#286 - Dec. of Lindell in Opposition To Def.'s Partial SJ Motion

Case 2:08-cv-01827-JLR Document 286 Filed 01/24/11 Page 1 of 33
5
THE HONORABLE JAMES L. ROBART
6
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
11
LONDI K. LINDELL,
12 No. CV 08-1827 JLR
Plaintiff,
13 DECLARATION OF LONDI
v. LINDELL IN OPPOSITION OF
14 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
CITY OF MERCER ISLAND, a Washington PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
15 municipal corporation; MERCER ISLAND CITY
MANAGER RICHARD CONRAD, in his official
16 and individual capacities; MERCER ISLAND
DEPUTY MAYOR JIM PEARMAN, in his NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:
17 official and individual capacities; MERCER January 28, 2011
ISLAND COUNCILMEMBER ERNEST
18 JAHNCKE, in his official and individual
capacities; MERCER ISLAND FINANCE
19 DIRECTOR CHARLES CORDER, in his official
and individual capacities,
20
Defendants.
21
22
23
24
25
26
DECLARATION OF LONDI LINDELL THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.

(Cause No. CV 08-1827 JLR) Page i
28th Floor, Washington Mutual Tower
1201 Third Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
(206) 343-2700
1 I, Londi K. Lindell, being duly sworn on oath under penalty of perjury under the laws of
2 Washington State and the United States depose and say:
3 1. I am the Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter.
4 2. I am over the age of eighteen and competent to testify to the matters set forth
5 herein based upon my personal knowledge. Below is a summary of the facts which gave rise to
6 my claims against the City, and are abbreviated for the Court’s convenience. Should the Court
7 wish to review a more detailed set of facts, I have attached to my declaration my most recent
8 answers to the interrogatories which further outline the factual basis of my claims. Attached as
9 Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the relevant interrogatory answers.
10 3. I served the City of Mercer Island for approximately eight years, first as City
11 Attorney, and then, after being promoted to second-in-command, as Deputy City Manager.
12 Throughout my employment, I always received the highest rating for my performance
13 (“outstanding”) from City Manager Rich Conrad (“City Manager Conrad”), who praised me for
14 my professionalism, good nature and loyalty. He told me and wrote that I was “one of the City’s
15 greatest assets.” He also wrote that I was "the consummate team player." Attached as Exhibits C-
16 F are true and correct copies of some my performance evaluations while I was working at the
17 City of Mercer Island. In January 2007, I was promoted to Deputy City Manager, the second
18 highest position within the City. At that time, HR Director Segle even advocated for my
19 promotion to Deputy City Manager stating, “I absolutely believe you can and should trust her.”
20 Attached as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of this email from Segle. Attached as Exhibit
21 H is a true and correct copy of the City of Mercer Island Job Description for Deputy City
22 Manager.
23 4. Prior to working at Mercer Island, I worked about nine years at the City of
24 Federal Way ultimately being promoted to the number two position, Assistant City
25 Manager/City Attorney. Prior to that I worked at Graham & Dunn, doing primarily land use and
26 real estate transaction work. I graduated with honors from Seattle University School of Law in

(Cause No. C 08-1827 JLR) Page 1
1201 Third Avenue
(206) 343-2700
1 1984. I have always taken great pride in my work, and very much valued my job at Mercer
2 Island, and had built a strong relationship with my peers and the City Council. The Mercer
3 Island job worked very well for me, since I was also taking care of my family and lived across
4 the bridge in Bellevue. I was able to balance my work life with my family life well, and was
5 very proud of my work and the ability to play a significant role in supporting my family.
6 5. I enjoyed my years of employment at the City of Mercer Island and was committed
7 to Mercer Island. I was content being the Deputy City Manager, as the flexible hours and time
8 commitment allowed me to maintain a balance between my professional and work life raising two
9 school age children. I was offered the City Manager position at the City of Federal Way, a higher
10 paying position, but I turned it down twice because I wanted to work at the city of Mercer Island,
11 and did not want the commute or the added responsibilities of being in charge of a City while
12 raising school age children. I dispute any and all claims that I somehow wanted to take Rich
13 Conrad's job or unseat him. It simply was not feasible or attractive to me as a mother or as a
14 professional. I would not have considered it in 2007 and told Conrad and others I wasn't interested
15 in added responsibilities until after my daughters were out of high school and off to college, which
16 won't occur until 2015. Since being fired, I have applied for city manager jobs and many others in
17 different areas because now, I am open to any job in my field and simply want to get back to work
18 as soon as possible.
19 6. During the time when I was the Mercer Island City Attorney I learned from City
20 Manager Conrad that he had solicited sex from City Clerk Tina Eggers and later retaliated against
21 her quite seriously when she refused his advances. He even threatened her employment. This
22 information was hidden from me for over a year by both Rich Conrad and Kryss Seigle, who was
23 in charge of Human Resources.
24 7. This was a very serious issue and could have led to City Manager Conrad being
25 fired. Conrad was my direct supervisor who had long time relationships with many members of
26 the City Council, who ultimately performed his reviews and controlled his discipline, pay, and

