Sacramento sanitation worker alleges racial discrimination after a joke cost him his job
The city of Sacramento has agreed to pay a former sanitation worker and his wife $430,000 as part of a recent settlement of a racial discrimination and breach of employment lawsuit.
The sanitation worker Richard Sanchez and and his wife Tanya filed their complaint in March 2013 in Sacramento Superior Court against the city and two managers in its Recycling and Solid Waste Division. Neither the city nor the plaintiffs’ attorney provided a comment for this story.
Steve Harriman and William Skinner, the two managers named in Sanchez’s suit, have since left the city of Sacramento’s employ. In separate emails to The Bee, both men stated that they strongly disagreed with the city’s decision to settle the case.
“We believe the city would have prevailed at trial upon a full review of the evidence,” Harriman said. “Neither William nor I were offered the opportunity to participate in the city’s decision to settle the case and we are extremely disappointed.”
30 years of employment
City records show Sanchez had worked in the department since January 1982 and was terminated for misconduct eight months after his lawsuit was filed. Online payroll records show Sanchez was a sanitation worker II in 2012, when he earned $46,173.07 in regular pay and $11,292.66 in overtime pay.
The settlement, signed in August, prevents the Sanchezes from bringing the case back to court again. The city and other defendants in the case did not acknowledge any admission of liability or wrongdoing as part of the agreement.
In the complaint, Sanchez stated that Harriman and Skinner, created a severely hostile work environment starting on or about March 24, 2011. The lawsuit alleged that this was around the date that Harriman, who had recently joined the division as integrated waste general manager, introduced himself to Sanchez and other employees at a tailgate meeting in the Sacramento South Area Yard, the lawsuit stated.
Before the meeting, one of Sanchez’s longtime coworkers asked a question of Harriman. After Harriman answered and turned away, Sanchez used the opportunity to rib the coworkerwith an ongoing, inside joke the two men shared, the complaint stated.
According to the court document, Sanchez put both his thumb pads together and kissed them — a gesture he used whenever he wanted to communicate that his coworker was yet again kissing management’s butt. Their new supervisor did not see Sanchez’s gesture but turned to look at the two men after the exchange, the suit stated.
“Harriman exploded and verbally attacked plaintiff (Sanchez); accusing plaintiff of making an oral sex reference implicating that Harriman was somehow fond of homosexual oral sex,” the complaint alleged.
Sanchez immediately explained that their communication had nothing to do with a sex act and was not aimed at Harriman, the suit said, and Harriman appeared to accept the explanation, shook hands with Sanchez and said it was a mistake and there were no hard feelings.
But, in the complaint, Sanchez said he later faced retaliation and an attempt to get him fired. The city did not immediately fire him. Instead, he said, his pay was lowered for 40 consecutive pay periods.
Sanchez’s managers provided their account of the events in a letter of discipline dated Mar. 6, 2012, saying that the tailgate meeting actually occurred on Aug. 30, 2011. Managers reported that Sanchez performed an obscene gesture resembling oral sex as they attempted to address staff at the tailgate meeting.
A manager described Sanchez’s hand gesture as inappropriate, disrespectful and an attempt to mock and sexually harass supervisors.
When questioned about the gesture on Sept. 22, 2011, Sanchez at first denied making any gesture before acknowledging that he’d actually made a “kissing butt signal” to his coworker, according to the disciplinary letter.
The disciplinary letter cited Sanchez for neglect of duty, insubordination, dishonesty, discourteous treatment of other employees, disruption, discredit to his employment and other alleged violations. The document also stated that Sanchez had violated city policies on sexual harassment. As a result of the findings, the document said, Sanchez’s pay would be lowered a grade for 40 consecutive pay periods.
City officials also warned Sanchez that future violations of employee codes could result in termination.
The March 2012 letter was one of seven documents from Sanchez’s personnel file that the city clerk provided The Bee in response to a public records request. The names of managers were redacted in the document.
Sanchez’s suit stated that the city pursued this disciplinary action, even though his coworker had testified under oath that the gesture had nothing to do with the supervisors. And, Sanchez said, Harriman continued to push for his dismissal.
To Sanchez’s dismay, he also was denied a watch given to employees with 30 years of service and was banned from an employee appreciation day with then-Mayor Kevin Johnson, the lawsuit alleged.
Harriman said: “This is one of many examples of false information in his complaint. I have photographs of Mr. Sanchez at the mayor’s breakfast that I can share.”
On or about June 1, 2012, Skinner filed what Sanchez’s complaint alleged was an inaccurate and untrue report stating that Sanchez had been sleeping on the job. This action was part of a concerted effort to get Sanchez fired, the plaintiff alleged.
Skinner urged The Bee to review Sanchez’s disciplinary records: “There you will find, among many other items of discipline, photos of Mr. Sanchez sleeping in his claw loader, parked halfway on the sidewalk in front of a fire hydrant. I had to physically knock on the door to awaken him to return to work.”
The city provided records of 11 other disciplinary actions taken against Sanchez between 1983 and 2013, but those records did not include mention of Sanchez being denied a watch, being prevented from attending a meeting with the mayor or having been caught asleep on the job.
The disciplinary reports often included more than one violation. There were suspensions and reprimands for leaving work early, arriving to work late, failing to report to work and insubordinate conduct. On one occasion, the documents stated, Sanchez falsely reported a mechanical issue with a city truck, and in another instance, police cited Sanchez for driving a rear loader vehicle at a speed unsafe for the road conditions and striking a car.
A Nov. 21, 2013, disciplinary letter alleged that Sanchez was terminated after he repeatedly used a curse word in the presence of supervisors and other employees, even though he was repeatedly asked to either stop or to take it outside. Before Sanchez left, he directed a lewd hand gesture toward a supervisor, according to the report.
Sanchez’s attorney, Richard A. Lewis, described Sanchez as “a Hispanic adult male resident of Sacramento County” over the age of 40 in the lawsuit, and he said that Harriman and Skinner are white males who expected their Latino and African American subordinates to “kowtow, beg and demonstrate contrition and deference at all times.”
Harriman, whose name is listed as William Harriman in payroll records, worked for the city from 2011 until he resigned in 2015, records show. In 2014, his last full year with the city’s solid waste unit, he earned $114,507 in regular pay.
Skinner worked in the solid waste unit from 2006 until his retirement in 2013 as integrated waste collections superintendent. He earned $112,662.20 in regular pay in 2012, his last full year of employment, city records show.
Both Harriman and Skinner have been named in other racial discrimination lawsuits against the city, including a roughly $1.6 million verdict in favor of Wendell Brown, a $100,000 settlement with Timothy Metcalf and a $2,500 settlement with Darrin Hall.
Sanchez made a formal complaint of harassment with the city in September 2012, but it was rejected in November of that year, the lawsuit stated. Sanchez said in the court document that his union leadership told him in July 2012 that he had exhausted any remedies that the organization could provide him.
The plaintiff sought and secured the right to sue under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, the court record noted. Sanchez cited a number of causes for his complaint, including breach of employment contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as proscribed in the union contract, racial discrimination, racial discrimination retaliation and defamation.
Tanya Sanchez sought damages because her husband had suffered severe emotional distress and no longer was able to provide her with the love, companionship, comfort, affection, society, solace, moral support and intimacy that she had enjoyed prior to the alleged harassment.
