Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/17/2019 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 162169/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2019
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-------------- ---------------------------------------------X
In the matter of the application of )
)
LOCAL 621, S.E.I.U., LOUIS MORBELLI, and )
HUGH MCALLISTER, )
)
Petitioners, ) AFFIDAVIT
)
-and-
)
) Index No.
Respondents, )
)
THE NEW YORK CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT; DANIEL )
A. NIGRO, as Commissioner of the New York City Fire )
Department; DON NGUYEN, as Assistant Commissioner )
of The Equal Employment Opportunity Office of the New )
York Fire Department; and the CITY OF NEW YORK )
)
Respondents. )
____ ____ ______________----------X
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss:
COUNTY OF oce )
HUGH MCALLISTER, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. I am one of the Petitioners in this proceeding. I submit this affidavit in support of
the petition.
2. I have been employed by the New York City Fire Department ("FDNY") since
March 1987. I served as an Auto Mechanic from in the FDNY from March 1987 until January
2002 when I was promoted to the titleof Supervisor of Mechanics (Mechanical
Equipment)("SMME").
3. I have served as an SMME in the FDNY since my January 2002 promotion.
4. The SMME title has two levels: Level I and Level II. The overwhelming majority
of SMMEs are Level I (the lower level). The only Level II SMME in the FDNY is Andrew
1
1 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/17/2019 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 162169/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2019
Diamond. All of the other SMMEs in the FDNY are Level I SMMEs, including me, my
immediate superior Louis and the two SMMEs-John Evangelou and Steven Perri-
Morbelli,
who supervise the Ladder Section.
5. Within Level I of the SMME title,there are four assignment differentials. In
ascending order of pay and responsibility, these are:
Base-pay SMME (the lowest pay grade in the SMME title)
SMME")¹
Assistant Supervising Supervisor, Class II ("Class II
Assistant Supervising Supervisor, Class I ("Assistant Chief')
Supervising Supervisor ("Chief')
6. All SMMEs in the FDNY, whatever their Level or assignment differential, are
responsible for supervising the repair and maintenance of mechanical equipment (most
frequently motor vehicles). Base pay SMMEs supervise Auto Mechanics or other skilled
journey level titles. Most Class IISMMEs supervise other SMMEs. Chiefs such as Petitioner
Louis Morbelli, and Assistant Chiefs (my grade) are responsible for larger areas and have more
expansive responsibilities than do Class II SMMEs. Most of our immediate subordinates are
other supervisors and not journey-level employees such as Auto Mechanics.
7. In April 2006, I was upgraded within Level I ofthe SMME titlefrom a base pay
to a Class II SMME. In August 2016, I was upgraded to Assistant Chief (or "Assistant
Supervising Supervisor, Class I"). I have served in this capacity since June 2016.
8. As an Assistant Supervising Supervisor Class I (Assistant Chief), I directly
supervise allof the base and Class II and supervise all of the journey-
pay SMMEs, indirectly
level employees including Auto Mechanics, who are involved in the repair and maintenance of
Services'
vehicles in the FDNY Fleet Ladder Section, Pumper Section, Night Crew, Randall's
1
A Class II SMME-which is the second lowest pay grade within Level I of the SMME title-is
not to be confused with Level II SMMEs, who are paid more and have more extensive
responsibilities than even the highest ranking Level I SMME.
2
2 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/17/2019 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 162169/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2019
Island Repair Shop, Blacksmith Shop, Electric Shop, Emergency Crew, Parts Room, Carpenter
Shop, and Tire Shop.
9. The Ladder Section is one of the areas under my indirect supervision. This unit is
responsible for the repair and maintenance of the FDNY ladder trucks. The FDNY has separate
units for the repair and maintenance of ladder trucks and pumpers. The Ladder Section only
handles ladder trucks, and all of the Auto Mechanics in that unit devote most or all of their time
to repairing and/or maintaining ladder trucks. In most cases, ladder trucks brought in for
maintenance and repair are assigned to a single Auto Mechanic who is then responsible for
handling all of the components of that truck. Very often, when a ladder truck is firstbrought into
the unit, personnel in the shop do not yet know exactly which parts of components will require
work. Part of the work of Auto Mechanics is diagnostic. Thus, at the time a ladder truck is
assigned to an Auto Mechanic, the scope of what will be required is as yet uncertain.
