CHARLESTON, W.Va. (WSAZ) -- The West Virginia Supreme Court issued a rare statement Wednesday in the firing of one of its employees.
Pancho Morris was dismissed as Magistrate Counsel and Director of the Magistrate Court Division this week. An article from the Associated Press indicates that Morris believes he was fired because he was suspected to be the person who leaked European vacation photos that many believe contributed to the defeat of Chief Justice Elliott "Spike" Maynard in this year's primary election.
The photos featured Maynard with Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship dining in Europe. Massey had cases before the justices, and when photos from the trip surfaced in January they attracted national headlines.
The AP reported Morris' staff included Maynard's former girlfriend, who had accompanied Maynard to Monaco.
Morris alleges he was also fired for reporting racist language
used in the court's administrative office.
The Supreme Court issued the following statement Wednesday afternoon:
"The Administrative Office of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, and all its employees, takes matters of personnel confidentiality
extremely seriously. We cannot publicly discuss personnel matters. All of our staff should understand that, especially our staff attorneys.
Since Pancho Morris has now discussed his dismissal publicly in Charleston Newspapers and Associated Press stories, he has waived his right to confidentiality.
Mr. Morris was dismissed from his position as Magistrate Counsel and Director of the Magistrate Court Division on Friday, November 14, 2008. He asked to be given the opportunity to resign, and that opportunity was granted. Mr. Morris submitted a hand-written resignation letter. On Sunday, November 16, he requested that his resignation be rescinded and that the letter of dismissal be reinstated. On Monday, November 17, Mr. Morris delivered a letter addressed to Supreme Court Administrative Director Steve Canterbury to the Supreme Court Clerk s Office for distribution to all Supreme Court justices informing them that he would be suing them for wrongful dismissal. Incidentally, Mr. Canterbury has yet to receive the letter.
There is no truth to Mr. Morris public allegation or the allegation in the letter delivered to the justices that he was dismissed because he had something to do with the release of photos showing Chief Justice Elliott Spike Maynard with Massey Energy Chairman Don Blankenship. Supreme Court Administrative Director Steve Canterbury has never accused Mr. Morris of having anything to do with the release of those photos, nor has anyone else at the Supreme Court made that accusation against Mr. Morris. That issue was not part of Mr. Canterbury s discussion with Mr. Morris on Friday. The release of those photos has never been investigated by the Administrative Office, or any other agency.
The only person who has ever linked Mr. Morris to those photos is Mr. Morris.
There has also been a complete mischaracterization in news articles of the involvement of Supreme Court justices in the firing of Mr. Morris. They were not consulted for direction, advice, or permission regarding Mr. Morris dismissal.
Indeed, it would be improper for the Administrative Director to discuss the matter with them since a challenge to his or any employee s dismissal could end up in the Court in an appeal. Thus, with any dismissal, the Administrative Director must necessarily act alone.
The Associated Press also reported, Canterbury also targeted Morris because he blew the whistle to state officials on your use of the 'N' word and other racially derogatory language in the administrative office, his lawyer, Katherine Dooley, said in her letter to Canterbury. Morris, who is black, told The Associated Press those allegations stem partly from information he provided in a discrimination case brought by a Cabell County Circuit Court law librarian.
Morris said he had also told Canterbury he believes the court discriminates
against its black employees.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) cases are confidential unless an individual who files a case chooses to make it public. It is highly improper for a current or past employee of the Administrative Office to reveal the existence of an EEOC case, or any information that may have been discussed as part of that case, without the consent of the person who filed the case. It is the practice of the Administrative Office to ensure that confidentiality attaches to these matters.
Mr. Morris is not a whistleblower. During his employment, he did tell Mr.
Canterbury during a discussion in Mr. Canterbury s office that he felt that the court system in general discriminates against African Americans in terms of pay.
Mr. Canterbury told him that if he felt that way, Mr. Morris should file an EEO complaint. Mr. Morris did not do so. The name and phone number of the Administrative Office EEO Coordinator, Deputy Director Kathleen Gross, is known to all court employees and was even been published as a reminder earlier this year in the court employee newsletter. Mrs. Gross office is about twenty feet away from the office which Mr. Morris occupied.
The letter Mr. Morris asked to be distributed to the Justices alleges Mr. Morris was dismissed in part because he complained about Mr. Canterbury s use of the N word and other racially derogatory language in the administrative office to interfere with the peace of mind and dignity of his administrative assistant, Sheila Crider, a black female.
In fact, Mr. Morris NEVER reported any incident to EEO Coordinator Kathleen Gross or to the state EEO Office. He never mentioned the incidents until he was asked about them by Mrs. Gross, who had heard about them in another context which is confidential. His initial response to her was, It s not important.
A brief summary of the two incidents, both of which involve Mr. Canterbury
quoting someone else:
_During the national brouhaha that led to radio talk show host Don Imus losing his job, there were several informal Administrative Office discussions about freedom of speech. During one of those discussions, Mr. Canterbury quoted someone saying something offensive as an example of something that could be offensive. Pancho Morris did not hear that discussion. It was reported to him by Ms. Crider.
_During an office Christmas party, Mr. Canterbury recounted how, when he was Administrative Director of the Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority, he had been visiting a regional jail when a correctional officer was rude to an elderly woman who was there to visit an inmate. The officer called the woman the N-word. Mr. Canterbury reprimanded him for the use of the word and dismissed
him.
When Mrs. Gross became aware of the two incidents, she immediately investigated.
She discussed with Ms. Crider the option of filing an EEO complaint. Ms. Crider felt there was no need to file a complaint. A July 23, 2008, memo to that effect was signed by Ms. Crider and Mrs. Gross and was witnessed by Pancho Morris and an administrative assistant in another division. A copy is attached to this press release, as is a November 19, 2008, release signed by Ms. Crider giving permission to release that memo. We also are releasing an August 8, 2008, memo from Mrs. Gross describing the investigation into the remarks by Mr. Canterbury.
Ms. Crider does not want to talk to reporters and will not grant any request for interviews. Because of confidentiality rules, Mrs. Gross cannot discuss any EEO matter beyond what is in the memoranda that have been released. The administrative assistant who witnessed Ms. Crider s signature was a witness only to her signature on the document and has no independent knowledge of the incidents described in the documents.
Mr. Morris was a will-and-pleasure employee. Mr. Canterbury does not have to give a reason for his dismissal, and will not do so. But Mr. Canterbury also does not have to sit idly while his reputation is impugned by scurrilous, offensive lies."
Save
Email
Print
2 comments
