posts
Results 1 to 4 of 4
 

Thread: posts

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2

    posts

    What happened to all the posts? even things that werent about Chief Gillmore were removed.

  2. #2
    Guest

    Re: posts

    Must have had something to do with the article in News4Jax a few weeks ago.
    They took all the BS that was posted here as reported as a "real news" story.

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2

    Re: posts

    Yes maybe so, or the Chief contacted the right person and got them removed. The news4jax report did get a bit out of hand even though most of the stated things were true. I wished her good luck with her making the department better but seems things are getting worse. I guess I need to bite my tounge so I dont get banned, lots of things Id like to say.

  4. #4
    Guest

    Re: posts

    Former LCPD officer files EEOC case
    By TONY BRITT
    tbritt@lakecityreporter.com
    Former Lake City Police Department Cpl. John M. Spahalski has filed a complaint with the Equal Employment
    Opportunity Commission against the LCPD, alleging he was the victim of discrimination based on disability. Spahalski, a cancer survivor, filed the complaint in early January. He worked as a Lake City police officer at two different periods in his career, from February 1991 until his resignation in September 1999, and again
    from September 2004 until March 2009, when he underwent surgery for skin cancer. S p a h a l s k i
    received a letter dated Feb. 17 from the EEOC field office in Tampa, indicating that his case has been assigned to the agency’s Mediation Unit for processing. The EEOC, which handles federal workplace discrimination allegations, said Spahalski is claiming personal harm because on Dec. 1, 2010, he was not considered for an interview to possibly be re-hired. Spahalski alleges that LCPD Chief Argatha Gilmore promised to re-hire him after he was healthy enough to return to work. “Chief Gilmore told me that I could not be considered for an interview for re-employment, until I had medical clearance by the city doctor,” Spahalski wrote. “I believe that I have been dis-
    EEOC continued on 3A
    Complainant says he became victim of discrimination. EEOC: Officials dispute allegations
    Continued From Page 1A
    criminated against because of my disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities in Employment
    Act of 1990, as amended.” Spahalski said he never attempted to get his medical clearance. City Manager Wendell
    Johnson disagreed with Spahalski’s interpretation. “There is no commitment anywhere about that — not a formal commitment,” Johnson said of a promise to rehire. “If there was an implication of that, I think it was taken out of context by him. Certainly I, as the city manager, and the chief have every right to hire whom we want based on qualifications and all the conditions.” “I’ve only had a few short minutes to look over the report and charges of discrimination, and at this point I find my first thought is that this case really has no merit.” Johnson said he is familiar with Spahalski’s history from his retirement due to a medical condition. “I do not at this point think this could be considered as a handicapped-qualifying condition,” Johnson said of the EEOC discrimination
    complaint. “He had cancer treatment.” Gilmore said she was first made aware of the Spahalski EEOC complaint last week when she was contacted by the Lake City Reporter . “I have the highest respect for any of the prior employees who worked here and based on the complaint that he has lodged against us, I’m just confident it will indicate that the city acted appropriately and did not act inappropriately in any manner,” she said. “I believe the city or any employer has the right to hire any person that they feel they should or don’t hire someone they don’t want to hire. It’s just the employer’s right.” Spahalski said in Sept. 2009, he was asked to attend a meeting by police department officials, who gave him an option of signing a resignation letter or termination papers. Spahalski chose to resign. Spahalski finished chemotherapy in June 2010 and in early 2011 re-applied for his job when the city advertised four openings in the police department. Gilmore said she attended a banquet, where Spahalski was present, when she started working at the LCPD. Gilmore did not say whether she told Spahalski during the celebration that he could be rehired. “That was my first time meeting him (Spahalski),” she said, “Obviously things change and needs change within an organization. He’s lodged a complaint, and that’s his right to do that. ... I don’t believe that we did anything inappropriate.” Johnson said he recalled that Gilmore, in a reference to Spahalski, saying she could not consider him for an interview because he is not cleared to come back to work. “That’s a requirement any time employees go out. They have to have a release from the doctor to come back to work,” Johnson said. “From what I read, he’s saying he’s been discriminated against in accordance with ADA standards because we cannot give him an interview or consider him until he had a medical clearance from a doctor. “I don’t think there was any intent by anyone, not even a remote thought, of violating any ADA standards. This, to me, is not an ADA case. We’ll be turning it over to our labor attorney to make sure. I feel sensitive to his plea. I know he at one time did a good job as a police officer, subsequent to his departure. Having to retire medically was unfortunate. But, if he may have been cleared to come back to work, and we have a statement to that affect, it’s still at the discretion on the part of city to make that determination and that is not in any form a manner contrary to ADA or any other standard.”

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •