U of M attacks ex-employee claims

Her image, streamed live via video feed, was projected on a white screen that dominated the wall. Her voice boomed from three speakers in the room.

Even though the former vice president of communications left Memphis to work for Louisiana State University, the U of M designated her to be the representative of the school in Thursday’s wrongful termination hearing of Curt Guenther, a former director of communication at the University.

The purpose of the hearing was to determine if Bonnin unfairly fired Guenther — who worked at the University for nearly two decades — because he was too old and the wrong gender.

However, LSU’s Bonnin did not face the charges alone. The full force of U of M’s Office of Legal Counsel and assistant Attorney General for Tennessee Greg Holtz of Nashville came to her aid. They, however, appeared in person.

Guenther did have a lawyer present during the hearing to help fend off attacks on his work and character—but Guenther paid for his own counsel.

This is more or less the process all U of M faculty members should expect to go through if they have to appeal their termination. The University-run hearing followed the strict guidelines set out by the Tennessee Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (TUAPA).

Under these rules, the burden of proof lies on terminated. It is Guenther’s responsibility to convince the hearing officer, who acts as de facto judge-and-jury, of his side.

The hearing officer in this case is Jodi Wilson, a law professor at the U of M.

After hearing both sides, she, alone, will determine if Bonnin fired Guenther fairly.

The untenured professor was hand-picked for this key role as hearing officer by former U of M President Shirley Raines — who not only signed off on Guenther’s termination but also testified against him during Thursday’s hearing.

This fact did not slip by Guenther’s lawyer, Hite McLean, who tried twice to have Wilson step-down, after arguing that she could not be impartial since she needed the U of M to approve her tenure.

Wilson refused.

The TUAPA rules allow the University to appoint its own professors as hearing officers, regardless of tenure status.

This hearing is separate from Guenther’s discrimination lawsuit against the U of M filed in Shelby County Circuit Court.

The result of the U of M hearing will not have a direct effect on Guenther’s civil case, but the correlation between the two separate actions was obvious to everyone at the hearing Thursday, explained Wilson.

“As both sides are aware, I have no authority to answer or dismiss the human rights violation Guenther filed in court,” Wilson said just before the start of the hearing. “But, of course, we will be discussing the age and gender animus he cites in his lawsuit.”

Throughout the morning and afternoon, both sides questioned and cross examined past-and-present University officials, from the former president of the university to one-time student intern Jennifer Rorie. She was one of only two witnesses who testified in person.

“She (Bonnin) took me off campus for lunch,” Rorie said during her testimony. “She said she had fired her director of communications and was looking for younger-fresher-feminine faces to fill the office.”

Bonnin scoffed during Rorie’s testimony and furiously typed on her cellphone. Bonnin often rolled her eyes or retreated to an iPad or phone whenever Guenther’s witnesses spoke.

Rorie graduated from the U of M in Spring of 2014 with a degree in journalism with concentration in advertising. Bonnin wrote a letter of recommendation for Rorie so she could get an internship at St. Jude Children’s Hospital, according to Rorie’s testimony. She got the position but it was not paid, so Bonnin hired her as a paid student intern at the U of M in 2013.

According to Rorie, she was terminated because her temporary internship was no longer needed in Bonnin’s department. University legal counsel argued that Rorie was fired because she was disruptive and did not do her job.

“I’m a journalist, my whole degree and ambition is to tell the truth,” she testified. “I did not know it was (Guenther) who had been fired. I just knew they were interviewing people and looking for a woman to fill that position.”

Guenther’s second witness, who accused Bonnin of making age discriminatory remarks, had not been fired.

Former University webmaster Allecia Powell testified, by phone, that during a meeting Bonnin referred to Guenther’s age as a detriment to his abilities.

“We used to have a social networking committee on Tuesdays,” Powell said. “Three of us were wrapping up the meeting (and) Linda Bonnin said, ‘Well, My media director is 64 years old —what are the chances that he will do any social networking?’”

