TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (WTXL) - The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has found no evidence of violations in the case of a sexual harassment filed by a former Kearney Center employee.
The EEOC issued the following determination: Based upon its investigation, the EEOC is unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes. This does not certify that the respondent is in compliance with the statutes. No finding is made as to any other issues that might be construed as having been raised by this charge.
The dismissal of the case comes after the organization investigated into the case for 180 days.
Lawyers for Rick Kearney, the man Sarah Bohentin is suing of sexually harassing her back in 2015, say that the development is positive for Rick Kearney and the Kearney Center.
The full statement from Phillip Russell, Kearney's attorney, is below:
"This is a very positive development for The Kearney Center and Rick Kearney. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) fulfilled its statutory duty and conducted an investigation into Ms. Bohentin’s claims. For employers with 15 or more employees, federal and state law both require an investigation of all workplace harassment claims filed with them. In this case, Ms. Bohentin jointly filed her claim with the EEOC and its state counter-part, the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR). The two agencies have a work-sharing agreement in which they work together to fulfill their complementary statutory duties. The investigators at these agencies are trained and experienced professionals.
"The EEOC spent 8 months investigating Ms. Bohentin’s sexual harassment claims and “was unable to conclude the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes.” How did the EEOC reach this conclusion? It accepted and analyzed her initial charge, required her to sign the charge under oath, processed the charge, reviewed and analyzed documents and information she submitted, reviewed and analyzed documents and information submitted by The Kearney Center, and examined all the evidence in light of the law.
"We are not surprised at all by the result. As we have said all along, Ms. Bohentin’s claims may be salacious enough to garner headlines, but they don’t stand up to any level of reasonable scrutiny. They don’t measure up to the law.
"The EEOC’s determination is significant. Under the law, Ms. Bohentin certainly has the right to proceed with her lawsuit. But, a no-cause determination by the EEOC matters, even if she proceeds with her misguided lawsuit. The EEOC fulfilled its statutory duty – it conducted an investigation. After reviewing the information it obtained, the EEOC could not find The Kearney Center violated the law.
"Finally, this is exactly the kind of pre-suit, government review that has been in state and federal employment law for decades that we believe is lacking in the Leon County Human Rights Ordinance. It is for this reason we believe all citizens, especially the LGBT community, should unite in fixing the Ordinance. The laudable goal of prohibiting workplace discrimination and harassment of all kinds is weakened when there is no meaningful process for weeding out frivolous claims."
However, Bohentin's lawyer said that Kearney's lawyers are blatantly trying to mislead the public into believing their innocence when the determination plainly says otherwise.
The full statement from Shania Thorpe, Bohentin's attorney, is below:
"The form is a standard dismissal form from the EEOC. It is not an indication one way or another as to the merits of the charge of discrimination or the case. It is a form that the EEOC issues when it closes its file. The law provides that the EEOC has 180 days to investigate charges of discrimination and make a determination. Because the agency did not complete its investigation in that time, it simply closed its file. That is it. Nothing more, nothing less.
"It is my understanding that the other side is trying to spin this form letter into some kind of victory. However, the language of the letter speaks for itself. The box that is checked says: “The EEOC issues the following determination: Based upon its investigation, the EEOC is unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes. This does not certify that the respondent is in compliance with the statutes. No finding is made as to any other issues that may be construed as having been raised by this charge.”
"The respondents are focusing on the first part of that statement and ignoring the rest. This is a blatant attempt to mislead the public into believing that the EEOC has cleared them of wrongdoing. Plainly, that is not what the determination says.
"I will add the following:
"Because of the confusion these documents tend to create, courts have routinely held that EEOC findings and conclusions are inadmissible at trial. See, e.g., Williams v. Freedman, 2015 WL 846545 (M.D. Fla. 2015); Claybrone v. Goldring Gulf Distrib., 2015 WL 5619523, at *2-3 (N.D. Fla. 2015), report and recommendation adopted, 2015 WL 5595694 (N.D. Fla. 2015). In my opinion, I believe the other sides’ attorneys and representatives are fully aware that this is the case. Yet they continue to disseminate information that is both inaccurate and inadmissible.
"I also find it troubling that Mr. Kearney and his representatives have complained about having the case tried in the court of public opinion, but then they proceed to boast about Mr. Kearney’s donations via press releases and tender incorrect statements about the EEOC and its generic dismissal letter. This is plainly another attempt to mislead the public and taint the potential jury pool. If this manipulative behavior continues, we may have no choice but to seek a change of venue to ensure Ms. Bohentin gets a fair trial."
Read more about the lawsuit Bohentin brought against Kearney here.
