Back in my human resources days and before I went to night law school, I had an interest in working on the management side in labor relations (that part of the department that deals with union issues, usually in a manufacturing plant). I had some excellent mentors, all male, because it was a male-dominated part of the human resources profession. I had one manager tell me specifically that labor relations was about men who smoked cigarettes and got cars out the door (referring to the old-school environment in auto manufacturing plants), there were very few women in labor relations, and those who worked in the area were either ignored outright as inconsequential or labeled as a b*tch (before being ignored). This message wasn’t intended as a sexist comment; it was a warning because he’d just hired me and wanted me to succeed. He was simply telling me I needed to be better at my job than the men and expect to experience a whole lot of hostility and dismissiveness because of my gender.
He was right, and I’m grateful for the advice. And, after spending ten years within the “good old boy” environment of labor relations, I have a sort of spidey-sense for men who see women as “less than,” and I avoid them unless it’s absolutely necessary because I think it’s a waste of time to deal with the modern-day version of Neanderthals. Thankfully, it’s not as obvious or prevalent as it used to be, just as race bias isn’t as obvious or prevalent as it used to be. But that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist, though most people are smart enough to hide it and not stupid enough to act on it.
I’ve watched Ted Quisenberry in the last year on council, and I really didn’t like the dismissive way he sometimes treated council member Peg Roth or the way he tried to do an end-run around mayor Sue Wylie after the committee to evaluate the city manager had been established. Let’s just say it made me wonder if there was more there than rudeness to Peg and Sue. I had the same sense about someone else who used to be on council, but I didn’t find any objective support for my gut feelings.
But that’s not the case with Quisenberry.
In case it’s not obvious, I don’t like Quisenberry. After objectively considering the way he’s conducted himself during the one year he’s served as a council member, I don’t think he’s qualified to be reelected as a council member next year, much less to be elected as mayor this year. I wrote about that here.
After reading Quisenberry’s candidate interview in the Clarkston News, I think he’s either not very bright or he disrespectfully thinks Clarkston voters are stupid, evidenced by his answer to what he thinks is the most important issue facing the City of the Village of Clarkston. Quisenberry responded “the charter proposal,” and what came after that was nothing more than a word salad parroting of the false “Charming” group claims, demonstrating that Quisenberry either hadn’t read the proposal and can’t think for himself, or he thinks Clarkston voters won’t read the proposal and think for themselves. Even though I’m obviously in favor of the charter proposal, and Quisenberry is obviously against it, whether the charter proposal is adopted and whether Quisenberry can successfully push mayor Sue Wylie out of office will be settled on November 5. Based on his comments, Clarkston voters apparently should have no further expectations of Quisenberry beginning on November 6 because Quisenberry can’t see past election day (so you can add “not a visionary” to the list of things that make Quisenberry a bad candidate for the mayor’s spot).
As most people who come to this website know, I love to research, and I wanted to know more about Quisenberry because he’s clearly glommed onto the charter proposal and the “Charming” group in hopes of using them to sail to a write-in election victory as mayor after he couldn’t bother to get at least twenty people to sign a petition to put his name on the ballot. It didn’t take very long to find information about a gender discrimination lawsuit that arose out of Quisenberry’s actions when he was chief of police for the City of Royal Oak from 2001-2009. I guess my spidey-sense about him was correct.
I’m going to discuss the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion, linked here. (The attachment includes a dissenting opinion, but the majority opinion [the first one] is the opinion governing the case.) The issue was in federal court because the court was considering whether Quisenberry’s actions violated the federal Title VII nondiscrimination statute. Royal Oak had managed to get the case dismissed before trial, but the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision. This meant the next likely step would have been for the district court to set a trial date (something that always strikes fear in the heart of a municipal defendant).
The facts of the case outlined in the 6th circuit opinion reveal that Karyn Risch, the woman who brought the lawsuit, was a long-serving uniformed police officer for the City of Royal Oak. The department had a promotion system in place, presumably to make things as fair as possible. If candidates scored 70% or higher on a written examination, then they were given an overall numerical score based on a weighted scale – 70% for the written exam, 20% for performance reviews, and 10% for seniority. The Royal Oak civil service department prepared rank-ordered candidate lists and provided them to the chief of police (Quisenberry) who had to fill each vacancy by choosing one of the top three scores on the promotion list. If there was more than one promotion available, then the number of candidates increased by one for each vacancy. So, for example, if there were two vacancies, Quisenberry could choose from the top four, if there were three vacancies, Quisenberry could choose from the top five, and so on. Promotion lists were valid for one year, but that time could be extended for an additional six months if the police chief requested it.
Quisenberry passed Risch over for promotion many times. In June 2002, though Risch was ranked second on the promotion list for detective, Quisenberry chose a male candidate who was ranked third. In 2003, Risch was second on the list for a sergeant promotion. Quisenberry filled three openings while the list was active, promoting the first, third, and fourth-ranked male candidates. In 2004, Risch was third on a list for a detective promotion, and Quisenberry promoted three men from that list while it was active, promoting the second, fourth, and fifth candidates. Even though seniority was a promotional factor with 10% weight in the overall score, Quisenberry ignored it.
Quisenberry’s department didn’t have a lot of women. Only one female officer, Leslie Barron, served on the command staff between 2001 and 2005 and she took an early retirement in 2005 for unknown reasons. Other than Barron, Risch was the only female officer who appeared on promotion lists during those years.
Risch testified Quisenberry’s department was rife with hostility toward female officers that she described as “an overall little boys club,” she said male officers made degrading comments to female officers, and one male lieutenant gave preferential assignments to men. Another female officer testified she believed female officers were treated less favorably on performance reviews (which would have affected their promotional opportunities since they were a 20% weighted factor) and she too claimed that “some command officers . . . are part of [an] old boy’s club” (alteration in original). A male officer testified he’d witnessed hostility toward the promotion of female officers among Quisenberry’s command staff.
Risch filed her lawsuit in June 2006. Because there are time limitations to bring a lawsuit, only Quisenberry’s most recent 2005 refusals to promote Risch were considered. Royal Oak managed to get Risch’s lawsuit dismissed in the district court, but it wasn’t so lucky after she appealed to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The 6th circuit opinion noted that Risch “had arguably superior qualifications for the position of detective than two of the male candidates promoted to that position in 2005” and “it is clear that Risch was as qualified or better qualified than” two of the men who were promoted. The court also looked at the overall environment of the Royal Oak police department under Quisenberry’s watch and noted the evidence suggested a discriminatory workplace atmosphere. The case was remanded back to the district court.
The City of Royal Oak settled the case for $225,000, which was a clear indication the city thought the value of the case was potentially a lot higher than that and didn’t want to take the risk of going to trial and receiving an even worse award, likely from a jury. I suspect they also didn’t want the bad publicity of public trial testimony describing the extent of the good old boy atmosphere in Quisenberry’s department and the manner women were treated. It’s not clear if the $225,000 was covered by a municipal insurance policy or if Royal Oak taxpayers were on the hook for all or part of it.
The case was argued in the 6th circuit on August 4, 2009, and decided on September 3, 2009. Quisenberry resigned from his police chief job the week of February 2, 2009. I suspect he was aware the appeal had been accepted by the 6th circuit at the time he resigned, but I wouldn’t know that for certain without looking at the case docket. I also don’t know if the resignation was related to the case. That would be a question for Quisenberry.
As a matter of fact, I’d love to hear Quisenberry’s take on this gender discrimination case, though I’d be surprised if he made those comments less about taking responsibility for any of his actions and more about me for writing about what I found. So weird that I didn’t find anything in a similar search for Quisenberry’s opponent, mayor Sue Wylie, other than Wylie was a former teacher at Notre Dame Prep, and the alumni group favorably noted her appointment to the mayor position.
I suspect there are some Clarkston voters who would find this background fact about Quisenberry to be disqualifying. If you are one of them, vote accordingly. If you have already voted, you can go to city hall and ask for a new ballot to replace the old one.