Joan thought it was almost over; not fair, not just, but finally over. She had thoughts of putting the pieces of her life back together and moving on. So in January of '91, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, she submitted her application for Ordinary Disability (50%) to the Retirement Board. She couldn’t have known at this time, that the battle would continue and circle right back to O’D!
She felt confident as she submitted her detailed application. Among the documents was a report signed by an MSP Colonel. It stated that she was injured on the job and that her ensuing disability was permanent. In addition, it explained the job description and complexities involved in performing the duties of a trooper. “There are no minimum duties required in this position. Given the applicant’s disability, she will not be capable of performing the duties of a State Police officer. There are no other positions that this applicant could perform due to her disability”.
To her dismay, despite the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement, the Retirement Board denied her request for retirement.
With this upsetting news, she went to her State Representative for help. He looked over her documents and listened to her story. He agreed with Joan that her retirement request should have been honored and then went straight to the Magistrate of the Retirement Board for answers. He arranged for Joan to speak with the Magistrate personally by phone. She had a detailed and productive conversation with the Magistrate. He ended their conversation by saying to her, “No one should be stopping your retirement. Get a letter in support for your April '92 hearing.” She thanked him and immediately made the request to the MSP to provide a letter of support per the Magistrate.
About a week before the hearing, she hadn’t received the letter from the MSP, so she called into headquarters. A trooper answered the phone and informed her that the MSP would not be writing the letter (breaking the settlement agreement) because a Retirement Board attorney called the Colonel and told him not to write it. (conspiracy)
Joan was angry enough to call and confront the Retirement Board attorney. The only explanation the attorney gave was, “No one wins this appeal!” The conversation ended abruptly. This was very confusing to Joan, so she called the Magistrate back and reiterated what the attorney said. The Magistrate responded, “She can’t do that!” Joan was left with the impression that he would put things back on track.
At the scheduled hearing, Joan informed the Judge of the attorney’s interference. The attorney lied by saying, “I didn’t do that.” So with this latest occurrence, Joan was now dealing with the breaking of the Settlement Agreement, conspiracy to block her retirement, and lies in open court.
She was simply dumbfounded. She was speaking the truth but at every turn she was met with dishonesty. She went back to the State Representative who said to her, “There is a missing piece to this puzzle."
Joan’s case was stalled and never made any forward motion over the next two years. There was a newly elected State Representative in town, and she went to talk to him with her “denial” papers in hand. After a couple of meetings with him to explain her story, Joan asked “Why are they doing this to me?” Reluctantly, he answered, “You did something when you were on.” Once again, she had to defend herself by explaining she had a clean record. The only thing she did was to file a discrimination complaint against O’D. She was the first female to file a complaint and he was very angry! He responded, “Yes, they mentioned that.” Somehow this battle circled right back around to O’D.
So Joan found herself right back at the MCAD filing a complaint for Retaliation. This process would be short, quick and would end in another denial.
Some of Joan's witnesses refused her request to testify for various reasons. For instance, the MA Assistant Attorney General who originally informed the MSP through the settlement negotiations that Joan was entitled to full disability retirement and back pay, now stated bluntly "No, I represent the State Police." Joan thought to herself, "Aren't you supposed to be fighting corruption, instead of representing it?"
The case was over with this finding, "It would be implausible to infer a concerted conspiracy by these governmental entities to retaliate...."
Joan thought to herself, "My whole case was implausible, but I knew it was real because I lived it!!!"
Comments