On September 11, 2006, Ralph Schultz was fired. Just a couple of days earlier, Schultz, a UVA tech guy in charge of computers and servers in the language department, organized an after-work, after-hour toast for a co-worker leaving Charlottesville for Seattle. Everyone agrees on this. But what happened next is Schultz’s account of the events that led to his firing.
|
A judge said Ralph Schultz shouldn’t have been fired from his job at UVA, but after UVA got the decision reversed, he had no recourse for appeal. |
A few friends gathered, and some of them looked underage. Schultz asked their age and was assured that nothing illegal was about to happen. The toast occurred in the presence of Schultz’s supervisor, who was aware of the after-work festivities and assured of the ages of all involved parties. Several days later, Schultz was fired for serving alcohol to minors.
“I was pretty shocked by that because I had asked the age of these guys and they told me they were of age, and there is an honor code,” says Schultz. According to Schultz’s account and that of his lawyer, John Davidson, one of those present during the toast lied about his or her age. UVA would not comment for this story, citing personnel matters.
Schultz decided to file a grievance. After exhausting all internal procedures at UVA, Schultz hired Davidson and was headed for a hearing. Once a state employee’s grievance is unsuccessful, he or she is allowed an administrative trial. Schultz’s was held at Madison Hall.
“We had a full trial in front of Judge [David J.] Latham,” says Davidson. “There were witnesses brought in, there were opening and closing arguments, cross examinations, just like a trial.”
Davidson, who works for Davidson & Kitzmann, teaches at UVA School of Law and supervises a clinic of law students to handle such cases on a pro bono basis.
“I gave all the evidence to the judge and I told the judge that I thought that this charge was far too harsh, and while some discipline might be warranted, discharge should not happen,” says Davidson. In a written opinion released a few days later, the judge agreed.
“The University was obviously not pleased with this,” says Davidson. “They went down to the headquarters of Employee Dispute Resolutions (EDR) and argued that the director there should reverse the judge’s ruling, and sure enough, she did.”
As the law stands now, the director of EDR has the power to “render final decisions.” Davidson brought the case to Charlottesville Circuit Court, and there Judge Edward Hogshire said there was nothing that he could do, according to Davidson.
“That was it,” says Davidson. “To my knowledge, this director has never met Ralph.”
A bill introduced this year by state Senator Creigh Deeds, whose district includes Charlottesville, would change that. Senate Bill 1217 would remove the power of the Director of the Department of Employment Dispute Resolution to have the final say in grievance procedures and would give employees the option to appeal in circuit court. On Tuesday, February 10, the bill passed the Senate with a 28-12 vote and is now headed to the House.
Joseph Harding, a friend of Schultz, presented to the Senate subcommittee. “My main purpose in going forward with this was to make sure that no other worker would be constitutionally offended in the same way,” he says. “This is an issue that needs to be carried into the future.”
But for some legislators, the bill, as presented, would fog the clarity of the grievance procedure process. State Senator Frank Ruff (R-Clarksville) was one of the 12 who opposed the bill. “The Senator felt that the bill was too vague and would have led to complications in the procedure,” says Robbie McMillan, Ruff’s legislative aide.
But Davidson says that the Commonwealth goes to great lengths to choose and train good judges.
“I don’t see the point in selecting the best and then turning around and not trusting the best,” he says. “If making sure that people don’t have their livelihood taken away from them in an unconstitutional, or illegal and unfair way, if that means an extra hearing once in a blue moon, that’s fine by me. This is a good government bill.”
Even if it passes, the bill is too late to help Schultz. He says it has been impossible to find another job. The charge of serving alcohol to minors is on his record and will remain there. He now works for himself buying and selling used and rare books.
“When you have a really good week, you have a really good week, and when you have a bad week, you wonder how the rent is getting paid,” he says. However, he doesn’t hold a grudge. “I am not angry, I am not bitter, it’s just the system isn’t right,” he says. “And you know what’s ironic about all this? I don’t drink.”
UPDATED 02/18/09: This bill, SB 1217, died in House subcommittee yesterday.
C-VILLE welcomes news tips from readers. Send them to news@c-ville.com.
