments in the 12 short term, in the November to December of 2012 time 13 frame, rather than wait until all the section chiefs had 14 been selected, which had been the original plan. 15 The complainant kept her spot in Branch B after she 16 was told that she was picked as a section chief and then 17 was informed of her placement within section -- rather, 18 Branch D -- in December of 2012. Miss Seiler decided that 19 she wanted to have at least one permanent section chief in 20 place in each branch so that the branch managers could 21 transfer first-line supervisory responsibility for at 22 least some of their employees to the section heads, who 23 had performance rating authority that the leads had not 24 held. 25 The agency had filled five section chief positions at Page 340 1 the same time. Two of those were located in Florida, so 2 those two individuals were assigned to be section chiefs 3 at Branch A in Florida. That left three branches based in 4 Atlanta, Georgia: B, C, and D. 5 And the agency had three section chiefs that had been 6 selected who were in the same geographic location as those 7 three branches and -- however, one of those individuals, 8 newly selected individuals, Miss Walker, was already in 9 place in Branch C, so Miss Seiler elected to leave her in 10 place in Branch C. 11 The agency then needed to assign a permanent section 12 chief to assist Miss LaSonya Glover, who was the branch 13 chief for Branch D. Miss Glover did not have any -- none 14 of the newly selected section chiefs worked in 15 Miss Glover's area. However, there were two section 16 chiefs working under Mr. Mowry; that is, the complainant 17 and Miss Maria Dent. 18 Therefore, Miss Seiler decided at least tentatively 19 that what she would do would be to leave Ms. Walker in 20 place in Branch D and make -- and select one of the -- 21 keep one of the two section chiefs in place in Branch B 22 and take the other one of those two and move -- assign 23 them to the section chief -- to be a section chief within 24 Branch D under Miss Glover. That she wanted to meet with 25 Miss -- Mr. Mowry and Miss Glover to decide, since they Page 341 1 were the section chiefs in charge of the -- rather, the 2 branch chiefs in charge of the branches that would be 3 affected. 4 She was unable to arrange a face-to-face meeting 5 because Mr. Mowry was on detail in New York City, so 6 instead she arranged for a conference phone call, at which 7 they met and decided what to do. They reached agreement 8 that the best solution was to take one of the two 9 branch -- rather, one of the two section chiefs currently 10 employed in Branch B and move them over to Branch D under 11 Miss Glover. 12 They deferred to the judgment of Mr. Mowry because he 13 was the one who was most familiar with the two potential 14 candidates and because he was at least one of the two who 15 would be directly affected by the transfer. Mr. Mowry -- 16 rather, at the hearing Miss Seiler, Mr. Mowry, and Miss 17 Glover all testified credibly and consistently that they 18 agreed to the -- that this was the best plan of action, 19 and they agreed that -- well, they at least agreed to ask 20 Mr. Mowry for his opinion and ended up deferring to that 21 opinion. 22 Mr. Mowry recommended that the complainant be 23 assigned to Branch D. At the hearing he testified 24 credibly to the reasons for his decision. He understood 25 that Branch D had many new employees, and he thought that Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (2) Pages 338 - 341 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 131 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 3 February 5, 2015 Page 342 1 the complainant was a good mentor. Moreover, he thought 2 that he simply got along better with Miss Dent, and it was 3 on that basis that he recommended that the complainant be 4 the one who was transferred. 5 The complainant asserts that Miss Dent was a more 6 likely candidate for transfer to Branch D because she had 7 worked there a couple years back. However, Miss Seiler 8 and Mr. Mowry, who had each joined the leasing division 9 within the last couple of years, both testified credibly 10 that they were not aware of that fact. 11 Moreover, even if they were aware of that fact I fail 12 to see how that factor is more compelling than the reason 13 that Mr. Mowry actually relied upon. The leasing division 14 has an ongoing list of federal agencies that need to be 15 housed. However, the list changes as space is found for 16 potential tenants. Thus, there is no reason to think that 17 the book of business as of January of 2013 had much in 18 common with the book of business as it existed when 19 Miss Dent left Branch B. 20 Therefore, if in point of fact Mr. Mowry had been 21 aware of that background fact, perhaps that would have 22 been a reason he would have acted on. If so, it would 23 have made just as much sense as the reason that he cited, 24 but I fail to see where it is a more significant fact than 25 the fact that he cited. By the agency's description this Page 343 1 was -- the complainant asserts that Branch B was highly 2 desirable since it was the highest-performing branch and 3 Branch D was highly undesirable. 4 She claims that Branch D was entirely mismanaged, so 5 much so that she stood no realistic chance of receiving a 6 performance rating of five like she was used to. In fact, 7 she has been rated as a three in each of the performance 8 reviews that she has received since she was transferred. 9 And she claims that the situation in Branch D was so 10 dire that, in effect, everyone knew in advance that she 11 was doomed to receive a rating of three and no higher due 12 to problems beyond her control that existed within the 13 branch. The complainant did not demonstrate by a 14 preponderance of the evidence that anyone else shared -- 15 the complainant clearly made a convincing case that this 16 was her opinion. She did not prove by a preponderance of 17 the evidence that anyone else shared her opinion. 18 Mr. Mowry did testify that he was aware that Branch D 19 had a number of new employees. However, that is a far cry 20 from the complainant's claim that it was staffed with a 21 series of misfits who could never be brought around to 22 performing at a high level. 23 And the complainant has demonstrated -- well, also 24 the evidence -- the complainant made a -- certainly 25 provided sincere testimony that she was extremely Page 344 1 distraught to be transferred to Branch D. Her testimony 2 is corroborated at least in part by the participants in 3 the meeting that was held to announce the transfer to her. 4 Ms. Glover testified, and I believe Miss Seiler gave 5 similar testimony, that the complainant seemed to be 6 perturbed immediately upon being informed about the 7 transfer, so it is clear that that is her sincere opinion, 8 and, quite frankly, when you listen to her testimony 9 standing all by itself, it was sufficient to make 10 considerable headway towards proving the ultimate point 11 she was trying to prove; i.e., that this was a very 12 undesirable assignment. 13 However, by the time that all the testimony was in, 14 the complainant's -- the point that the complainant was 15 trying to make was far less convincing than what it was at 16 the end of her testimony. Ms. Glover testified that she 17 received a performance rating of four. I fail to see how 18 it is that that could have happened if things were half as 19 bad as the complainant has made them out to be. 20 And in point of fact, I don't know if she comes right 21 out and says so, but clearly the clear inference behind 22 her posture regarding Branch D is that Miss Glover was a 23 poor manager, she had mismanaged things, the complainant 24 was now going to be stuck with the fruits of her 25 mismanagement, and that the mismanagement was so bad that Page 345 1 the complainant stood no realistic chance of success. 2 That being the case, I find it quite surprising to 3 learn that Miss Glover had been rated as a four, and if 4 Miss Glover had been rated as a four, I fail to see why 5 the complainant could not have gotten at least that high 6 of a rating, at least as a possibility. 7 And the complainant did not challenge the assertion 8 of that Miss Glover had been rated as a four. Nor in 9 light of that testimony did she give a logical explanation 10 as to how Branch D could have been even half as bad as 11 she's portrayed it as. Moreover, the complainant did 12 introduce a color-coded chart that contains statistics 13 that show that Branch B was performing the best of any of 14 the branches with respect to the color-coded chart, and 15 Branch D was performing lowest. 16 I would say even the chart is not as extreme as you 17 would -- you don't get quite the extreme impression from 18 the chart that you would get from the complainant's 19 testimony. Clearly Branch B was the best on the chart and 20 Branch D was the lowest, but it is not as extreme as you'd 21 expect from the way the complainant has portrayed things. 22 Moreover, the chart was presented to the management 23 witnesses. They readily admitted that the chart was 24 accurate insofar as it went, but they testified without 25 contradiction from the complainant that the chart only Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (3) Pages 342 - 345 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 132 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 3 February 5, 2015 Page 346 1 represented a portion of the statistics that the branches 2 are rated on. 3 And I find that if -- therefore it really doesn't 4 prove on an objective basis that Branch D was even the 5 worst branch, let alone that it -- and the complainant has 6 not portrayed this as Branch D being slightly worse than 7 the third-ranking branch. She expresses the problems 8 there in very dire terms. 