10. Over the course of time I have been an Assistant Chief, the Ladder Section has
had between approximately 17 and 22Auto Mechanics, and has generally had one or more Auto
Service Workers and one or more Laborers.
11. Auto Mechanics in the Ladder Section are expected to handle a wide variety of
repairs and maintenance for FDNY ladder trucks, including repair and maintenance of engines,
steering apparatus, springs, and all other parts and components of ladder trucks.
12. Assignments of specific ladder trucks to specific Auto Mechanics are made by the
SMMEs in charge of the Ladder Section.
13. In the past, there was a single Class IISMME assigned to the Ladder Section who
directly supervised allof the joumey level employees in that section and who reported directly to
me. For reasons not relevant to this proceeding, that alignmeñt changed in September 2018 at
3
3 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/17/2019 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 162169/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2019
which time Auto Mechanic John Evangelou was promoted provisionally to SMME (there being
no listfor promotion to SMME in the FDNY at the time) and was assigned to supervise the
Ladder Section as a base-pay SMME. From September 2018 until on or about July 15, 2019,
Mr. Evangelou was the one and only SMME in the Ladder Section. In the absence of a Class II
SMME, SMME Evangelou directly supervised the Ladder Section on his own during this period.
14. During this time (September 2018 to July 15, 2019) SMME Evangelou had sole
responsibility for supervising the Ladder Section and was solely responsible for making all work
assignments to Auto Mechanics in that unit. I never made any of these assignments in the
Ladder Section (or in any of the many other sections under my indirect supervision), and I never
told SMME Evangelou which Auto Mechanic to assign to which truck, especially since he-and
not I and not Petitioner Morbelli-knew the workload of each Auto Mechanic and was in the
best position to determine which Auto Mechanic should work on which truck.
15. On or about July 15, 2019, a second SMME-Steven Perri-was assigned to
share the responsibility for the Ladder Section with SMME Evangelou. Since July 5, 2019, all
work assignments in the Ladder Section have been made by SMMEs Evangelou and/or Perri,
and I never told either of these SMMEs which Auto Mechanic to assign to which vehicle.
16. Auto Mechanic Vanessa Feeley had worked in the Pumper Section until she gave
birth to her child in 2018. She returned to work in the Pumper Section upon her return from
Maternity Leave on or about July 23, 2018.
17. On or about March 29, 2019, Auto Mechanic Feeley filed a charge of
discrimination with the United States Equal Opportunity Employment Commission ("EEOC")
alleging, inter alia, that she had not been provided proper facilities to express milk for her infant.
4
4 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/17/2019 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 162169/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2019
18. On or about May 14, 2019, Petitioner Morbelli and I were interviewed
(separately) by FDNY counsel and management concerning Auto Mechanic Feeley's EEOC
charge. In my interview, I set forth the facts known to me which I believe made itclear that: (i)
Auto Mechanic Feeley's charge is without merit; and (ii)the actions of which she complained
were all the result of decisions made by FDNY management and not by me, by Petitioner
Morbelli, or by any other Local 621 SMMEs.
19. I bear no grudge against Auto Mechanic Feeley for her EEOC charge. But I was
required to provide accurate information to FDNY management. I believe that the information I
supplied should enable the FDNY to defeat Auto Mechanic Feeley's charge. I do not know
whether the FDNY informed Auto Mechanic Feeley of my involvement in providing information
that may help the FDNY to defeat her claim.
20. Itis my understanding that Auto Mechanic Jomar Pichardo ("Pichardo'') is the
husband of Auto Mechanic Feeley. Pichardo has been assigned to the Ladder Section since April
9, 2017.
21. I had nothing to do with the assignments Pichardo received from the SMMEs in
the Ladder Section. I never told any of the SMMEs in the Ladder Section which work to assign
to Pichardo, and I certainly never told these SMMEs or anyone else to retaliate against Pichardo
or to treat him badly or unfavorably or in any manner different from other Auto Mechanics.
22. By letter dated August 16, 2019, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit
"1,"
I was informed that a complaint had been filed with the FDNY's Equal Employment
Opportunity Office ("EEO Office") on August 15, 2019 alleging that:
"You retaliated against Auto Mechanic Jomar Pichardo because his
wife, Auto Mechanic Vanessa Feeley, filed a charge with the
EEOC."