1201 Third Avenue
(206) 343-2700
1 continued employment. Rich Conrad had the same power over me. Mr. Conrad had been employed
2 at Mercer Island for over 20 years and had long established friendships with directors whom he
3 supervised and with the City Councilmembers. He set my pay, reviewed me, and had the ability to
4 fire me. Needless to say, the whole episode involving Mr. Conrad and Ms. Eggers was very
5 difficult for me, and very disappointing. Had I been timely notified of the initial incident, I could
6 have possibly prevented much of what followed, including the retaliation. It was very difficult to
7 have my direct supervisor and essentially the CEO of a City with a weak mayor system being
8 investigated and to have the City Council who had personal friendships with Mr. Conrad
9 overseeing his investigation, when serious allegations of harassment and retaliation had been made
10 that would have resulted in the firing of anyone else at the City. I supposedly had the responsibility
11 to oversee the investigation as City Attorney, but in fact, I had no control over the ultimate
12 disposition of his future employment or discipline.
13 8. Due to my conflict of interest as his subordinate, I hired an outside investigator,
14 Amy Stephson who is also an attorney. She was hired to conduct an investigation into Ms. Egger's
15 complaint. I assisted Ms. Stephson in completing her investigative report, a draft of which is
16 included as Exhibit DDD to Scott Blankenship’s declaration since it is being filed under seal. I do
17 not believe that it should have been stamped confidential by Defendants considering that it was
18 produced as part of the Marcella Reed investigation and file, which the Court found was not
19 privileged or work product.
20 9. The original draft of Ms. Stephson’s report was 17 pages long; however, upon the
21 extreme pressure and constant urging of City Manager Conrad who was home on administrative
22 leave, the report was reduced to 8 pages. Despite him being home in order to keep him out of the
23 investigation, he called me almost on a daily basis to pressure me to make sure that he did not lose
24 his job, asking me to protect him and lobby the City Council on his behalf. I know that he had
25 similar conversations with Pete Mayer, and I would presume others.

26

1201 Third Avenue
(206) 343-2700
1 10. Conrad yelled at me, upset that the investigative report was seventeen pages long,
2 became enraged and directed me to get it shortened. Conrad told me he was concerned that it
3 would be produced pursuant to a Public Records Act request and be in the newspapers. He was
4 right that it would be subject to production from a Public Records Act request, and I regrettably
5 succumbed to his pressure. Mayor Merkle, who ultimately would author the discipline (that I was
6 required to participate in drafting), made it clear to me that the City Council wanted to keep Rich
7 Conrad at the City despite the findings. As a result, the original Stephson report was sanitized and
8 cut down to only 8 pages. Attached as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of the final Amy
9 Stephson investigative report, which still shows the magnitude of the allegations and admissions of
10 misconduct by my boss and direct supervisor, Rich Conrad.
11 11. The City incorrectly states that as City Attorney I concluded that Conrad had not
12 violated any sexual harassment laws, a fact that I dispute now and did so at my deposition. In
13 fact, after the Stephson Investigation, I provided a copy of the Stephson Report to Mayor
14 Merkle and gave him a verbal report of legal risks, including briefing him on the longer version
15 of the Report and other things that I had learned through the investigation.
16 12. Since Ms. Eggers had actually hired counsel and filed a claim, Mayor Merkle
17 and I then received legal advice from a third party attorney (outside counsel), a high level
18 partner at a firm that practices exclusively in representing employers, who advised Mayor
19 Merkle and me that if Eggers’ sexual harassment complaint went to trial, the City would most
20 likely lose. I believed him and agreed with him.
21 13. After Merkle discussed potential findings and discipline of Conrad with the City
22 Council, the Council decided to retain Conrad as City Manager. I had no ability to decide on the
23 level of Conrad’s discipline, without putting my job at risk, and the ultimate decision-maker
24 was the City Council. After the discipline was decided, Merkle, with my assistance, prepared the
25 disciplinary memo that concludes Conrad violated the City's anti-harassment policy but he did
26 not engage in quid pro quo harassment or create a hostile work environment. I did not believe