9 So if in point of fact if things were as bad as she 10 appears to believe, I would think she would come -- should 11 have been able to come forward with other statistics 12 showing that Branch D was performing poorly across the 13 board as opposed to simply in the portion of the 14 statistics that were the subject of objective proof at the 15 hearing. 16 The complainant also challenges the structural way 17 that management approached this. However, I didn't find 18 her arguments on that point to be convincing. It made 19 perfect sense. Miss Seiler testified that she recently 20 hired three new section chiefs that were going to be in 21 place in Atlanta, Georgia. She had three branches in 22 Atlanta, Georgia, and she decided that she would make sure 23 that each of the branch managers had at least one 24 full-fledged section chief working for them. That makes 25 perfect sense from my standpoint. Page 347 1 Moreover, if the complainant is at least partially 2 correct in her negative viewpoint as to the problems in 3 Branch D, then you'd think that Miss Seiler would want to 4 take special care to make sure that Miss Glover had the 5 benefit of the assistance of one of these full-fledged 6 section chiefs. 7 So that part of the equation made perfect sense, and 8 the complainant's attempts to argue that -- well, that 9 some of the people holding lower-ranking positions or 10 placed on details as section chiefs should have been 11 assigned to Branch D instead of herself is not convincing, 12 and, in point of fact, there was one alternative that 13 would make more sense. 14 Perhaps they should have sent both the complainant 15 and Miss Dent over to section D -- rather, to Branch D, 16 but the idea that Branch D should have been -- the 17 higher-performing branches should have each gotten one of 18 the new section chiefs, who are the people that management 19 had decided were the best employees or at least the ones 20 with the best degree of supervisory skills amongst the 21 GS-13 specialists -- the idea that those folks should be 22 placed in other branches and Branch D should be left to 23 get by with people that -- the folks that had not, in 24 effect, won the competition for the permanent section 25 chief slot is not convincing to me. Page 348 1 The complainant also asserts she has been subject to 2 unequal treatment because she's the only one transferred, 3 and that argument is premised upon the idea that somehow 4 she's comparable to the people down in Florida, and that 5 is another argument that is not convincing. 6 They had two branch chiefs down in Florida. It made 7 perfect sense that the branch chiefs selected in Florida 8 would remain in Florida, and if the complainant had been 9 told -- congratulated on her assignment or selection for 10 the job of section chief and then told that she was being 11 transferred down to Florida, perhaps we would have a 12 different case. 13 Next, section three, applicable law: Rather than 14 read it to the parties I'll include it in the transcript 15 after it's been presented to myself for my edit and 16 review. 17 Section four is the decision and analysis. I find 18 that the complainant has not established a prima facie 19 case of discrimination based on race, sex, or EEO 20 retaliation. To the extent that she has, the agency has 21 presented a logical explanation for its actions, and the 22 complainant has failed to show that the agency's stated 23 explanation is a pretext for invidious discrimination. 24 One of the central points that the complainant attempted 25 to prove was the idea that Branch D was an extremely Page 349 1 undesirable assignment. 2 As I've indicated, she -- her posture is more than 3 this was something that was slightly less than desirable 4 in relation to the other two branches in Atlanta. She 5 describes this as a situation where she stood -- as a 6 mismanaged department. She strongly implies that 7 Miss Glover was a poor manager, and she presents the case 8 that she stood no realistic chance of success in that 9 department. 10 In point of fact, she was rated as a three when she 11 was sent there. She makes it sound as though she was 12 doomed from the start to receive such a rating, and if in 13 fact the complainant could show that everyone agreed that 14 Branch D was as bad as the complainant thinks it is or if 15 she could show by some objective showing that that was the 16 case, then her case would be more convincing. 17 If you start with the assumption that it is -- it is 18 almost a fate worse than death to be transferred to Branch 19 D, then perhaps some of the complainant's arguments become 20 more compelling. Certainly you would think that 21 management would spend more time and effort deciding 22 exactly who would be assigned to this particular 23 problematic branch, but the complainant has not shown that 24 anyone shared her opinion as to how dire things in Branch 25 D were. Nor did she even prove by a preponderance of the Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (4) Pages 346 - 349 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 133 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 3 February 5, 2015 Page 350 1 evidence that her subjective opinion is objectively based. 2 There is a fatal conflict between the complainant's 3 portrait of Branch D as hopelessly mismanaged and the fact 4 that Miss Glover received a rating of four. Moreover, it 5 would be -- while the complainant attempted to present 6 statistics, she did not to show the situation in branch 7 four -- the statistics that she presented were not as bad 8 as she portrayed Branch D as being. 9 Moreover, she did not challenge the assertion of the 10 agency witnesses that she was only relying on partial 11 statistics for the three branches. Therefore, the 12 complainant did not show that on an objective basis, this 13 was -- the branch was as problematic as she portrayed it 14 as being. The agency pretty much admits that this was 15 almost an off-the-cuff decision, and there is no reason 16 why it had to be something more than that. 17 Well, in the first place there is really no reason 18 why it had to be something more than that. Even if Branch 19 D was an undesirable assignment, somebody had to do it, 20 and management was called upon to make a choice between 21 Miss Dent and the complainant, each of whom had a very 22 similar profile in terms of many years with the agency and 23 similar performance ratings. 24 The complainant attempts to show that there was a 25 much more logical reason for assigning Miss Dent; i.e., Page 351 1 she'd worked in Branch D a couple of years back, and once 2 again, I think that's a perfectly logical explanation, and 3 if the agency had known that and made a decision on that 4 basis, its decision would have made at least as much sense 5 as the decision it made. 6 I'm not convinced, though, that that potential reason 7 is one bit more compelling than the factor that Mr. Mowry 8 relied on in the decision which he pretty much admits that 9 he made, which he pretty much admits was made in an 10 off-the-cuff fashion in an attempt to sort of split hairs 11 between two individuals whose performance profile was 12 quite similar. 13 Therefore, and I really don't -- the complainant has 14 not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that she 15 experienced a change in the terms and conditions of 16 employment by being assigned to Branch D as opposed to 17 Branch B. Nor has she shown, based on the way that the 18 agency -- management viewed those branches, that the 19 assignment to Branch D was something that the selected 20 individual would view as punishment and therefore would 21 tend to dissuade somebody from filing an EEO complaint. 22 So she really hasn't established a prima facie case 23 in the first place. To the extent that the agency is 24 required to give an explanation, the agency has given one. 25 There are really two halves to the agency's explanation, Page 352 1 and the first half is almost a structural explanation 2 where the agency indicates that it decided to make 3 decisions in Atlanta from amongst the section man -- or, 4 rather, section chiefs that had been selected in Atlanta. 5 They had picked three section chiefs and decided to 6 put one section chief in each branch. That is a decision 7 that makes perfect sense, and the complainant's contrary 8 suggestion that they should have put some of the 9 second-tier people, the ones who had failed to be selected 10 for the section chief slot in the first place -- that some 11 of those folks should have been pressed into service 12 instead of the section chiefs, is not something that makes 13 sense from my standpoint. Certainly the agency's 14 explanation on that part of it makes more sense than the 15 logic of the complainant's counterargument. 16 As to the decision between Miss Dent and the 17 complainant, Mr. Mowry's testimony was entirely credible. 18 His explanation, although -- does not rise above the level 19 of something that could be quite easily argued both ways, 20 but this is simply a situation where he had to make a 21 choice between two supervisors who were in place, both 22 working underneath him with similar performance ratings, 23 and there was not that much difference between the two. 24 Therefore, you would not expect that there would be a 25 highly compelling decision when he made his decision as to Page 353 1 which of the two would go into Branch D, and if he had 2 sent Miss Dent, I doubt he could have come up with much 3 more of a compelling explanation than what he came up to 4 explain -- came up with to explain the selection of the 5 complainant. 6 If he had sent Miss Dent and cited her prior service 7 in that branch two years previously, that would have made 8 a reasonable amount of sense but would have been no more 9 logical or compelling than his explanation to why the 10 complainant was selected, so I find the complainant has 11 not carried her burden of proof by a preponderance of the 12 evidence, and my decision is in favor of the agency. 13 Thank you very much. 14 (Proceedings concluded at 2:36 p.m.) 15 - - - 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (5) Pages 350 - 353 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 134 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 3 February 5, 2015 Page 354 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 I hereby certify that the foregoing 4 script was taken down, as stated in the caption; 5 the colloquies, questions, and answers were 6 ced to typewriting under my direction; and that 7 foregoing pages 334 through 353 represent a true, 8 ect, and complete record of the judge's ruling at 9 hearing. 10 The above certification is expressly 11 drawn and denied upon the disassembly or 12 ocopying of the foregoing transcript, unless said 13 ssembly or photocopying is done under the auspices 14 'Amico Gershwin, Inc., Certified Court Reporters, 15 the signature and original seal is attached 16 eto. 17 I further certify that I am not a relative 18 mployee or attorney of any party, nor am I in any 19 interested in the result of said case. 20 This, the 2nd day of March, 2015. 21 22 23 ________________________________ THOMAS R. BREZINA, CCR-B-2035 24 25 Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (6) Page 354 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 135 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 3 February 5, 2015 A able (1) 346:11 above (1) 352:18 accurate (1) 345:24 achieved (1) 338:6 across (1) 346:12 acted (1) 342:22 action (1) 341:18 actions (1) 348:21 activity (1) 337:5 actually (1) 342:13 admits (3) 350:14;351:8,9 admitted (1) 345:23 advance (1) 343:10 affected (2) 341:3,15 African-American (1) 337:4 again (1) 351:2 against (1) 337:3 agencies (1) 342:14 agency (17) 338:16,24;339:1,3, 25;340:5,11;348:20; 350:10,14,22;351:3, 18,23,24;352:2; 353:12 agency's (6) 337:9,15;342:25; 348:22;351:25; 352:13 agreed (4) 341:18,19,19; 349:13 agreement (1) 341:7 ahead (1) 339:11 Alabama (1) 338:1 alleges (1) 337:3 almost (3) 349:18;350:15; 352:1 alone (1) 346:5 along (1) 342:2 alternative (1) 347:12 although (1) 352:18 amongst (2) 347:20;352:3 amount (1) 353:8 analysis (1) 348:17 announce (1) 344:3 announced (1) 339:3 appears (1) 346:10 applicable (1) 348:13 applied (2) 338:10;339:6 approached (1) 346:17 area (1) 340:15 argue (1) 347:8 argued (1) 352:19 argument (2) 348:3,5 arguments (2) 346:18;349:19 arose (3) 337:10,13,18 around (1) 343:21 arrange (1) 341:4 arranged (1) 341:6 assertion (2) 345:7;350:9 asserts (3) 342:5;343:1;348:1 assign (2) 340:11,22 assigned (6) 339:5;340:2; 341:23;347:11; 349:22;351:16 assigning (1) 350:25 assignment (5) 344:12;348:9; 349:1;350:19;351:19 assignments (1) 339:11 assist (1) 340:12 assistance (1) 347:5 assumption (1) 349:17 Atlanta (8) 337:24;339:3; 340:4;346:21,22; 349:4;352:3,4 attempt (1) 351:10 attempted (2) 348:24;350:5 attempts (2) 347:8;350:24 August (1) 338:13 authority (1) 339:23 awarded (1) 338:14 aware (4) 342:10,11,21; 343:18 B back (3) 337:1;342:7;351:1 background (1) 342:21 bad (6) 344:19,25;345:10; 346:9;349:14;350:7 based (6) 337:4;339:2;340:3; 348:19;350:1;351:17 basis (4) 342:3;346:4; 350:12;351:4 became (2) 338:11,14 become (1) 349:19 behind (1) 344:21 bench (1) 337:2 benefit (1) 347:5 best (6) 341:8,18;345:13, 19;347:19,20 better (1) 342:2 beyond (1) 343:12 bit (1) 351:7 board (1) 346:13 book (2) 342:17,18 boss (1) 338:15 both (4) 342:9;347:14; 352:19,21 Branch (72) 337:7,23;338:4,4, 11,19,21;339:4,15,18, 20,20;340:3,9,10,12, 13,20,21,24;341:2,9, 10,10,23,25;342:6,19; 343:1,2,3,4,9,13,18; 344:1,22;345:10,13, 15,19,20;346:4,5,6,7, 12,23;347:3,11,15,16, 22;348:6,7,25;349:14, 18,23,24;350:3,6,8, 13,18;351:1,16,17,19; 352:6;353:1,7 branches (17) 337:22,22,24,25; 338:2;339:2;340:3,7; 341:2;345:14;346:1, 21;347:17,22;349:4; 350:11;351:18 brought (1) 343:21 Buildings (1) 337:16 burden (1) 353:11 business (2) 342:17,18 C call (1) 341:6 called (1) 350:20 came (2) 353:3,4 candidate (1) 342:6 candidates (1) 341:14 care (1) 347:4 Carolina (1) 338:2 carried (1) 353:11 case (8) 343:15;345:2; 348:12,19;349:7,16, 16;351:22 central (1) 348:24 certainly (3) 343:24;349:20; 352:13 challenge (2) 345:7;350:9 challenges (1) 346:16 chance (3) 343:5;345:1;349:8 change (1) 351:15 changes (1) 342:15 charge (2) 341:1,2 chart (8) 345:12,14,16,18,19, 22,23,25 chief (19) 337:7,14;338:4,18; 339:4,6,11,16,19,25; 340:12,13,23,23; 346:24;347:25; 348:10;352:6,10 chiefs (26) 338:4,21,21,25,25; 339:1,2,8,13;340:2,5, 14,16,21;341:1,2,9; 346:20;347:6,10,18; 348:6,7;352:4,5,12 choice (2) 350:20;352:21 cited (3) 342:23,25;353:6 City (1) 341:5 claim (1) 343:20 claims (2) 343:4,9 clear (2) 344:7,21 clearly (3) 343:15;344:21; 345:19 color-coded (2) 345:12,14 common (1) 342:18 comparable (1) 348:4 compelling (6) 342:12;349:20; 351:7;352:25;353:3,9 competition (1) 347:24 complainant (49) 337:3,8,10,14; 338:6,10;339:6,15; 340:16;341:22;342:1, 3,5;343:1,13,15,23, 24;344:5,14,19,23; 345:1,5,7,11,21,25; 346:5,16;347:1,14; 348:1,8,18,22,24; 349:13,14,23;350:5, 12,21,24;351:13; 352:17;353:5,10,10 complainant's (8) Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (1) able - complainant's Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 136 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 3 February 5, 2015 343:20;344:14; 345:18;347:8;349:19; 350:2;352:7,15 complaint (6) 337:10,13,18; 338:13,15;351:21 concluded (1) 353:14 conditions (1) 351:15 conference (1) 341:6 conflict (1) 350:2 congratulated (1) 348:9 considerable (1) 344:10 consistently (1) 341:17 contains (1) 345:12 contradiction (1) 345:25 contrary (1) 352:7 control (1) 343:12 convinced (1) 351:6 convincing (7) 343:15;344:15; 346:18;347:11,25; 348:5;349:16 corroborated (1) 344:2 counterargument (1) 352:15 couple (4) 338:15;342:7,9; 351:1 COURT (2) 337:1,12 credible (1) 352:17 credibly (3) 341:17,24;342:9 cry (1) 343:19 currently (1) 341:9 D David (1) 337:19 death (1) 349:18 December (4) 337:5,18;339:12,18 decide (2) 339:8;340:25 decided (9) 338:16;339:10,18; 340:18;341:7;346:22; 347:19;352:2,5 deciding (1) 349:21 decision (13) 337:2;341:24; 348:17;350:15;351:3, 4,5,8;352:6,16,25,25; 353:12 decisions (1) 352:3 deferred (1) 341:12 deferring (1) 341:20 degree (1) 347:20 demonstrate (1) 343:13 demonstrated (1) 343:23 Dent (10) 340:17;342:2,5,19; 347:15;350:21,25; 352:16;353:2,6 department (2) 349:6,9 deputy (2) 337:20;338:5 describes (1) 349:5 description (1) 342:25 desirable (2) 343:2;349:3 detail (1) 341:5 details (1) 347:10 difference (1) 352:23 different (1) 348:12 dire (3) 343:10;346:8; 349:24 directly (2) 338:5;341:15 director (2) 337:19,20 discriminated (1) 337:3 discrimination (2) 348:19,23 dissuade (1) 351:21 distraught (1) 344:1 divided (1) 337:21 division (4) 337:15,20;342:8,13 doomed (2) 343:11;349:12 doubt (1) 353:2 down (3) 348:4,6,11 dropped (1) 338:15 due (1) 343:11 during (1) 339:9 E easily (1) 352:19 edit (1) 348:15 EEO (4) 337:5;338:13; 348:19;351:21 effect (2) 343:10;347:24 effort (1) 349:21 eight (2) 338:25;339:1 elected (1) 340:9 Ellen (1) 337:20 else (2) 343:14,17 employed (1) 341:10 employees (4) 339:22;341:25; 343:19;347:19 employment (1) 351:16 end (2) 339:5;344:16 ended (1) 341:20 entirely (2) 343:4;352:17 equation (1) 347:7 established (2) 348:18;351:22 estate (1) 337:17 even (6) 342:11;345:10,16; 346:4;349:25;350:18 everyone (2) 343:10;349:13 evidence (6) 343:14,17,24; 350:1;351:14;353:12 exactly (1) 349:22 existed (2) 342:18;343:12 expect (2) 345:21;352:24 experienced (1) 351:15 explain (2) 353:4,4 explanation (11) 345:9;348:21,23; 351:2,24,25;352:1,14, 18;353:3,9 expresses (1) 346:7 extent (2) 348:20;351:23 extreme (3) 345:16,17,20 extremely (2) 343:25;348:25 F face-to-face (1) 341:4 facie (2) 348:18;351:22 fact (14) 337:8;342:10,11, 20,21,24,25;343:6; 344:20;346:9;347:12; 349:10,13;350:3 factor (2) 342:12;351:7 fail (4) 342:11,24;344:17; 345:4 failed (2) 348:22;352:9 familiar (1) 341:13 far (2) 343:19;344:15 fashion (1) 351:10 fatal (1) 350:2 fate (1) 349:18 favor (1) 353:12 federal (3) 337:17;338:1; 342:14 female (1) 337:4 figure (1) 337:13 filed (1) 338:13 filing (1) 351:21 fill (1) 339:9 filled (2) 339:3,25 find (5) 345:2;346:3,17; 348:17;353:10 findings (1) 337:7 first (5) 339:10;350:17; 351:23;352:1,10 first-line (1) 339:21 five (3) 339:9,25;343:6 Florida (8) 337:23;340:1,3; 348:4,6,7,8,11 folks (3) 347:21,23;352:11 forward (1) 346:11 found (1) 342:15 four (8) 337:21;344:17; 345:3,4,8;348:17; 350:4,7 frame (1) 339:13 frankly (1) 344:8 fruits (1) 344:24 full-fledged (2) 346:24;347:5 G gave (1) 344:4 geographic (1) 340:6 Georgia (5) 337:25;338:1; 340:4;346:21,22 given (1) 351:24 Glover (15) 340:12,13,24,25; 341:11,17;344:4,16, 22;345:3,4,8;347:4; 349:7;350:4 Glover's (1) 340:15 good (1) 342:1 GS-13 (5) 337:8,14;338:6,9; 347:21 GS-14 (2) 338:4,11 Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (2) complaint - GS-14 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 137 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 3 February 5, 2015 H hairs (1) 351:10 half (3) 344:18;345:10; 352:1 halves (1) 351:25 happened (1) 344:18 heads (1) 339:22 headway (1) 344:10 hearing (3) 341:16,23;346:15 