5
5 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/17/2019 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 162169/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2019
23. I unequivocally deny that I ever retaliated against or mistreated Pichardo in any
way either because of the EEOC charge filed by his wife or for any other reason.
24. I was never provided a copy of the August 15, 2019 complaint-which I have not
seen to this date-and have not even been told who filed the complaint against me. I do not
know the identities of any individuals who may have provided information deemed supportive of
the August 15, 2019 complaint and have never been provided with the particulars of the
complaint.
25. Thus, I do not know the details of what I am accused of and had no meaningful
way to defend myself before the EEO Office before itrendered itsdetermination on November
19, 2019.
26. On November 6, 2019, almost three months after the August 15, 2019 complaint
was filed-and less than two weeks before the EEO Office rendered itsdetermination against
me-I was interviewed investigators Ms. Michelle Lau and Ms. Colleen McCormack-
by
Maitland of the EEO Office. The only information I have concerning the complaint against me
is based on the questions and comments of Ms. Lau and Ms. McCormack-Maitland during the
course of this interview.
27. From these questions and comments, it appears that the allegations against me and
against Petitioner Morbelli include the following:
a) Ithas apparently been alleged that Petitioner Morbelli and I instructed SMMEs
Evangelou and/or Perri (the SMMEs in charge of the Ladder Section) to treat Pichardo in an
unfavorable manner by, for example, assigning him trucks that required repairs to springs or
other more physically taxing work and/or to deny him assistance in performing his work when
needed (for example when springs had to be repaired or replaced). This claim is false. I never
6
6 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/17/2019 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 162169/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2019
(and so far as I am aware Petitioner Morbelli never) told either of these SMMEs what work to
assign to Pichardo, and most certainly never told either of them to treat him unfairly or any
differently than they treat other Auto Mechanics. As demonstrated by their accompanying
affidavits, SMMEs Evangelou and Perri, these supervisors have confirmed that they never
received any such retaliatory instructions from me or from Petitioner Morbelli. Significantly,
Pichardo never complained to me (and so far as I am aware never complained to Petitioner
Morbelli) about any of the assignments he received from SMMEs Evangelou or Perri. I am
unaware of any oppressive or unusual assignments given to Pichardo or any assignments that
suggest he ever was treated in any way less favorably than were the other Auto Mechanics in the
unit
b) Ithas also apparently been alleged that Petitioner Morbelli and/or I told SMMEs
Evangelou and/or Perri to deny Pichardo assistance from other Auto Mechanics or from Auto
Service Workers when assigned physically taxing work. This allegation is false. It isdenied in
the accompanying affidavits of SMMEs Evangelou and Perri. Notably, Pichardo never
complained to me (and so far as I am aware never complained to Petitioner Morbelli) about
being denied such assistance.
c) Additionally, ithas apparently been alleged that, pursuant to my instructions
and/or those of Petitioner Morbelli, Pichardo was singled out for special unfavorable treatment in
being told to leave the Machine Shop. This claim is false. Auto Mechanics frequently go to the
vicinity of the Machine Shop to get parts, and often linger in that area. This practice is both
inefficient, since Auto Mechanics hanging out in or near the Machine Shop are not attending to
their duties. More importantly, this practice is also dangerous, since the equipment in the
Machine Shop can cause serious if not fatal injuries, and thus persons not assigned to the
7
7 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/17/2019 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 162169/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2019
Machine Shop should not remain in that area. All Auto Mechanics who unduly linger in this
area are reprimanded and told to return to their work. Pichardo is one of, but far from the only,
Auto Mechanic to be instructed to leave the Machine Shop and get back to work. He has
certainly not been singled out in this regard, and I certainly never told SMMEs Evangelou or
Perri to treat Auto Mechanic Pichardo in any way differently in this regard.
28. At my November 6, 2019 interview, I told the EEO Office's investigators that I
would be able to locate documents which would refute some or allof what appear to be the
allegations in the August 15, 2019 complaint against me. I thereafter, to the extent I could do so
consistent with my work duties, gathered such documents. The determinations against me and
against Petitioner Morbelli were rendered on November 19, 2019 without giving me or Petitioner
Morbelli time to submit documents in our own defense.
