State lawyers want the Vermont Supreme Court to reverse a decision by the state labor board to reinstate the head of the Department for Children and Families office in Newport, who was fired last year over accusations of sexting a subordinate and bullying staffers.
Patrick Ryan, the district director, had appealed his June 2020 firing in a grievance to the Labor Relations Board. Board members sided with him in an April decision, documents show.
Ryan’s “misconduct cannot be condoned,” the board members wrote, but the state “did not act reasonably in concluding he was not a good candidate for rehabilitation and that a lesser sanction than dismissal would not be effective or adequate.”
Ryan’s lawyer, Pietro Lynn of Burlington, said Monday he and his client are pleased with the outcome.
“It completely vindicates my client’s position that he was an excellent employee and that there was no basis for his dismissal,” Lynn said.
State lawyers have until next Thursday to file a brief in their appeal.
Investigators concluded that Ryan — who once again oversees 36 communities in the Northeast Kingdom — sent sexual texts to a female employee with his state-issued cellphone and created a “negative, counterproductive and hostile” environment for co-workers in the Orleans County office, according to his dismissal letter.
Christine Johnson, a deputy DCF commissioner, wrote in that letter that Ryan had destroyed officials’ confidence in his leadership and described his behavior with employees as “mistreatment, intimidation, bullying, short-temperedness, demeaning and condescending.”
In its decision, the labor board called Ryan’s behavior toward the female employee a “serious” offense.
“It was inappropriate for him to engage in flirtatious messages with a subordinate employee … given favoritism perceptions that may result, the inherent power a supervisor has over a subordinate employee, and the potential for the involved subordinate employee not being evaluated on the merits of work performance,” board members wrote.
But the three-person board found that Ryan’s proven actions were “not as serious as alleged” by the state when it fired him.
The level of misconduct was blunted by a lack of specific evidence surrounding the text messages, they wrote. Neither Ryan nor the employee had saved the messages, which were sent several years ago.
The board also believed the state hadn’t established that the employee found the texts were unwelcome, though in interviews she said she had asked Ryan to stop sending them multiple times.
The only specific evidence regarding sexual misconduct, the board wrote, was an incident in which the woman started a conversation about being more sexually aroused during her pregnancy and her breasts growing larger and sore.
Ryan then asked the employee if her breasts hurt when touched, according to case records.
Ryan’s conduct fell into the category of behavior that is “‘personally offensive, fails to respect the rights of others, lowers morale and interferes with work effectiveness, and violates a person’s sense of well-being,’” the board found, rather than actionable sexual harassment.
He also violated state policies by using his work phone for “inappropriate private use” and “conducting himself in a manner that brought discredit or embarrassment” to the state government.
On two other charges against Ryan — that he may not have been truthful with investigators and that he created a hostile work environment — the board sided against the state.
Board members wrote that it wasn’t surprising Ryan gave vague answers to questions about the texts, given they had been exchanged years prior and there weren’t any records. The state didn’t prove that meant he was being dishonest, the board wrote.
The state also unjustly bypassed progressive discipline — increasingly severe sanctions — when factoring Ryan’s workplace behavior into his firing.
The state needed to take steps to address workplace issues with Ryan, the board wrote, and had not given him fair warning that he could be instantly fired for performance deficiencies.
Of the seven employees interviewed by investigators, only two said they had few issues with Ryan or hadn’t seen him bully co-workers, records show.
They said he lashed out at employees and berated them, used his tall stature to intimidate subordinates and let his mood affect decision-making. One said Ryan’s office behavior was similar to a “domestic violence scenario.”
The board decided to reduce Ryan’s dismissal to a 15-day suspension. Board members also ordered that Ryan receive back pay and benefits, beginning 15 working days after the effective date of his firing.
State lawyers filed their appeal of the decision May 21. No hearing has been set yet in the Supreme Court case.
