Three Eastern employees sue their supervisor

I had recently received tentative approval from the Dean to begin an award program for the student who wrote the best education history essay utilizing university archives. Looks like that little project might slip to the back of the line.

This from the Richmond Register:

Three women who work in the archives section of Eastern Kentucky University’s library have filed suit against their former supervisor, Charles Hill, claiming he secretly planted a recording device at one of their work stations to illegally eavesdrop on them.

The suit, filed in mid-March by Richmond attorney John Lackey on behalf of Jacqueline Couture, Elizabeth Cunningham and Deborah Whalen, also claims Hill intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon the plaintiffs.

Hill’s actions, the suit alleges, were in retaliation for their reporting that he had allegedly not attended professional conferences in 2007 and 2008 paid for by the university, which he had claimed to have attended. Their reporting of his alleged misconduct resulted in Hill being suspended for one month and the loss of his supervisory position. Hill also had other reasons to be unhappy with and to retaliate against the women, the suit claims.

• They discovered he had “wrongfully picked up a crystal sculpture” from the home of an archives donor. It later allegedly was discovered under a map case in the archives office.

• They gave Hill a low score on their required confidential annual evaluations of his supervisory performance, which he was “incensed about.”

The suit also alleges that over a period of years, Hill often confronted them together or individually, “in a threatening manner, inquiring about what they or others in their work environment were saying about him.”During these confrontations, Hill is alleged to have commented that he had been trained in the military “to kill with his bare hands.” He also allegedly remarked that a high school friend who owed Hill a favor had offered to “knee-cap anyone” for him.

Hill’s pattern of conduct, the suit claims, led the defendants to reasonable fear for their safety and caused them to suffer “grievous mental pain and physical suffering.” All of that, the suit alleges, created a hostile workplace environment that continues to the present, interfering with the plaintiffs’ job performance.For that, they seek unspecified compensatory damages.The suit also claims Hill’s conduct was “sufficiently outrageous” to entitle plaintiffs to punitive damages of a “reasonable sum.”