29. On November 19, 2019, the EEO Office issued determinations against me and
"A" "B"
against Petitioner Morbelli, copies of which are annexed as Exhibits and to the Verified
Petition, stating-in each case-that:
"... the EEO office finds that there is sufficient credible evidence
that you retaliated against Auto Mechanic Jomar Pichardo because
his wife, Auto Mechanic Vanessa Feeley, filed a charge with the
EEOC."
The November 19, 2019 determinations further stated that "this matter is referred to the Bureau
Trials."
of Investigations and
30. Throughout the course of the EEO Office proceedings, our attorney advised the
EEO Office that, pursuant to the holding of the New York State Court of Appeals in D'Angelo v.
Scoppetta, no determinations could lawfully be issued against me or against Petitioner Morbelli
without affording us a hearing.
8
8 of 9
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/17/2019 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 162169/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2019
31. Nonetheless, neither Petitioner Morbelli nor I was afforded a hearing or any
meaningful opportunity to defend ourselves prior to the issuance of the November 19, 2019
determinations.
32. At my interview by the EEO Office, I was told that several Auto Mechanics were
uñhappy about me and about Petitioner Morbelli and had in some way or other supported the
allegations in the August 15, 2019 complaint. Without being provided a hearing, I have no way
of knowing whether this is true. I do know, however, that the Auto Mechanics under my indirect
supervision, presumably including those in the Ladder Section, are unhappy about the fact that
the FDNY in late 2019 changed the tour of these Auto Mechanics from a five (5) day work week
to a seven (7) day work week. I am told that, for whatever reason, many blame me and/or
Petitioner Morbelli for their new schedule. In fact, this change to a seven (7) day work week
came from FDNY management and not from me or from Petitioner Morbelli. Nonetheless, the
belief that this was all our doing apparently persists.
33. For the reasons stated above, the allegations against me and against Petitioner
Morbelli are baseless. Had Petitioner Morbelli and I been afforded the hearing my attorneys
claim we were entitled to, I believe we would successfully have refuted allof the baseless
allegations against us, and would not now have these unwarranted EEO determinations in our
personnel files.
HUCalf MCALLISTER
Sworn to me this |/, day
of December 2019
T Y P
Notary Public, State ofNew York
No. 02TH6045073
Qualified
Commission
in New
Expires
York
July
County
24, 20 h 9
9 of 9
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/17/2019 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 162169/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK -------------- ---------------------------------------------X In the matter of the application of ) ) LOCAL 621, S.E.I.U., LOUIS MORBELLI, and ) HUGH MCALLISTER, ) ) Petitioners, ) AFFIDAVIT ) -and- ) ) Index No. Respondents, ) ) THE NEW YORK CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT; DANIEL ) A. NIGRO, as Commissioner of the New York City Fire ) Department; DON NGUYEN, as Assistant Commissioner ) of The Equal Employment Opportunity Office of the New ) York Fire Department; and the CITY OF NEW YORK ) ) Respondents. ) ____ ____ ______________----------X STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss: COUNTY OF oce ) HUGH MCALLISTER, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am one of the Petitioners in this proceeding. I submit this affidavit in support of the petition. 2. I have been employed by the New York City Fire Department ("FDNY") since March 1987. I served as an Auto Mechanic from in the FDNY from March 1987 until January 2002 when I was promoted to the titleof Supervisor of Mechanics (Mechanical Equipment)("SMME"). 3. I have served as an SMME in the FDNY since my January 2002 promotion. 4. The SMME title has two levels: Level I and Level II. The overwhelming majority of SMMEs are Level I (the lower level). The only Level II SMME in the FDNY is Andrew 1 1 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/17/2019 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 162169/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2019 Diamond. All of the other SMMEs in the FDNY are Level I SMMEs, including me, my immediate superior Louis and the two SMMEs-John Evangelou and Steven Perri- Morbelli, who supervise the Ladder Section. 5. Within Level I of the SMME title,there are four assignment differentials. In ascending order of pay and responsibility, these are: Base-pay SMME (the lowest pay grade in the SMME title) SMME")¹ Assistant Supervising Supervisor, Class II ("Class II Assistant Supervising Supervisor, Class I ("Assistant Chief') Supervising Supervisor ("Chief') 6. All SMMEs in the FDNY, whatever their Level or assignment differential, are responsible for supervising the repair and maintenance of mechanical equipment (most frequently motor vehicles). Base pay SMMEs supervise Auto Mechanics or other skilled journey level titles. Most Class IISMMEs supervise other SMMEs. Chiefs such as Petitioner Louis Morbelli, and Assistant Chiefs (my grade) are responsible for larger areas and have more expansive responsibilities than do Class II SMMEs. Most of our immediate subordinates are other supervisors and not journey-level employees such as Auto Mechanics. 