Powell worked in the same department as Guenther. She resigned from her position after Bonnin fired Guenther. She is now working as a webmaster in Arkansas. On a day-to-day basis, Guenther appeared to be on top of things, Powell said.

“He always seemed to be really organized,” Powell testified. “He had an exhaustive list of everything he was working on. His press releases were timely. I don’t ever remember thinking he was incompetent at his job.”

Powell testified that most people in the communications department did not have a problem with Guenther’s work — Bonnin seemed to be the only one who disliked his work.

In 2012, Powell was having issues with Bonnin, who was then the vice president and in charge of the communication department, Powell testified. She took her complaints against Bonnin to Human Resources and they redirected her to University legal counsel.

Bonnin denied terminating Guenther due to his age and gender. She briefly commented on the two witnesses who claimed she made disparaging remarks about him.

“I don’t know why (they) would say that,” Bonnin said. Flashing a smile on screen, she said the two former female employees “must have sour grapes.”

Although it was Bonnin’s actions that were in question, most of the six-hour hearing was spent defending or attacking the 64-year-old man’s work and character.

Derek Myers, the University’s assistant chief of police, testified that Guenther had been a great asset to his department. Myers testified that police services worked with Guenther on a regular basis.

“At least once a week, we consulted him about press releases and how best to inform the media of issues on campus,” Myers said. “My boss, Bruce Harber (U of M’s police director) and the line supervisors were all appreciative of his work.”

While witnesses for the University testified that Guenther was often inaccessible for important media alerts, Myers, who’s worked at the U of M for 22 years and regularly deals with crimes on campus, said he could not remember a time when Guenther was unreachable.

“In my experience, he was always accessible,” Myers said. “Most of my calls (to him) tended not to come between the (normal University) hours of 8 (a.m.) and 4:30 (p.m.).”

Under cross examination, U of M’s Legal Counsel Melanie Murry was quick to question Myers’ educational background and knowledge of public relations.

“You don’t have a degree in communications… a degree in public relations?” Murry asked Myers. “So, since you don’t have a background in communications you have no basis to even evaluate (Guenther’s) work.”

Myers said, “No.”

Any witnesses who complimented Guenther’s work were asked the similar questions by legal counsel — that included William Porter, former associate vice president for student affairs at the U of M.

Porter testified that during his 10 years at the University, he needed to come in contact with Guenther often.

“It was very important we worked with Curt (Guenther),” Porter said. “Any time we had something that was of public interest, the first person I called was my boss — the second person was Curt.”

Porter said Guenther was great with both spreading positive stories about the University and finding the best way to talk about the negative ones.

“Curt was always helpful with written responses,” Porter said. “One thing he did very well was immediately grasping the details of a situation. He was really good at preparing a first draft of statements. He was always a really good writer.”

Porter also testified that he never had trouble reaching Guenther.

In contrast, three former U of M officials testified that Guenther was resistant to change, “inaccessible” by phone, “incapable” of handling the day-to-day tasks and overall “incompetent.”

By phone former President Raines testified that Guenther’s work was sloppy and showed “little improvement” during the years.

Bob Eoff, former vice president for communication, testified also by phone that Guenther’s press releases were “inaccurate” and “uncreative.”

Guenther’s wife and friends, who were seated in the back row, watched as Bonnin, on screen, thumbed through a stack of employee-evaluation sheets she had written about Guenther. She pointed to those documents as proof of Guenther’s poor performance.

“(Guenther) did not embrace the new direction of the University (of Memphis),” Bonnin said on camera.

During her testimony, Bonnin described Guenther’s role in the communications department as the “bane of our existences.”

Guenther’s lawyer, Hite McLean said his client did not have a chance to testify on the first day, but said he would during the second day of the hearing.

“A date has not yet been determined yet,” McLean said. “(Guenther) will testify on his own behalf. I believe you will hear a very different side of the matter then.”

Day two of the hearing has not been scheduled yet.