Area farm settles sexual harassment suit

ADVERTISEMENT

Rod Schiemer, 34, owner of Schiemer Farms, and his attorney, Brent Smith, however, dispute those allegations.

According to a statement from Smith, the two women were hired temporarily through the Oregon Employment Department, and on the day the two women started they were working with Henry, whom they knew.

Smith said, according to witnesses, a sexually-related conversation, apparently initiated by the women, took place. Another incident apparently took place in one of the women’s cars during a break in which one of the women alleged Henry climbed into the car through the window, shaking his groin in her face. While in the car, it was further alleged Henry talked about having sex with his girlfriend in front of the women. Smith said, however, in the depositions, the women stated they left the vehicle, but not because Henry was talking about sex, but because he had “flatulence” and had “stunk up the car.”

Smith went on to say, the second day Arias and Jones came to work late and complained to their manager and did not work that day while he investigated their complaint.

Smith’s statement about the account stated the manager who conducted an investigation did not know what happened because of conflicting stories, and he solved the matter by transferring Henry to drive truck.

On the third day, the women came in but there are differing stories as to what happened next.

According to the EEOC press release, Schiemer management told them, “You girls can go home, we don’t need any more trouble.”

However, Schiemer and Smith said that person, the crew boss overseeing them in the field the first day, denied having fired them and said he wasn’t even there that day. Furthermore, they maintain that crew boss, who had only been working there for about three weeks, had no authority to fire them, and the two women never checked with the manager, whom they spoke with the day before. Henry, who was also a temporary worker, was arrested that third day by the Malheur County Sheriff’s Office for unrelated charges and never returned to Schiemer Farms.

Schiemer, who was in another area harvesting the potatoes, said he did didn’t know about any of this until he received a phone call three months later.

“I was just trying to get my crop out of the ground,” he said.

That phone call came from the Bureau of Labor and Industries, with whom the women had filed a complaint. Smith said BOLI had investigated one other complaint the women filed, about restroom facilities, and dismissed it. The other complaint sat at BOLI for some time before the complaint transferred to Oregon Legal Aid and EEOC. Following an investigation by EEOC, the EEOC representative sent a settlement demand letter asking Schiemer to pay $140,000 — 70,000 each — which Schiemer refused to pay. When the case was filed as a lawsuit, the settlement amount was reduced to $14,500 for each.

“This case was settled for nuisance value,” Smith said, adding EEOC and Arias and Jones made the value price so low Schiemer would have to pay more to defend it rather than settle.

Luis Lucero Jr., EEOC field office director based out of Seattle, said, however, the EEOC can only ask for certain amounts based on different factors. He said, EEOC can only collect a maximum of $50,000 for small businesses, such as in this case, and the rest depends on things like duration and nature of the alleged harassment.

Schiemer said the whole process has been terrible, and he has had to fend off rumors since the EEOC investigation because people assume it was him responsible, which he said was not the case.

“I feel like I’ve been dragged through the mud,” Schiemer said.

Nor, Schiemer said, does he know what or whom to believe in regard to the sexual harassment charges or retaliation charges.

“It’s just a lot of he said/she said,” Schiemer said.

Smith said in his statement, Schiemer Farms does not admit women were sexually harassed or that the Schiemer Farms retaliated in anyway.

“While we agree with EEOC that no one should have to suffer harassment as a condition of employment, we do not agree that any harassment or retaliation occurred in this case. It’s our view that this case represents a terrible waste of resources and an abuse of the federal government’s power,” Smith said.

Smith said in his statement, Schiemer should not even have been subject to the suit because he did not employ 15 or more employees for 20 weeks or more than a year in 2005 and 2006.

Schiemer said, until he had to hire extra people for that harvest, he has known the individuals who have worked for him and never experienced any problems involving sexual harassment or improper conduct. Nor did he think, by hiring extra people to help him during an extremely busy part of the season, that he would become embroiled in a situation like this or that he should be prepared for it.

“Needless to say, since then I’ve been a lot more careful who we’ve hired,” he said. “At the time, I just needed help.”

Schiemer said there are now firmly established policies and procedures in place, and he has spoken with his employees and managers about what to do if future situations arise. One of the new procedures is to report complaints and investigations to him.

“Before, we were just so busy that nobody was really following up on it, and that was my fault,” he said.

He said he does not tolerate sexual harassment and definitely does not believe anybody should be fired for reporting something, as the lawsuit indicates happened. He said this lawsuit has proved to be a very expensive lesson, and, while he is unhappy he has to assume the expenses, he does not mind the mandates of reviewing policies, the management and supervisor trainings or the reporting to the EEOC.

“I mean, it’s probably good because, obviously, had that been in place we probably wouldn’t have had this,” he said.