7. In April 2006, I was upgraded within Level I ofthe SMME titlefrom a base pay to a Class II SMME. In August 2016, I was upgraded to Assistant Chief (or "Assistant Supervising Supervisor, Class I"). I have served in this capacity since June 2016. 8. As an Assistant Supervising Supervisor Class I (Assistant Chief), I directly supervise allof the base and Class II and supervise all of the journey- pay SMMEs, indirectly level employees including Auto Mechanics, who are involved in the repair and maintenance of Services' vehicles in the FDNY Fleet Ladder Section, Pumper Section, Night Crew, Randall's 1 A Class II SMME-which is the second lowest pay grade within Level I of the SMME title-is not to be confused with Level II SMMEs, who are paid more and have more extensive responsibilities than even the highest ranking Level I SMME. 2 2 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/17/2019 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 162169/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2019 Island Repair Shop, Blacksmith Shop, Electric Shop, Emergency Crew, Parts Room, Carpenter Shop, and Tire Shop. 9. The Ladder Section is one of the areas under my indirect supervision. This unit is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the FDNY ladder trucks. The FDNY has separate units for the repair and maintenance of ladder trucks and pumpers. The Ladder Section only handles ladder trucks, and all of the Auto Mechanics in that unit devote most or all of their time to repairing and/or maintaining ladder trucks. In most cases, ladder trucks brought in for maintenance and repair are assigned to a single Auto Mechanic who is then responsible for handling all of the components of that truck. Very often, when a ladder truck is firstbrought into the unit, personnel in the shop do not yet know exactly which parts of components will require work. Part of the work of Auto Mechanics is diagnostic. Thus, at the time a ladder truck is assigned to an Auto Mechanic, the scope of what will be required is as yet uncertain. 10. Over the course of time I have been an Assistant Chief, the Ladder Section has had between approximately 17 and 22Auto Mechanics, and has generally had one or more Auto Service Workers and one or more Laborers. 11. Auto Mechanics in the Ladder Section are expected to handle a wide variety of repairs and maintenance for FDNY ladder trucks, including repair and maintenance of engines, steering apparatus, springs, and all other parts and components of ladder trucks. 12. Assignments of specific ladder trucks to specific Auto Mechanics are made by the SMMEs in charge of the Ladder Section. 13. In the past, there was a single Class IISMME assigned to the Ladder Section who directly supervised allof the joumey level employees in that section and who reported directly to me. For reasons not relevant to this proceeding, that alignmeñt changed in September 2018 at 3 3 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/17/2019 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 162169/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2019 which time Auto Mechanic John Evangelou was promoted provisionally to SMME (there being no listfor promotion to SMME in the FDNY at the time) and was assigned to supervise the Ladder Section as a base-pay SMME. From September 2018 until on or about July 15, 2019, Mr. Evangelou was the one and only SMME in the Ladder Section. In the absence of a Class II SMME, SMME Evangelou directly supervised the Ladder Section on his own during this period. 14. During this time (September 2018 to July 15, 2019) SMME Evangelou had sole responsibility for supervising the Ladder Section and was solely responsible for making all work assignments to Auto Mechanics in that unit. I never made any of these assignments in the Ladder Section (or in any of the many other sections under my indirect supervision), and I never told SMME Evangelou which Auto Mechanic to assign to which truck, especially since he-and not I and not Petitioner Morbelli-knew the workload of each Auto Mechanic and was in the best position to determine which Auto Mechanic should work on which truck. 15. On or about July 15, 2019, a second SMME-Steven Perri-was assigned to share the responsibility for the Ladder Section with SMME Evangelou. Since July 5, 2019, all work assignments in the Ladder Section have been made by SMMEs Evangelou and/or Perri, and I never told either of these SMMEs which Auto Mechanic to assign to which vehicle. 16. Auto Mechanic Vanessa Feeley had worked in the Pumper Section until she gave birth to her child in 2018. She returned to work in the Pumper Section upon her return from Maternity Leave on or about July 23, 2018. 