Hatton Wright COMPLETELY exonerated

Here’s a summary of what the 17 page report on the sexual harassment complaint against Hatton Wright concludes about the five charges made against him:

paragraph 1: “did not contribute to or cause a sexually hostile work environment”

paragraph 2: “not within the scope of an investigation” (translation- even if true, the alleged behavior did not constitute sexual harassment)

paragraph 3: “not within the scope of an investigation” (translation- even if true, the alleged behavior did not constitute sexual harassment)

paragraph 4: “insufficient to create a sexually-hostile work environment”

paragraph 5: “not within the scope of an investigation” (translation- even if true, the alleged behavior did not constitute sexual harassment)

bottom line:

Mayor Linda Elam owes Hatton Wright a public apology.

Hatton Wright should be reinstated as public works director.

See below for links to the complete text of the complaint and the report.

Advertisements

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

3 responses to “Hatton Wright COMPLETELY exonerated

  1. John Reitz

    I thing it’s very interesting that Hatton Wright has already lost a sexual harassment case costing the city of Mt Juliet 45,000 dollars, maybe I should say costing the tax payers. Also the attorney that investigated the case was the same attorney
    that lost the last case, again costing the city 45,000 dollars. What is not being mentioned is there is one maybe two more cases in line with the same ACCUSATIONS. Now in gary gaskins case it was his own doing to become involved, what could have resolved it in an apology, turned into a hostile behavior. this is all documented and witnessed.
    Since the attorney represented the city, what do you think she would report, or is this rocket science to you. I really can’t believe people take the city attorney’s word as truth, she is there to prevent the city from being suied, guess what it didn’t work. you don’t go into a cave and hit a bear on the nose with a stick and hope not to be eaten.
    So now here comes the bear for the second time, they didn’t learn a thing.

  2. Publius

    Right. It appears there is a massive conspiracy involving the attorney, her assistant, and 35 witnesses.

  3. Butch Huber

    Butch Huber,

    Wasn’t Hatton Wright exonerated on the first sexual harassment charge? I believe he was. As I understand it, the cause of the $45,000 settlement was the city employee’s re-assignment because she filed a failed sexual harassment complaint against Hatton Wright. I believe that re-assigning the city employee was a prudent move by the city manager. As I understand it, there was only one position to which the city manager could have moved the city employee.

    I believe the city manager had three choices:
    1.) Leave the city employee in her position. She obviously was not happy with her work environment, and considering the fact that Hatton was exonerated, she would most likely have been even less enchanted with her work environment. This would have led to more problems.
    2) Fire the city employee. This would have really blown up into a major issue. To have fired her would have been “Retaliation for past actions.” The city manager would have put the city in a terrible position if he would have fired her.
    3) Reassign the city employee. This is the only reasonable choice. The city employee quit her position, then filed a lawsuit against the city. The city employee quit because she felt she had been demoted, however, from what I can tell, her re-assignment was a lateral transfer. I believe the city employee was upset because she had to take turns cleaning toilets.

    I personally believe that the $45,000 settlement would not have even happened had Mrs. Reitz not filed her complaint in such a timely fashion. Having been “encouraged” by the Mayor to file her complaint. Had I been negotiating that settlement there wouldn’t have been a settlement. The city would have won that battle in court. But to have a second sexual harassment complaint filed, as I recall, on the very day the arbitration is supposed to occur is very damning, even if it is not true. Hard to negotiate when you appear to have egg-all-over-your-face.

    There are a lot of mysterious events and issues surrounding the complaints against Hatton Wright. Mysteries that I intend to unfold.

    As for me, I believe there are very nefarious people involved in the events that are occurring in the city. Here are some questions that I would like answers to:

    Why did Mrs. Reitz file her six-page complaint with the mayor?

    Why did Mrs. Reitz use an intermediary to file the six-page complaint with the mayor?

    Why did the mayor neglect to inform the city manager of the existence of the six-page complaint?

    Why did the six-page complaint which implicates many people end up as a one-page complaint targeting only Hatton Wright?

    According to the attorney’s report, Mrs. Reitz implicated many other people in her depositions, yet not one of them has a sexual harassment complaint against them, why? Was Mrs. Reitz “targeting” Hatton Wright?

    The mayor spoke with the city attorney concerning the six-page complaint. The mayor said that the city attorney and she exchanged e-mails concerning the six-page complaint. The city attorney works for the city manager, not the mayor, so why didn’t she tell the city manager about the six-page complaint? As I see it, she is obligated under the law to have submitted the six-page complaint to the city manager, so why didn’t she?

    As I see it, the mayor was also required to submit the six-page complaint to the city manager. So, with so many people being fired for their actions, or in actions, why are the city mayor and city attorney still in their positions.

    Former Mayor Kevin Mack filed a complaint against the mayor regarding her participation in the Reitz complaint. I believe Kevin asserted that Mr. Reitz called him and was upset because he felt abandoned by the mayor. “Abandoned by the mayor?” How?

    I have been told that Mrs. Reitz is “good” friends with Mayor Elam. I wonder if that is true?

    From reading the depositions in the Hatton Wright complaint, I can easily draw the conclusion that the mayor was extremely angry and hostile toward Hatton Wright. The mayor was also extremely angry with the city manager for not forcing Hatton Wright to make apologies to her and a developer. Hatton said something in a meeting that the mayor felt was “rude”. What was rude was the mayor trying to get the city public works director to do something she had no right to try to do, and then getting angry when he wanted to follow the law. What was rude was the mayor not standing up for the government and the people of the city, and instead, trying to get a special favor for a developer.

    So, here is how things look from my vantage point. The mayor is extremely angry at the city manager and the public works director. I am being told the mayor is “good” friends with Mrs. Reitz. The mayor “encourages” Mrs. Reitz to file a complaint against Hatton Wright. The mayor and the city attorney hide the six-page complaint from the city manager. I can’t determine if the six-page complaint made it into the hands of the investigating attorney because the city attorney is protecting that information. I can’t determine who the mysterious third person was who delivered the six-page complaint to the city mayor. The complaint ends up being filed, as far as I know, on the very day that there is to be negotiations in the settlement of another case that was sparked by an unfounded complaint against Hatton Wright. (making it very difficult to negotiate.) The city commission re-instates the employee with the city, which is a violation of the city charter. The city manager is the administrative head of the city, for the commissioners to decide to re-instate her is an action that exceeds their authority. If you read the TCA, when a public official takes an action that exceeds his or her authority it is an action that falls under “official misconduct”. Hatton was once again exonerated of all charges. Keep in mind though, the commission censured the mayor. In my opinion, they still have neglected their duties, a person who has committed official misconduct must be ousted from office. I believe that, when you study all the evidence, you will come to the conclusion that the mayor has committed “official misconduct”.

    So, there is a man who has had not one, but at least two investigations into his actions, and he has been exonerated both times. Isn’t it time to investigate the mayor?>

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s