Please retire for your own good, sir.
A workplace misconduct investigation found a top Orange County elected official violated gender discrimination and retaliation policies and harassed a subordinate over her medical disability, according to a confidential county-commissioned report obtained by LAist.
While left-leaning, the LAist has a reputation for doing the job the LA Times should be doing… you know, journalism. They got their hands on a report from Orange County and it is unreal.
They wrote a story and I won’t hold my breath waiting for the OC Register to do one on this. There are a slew of allegations against Parrish, but several were upheld by the investigation. I am focusing on those:
A. Allegation 1: Parrish Engaged in Harassment based on Disability Against in Violation of the County’s Harassment Policy
This allegation is SUSTAINED.
The Investigator finds by a preponderance of the evidence that Parrish engaged in disability harassment against in violation of the County’s Harassment Policy. This finding is based on the fact that Parrish engaged in unwelcome conduct directly related to medical condition on a continuous basis throughout her employment.
B. Allegation 2: Parrish Engaged in Harassment Based on Sex or Gender in Violation of the County’s Harassment Policy
This allegation is SUSTAINED.
The Investigator finds by a preponderance of the evidence that Parrish engaged in harassment based on sex or gender in violation of the County’s Harassment Policy. The Investigator determined that Parrish engaged in a pattern of referencing employees differently in the workplace, based solely on their gender, his conduct was unwelcome and it unreasonably interfered with female employees’ work performance and/or created an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.
So now, we get the idea that the stuff in Parish’s life from the last 20 years is a pattern versus a smear or isolated incidents.
(()) recalled that a camera was installed in the break room, but she said that had nothing to do with (()) stated that the camera was installed because Parrish thought employees were stealing paper towels from the break room.
So Parish had a camera installed in the break room at his assessor’s office.
(()) stated that Parrish did not seem to understand that XXX suffered from a serious medical condition. (()) said that Parish seemed concerned with how thin XXX was and he drew attention to her weight (()) said that Parish never asked her to check XXX rash can, but she heard that an ‘employee named YYY occasionally check employee trash cans. (()) Stated that there was a memo sent out about not putting food or wrappers in trash cans due to vermin. YYY stated that (()) told her that YYY said that he was asked to check her trash can speciically.
Please note that I am not editing typos from the report.
So, Parrish had employees checking everyone’s trash cans along with a camera in the break room? Also note that Parrish was talking about stuff he should not have been… patterns, folks.
ZZZ described Parrish as an “interesting man,” and she mentioned that Parrish hired a temporary employee to look in employee trash cans to see what they were throwing away. ZZZ added that Parrish looked through trash cans. ZZZ added that Parish id not want ‘anyone eating at their desks and he wanted to make sure that trash was thrown away in the Kitchen as opposed to at desks.
What the hell!?
D. Allegation 4: Parrish Engaged in Discrimination Based on Disability Against in Violation of the County’s Discrimination Policy
This allegation is SUSTAINED, IN PART.
The Investigator finds by a preponderance of the evidence that Parrish engaged in disability discrimination against in violation of the County’s Discrimination Policy by virtue of her transfer from the Assessor’s Office. In making this finding, the Investigator determined that the evidence showed that Parrish made the decision to transfer , at least in part, due to her medical issues which caused her to miss work and delay completion of her job duties.
The employee accused Parrish of refusing to be flexible on her schedule, which was unfounded, but transferring her to another department because of her disability, which was sustained. Ouch.
I. Allegation 9: Parrish Engaged in Retaliation Based on Disability Against XXX in Violation of the County’s Retaliation Policy
This allegation is SUSTAINED
“The Investigator finds by a preponderance of the evidence that Parrish engaged in retaliation based on disability against XXX in violation of the County’s Retaliation Policy. XXX transfer was an “adverse employment action” and that decision was made, in part, based on her protected activites, such as taking time off work due to her disability and medical condition.
OUCH OUCH OUCH
K. Allegation 11: [Parrish]Engaged in Abusive Conduct Against XXX in Violation of the County’s Abusive Conduct Policy
This allegation is SUSTAINED.
The Investigator finds by a preponderance of the evidence that [Parrish] engaged in abusive ‘conduct against XXX in violation of the County’s Abusive Conduct Policy. This finding is based on the fact that other witnesses corroborated that they were similarly bullied by [Parrish] was more credible than XXX in her description of [Parrish] abusive conduct towards her.
It is clear from the context that Parrish’ name was redacted from this portion, I am not sure why. (It is possible that this was one of Parish’s top deputies) That said this is the worst of the lot so far. It appears several employees indicated they were bullied by Claude Parrish. How can he do his job if his staff are being treated like this???
M. Allegation 13: {Deputy} Engaged in Abusive Conduct Against XXX in Violation of the County’s Abusive Conduct Policy
This allegation is SUSTAINED.
The Investigator finds by a preponderance of the evidence that {Deputy} engaged in abusive ‘conduct against XXX in violation of the County’s Abusive Conduct Policy. This finding is based on the fact that XXX was more credible than XXX in her descriptions of {Deputy} actions and other witnesses corroborated that they too were bullied by {Deputy} Which makes it more likely than not that {Deputy} treated XXX in a similar fashion and engaged in abusive conduct towards her.
Again on Allegation 11 and 13 – it could be Parrish himself, but he was also lit up by name in other parts of this report. My best guess is that he had a couple of fellow jerks that were treating the staff in a similar manner. Bullying.
There were 13 claims made. 4 Substantiated, 1 partially substantiated. Those familiar with such things realize this is an insane hit rate – it is typical to allege 20 things per one legit item in complaints of this nature. The conclusion you can draw is that Claude Parrish is a nightmare to work for and the environment in his office is toxic.
You can also make bank these SUBSTANTIATED allegations WILL be used to unseat Claude should he attempt to run for re-election? Will the lemmings in the establishment follow him off the cliff once again?
From a previous issue:
On several occasions during meetings with Mr. Parrish, he would hold his hands high up in the air and state that they were bringing too many issues up at the same time. He would state that he could only handle one issue at a time. During these meetings, he would also brag about how he was hiding alcohol in his water bottles. After a while, it became apparent to BALES and LOPEZ that either because of age, mental faculty issues, or drinking issues, Mr. Parrish was not fit to run the Assessor’s Office.
Claude Parrish needs to retire.