Former CSSD technician alleges harassment and discrimination

Nino Maurice Freeman, a former network technician within Pitt’s Computing Services and Systems… Nino Maurice Freeman, a former network technician within Pitt’s Computing Services and Systems Development department, has said that he filed a complaint Monday with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging harassment and racial discrimination by his former employer.

According to Freeman — a 33-year-old black man from Churchill, Pa. — management at CSSD treated him unfairly for almost two years while he was employed by the University.

The Commission, created in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, works through litigation enforcement, as well as conciliation, education, outreach, technical assistance and mediation, to eliminate illegal discrimination from the workplace. Freeman said he also intends to file a grievance through his union.

Managerial scrutiny of Freeman began two years ago, he said, after he expressed support for a white female member of his work team who also said she was receiving unfair treatment.

That woman, Annette Ferency — then Annette Henderson — soon left Pitt, filed a discrimination suit against CSSD, and settled out of court with the University. Freeman said that while he was on the list of witnesses in the Ferency case, he was never called upon to testify.

Freeman claims that, following Ferency’s resignation, he found himself facing unwarranted scrutiny from his superiors. He said he was held to a different standard than other employees, facing unfair disciplinary actions and, at times, willful attempts on the part of his supervisors to find evidence of things he may have done wrong at any point, so that he could be fired.

As evidence of his claims, Freeman cited about 100 pages of documents, including e-mail correspondence between himself and other CSSD employees, evaluation forms and memos from Pitt, notes on conversations, and e-mails forwarded to him by other former CSSD employees.

Freeman said that the alleged discrimination began more than two years ago, with the Ferency suit. Ferency recalled unequal treatment of Freeman during her time at Pitt, and she described this treatment in an April 16, 2003, e-mail to Freeman.

In the e-mail, Ferency wrote that she and the rest of the group were told to document everything Freeman did wrong. She said that the group was instructed to send the documentation to a supervisor who was keeping a file on Freeman, and that they were to document every call that came into the Tier II — a division of CSSD — on which Freeman had worked.

“It was very emphasized,” she wrote to Freeman. “I was never told to do this for anyone other than you. It was an obvious targeting and ostracizing of you only.”

Ferency also wrote that she was never given any reasons for why she was instructed to do this, and that she had been told only that Freeman needed to be fired. She said that, at one point, a supervisor instructed her to document every call that came in about Freeman.

“It was to the point of being ridiculous,” Ferency wrote.

According to Ferency, the targeting extended beyond orders for close scrutiny.

“They would send for switches that [Freeman] installed and notes that [Freeman] posted, trying to find errors. When they did, it was copied and sent to [management],” she wrote. “I know this because they told me, if I found any, to do this.”

Ferency told The Pitt News that she could not comment on her suit or settlement.

But in at least one instance, a supervisor requested notification about certain mistakes made by any employees. In an e-mail between supervisors about a confrontation between Freeman and another employee, concerning a work log, the same supervisor asked that he be notified “about any incidents like this, and with the way Maurice or anyone else has been handling problem calls.”

Although CSSD Director Jinx Walton said she could not comment on specific personnel issues, she said the department has rules for dealing with staff members.

“We have a policy that our staff are treated professionally, and if issues are raised, we address them,” Walton said yesterday.

Freeman said things became worse in early fall 2003, when a man named Larry Hochendoner became his manager.

A written reprimand dated Sept. 23, 2003, from Hochendoner to Freeman, singles out two instances where Freeman’s performance is judged inadequate. Freeman exchanged a string of e-mails with others and issued an official rebuttal.

In one of these e-mails, Freeman wrote that a different employee had made a mistake similar to his during the previous week, with no reprimand resulting from it.

“Surprisingly,” the e-mail says of Freeman’s reprimand, “the same protocol was not taken with my colleagues.”

In the same e-mail, Freeman wrote that his work environment had become uncomfortable shortly after Hochendoner was hired. He added that colleagues had expressed concerns about Freeman’s treatment, and that some of them were offended by it.

According to an e-mail from Hochendoner to Freeman, Freeman told other employees that he believed he was going to be fired.

Freeman also provided a copy of his 2003 assessment, which he claims consists of two inconsistent sections. Freeman said he believes the two sections of the report appear to have been written by different people.

University policy states, “A staff performance appraisal form is to be completed for each staff member by the immediate supervisor responsible for evaluating the staff member’s job-related performance over the twelve-month rating period.”

The 2003 appraisal contains a number of complaints about Freeman’s behavior. One comment reported that Freeman “reacts too quickly,” while another reports that he “takes too longer [sic] to solve outstanding issues.”

In the second section, comments report that Freeman “has done well on all assignments and projects” given to him, and that he “works as a part of the Tech shop team.”

Michael Bruno, Freeman’s direct supervisor for the 2003 appraised period, declined to comment on the issue, as did Hochendoner.

The day after Freeman signed the evaluation, he says, he sent an e-mail to Walton, outlining a meeting with Hochendoner about the evaluation. The e-mail states that Freeman asked for clarification on the negative feedback and Hochendoner told him, “If you want me to go over the specifics I will have you out of here in a week.” The e-mail goes on to say that Freeman is “prepared to file a grievance with human resources and the human relations board.”

E-mails that Freeman said were passed among himself, Walton and Hochendoner indicate that the tension of the situation did not decrease. On Aug. 25, 2004, Freeman says, he wrote to Bruno that he had recently learned that management requested video footage of Freeman using Pitt workout facilities, which he said he did regularly during his lunch break.

“This is very troubling to me,” Freeman wrote. “Why are security cameras being used to track my lunch hour activities? Is this a common practice for all employees, or just me? Is management now considering me a security risk?”

Freeman said that on Aug. 30, 2004, he reported his grievances by calling the University’s toll-free AlertLine, which is handled by a third party. On Sept. 8, 2004, Freeman received a letter of termination from Bruno.

“This termination is due to your willful disregard for established CSSD processes,” Bruno wrote in the letter. “You have been coached, counseled, given a written warning and a written reprimand. In addition, based on unacceptable performance, you received ratings of overall below standards on your last two annual appraisals.”

On the same day, CSSD released a new staff appraisal of Freeman. Addressing his interpersonal communications, his supervisor’s comments read, “He spends too much time comparing himself to others.” The supervisor’s comments on the self-appraisal section, regarding Freeman’s areas for improvement, the appraisal reads, “Maurice would be a more effective professional if he would cease questioning his supervisors on policies and procedures. This is an area that must improve.”

Walton said yesterday that no personnel action is ever taken without the involvement of the human resources department.

“We take every step to make sure that staff members are treated respectfully and professionally,” Walton said.