17. On or about March 29, 2019, Auto Mechanic Feeley filed a charge of discrimination with the United States Equal Opportunity Employment Commission ("EEOC") alleging, inter alia, that she had not been provided proper facilities to express milk for her infant. 4 4 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/17/2019 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 162169/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2019 18. On or about May 14, 2019, Petitioner Morbelli and I were interviewed (separately) by FDNY counsel and management concerning Auto Mechanic Feeley's EEOC charge. In my interview, I set forth the facts known to me which I believe made itclear that: (i) Auto Mechanic Feeley's charge is without merit; and (ii)the actions of which she complained were all the result of decisions made by FDNY management and not by me, by Petitioner Morbelli, or by any other Local 621 SMMEs. 19. I bear no grudge against Auto Mechanic Feeley for her EEOC charge. But I was required to provide accurate information to FDNY management. I believe that the information I supplied should enable the FDNY to defeat Auto Mechanic Feeley's charge. I do not know whether the FDNY informed Auto Mechanic Feeley of my involvement in providing information that may help the FDNY to defeat her claim. 20. Itis my understanding that Auto Mechanic Jomar Pichardo ("Pichardo'') is the husband of Auto Mechanic Feeley. Pichardo has been assigned to the Ladder Section since April 9, 2017. 21. I had nothing to do with the assignments Pichardo received from the SMMEs in the Ladder Section. I never told any of the SMMEs in the Ladder Section which work to assign to Pichardo, and I certainly never told these SMMEs or anyone else to retaliate against Pichardo or to treat him badly or unfavorably or in any manner different from other Auto Mechanics. 22. By letter dated August 16, 2019, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit "1," I was informed that a complaint had been filed with the FDNY's Equal Employment Opportunity Office ("EEO Office") on August 15, 2019 alleging that: "You retaliated against Auto Mechanic Jomar Pichardo because his wife, Auto Mechanic Vanessa Feeley, filed a charge with the EEOC." 5 5 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/17/2019 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 162169/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2019 23. I unequivocally deny that I ever retaliated against or mistreated Pichardo in any way either because of the EEOC charge filed by his wife or for any other reason. 24. I was never provided a copy of the August 15, 2019 complaint-which I have not seen to this date-and have not even been told who filed the complaint against me. I do not know the identities of any individuals who may have provided information deemed supportive of the August 15, 2019 complaint and have never been provided with the particulars of the complaint. 25. Thus, I do not know the details of what I am accused of and had no meaningful way to defend myself before the EEO Office before itrendered itsdetermination on November 19, 2019. 26. On November 6, 2019, almost three months after the August 15, 2019 complaint was filed-and less than two weeks before the EEO Office rendered itsdetermination against me-I was interviewed investigators Ms. Michelle Lau and Ms. Colleen McCormack- by Maitland of the EEO Office. The only information I have concerning the complaint against me is based on the questions and comments of Ms. Lau and Ms. McCormack-Maitland during the course of this interview. 27. From these questions and comments, it appears that the allegations against me and against Petitioner Morbelli include the following: a) Ithas apparently been alleged that Petitioner Morbelli and I instructed SMMEs Evangelou and/or Perri (the SMMEs in charge of the Ladder Section) to treat Pichardo in an unfavorable manner by, for example, assigning him trucks that required repairs to springs or other more physically taxing work and/or to deny him assistance in performing his work when needed (for example when springs had to be repaired or replaced). This claim is false. I never 6 6 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/17/2019 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 162169/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2019 (and so far as I am aware Petitioner Morbelli never) told either of these SMMEs what work to assign to Pichardo, and most certainly never told either of them to treat him unfairly or any differently than they treat other Auto Mechanics. As demonstrated by their accompanying affidavits, SMMEs Evangelou and Perri, these supervisors have confirmed that they never received any such retaliatory instructions from me or from Petitioner Morbelli. Significantly, Pichardo never complained to me (and so far as I am aware never complained to Petitioner Morbelli) about any of the assignments he received from SMMEs Evangelou or Perri. I am unaware of any oppressive or unusual assignments