held (2) 339:24;344:3 Hello (1) 337:11 herself (1) 347:11 high (2) 343:22;345:5 higher (1) 343:11 higher-performing (1) 347:17 highest-performing (1) 343:2 highly (3) 343:1,3;352:25 hire (2) 338:24;339:1 hired (1) 346:20 Hofstetter (1) 337:19 holding (1) 347:9 hopelessly (1) 350:3 housed (1) 342:15 I idea (4) 347:16,21;348:3,25 ie (2) 344:11;350:25 immediately (1) 344:6 implies (1) 349:6 impression (1) 345:17 include (1) 348:14 including (2) 338:25;339:1 indicated (1) 349:2 indicates (1) 352:2 individual (1) 351:20 individuals (4) 340:2,7,8;351:11 inference (1) 344:21 informed (3) 337:6;339:17;344:6 insofar (1) 345:24 instead (3) 341:6;347:11; 352:12 into (4) 337:6,21;352:11; 353:1 introduce (1) 345:12 invidious (1) 348:23 issue (1) 337:2 issuing (1) 338:22 J January (1) 342:17 job (5) 338:7,10,14;339:6; 348:10 jobs (1) 338:19 joined (1) 342:8 judgment (1) 341:12 K keep (1) 340:21 kept (1) 339:15 knew (1) 343:10 known (4) 337:22,25;338:4; 351:3 L LaSonya (1) 340:12 last (1) 342:9 law (1) 348:13 lead (2) 338:8,17 leads (3) 338:20,23;339:23 learn (1) 345:3 leased (1) 337:16 leases (1) 338:1 leasing (12) 337:8,15,19,21; 338:3,7,8,10,16,18; 342:8,13 least (12) 339:19,22;340:18; 341:14,19;344:2; 345:5,6;346:23; 347:1,19;351:4 leave (2) 340:9,19 left (3) 340:3;342:19; 347:22 less (2) 344:15;349:3 level (3) 338:6;343:22; 352:18 light (1) 345:9 likely (1) 342:6 list (2) 342:14,15 listen (1) 344:8 located (3) 337:23,24;340:1 location (1) 340:6 logic (1) 352:15 logical (5) 345:9;348:21; 350:25;351:2;353:9 lower-ranking (1) 347:9 lowest (2) 345:15,20 M makes (5) 346:24;349:11; 352:7,12,14 man (1) 352:3 managed (1) 339:9 Management (7) 339:7;345:22; 346:17;347:18; 349:21;350:20; 351:18 manager (2) 344:23;349:7 managers (2) 339:20;346:23 many (2) 341:25;350:22 Maria (1) 340:17 meet (1) 340:24 meeting (2) 341:4;344:3 mentor (1) 342:1 met (1) 341:7 misfits (1) 343:21 mismanaged (4) 343:4;344:23; 349:6;350:3 mismanagement (2) 344:25,25 Miss (36) 337:20;338:5; 339:18;340:8,9,12,13, 15,17,18,24,25,25; 341:11,16,16;342:2,5, 7,19;344:4,22;345:3, 4,8;346:19;347:3,4, 15;349:7;350:4,21, 25;352:16;353:2,6 Mississippi (1) 338:2 months (1) 338:16 more (15) 342:5,12,24; 347:13;349:2,16,20, 21;350:16,18,25; 351:7;352:14;353:3,8 Moreover (7) 342:1,11;345:11, 22;347:1;350:4,9 most (1) 341:13 move (2) 340:22;341:10 Mowry (14) 338:14;340:16,25; 341:5,12,15,16,20,22; 342:8,13,20;343:18; 351:7 Mowry's (1) 352:17 much (11) 342:17,23;343:5; 350:14,25;351:4,8,9; 352:23;353:2,13 myself (1) 348:15 N need (1) 342:14 needed (3) 338:24;339:1; 340:11 negative (1) 347:2 new (6) 337:6;341:5,25; 343:19;346:20; 347:18 newly (2) 340:8,14 Next (1) 348:13 none (1) 340:13 Nor (3) 345:8;349:25; 351:17 North (1) 338:2 November (1) 339:12 number (2) 338:19;343:19 O objective (4) 346:4,14;349:15; 350:12 objectively (1) 350:1 offices (1) 337:17 off-the-cuff (2) 350:15;351:10 once (1) 351:1 one (21) 337:2,22;339:19; 340:7,20,21,22;341:8, 9,13,14;342:4; 346:23;347:5,12,17; 348:2,24;351:7,24; 352:6 ones (2) 347:19;352:9 ongoing (1) 342:14 only (4) 339:9;345:25; 348:2;350:10 operation (2) 337:21;338:17 opinion (7) 341:20,21;343:16, 17;344:7;349:24; 350:1 Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (3) hairs - opinion Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 138 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 3 February 5, 2015 opposed (2) 346:13;351:16 original (1) 339:14 out (3) 337:13;344:19,21 over (2) 341:10;347:15 oversaw (1) 338:1 P part (3) 344:2;347:7;352:14 partial (1) 350:10 partially (1) 347:1 participants (1) 344:2 particular (1) 349:22 parties (1) 348:14 people (5) 347:9,18,23;348:4; 352:9 perfect (5) 346:19,25;347:7; 348:7;352:7 perfectly (1) 351:2 performance (8) 338:22;339:23; 343:6,7;344:17; 350:23;351:11; 352:22 performing (4) 343:22;345:13,15; 346:12 perhaps (4) 342:21;347:14; 348:11;349:19 permanent (3) 339:19;340:11; 347:24 perturbed (1) 344:6 phone (1) 341:6 pick (1) 339:7 picked (2) 339:16;352:5 place (11) 339:8,20;340:9,10, 20,21;346:21;350:17; 351:23;352:10,21 placed (2) 347:10,22 placement (1) 339:17 plan (2) 339:14;341:18 pm (1) 353:14 point (8) 342:20;344:10,14, 20;346:9,18;347:12; 349:10 points (1) 348:24 poor (2) 344:23;349:7 poorly (1) 346:12 portion (2) 346:1,13 portrait (1) 350:3 portrayed (5) 345:11,21;346:6; 350:8,13 position (4) 337:7;338:8,9,17 positions (3) 339:4,25;347:9 possibility (1) 345:6 posture (2) 344:22;349:2 potential (3) 341:13;342:16; 351:6 premised (1) 348:3 preponderance (5) 343:14,16;349:25; 351:14;353:11 present (1) 350:5 presented (4) 345:22;348:15,21; 350:7 presents (1) 349:7 pressed (1) 352:11 pretext (1) 348:23 pretty (3) 350:14;351:8,9 previously (1) 353:7 prima (2) 348:18;351:22 prior (2) 337:5;353:6 problematic (2) 349:23;350:13 problems (3) 343:12;346:7;347:2 Proceedings (1) 353:14 profile (2) 350:22;351:11 promoted (2) 338:7,8 proof (2) 346:14;353:11 prove (5) 343:16;344:11; 346:4;348:25;349:25 proven (1) 351:14 provided (1) 343:25 provides (1) 337:16 proving (1) 344:10 Public (1) 337:16 punishment (1) 351:20 put (2) 352:6,8 Q quasi-supervisory (1) 338:19 quite (5) 344:8;345:2,17; 351:12;352:19 R race (2) 337:4;348:19 rated (6) 343:7;345:3,4,8; 346:2;349:10 rather (9) 338:25;339:13,17; 341:1,9,16;347:15; 348:13;352:4 rating (7) 339:23;343:6,11; 344:17;345:6;349:12; 350:4 ratings (2) 350:23;352:22 reached (1) 341:7 read (1) 348:14 readily (1) 345:23 real (1) 337:16 realistic (3) 343:5;345:1;349:8 really (5) 346:3;350:17; 351:13,22,25 reason (8) 342:12,16,22,23; 350:15,17,25;351:6 reasonable (1) 353:8 reasons (1) 341:24 reassigned (1) 337:6 receive (2) 343:11;349:12 received (3) 343:8;344:17;350:4 receiving (1) 343:5 recently (1) 346:19 recommended (2) 341:22;342:3 record (1) 337:1 reduced (1) 338:18 reference (1) 339:4 regarding (1) 344:22 Region (3) 337:15,21;338:17 relation (1) 349:4 relied (2) 342:13;351:8 relying (1) 350:10 remain (1) 348:8 render (1) 337:2 replaced (1) 338:17 reported (1) 338:5 REPORTER (1) 337:11 represented (1) 346:1 reprisal (1) 337:4 required (1) 351:24 respect (1) 345:14 responsibility (1) 339:21 responsible (1) 338:22 restructure (1) 338:16 retaliation (1) 348:20 review (1) 348:16 reviews (2) 338:22;343:8 right (1) 344:20 rise (1) 352:18 round (1) 339:10 S same (2) 340:1,6 Scott (1) 338:14 second-tier (1) 352:9 Section (47) 337:2,6,7,14; 338:18,21,21,24,25; 339:1,2,3,6,7,11,13, 16,17,19,22,25;340:2, 5,11,14,15,21,23,23; 341:1,9;346:20,24; 347:6,10,15,18,24; 348:10,13,17;352:3,4, 5,6,10,12 seemed (1) 344:5 Seiler (10) 337:20;338:5; 339:18;340:9,18; 341:16;342:7;344:4; 346:19;347:3 select (1) 340:20 selected (10) 339:7,14;340:6,8, 14;348:7;351:19; 352:4,9;353:10 selectee (1) 339:5 selection (2) 348:9;353:4 selections (1) 339:10 sense (11) 342:23;346:19,25; 347:7,13;348:7; 351:4;352:7,13,14; 353:8 sent (4) 347:14;349:11; 353:2,6 series (1) 343:21 Service (3) 337:16;352:11; 353:6 sex (2) 337:4;348:19 shared (3) 343:14,17;349:24 short (1) 339:12 Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (4) opposed - short Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 139 of 140 King v. Tangherlini Proceedings - Vol. 3 February 5, 2015 show (7) 345:13;348:22; 349:13,15;350:6,12, 24 showing (2) 346:12;349:15 shown (2) 349:23;351:17 significant (1) 342:24 similar (5) 344:5;350:22,23; 351:12;352:22 simply (3) 342:2;346:13; 352:20 sincere (2) 343:25;344:7 situation (4) 343:9;349:5;350:6; 352:20 six (1) 339:1 skills (1) 347:20 slightly (2) 346:6;349:3 slot (2) 347:25;352:10 slots (1) 339:9 solution (1) 341:8 somebody (2) 350:19;351:21 somehow (1) 348:3 sorry (1) 337:12 sort (1) 351:10 sound (1) 349:11 South (1) 338:2 Southeast (1) 337:17 space (2) 337:17;342:15 special (1) 347:4 specialist (6) 337:9;338:3,7,9,11, 18 specialists (1) 347:21 spend (1) 349:21 split (1) 351:10 spot (1) 339:15 staffed (1) 343:20 standing (1) 344:9 standpoint (2) 346:25;352:13 start (2) 349:12,17 stated (1) 348:22 statistics (7) 345:12;346:1,11, 14;350:6,7,11 stood (4) 343:5;345:1;349:5, 8 strongly (1) 349:6 structural (2) 346:16;352:1 structure (1) 338:20 stuck (1) 344:24 subject (2) 346:14;348:1 subjective (1) 350:1 subsequently (1) 338:8 success (2) 345:1;349:8 sufficient (1) 344:9 suggestion (1) 352:8 summer (1) 338:12 supervised (1) 338:3 supervisors (1) 352:21 supervisory (5) 337:8;338:3,10; 339:21;347:20 sure (2) 346:22;347:4 surprising (1) 345:2 T ten (1) 338:24 tenants (1) 342:16 tend (1) 351:21 tentatively (1) 340:18 term (1) 339:12 terms (3) 346:8;350:22; 351:15 testified (7) 341:17,23;342:9; 344:4,16;345:24; 346:19 testify (1) 343:18 testimony (9) 343:25;344:1,5,8, 13,16;345:9,19; 352:17 Therefore (8) 339:10;340:18; 342:20;346:3;350:11; 351:13,20;352:24 third-ranking (1) 346:7 though (2) 349:11;351:6 thought (2) 341:25;342:1 three (15) 337:24;338:20,20; 339:2;340:3,5,7; 343:7,11;346:20,21; 348:13;349:10; 350:11;352:5 Thus (2) 338:20;342:16 told (3) 339:16;348:9,10 total (1) 338:24 towards (1) 344:10 transcript (1) 348:14 transfer (5) 339:21;341:15; 342:6;344:3,7 transferred (6) 342:4;343:8;344:1; 348:2,11;349:18 treatment (1) 348:2 trying (3) 337:12;344:11,15 two (20) 337:7;338:20,21; 340:1,2,15,21,22; 341:8,9,13,14;348:6; 349:4;351:11,25; 352:21,23;353:1,7 U ultimate (1) 344:10 unable (1) 341:4 under (3) 340:16,24;341:10 underneath (1) 352:22 understood (1) 341:24 undesirable (4) 343:3;344:12; 349:1;350:19 unequal (1) 348:2 up (5) 339:5;341:20; 353:2,3,4 upon (4) 342:13;344:6; 348:3;350:20 used (1) 343:6 V vacant (1) 338:11 view (1) 351:20 viewed (1) 351:18 viewpoint (1) 347:2 W wait (1) 339:13 Walker (2) 340:8,19 way (3) 345:21;346:16; 351:17 ways (1) 352:19 whose (1) 351:11 within (6) 337:15;338:15; 339:17;340:23;342:9; 343:12 without (2) 339:4;345:24 witnesses (2) 345:23;350:10 