Race discrimination charges files against county court

A lawsuit filed in a federal court alleges that two Glenn County Superior Court administrators discriminated against because she is a hispanic employee.

The complaint, which seeks unspecified punitive damages, was filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Sacramento.

The suit claims that administrators failed to promote court clerk Norma Raygoza in 2005 based on her race. The complaint also accuses the court of retaliating against Raygoza when she attempted to seek arbitration in the matter.

The court has denied any wrongdoing.

Raygoza, citing advice from her labor union, declined to comment Tuesday afternoon.

Chris Darker is the business manager for Raygoza’s union, the United Public Employees of California, Local 792. He said now that the legal process has started, Raygoza would not participate in any public interviews for the foreseeable future.

Darker declined to speak about the specifics of the case, but called the evidence for discrimination overwhelming.

“It’s unfortunate, but (discrimination) still happen everywhere,” Darker said. “But, it’s unbelievable that it would happen in a courthouse.”

The chief court executive officer, Tina Burkhart, and Assistant court executive officer Janelle Bartlett, are named as defendants in the suit.

In an interview Wednesday, Burkhart once again denied making any decisions based upon ethnicity.

“When I started here there were no Hispanic workers in our office,” Burkhart said. “Now we have seven and I can tell you the reason that changed is only because we hire the best people for the job based only on experience and skills.”

Burkhart said promotions are based on knowledge, skill, and ability, not on seniority or competition.

In a letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission dated Oct. 25 2007, District Director H. Joan Ehrlich said there was reasonable cause to believe that the court discriminated against Raygoza based on her Hispanic background.

Burkhart said she strongly disagrees with the findings of the EEOC.

“It was a strange investigation and the court’s side of the story was not heard during the investigation process,” Burkhart said. “We were asked some very specific questions and were never allowed to see any of the evidence they presented.”

She said the EEOC investigator only contacted her once by telephone and then sent a list of questions that Burkhart responded to in writing. “And that was it, that was all,” Burkhart said.

In March, Raygoza requested the U.S. Department of Justice look into the case. In April, the DOJ said they would not file suit on the charges. “This should not be taken to mean that the Department of Justice has made a judgment as to whether or not your charge is meritorious.”

It was not clear why the Justice Department did not take the case. It was also unclear what criteria are used to determine the merits of a case. Multiple phone calls to Justice Department Offices in San Francisco and Sacramento were not returned.

Raygoza was promoted in 2007, but too is also adding fuel to the fire. The suit claims the promotion came only after the EEOC verbally informed the court of its discrimination findings. The court denies that allegation as well.

Paul Goyette, the Gold River attorney representing Raygoza, said now that the complaint has been filed, his client will wait to for the court to set a trial date. Goyette said he anticipates the case will take about 18 months to resolve.

In a letter to the U.S. Justice Department date March 10, Raygoza said she first became eligible for promotion in March 2004. The complaint said Raygoza had anticipated a performance evaluation in January of 2005, but did not receive one.

Raygoza, a Corning resident, said she filed her first formal grievance with the assistance of her union in April of 2005.

“I want to be seen and I want to be heard,” Raygoza said in the letter. “This is unfair and my civil rights have been violated by (Burkhart and Bartlett.) This is wrong, my employer is supposed to represent fairness and justice.”

• Glenn County Superior Court’s response

The following statement was released by Tina M. Burkhart, court executive officer:

Glenn County Superior Court did not discriminate against Ms. Norma Raygoza. Nor has the Court discriminated against any of its employees.

The Glenn Superior Court is committed to providing a work environment that is free from discrimination. The Court is proud of its record of diversity in hiring and promoting staff based on their knowledge, skills and abilities.

The Court also recognizes and respects all employees’ invocation of their rights if they feel that they have been subjected to wrongdoing in the work place, including free speech. This is a corner stone of public sector employment.

Although Ms. Raygoza received a “Right to Sue” letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), both the EEOC and the State Department of Fair Employment and Housing (the first steps in the process of making discrimination claims) often issue right to sue letters, even when no investigation is performed. Although the EEOC did make an adverse finding in Ms. Raygoza’s matter, the Department of Justice elected NOT to file suit on the employee’s behalf. Further, the Department of Justice explicitly made no finding as to whether or not the employee’s discrimination charge was meritorious.

The Court is an equal opportunity employer which always has followed, and will continue to abide by the law to provide a discrimination-free workplace. The Court at the same time respects the confidentiality of employees personnel matters, therefore as much as the court would like to have its side of this matter told, we cannot comment in any further detail at this time.

Contact Rob Parsons at 934-6800 or rparsons@tcnpress.com.