given to Pichardo or any assignments that suggest he ever was treated in any way less favorably than were the other Auto Mechanics in the unit b) Ithas also apparently been alleged that Petitioner Morbelli and/or I told SMMEs Evangelou and/or Perri to deny Pichardo assistance from other Auto Mechanics or from Auto Service Workers when assigned physically taxing work. This allegation is false. It isdenied in the accompanying affidavits of SMMEs Evangelou and Perri. Notably, Pichardo never complained to me (and so far as I am aware never complained to Petitioner Morbelli) about being denied such assistance. c) Additionally, ithas apparently been alleged that, pursuant to my instructions and/or those of Petitioner Morbelli, Pichardo was singled out for special unfavorable treatment in being told to leave the Machine Shop. This claim is false. Auto Mechanics frequently go to the vicinity of the Machine Shop to get parts, and often linger in that area. This practice is both inefficient, since Auto Mechanics hanging out in or near the Machine Shop are not attending to their duties. More importantly, this practice is also dangerous, since the equipment in the Machine Shop can cause serious if not fatal injuries, and thus persons not assigned to the 7 7 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/17/2019 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 162169/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2019 Machine Shop should not remain in that area. All Auto Mechanics who unduly linger in this area are reprimanded and told to return to their work. Pichardo is one of, but far from the only, Auto Mechanic to be instructed to leave the Machine Shop and get back to work. He has certainly not been singled out in this regard, and I certainly never told SMMEs Evangelou or Perri to treat Auto Mechanic Pichardo in any way differently in this regard. 28. At my November 6, 2019 interview, I told the EEO Office's investigators that I would be able to locate documents which would refute some or allof what appear to be the allegations in the August 15, 2019 complaint against me. I thereafter, to the extent I could do so consistent with my work duties, gathered such documents. The determinations against me and against Petitioner Morbelli were rendered on November 19, 2019 without giving me or Petitioner Morbelli time to submit documents in our own defense. 29. On November 19, 2019, the EEO Office issued determinations against me and "A" "B" against Petitioner Morbelli, copies of which are annexed as Exhibits and to the Verified Petition, stating-in each case-that: "... the EEO office finds that there is sufficient credible evidence that you retaliated against Auto Mechanic Jomar Pichardo because his wife, Auto Mechanic Vanessa Feeley, filed a charge with the EEOC." The November 19, 2019 determinations further stated that "this matter is referred to the Bureau Trials." of Investigations and 30. Throughout the course of the EEO Office proceedings, our attorney advised the EEO Office that, pursuant to the holding of the New York State Court of Appeals in D'Angelo v. Scoppetta, no determinations could lawfully be issued against me or against Petitioner Morbelli without affording us a hearing. 8 8 of 9 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/17/2019 01:09 PM INDEX NO. 162169/2019 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 12 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/17/2019 31. Nonetheless, neither Petitioner Morbelli nor I was afforded a hearing or any meaningful opportunity to defend ourselves prior to the issuance of the November 19, 2019 determinations. 32. At my interview by the EEO Office, I was told that several Auto Mechanics were uñhappy about me and about Petitioner Morbelli and had in some way or other supported the allegations in the August 15, 2019 complaint. Without being provided a hearing, I have no way of knowing whether this is true. I do know, however, that the Auto Mechanics under my indirect supervision, presumably including those in the Ladder Section, are unhappy about the fact that the FDNY in late 2019 changed the tour of these Auto Mechanics from a five (5) day work week to a seven (7) day work week. I am told that, for whatever reason, many blame me and/or Petitioner Morbelli for their new schedule. In fact, this change to a seven (7) day work week came from FDNY management and not from me or from Petitioner Morbelli. Nonetheless, the belief that this was all our doing apparently persists. 33. For the reasons stated above, the allegations against me and against Petitioner Morbelli are baseless. Had Petitioner Morbelli and I been afforded the hearing my attorneys claim we were entitled to, I believe we would successfully have refuted allof the baseless allegations against us, and would not now have these unwarranted EEO determinations in our personnel files. HUCalf MCALLISTER Sworn to me this |/, day of December 2019 T Y P Notary Public, State ofNew York No. 02TH6045073 Qualified Commission in New Expires York July County 24, 20 h 9 9 of 9