STATE OF RHODE ISLAND COMMISSION fOR HUivlAN RIGHTS

LISA A. DIBELLO, Complainant. RICHR NO. 11 ERT 240-13/13 EECO NO. 16J-2011-00210

vs.

TOWN OF CHARLESTO\VN

et al.

Responde nts.

ANSWER Now come the Respondents.

AND POSITION Town

PAPER

or Charlestown.

official capacity as Treasurer of the Town of Charlestown,

Patricia Anderson, in her Gregory J. Avedisian,

Charlene Q. Dunn, Marjorie F. Frank, Richard II. Hasp, Forrester C. Safford. William Dil.ibero, Jack M. Shippee. Richard Sartor and Stephen McCandless forth their position regarding the Complainant's 1. Respondents Complainant's 2. Respondents

charge:

make no response to Complainant's Charge and leave Complainant admi t that Complainant

and answer and set

allegations in paragraph 1 of

to her proof thereof.

worked as the Charlestown

Director of Parks and

Recreation and was terminated from that position but deny that she was terminated for retaliatory reasons as alleged in paragraph 2 of Complainant's

Charge.

3 - 7. Respondents deny any retaliatory acts against Complainant, inciting or conspiring in any retaliatory acts against Complainant. Complainant

aiding. abetting, any retaliation against

for reporting violations of the Town's Sexual Harassment Policy or any

sexual harassment and for participating

in any investigations

and the creation of a

RJCHR II ERT240-I.3113

EEOC

#

16J-2011-00210

continuous hostile work environment as alleged in paragraphs 3 through 7 of Complainant's

Charge.

8 - 9. The allegations contained in paragraphs 8 and 9 of Complainant's

Charge

constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required but to the extent that they allege. or are intended to allege, any wrongdoing by Respondents. they are specifically denied. 10- 11. Respondents admit the allegations in paragraphs 10 and 11 of Complainant's

Charge. 12 - 13. Respondents deny the allegations in paragraphs 12 and 13 of Complainant's Charge. 14 - 15. Respondents neither admit nor denv the allegations contained in paragraphs 14

and 15 of Complainant's

Charge but deny any claims or inferences of retaliation or other

wrongdoing. 16 - 17. Respondents admit that Complainant discussed her allegations with Town Council President Carney who then reported the allegations to the Town Solicitor and deny the remaining allegations in paragraphs 16 and 17 of Complainant's

Charge.

18 - 22. Respondents admit that Complainant did not cooperate in the investigation of her allegations, that the allegations were brought to the Town Council and deny the remaining allegations in paragraphs 18 through 22 of Complainant's

Charge.

23 - 25. Respondents deny the allegations in paragraphs 23 through 25 of Complainant's Charge. 26 - 28. Respondents neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 26 through 28 of Complainant's

Charge and leave Respondent to her proof thereof.

2

RlCHR # ERT 240-13i13 EEOC

#

16.1-2011-00210

29. Respondents admit that Complainant

was told that failure to cooperate in the

investigation may result in disciplinary action and deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 29 of Complainants

Charge.

30 - 35. Respondents deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 30 through 35 of Complainant's

Charge.

36. Respondents admit that Complainant

was called to testify at an Executive Session of

the Town Council but neither admit nor deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 36 of Cornpiainants

Charge.

37 - 38. Respondents deny the allegations contained in paragraphs Complainant's

37 and 38 of

Charge.

39. Respondents admit the allegations contained in paragraph 39 of Complainant's Charge. 40. Respondents admit that Richard Sartor resigned as Town Administrator remaining allegations in paragraph 40 of Complainant's 41. Respondents admit that Complainant

Charge.

was always treated professionally

remaining allegations of paragraph 41 of Complainant's

but deny the

and deny the

Charge because they are too

vague and general to either admit or deny. 42 - 43. Respondents deny the allegations of paragraphs 42 and 43 of Complainant's Charge. 44. Respondents neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in paragraph 44 of Complainant's

Charge and leave Complainant

to her proof thereof.