won (1) 347:24 wording (1) 337:13 worked (4) 337:14;340:14; 342:7;351:1 working (3) 340:16;346:24; 352:22 works (1) 337:9 worse (2) 346:6;349:18 worst (1) 346:5 Y years (5) 342:7,9;350:22; 351:1;353:7 York (1) 341:5 1 14 (1) 337:5 2 2:36 (1) 353:14 2011 (1) 337:5 2012 (5) 337:18;338:12,13; 339:12,18 2013 (1) 342:17 22nd (1) 338:13 4 4 (3) 337:15,21;338:17 Min-U-Script® D'Amico Gershwin, Inc. www.AtlantaCourtReporter.com (5) show - 4 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-2 Filed 02/07/17 Page 140 of 140 EEO INVESTIGATIVE AFFIDAVIT (Witness) Page No. 1 No. Pages 11 Case No. 12-R04-PBS-KMK-01 Affiants Name (First, Middle, Last) 2. Employing Facility David Gordon Hofstetter General Services Administration (GSA) 3. Position Title 4. Grade Level 5. Facility Address and Zip + 4 6. Unit Assigned Director, Client Solutions GS-15 77 Forsyth St SW, Southeast Sunbelt Region 4 Division Atlanta, GA 30303-3458 Privacy Act Notice/Standards of Conduct Privacy Act Notice. The collection of this information is authorized by the Equal Employment Opportunity act of 1972, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 633a; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. This information will be used to adjudicate complaints of alleged discrimination and to evaluate the effectiveness of the EEO program. As a routine use, this information may be disclosed to an appropriate government agency, domestic or foreign, for law enforcement purposes; where pertinent, in a legal proceeding to which the Agency is a party or has an interest; to a government agency in order to obtain information relevant to an Agency decision concerning employment, security clearances, contracts, licenses, grants, permits or other benefits; to a government agency upon its request when relevant to its decision concerning employment, security clearances, security or suitability investigations, contracts, licenses, grants or other benefits; to a congressional office at your request; to an expert, consultant, or other person under contract with the Agency to fulfill an agency function; to the Federal Records Center for storage; to the Office of Management and Budget for review of private relief legislation; to an independent certified public accountant during an official audit of Agency finances; to an investigator, administrative judge or complaints examiner appointed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for Investigation of a formal EEO complaint under 29 CFR 1614; to the Merit Systems Protection Board or Office of Special Counsel for proceedings or investigations involving personnel practices and other matters within their jurisdiction; and to a labor organization as required by the National Labor Relations Act. The information requested through this form is voluntary for the complainant and for non-Federal Agency employees. Federal Agency employees, pursuant to 29 Code of Federal Regulations § 1614.108 (c)(1) and (c)(3), are required to cooperate and shall produce such documentary and testimonial evidence as the investigator deems necessary. Important Information Regarding Your Complaint This Form 2568-A, EEO Investigative Affidavit (Complainant), and the other form mentioned below, are being provided for you to use to fully respond to the accompanying questions. Mail or deliver your completed statement to the EEO complaints investigator withinl5 calendar days of the date you received the forms. Use Form(s) 2569, EEO Investigative Affidavit (Continuation Sheet), as needed, to complete your written statement. Remember to number the top of each page and sign and date the bottom of each page of your statement. If you return your statement by mail, the return envelope must be postmarked on or before the 15"' calendar day after the date that you received the affidavit forms. Failure to complete your statement and return the forms within the allotted time period could result in your complaint being dismissed based upon your failure to proceed. EEOC complaints processing regulation. 29 C.F.R. 1614.107(a)(7), states, in part, [A complaint may be dismissed] Where the agency has provided the complainant with the written request to provide relevant information or otherwise proceed with the complaint, and the complainant has failed to respond to the request within 15 days of its receipt, or the complainants response does not address the agency's request, provided that the request included a notice of the proposed dismissal.' Q1. You have the right to have a representative assist you in preparing your EEO affidavit statement. If you have a representative please state his /her name, position title, address, telephone number, and email address. If you do not have a representative please confirm that you have been advised of your right to representation but waive representation at this time. Al. I did not have a representative assist me in the preparation of my EEO Affidavit. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Form 2568-B, March 2001 Affidavit C Page 1 of 15 00111 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-3 Filed 02/07/17 Page 1 of 15 EEO Investigative Affidavit Page No. z 11 Case No. 12-R04-PBS-KMK-01 Q2. Please state your full name, position, grade level, work location, work address, work phone number, fax number, and e-mail address for the record. A2. David G. Hofstetter; Director, Client Solutions Division; GS-15; Southeast Sunbelt Region 4, General Services Administration (GSA), 77 Forsyth Street SW, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30303-3458; 404-562-2750 (work number); 404-730-9723 (fax); david.hofstetter(ftsa.gov. Q3. How long have you been in your current position? A3. I was assigned as the Director of the Client Solutions Division on June 17, 2012 Q4. Please identify your race. A4. Caucasian / White Q5. Please identify your sex. A5. Male Q6. Please state what you believe the Complainant's race to be and indicate how and when you became aware of it. A6. Based on my personal observation when I first met Ms. King in approximately 2005, I believe her race to be African American / Black. Q7. Please state what you believe the Complainant's sex to be and indicate how and when you became aware of it. AT Based on my personal observation when I first met Ms. King in approximately 2005, I believe her sex to be Female. Q8. Were you aware of the Complainant filing a previous formal EEO complaint on August 22, 2012? A8. An email from Ms. Michelle Rigo date, time group of 12:42 pm on 1/28/2013, advised that the above date should be August 22, 2011 instead of August 22, 2012. I was not aware that Ms. King had filed a formal EEO complaint on August 22, 2011. On 7/12/2011, I received an email from Ms. Sherry Robinson- Hatter, EEO Investigator, that indicated: "...I just need to know what your involvement was on selecting the candidate for the named position." that position being the Supervisory Realty Specialist or Branch Chief for Branch B. On 7/14/11, Ms. Robinson-Hatter provided me with questions to answer concerning her inquiry. On 7/26/2011, I provided the answers to these questions. On November 18, 2011, I was notified by Ms. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Date Signed X 1/2912013 Form 2568-B, March 2001 Affidavit C Page 2 of 15 00112 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-3 Filed 02/07/17 Page 2 of 15 EEO Investigative Affidavit Page No. 3 11 Case No. 12-R04-PBS-KMK-01 Ouida Cosey, Region 4, GSA, Regional EEO Officer that I "...had been identified as an individual that might have information that is relevant to the claims that have been alleged". I do not have the Case Number. In this Complaint, Ms. King alleged that she was discriminated against based on Race (African American), sex (female), and age (DOB: 1962), when on May 13, 2011, she was notified that she was non-selected for the position of Supervisory Realty Specialist, GS-14, Vacancy Announcement #11040525, GSA, Southeast Sunbelt Region 4. I would assume that the complaint filed on August 22, 2011 is the same one that I received the notification on November 18, 2011. Q9 If you were aware of the Complainant filing a previous formal EEO complaint on August 22, 2012, when did you become aware? A9. An email from Ms. Michelle Rigo date, time group of 12:42 pm on 1/28/2013, advised that the above date should be August 22, 2011 instead of August 22, 2012. I was not aware that Ms. King had filed a formal EEO complaint on August 22, 2011. I became aware of this formal EEO Complaint upon receipt of the Affidavit Request for EEO Complaint 12-R04-PBS-KMK-01 from Ms. Michelle Rigo, via email, on January 7, 2013. Background information on what I believe to be the same complaint is as follows: On 7112/2011, I received an email from Ms. Sherry Robinson- Hatter, EEO Investigator, that indicated: "...I just need to know what your involvement was on selecting the candidate for the named position." that position being the Supervisory Realty Specialist or Branch Chief for Branch B. On 7/14/11, Ms. Robinson-Hatter provided me with questions to answer concerning her inquiry. On 7/26/2011, I provided the answers to these questions. On November 18, 2011, I was notified by Ms. Ouida Cosey, Region 4, GSA, Regional EEO Officer that I "...had been identified as an individual that might have information that is relevant to the claims that have been alleged". I do not have the Case Number. In this Complaint, Ms. King alleged that she was discriminated against based on Race (African American), sex (female), and age (DOB: 1962), when on May 13, 2011, she was notified that she was non-selected for the position of Supervisory Realty Specialist, GS-14, Vacancy Announcement #11040525, GSA, Southeast Sunbelt Region 4. I would assume that the complaint filed on August 22, 2011 is the same one that I received the notification on November 18, 2011. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. AffiailT T'Sionatu XDavi Form 2568-B, March 2001 Date Signed X 1/29/2013 Affidavit C Page 3 of 15 00113 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-3 Filed 02/07/17 Page 3 of 15 EEO Investigative Affidavit Page No. I 11 Case No. 12-R04-PBS-KMK-01 Q10. If you were aware of the Complainant filing a previous formal EEO complaint on August 22, 2012, how did you become aware? A10. An email from Ms. Michelle Rigo date, time group of 12:42 pm on 1128/2013, advised that the above date should be August 22, 2011 instead of August 22, 2012. I was not aware that Ms. King had filed a formal EEO complaint on August 22, 2011. I became aware of this formal EEO Complaint upon receipt of the Affidavit Request for EEO Complaint 12-R04-PBS-KMK-01 from Ms. Michelle Rigo, via email, on January 7, 2013. Background information on what I believe to be the same complaint is as follows: On 7/12/2011, I received an email from Ms. Sherry Robinson- Hatter, EEO Investigator, that indicated: "...I just need to know what your involvement was on selecting the candidate for the named position." that position being the Supervisory Realty Specialist or Branch Chief for Branch B. On 7/14/11, Ms. Robinson-Hatter provided me with questions to answer concerning her inquiry. On 7/26/2011, I provided the answers to these questions. On November 18, 2011, I was notified by Ms. Ouida Cosey, Region 4, GSA, Regional EEO Officer that I "...had been identified as an individual that might have information that is relevant to the claims that have been alleged". I do not have the Case Number. In this Complaint, Ms. King alleged that she was discriminated against based on Race (African American), sex (female), and age (DOB: 1962), when on May 13, 2011, she was notified that she was non-selected for the position of Supervisory Realty Specialist, GS-14, Vacancy Announcement #11040525, GSA, Southeast Sunbelt Region 4. I would assume that the complaint filed on August 22, 2011 is the same one that I received the notification on November 18, 2011. Q11. To your knowledge, have you been named by the Complainant as a Responsible Management Official or witness, in a prior EEO Complaint that he filed? If so, please identify the case number(s) and identify the issue(s) involved in the complaint. Al 1. Yes; on November 18, 2011, I was notified by Ms. Ouida Cosey, Region 4, GSA, Regional EEO Officer that I "...had been identified as an individual that might have information that is relevant to the claims that have been alleged". I do not have the Case Number. Ms. King alleged that she was discriminated against based on Race (African American), sex (female), and age (DOB: 1962), when on May 13, 2011, she was notified that she was non-selected for the position of Supervisory Realty Specialist, GS-14, Vacancy Announcement #11040525, GSA, Southeast Sunbelt Region 4. Additional background information on what I believe to be the same I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Date Signed X 1/29/2013 Form 2568-B, March 2001 Affidavit C Page 4 of 15 00114 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-3 Filed 02/07/17 Page 4 of 15 EEO Investigative Affidavit " Page No. J 11 Case No. 12-R04-PBS-KMK-01 complaint is as follows: On 7112/2011, I received an email from Ms. Sherry Robinson- Hatter, EEO Investigator, that indicated: "...I just need to know what your involvement was on selecting the candidate for the named position." that position being the Supervisory Realty Specialist or Branch Chief for Branch B. On 7/14/11, Ms. Robinson-Hatter provided me with questions to answer concerning her inquiry. On 712612011, I provided the answers to these questions. Q12. What was your personal involvement, if any, in the prior EEO case(s) filed by the Complainant? Please identify the case number that you are referencing. A12. In the Case identified in A.11, I was the Selecting Official for the Selection Board for the position of Supervisory Realty Specialist, GS-14, Vacancy Announcement #11040525. An interview panel, consisting of three (3) GS- 14 level individuals from the Budget, Acquisition, and Portfolio Divisions, was convened on May 11, 2011 to evaluate thirteen (13) candidates that were referred by Human Resources to fill this vacancy. The evaluation plan was weighted to include work/life experience, formal education/training and quality of interview and had a maximum score of 105 for each candidate. The interview panel evaluated each candidate based upon the evaluation plan and awarded a score to each, ranking the thirteen (13) candidates from 1 to 13. Ms. King was ranked number 8 with a score of 65 while the number 1 candidate had a score of 90. As the Selecting Official and after a thorough review of the results of the Interview Panel, I selected candidate number I to fill the referenced position, as he was unquestionably the most qualified. Q13. Describe your past or current working/reporting relationship with Complainant (i.e, supervisor, manager, no work relationship, etc.). Al 3. I was the Director of the Real Estate Acquisition Division (READ), now designated as the Leasing Division, Region 4, GSA, from October 26, 2009 until April 7, 2012. Ms. King was a Contracting Officer in Branch B, one of the four (4) transactional branches that handled real estate transactions within the Division. Ms. King reported to her Branch Chief; the Branch Chief reported to the Acting Deputy Director of the Division; and the Acting Deputy Director of the Division reported to me. Q14. What are the specific job duties and responsibilities for the Section Chief position? Provide the applicable job description. A14. On April 7, 2012, I was reassigned from the position of Director of the Leasing Division, and, as such, I no longer have access to the referenced I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Affiant's X David G. HoTst Form 2568-B, March 2001 Date Signed X 1/29/2013 Affidavit C Page 5 of 15 00115 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-3 Filed 02/07/17 Page 5 of 15 EEO Investigative Affidavit " Page No. G 11 Case No. 12-R04-PBS-KMK-01 job description. This information can be obtained from Ms. Ellen Seiler, Deputy Director of the Leasing Division, or Ms. Dawn Norman, Director of the Leasing Division. Ms. Seiler's telephone number is 404-562-0789 and her email address is ellen.seiler(M-gsa.gov; Ms. Norman's telephone number is 404-331-1820 and her email address is dawn.norman(a-)-gsa.gov. Q15. What specific job duties and responsibilities is the Complainant required to perform in her position of Section Chief? If these responsibilities differ from the applicable job description, please explain. Al 5. On April 7, 2012, I was reassigned from the position of Director of the Leasing Division, and, as such, I no longer have access to the requested information. This information can be obtained from Ms. Ellen Seiler, Deputy Director of the Leasing Division, or Ms. Dawn Norman, Director of the Leasing Division. Ms. Seiler's telephone number is 404-562-0789 and her email address is ellen.seiler(a-)-gsa.gov; Ms. Norman's telephone number is 404-331-1820 and her email address is dawn.norman(a0sa.gov. Q16. Please explain the job duties of a Contracting Officer. A16. On April 7, 2012, I was reassigned from the position of Director of the Leasing Division, and, as such, I no longer have access to the requested information. This information can be obtained from Ms. Ellen Seiler, Deputy Director of the Leasing Division, or Ms. Dawn Norman, Director of the Leasing Division. Ms. Seiler's telephone number is 404-562-0789 and her email address is ellen.seiler(ab-gsa.gov; Ms. Norman's telephone number is 404-331-1820 and her email address is dawn. norman(&-gsa.gov. Q17. If not already provided above, please explain if the job duties of a Contracting Officer are included under the Section Chiefs job duties. If no, please explain what specific job title is responsible for the duties of Contracting Officer. A17. On April 7, 2012, I was reassigned from the position of Director of the Leasing Division, and, as such, I no longer have access to the requested information. This information can be obtained from Ms. Ellen Seiler, Deputy Director of the Leasing Division, or Ms. Dawn Norman, Director of the Leasing Division. Ms. Seiler's telephone number is 404-562-0789 and her email address is ellen.seiler(a-)-gsa.gov; Ms. Norman's telephone number is 404-331-1820 and her email address is dawn. norman(&-gsa.gov. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Affiant' ig X David G. ofstette Form 2568-B, March 2001 Date Signed X 1/29/2013 Affidavit C Page 6 of 15 00116 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-3 Filed 02/07/17 Page 6 of 15 EEO Investigative Affidavit " Page No. 7 11 Case No. 12-R04-PBS-KMK-01 Q18. Were you the management official who reassigned the Complainant to Branch D? If yes, please provide a detail explanation of the reasons the Complainant was reassigned. Al 8. Ms. Ellen Seiler was the Acting Deputy Director of the Leasing Division at this time and the four (4) Branch Chiefs reported directly to her and were rated by her. After coordination with the two impacted Branch Chiefs (Branches B and D), Ms. Seiler made the decision to reassign Ms. King to Branch D and I concurred in this decision as the Division Director. Please contact Ms. Seiler for additional information on the specific reasons for the reassignment but I believe I recall discussing it with her and determining it was for the betterment of the organization and for Ms. King's professional development Please contact Ms. Seiler for additional information. Q19. Did you provide the Complainant with an explanation as to why she was being reassigned? If yes, when did you inform her of this decision and what was her response? Al 9. Ms. Ellen Seiler was the Acting Deputy Director of the Leasing Division at this time and the four (4) Branch Chiefs reported directly to her and were rated by her. After coordination with the two impacted Branch Chiefs (Branches B and D), Ms. Seiler made the decision to reassign Ms. King to Branch D and I concurred in this decision as the Division Director. I did not personally provide Ms. King with an explanation as to why she was being reassigned but I recall discussing it with Ms. Seiler and determining it was for the betterment of the organization and for Ms. King's professional development. Please contact Ms. Seiler for additional information. Q20. If not already provided above, please indicate if the Complainant verbalized her disagreement with the reassignment. If yes, please explain the concerns she expressed and when. If this was done in writing, please provide a copy of the document. A20. Ms. Ellen Seiler was the Acting Deputy Director of the Leasing Division at this time and the four (4) Branch Chiefs reported directly to her and were rated by her. After coordination with the two impacted Branch Chiefs (Branches B and D), Ms. Seiler made the decision to reassign Ms. King to Branch D and I concurred in this decision as the Division Director. I did not personally provide Ms. King with an explanation as to why she was being reassigned but I recall discussing it with Ms. Seiler and determining it was for the betterment of the organization and for Ms. King's professional development Ms. King did not verbalize her disagreement with the reassignment to me. Please contact Ms. Seiler for additional information. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Date Signed X 1/29/2013 Form 2568-B, March 2001 Affidavit C Page 7 of 15 00117 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-3 Filed 02/07/17 Page 7 of 15 EEO Investigative Affidavit " Page No. S 11 Case No. 12-R04-PBS-KMK-01 Q2 1. Who was the reviewing official (if any) for the Complainant's reassignment? Please state that person's name, position, telephone number and email address. A21. 1, David G. Hofstetter, as the Director of the Leasing Division, was the reviewing official for Ms. King's reassignment. My telephone number is 404-562-2750 and my email address is david.hofstetter(a-gsa.gov. Ms. Ellen Seiler was the Acting Deputy Director of the Leasing Division at this time and the four (4) Branch Chiefs reported directly to her and were rated by her. After coordination with the two impacted Branch Chiefs (Branches B and D), Ms. Seiler made the decision to reassign Ms. King to Branch D and I concurred in this decision as the Division Director. Q22. Did any other management officials have input into the Complainant's reassignment? If so, please identify each person by name, position, telephone number and email address and describe each person's involvement/input in this decision. Include copies of any supporting documentation. A22. Ms. Ellen Seiler was the Acting Deputy Director of the Leasing Division at this time and the four (4) Branch Chiefs reported directly to her and were rated by her. Ms. Seiler coordinated the reassignment of Ms. King from Branch B (Branch Chief Scott Mowry, 404-562-3401, email of scott.mowry(&-gsa.gov) to Branch D (Branch Chief LaSonya Duncan, 404- 562-2756, email of lasonya.duncan(aýgsa.gov). These three GS-14's would be the proper management officials to respond to this question. Q23. Was the Complainant's race a factor in the decision to reassign her to another branch? If so, please explain in detail how it was a factor and why. A23. Ms. Ellen Seiler was the Acting Deputy Director of the Leasing Division at this time and the four (4) Branch Chiefs reported directly to her and were rated by her. Ms. Seiler coordinated the reassignment of Ms. King from Branch B to Branch D and would be the proper management official to answer this question. I do not believe, however, that Ms. King's race was a factor. Q24. Was the Complainant's sex a factor in the decision to reassign her to another branch? If so, please explain in detail how it was a factor and why. A24. Ms. Ellen Seiler was the Acting Deputy Director of the Leasing Division at this time and the four (4) Branch Chiefs reported directly to her and were rated by her. Ms. Seiler coordinated the reassignment of Ms. King to Branch D and would be the proper management official to answer this question. I do not believe, however, that Ms. King's sex was a factor. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Date Signed X 1/29/2013 Form 2568-B, March 2001 Affidavit C Page 8 of 15 00118 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-3 Filed 02/07/17 Page 8 of 15 EEO Investigative Affidavit " Page No. 7 11 Case No. 12-R04-PBS-KMK-01 Q25. Was the Complainant's EEO activity a factor in the decision to reassign her to another branch? If so, please explain in detail how it was a factor and why. A25. Ms. Ellen Seiler was the Acting Deputy Director of the Leasing Division at this time and the four (4) Branch Chiefs reported directly to her and were rated by her. Ms. Seiler coordinated the reassignment of Ms. King to Branch D and would be the proper management official to answer this question. I do not believe, however, that Ms. King's EEO activity was a factor. Q26. Please identify the other employees who were selected for the Section Chief positions by full name, job location, race (if known), sex (if known) and EEO activity (if known). A26. Ms. Ellen Seiler was the Acting Deputy Director of the Leasing Division at this time and the four (4) Branch Chiefs reported directly to her and were rated by her. Ms. Seiler coordinated the reassignment of Ms. King to Branch D and would be the proper management official to answer this question. I do not recall the other employees who were selected for the Section Chief positions and I no longer have access to the records supporting these selections as I was reassigned from the Leasing Division on April 7, 2012. Q27. For these above named employees, describe what their job duties/responsibilities consist of at their job locations. A27. Ms. Ellen Seiler was the Acting Deputy Director of the Leasing Division at this time and the four (4) Branch Chiefs reported directly to her and were rated by her. Ms. Seiler coordinated the reassignment of Ms. King to Branch D and would be the proper management official to answer this question. I do not recall the other employees who were selected for the Section Chief positions and I no longer have access to the records concerning their job duties/responsibilities as I was reassigned from the Leasing Division on April 7, 2012. Q28. If these employees' job duties/responsibilities differ from the Complainant, please explain why. A28. Ms. Ellen Seiler was the Acting Deputy Director of the Leasing Division at this time and the four (4) Branch Chiefs reported directly to her and were rated by her. Ms. Seiler coordinated the reassignment of Ms. King to Branch D and would be the proper management official to answer this question. I do not recall the other employees who were selected for the I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. A is ature X i Ho ste er Form 2568-B, March 2001 Date Signed X 1/29/2013 Affidavit C Page 9 of 15 00119 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-3 Filed 02/07/17 Page 9 of 15 EEO Investigative Affidavit Page No. I0 11 Case No. 12-R04-PBS-KMK-01 Section Chief positions and I no longer have access to the records concerning their job duties/responsibilities as I was reassigned from the Leasing Division on April 7, 2012. Q29. Have any of the previously identified employees been reassigned similar to the Complainant? Please explain your answers A29. Ms. Ellen Seiler was the Acting Deputy Director of the Leasing Division at this time and the four (4) Branch Chiefs reported directly to her and were rated by her. Ms. Seiler coordinated the reassignment of Ms. King to Branch D and would be the proper management official to answer this question. I do not recall the other employees who were selected for the Section Chief positions and, as such, am not aware whether or not they might have been reassigned similar to Ms. King. As previously stated, I was reassigned from the Leasing Division on April 7, 2012. Q30. Have other Section Chiefs in a similar situation as the Complainant, within the past 2 years, not been reassigned and/or been given additional duties/responsibilities, similar to the Complainant? If so, identify these employees by full name, position, race (if known), sex (if known) and EEO activity (if known). State how these employees were treated the differently than the Complainant, why they were treated differently and by whom. A30. Ms. Ellen Seiler was the Acting Deputy Director of the Leasing Division at this time and the four (4) Branch Chiefs reported directly to her and were rated by her. Ms. Seiler coordinated the reassignment of Ms. King to Branch D and would be the proper management official to answer this question. As previously mentioned I was reassigned from the Leasing Division on April 7, 2012, and I am not aware whether or not other Section Chiefs, within the past two years, in a similar situation to Ms. King, were or were not reassigned and/or been given additional duties/responsibilities similar to Ms. King Q31. Identify by full name, position, race (if known), sex (if known) and EEO activity (if known) other Section Chiefs that were reassigned and/or given additional job duties/responsibilities. Explain how these employees were treated the same as the Complainant and by whom. A31. As previously mentioned I was reassigned from the Leasing Division on April 7, 2012, and I am not aware whether or not other Section Chiefs, within the past two years, in a similar situation to Ms. King, were or were not reassigned and/or been given additional duties/responsibilities similar to Ms. King. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Form 2568-B, March 2001 Affidavit C Page 10 of 15 00120 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-3 Filed 02/07/17 Page 10 of 15 EEO Investigative Affidavit Page No. 11 11 Case No. 12-R04-PBS-KMK-01 Q32. Identify the policies and/or contract provisions you relied upon regarding the issues of this EEO complaint and/or Complainant's claim of discrimination. Explain in detail how each policy and/or contract provision applied. A32. As mentioned earlier, I was not aware of this EEO Complaint until I was requested to prepare this Affidavit I have relied upon my first hand knowledge and observations regarding the issues of this EEO complaint and/or Ms. Kings claim of discrimination. Q33. Other than this EEO complaint, did the Complainant file a grievance or an internal appeal on his/her FY 2011 Performance Appraisal? If so, please provide a copy and documentation of the outcome of the grievance/appeal. A33. I am not aware whether or not Ms. King filed a grievance or internal appeal on her FY 2011 Performance Appraisal as I was reassigned from the Leasing Division on April 7, 2012. Q34. Do you have any additional information or documentation that are relevant to the issues of this EEO complaint. (If you referenced any documents in answering your affidavit questions please provide copies of those documents. If you are unable to provide copies of those documents, please explain why.) A34. It was not until I received the email from Ms. Michelle Rigo with date time group of 12:42 pm on 1/28/2013, that I learned that THIS EEO Complaint is : She alleges discrimination based on her race, sex and reprisal (August 22, 2011 EEO Complaint, when on December 14, 2011 she was informed she would be reassigned into a new Section Chief position in Branch D. Because of the wording of some of the questions, I assumed that the EEO Compliant would be very similar to the actual Complaint and my answers would be the same. I have no additional information or documentation. -----------------------------------------END OF QUESTIONS----------------------------------------- I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Form 2568-B, March 2001 CN- Date Signed X 1/29/2013 Affidavit C Page 11 of 15 00121 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-3 Filed 02/07/17 Page 11 of 15 EEO Investigative Affidavit " Page No. It 11 Case No. 12-R04-PBS-KMK-01 Q32. Identify the policies and/or contract provisions you relied upon regarding the issues of this EEO complaint and/or Complainant's claim of discrimination. Explain in detail how each policy and/or contract provision applied. A32. As mentioned earlier, I was not aware of this EEO Complaint until I was requested to prepare this Affidavit. I have relied upon my first hand knowledge and observations regarding the issues of this EEO complaint and/or Ms. Kings claim of discrimination. Q33. Other than this EEO complaint, did the Complainant file a grievance or an internal appeal on his/her FY 2011 Performance Appraisal? If so, please provide a copy and documentation of the outcome of the grievance/appeal. A33. I am not aware whether or not Ms. King filed a grievance or internal appeal on her FY 2011 Performance Appraisal as I was reassigned from the Leasing Division on April 7, 2012. Q34. Do you have any additional information or documentation that are relevant to the issues of this EEO complaint. (If you referenced any documents in answering your affidavit questions please provide copies of those documents. If you are unable to provide copies of those documents, please explain why.) A34. I have no additional information or documentation. ------------------------------------------END OF QUESTIONS------------------------------------------ I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. nature X David G. Hofstetter Form 2568-B, March 2001 Date Signed X 1/29/2013 Affidavit C Page 12 of 15 00122 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-3 Filed 02/07/17 Page 12 of 15 Page No. No. Agency Case No. EEO Investigative Affidavit ( ntinuation Sheet) 12-R04-PBS-KMK-01 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Form 2569 October 2005 Affidavit C Page 13 of 15 00123 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-3 Filed 02/07/17 Page 13 of 15 1 Certification Case No. 12-R04-PBS-KMK-01 I have read the proceeding attached statement, consisting of 11 pages, and it is true and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. In making this statement, I understand Section 1001, Title 18 of the U.S. Code which states: "Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representation, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both." Privacy Act Notice Privacy Act Notice: The collection of this information is authorized by The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16; The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C.633a; The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 794a; and executive Order 11478, as amended. This information will be used to adjudicate complaints of alleged discrimination and to evaluate the effectiveness of the EEO program. As a routine use, this information may be disclosed to an appropriate government agency, domestic or foreign, for law enforcement purposes; where pertinent, in a legal proceeding to which the Agency is a party or has an interest; to a government agency in order to obtain information relevant to an Agency decision concerning employment, security clearances, contracts, licenses, grants, permits or other benefits; to a government agency upon its request when relevant to its decision concerning employment, security clearances, security or suitability investigations, contracts, licenses, grants or other benefits; to a congressional office at your request; to an expert, consultant, or other person under contract with the Agency to fulfill an agency function; to the Federal Records Center for storage; to the Office of Management and Budget for review of private relief legislation; to an independent certified public accountant during an official audit of Agency finances; to an investigator, administrative judge or complaints examiner appointed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for Investigation of a formal EEO complaint under 29 CFR 1614; to the Merit Systems Protection Board or Office of Special Counsel for proceedings or investigations involving personnel practices and other matters within their jurisdiction; and to a labor organization as required by the National labor Relations Act. The information requested through this form is voluntary for the complainant and for non-Federal Agency employees. Federal Agency employees, pursuant to 29 Code of Federal Regulations § 1614.108 (c)(1) and (c)(3), are required to cooperate and shall produce such documentary and testimonial evidence as the investigator deems necessary. Standards of Conduct The EEOC requires all federal employees to cooperate in an EEO investigation. Failure to supply the requested information could result in disciplinary action. Oath / Affirmation Subscribed and (sworn) (affirmed) before me on the Signature of EEO Complaints Investigator day of 20_. Affiant, sign in the presence of an EEO Complaints Investi ator. Signature of Affiant Declaration I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. (Affiant, sign and date if attached statement was not completed in the presence of an EEO Complaints Investigator.) Si Form 2571, March 2001 Date Signed Affidavit C Page 14 of 15 00124 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-3 Filed 02/07/17 Page 14 of 15 Michelle Rigo From: David Hofstetter 4PA [david.hofstetter@gsa.gov] To: michellerigo@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 2:47 PM Subject: Read: Affidavit request for EEO complaint 12-R04-PBS-KMK-01 Your message To: David Hofstetter 4PA Subject: Affidavit request for EEO complaint 12-R04-PBS-KMK-01 Sent: 1/7/13 9:27:18 PM EST was read on 1/8/13 2:46:39 PM EST 1 00125 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-3 Filed 02/07/17 Page 15 of 15 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-4 Filed 02/07/17 Page 1 of 11 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-4 Filed 02/07/17 Page 2 of 11 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-4 Filed 02/07/17 Page 3 of 11 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-4 Filed 02/07/17 Page 4 of 11 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-4 Filed 02/07/17 Page 5 of 11 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-4 Filed 02/07/17 Page 6 of 11 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-4 Filed 02/07/17 Page 7 of 11 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-4 Filed 02/07/17 Page 8 of 11 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-4 Filed 02/07/17 Page 9 of 11 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-4 Filed 02/07/17 Page 10 of 11 Case 1:15-cv-02306-SCJ-JKL Document 52-4 Filed 02/07/17 Page 11 of 11