45. Respondents deny the allegations contained in paragraph 45 of Complainant's Charge.

3

R[CHR # ERT 240-13/13

[EOe fi 16J-20 11-0021 0

46. Respondents admit that Gregory J. Avedisian and Forrester C. Safford were elected to the Town Council in the November. 2008 elections. 47. Respondents admit that Mr. Swain was appointed as an Acting Administrator and Mr. Barrett ceased to serve as Town Administrator. 48 - 54. Respondents deny the allegations of paragraphs 48 through 54 of Complainant's Charge. 55. Respondents admit that William A. DiLibero applied for the job of Town Administrator and deny the remaining allegations and characterizations of Complainant's

of paragraph 55

Charge.

56. Respondents deny the allegations contained in paragraph 56 of Complainant's Charge because they are too vague and general to either admit or deny. 57 - 58. Respondents deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 57 and 58 of Complainant's

Charge.

59. Respondents admit the allegations contained in paragraph 59 of Complainant's Charge. 60. Respondents admit that Mr. Dil.ibero went out on sick leave but deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 60 of Complainant's

Charge because they are too

general and vague to either admit or deny. 61 - 72. Respondents deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 61 through 72 of Complainant's

Charge.

73. Respondents admit that the Town Sergeant hand-delivered

a letter to Complainant

dated March 16, 2010, state that the letter speaks for itself and deny the remaining allegations or characterizations

contained in paragraph 73 of Complainant's

4

Charge.

RrCHR # ERT 240-13113 EEOC ii 16J-201 1-00210

74. Respondents

deny the allegations contained in paragraph 74 of Complainant's

Charge. 75. Respondents her employment

admit that Mr. DiLibero recommended

terminating Complainant

but deny the remaining allegations and characterizations

paragraph 75 of Complainant's attached to Complainant' 76. Respondents

from

contained in

Charge and must deny Exhibit #1 because it was not

s Charge.

deny the allegations contained in paragraph 76 of Complainant's

Charge. 77. Respondents

admit the allegations contained in paragraph 77 of Complainant's

Charge. 78 - 80. Respondents Complainant's

Charge.

81. Respondents Complainant's

deny the allegations contained in paragraphs 78 through 80 of

repeat and restate their responses to paragraphs

I through 80 of

Charge as iffully set forth herein.

82. Respondents

deny the allegations contained in paragraph 82 of Complainant's

Charge and all allegations of Complainant's 83 - 84. Respondents

Charge not herein specifically admitted.

make no response to paragraphs 83 and 84 of Complainant's

Charge to the extent that they contain legal conclusions properly reserved to a court of competent jurisdiction.

To the extent that any liability or other wrongdoing

implied by these allegations, Respondents that the Commission

is intended or

they are expressly denied.

deny any retaliation against Complainant

and respectfully request

determine that there is no probable cause for a formal complaint.

5

,

RICHR;;

ERT 240-13/13 EEOC i; 16J-201 1-00210

Respondents. By their attorneys.

,~~

/-i~4-~ / Marc DeSisto (#2757) Michael A. DeSisto (#2444) DESISTO LAW 211 Angell Street P.O. Box 2563 Providence RI02906-2563 Phone: (401) 272-4442 Fax: (401)272-9937 Email: marc((L)desistolaw.com michael((udesistolaw.com

CERTIFICATION

OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the within Answer and Position Paper was mailed, postage pre-paid on this 7th day of April. 201

110:

Ms. Lisa A. DiBello 35 Morley Street Charlestown, RI 028 I 3 Robert E. Savage, Esq. SAVAGE & SAVAGE 156 Airport Road Warwick, RI 02889 Marlene Colon Toribio EEOC Project Director Commission for Human Rights 180 Westminster Street Providence, RI 02903-1918

6