1201 Third Avenue
(206) 343-2700
1 this to be the case; however, I understood the discipline memo was a public record as did Mayor
2 Merkle who was a lawyer, and a legal finding of wrongdoing under the antidiscrimination laws
3 would most certainly harm the City if Conrad was not going to be fired as part of that finding.
4 14. Concluding that Conrad had violated state and federal employment law was
5 never even discussed as an option after the Mayor and City Council made the decision to keep
6 him employed. I hoped that this was a blip on the radar, and that Rich Conrad would get the
7 message. I was wrong; he simply could not control himself, as Marcella Reed later accurately
8 concluded.
9 15. City Manager Conrad was disciplined for his conduct, including being suspended
10 without pay for two weeks (one week stayed), denied a raise for the following year, and ordered
11 to take sexual and anti-harassment training. Attached as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of
12 the Discipline Memo that is addressed to Rich Conrad from Mayor Merkle with copies to the
13 City Council. Notably, I was not named as the author of the discipline memo and the memo
14 was not even copied to me. The memo did not contain my legal conclusion that Conrad had
15 created a possible and legally cognizable hostile work environment and a possible and legally
16 cognizable retaliation claim by Ms. Eggers. It could not contain my personal legal opinion since
17 the City Council had decided to retain him as City Manager. I was an employee of the City. I
18 was not in charge of Conrad, who was supervised by the City Council; he was in charge of me
19 and very concerned about his reputation and future employment.
20 16. Ms. Eggers, the former City Clerk, ultimately ended up hiring an attorney after
21 filing a claim for damages. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the City and Ms. Eggers
22 participated in mediation which resulted in Ms. Eggers leaving the City and being paid
23 approximately $90,000.
24 17. Although Conrad voiced to me that I had saved him, our relationship was forever
25 changed in a negative way, and he treated me differently because I supported some form of
26 discipline. He actually told me that I had not done enough to protect him, and although he too

1201 Third Avenue
(206) 343-2700
1 admitted much of the misconduct, he still told me that he should not have even been disciplined
2 at all and that "he had done nothing wrong.” It appeared to me that he blamed me for the
3 limited discipline that he did receive. I told Conrad that his actions had caused serious exposure
4 to the City, and that it could come back to haunt the City, and that discipline was necessary and
5 essential.
6 18. He held this against me, and he became very angry when I did have the ability to
7 appropriately apply the law and follow it, when a Public Records Act request was made by a
8 citizen. I told Conrad I had to comply with the Public Records Act and supply the disciplinary
9 memo. Conrad was livid with me and actually went over my head to get a second legal opinion
10 from non-lawyer Director Lew Leigh from the Washington Cities Insurance Authority
11 (“WCIA”), the pooled fund of insurance money.
12 19. Conrad directed me under no uncertain terms not to release the Stephson Report,
13 and I did not release it even though I believe that it related to the discipline of a City Manager
14 and that it was a public record that should be disclosed. He ordered me to withhold it and I did
15 fearing retaliation. He also directed me to destroy the Tina Eggers file, and I refused to do so
16 over his very vocal and angry objection.
17 20. Kryss Segle was also disciplined relating to the Eggers incident for her role in
18 not reporting the sexual harassment once she knew about it. HR Manager Segle received a
19 written warning for violating City policy; a true and correct copy of this warning is attached as
20 Exhibit K. Despite Segle being disciplined for this serious breach of policy and procedure, City
21 Manager Conrad promoted Segle to HR Director from manager – the top position overseeing all
22 aspects of human resources.
23 21. Even though the City had recently investigated and settled a sexual harassment
24 claim, offensive and sexually inappropriate e-mails were still commonplace between
25 employees. Attached as Exhibits L-N are a few examples of emails which were being
26 exchanged by city employees. Additionally, employees had also complained that HR Director

1201 Third Avenue
(206) 343-2700
1 Segle dressed overly provocatively. In response, HR Director Segle and City Attorney Knight
2 were instructed to revise the City’s dress code. The PowerPoint presentation prepared by Segle
3 and Knight made direct references to the City’s Segle’s past lingerie shows with a slide that
4 stated: “Sorry folks, no more lingerie shows at lunch time!” Attached as Exhibit O is a true and
5 correct copy of the dress code presentation.
6 22. Conversations often became sexually inappropriate and crossed the line. For
7 example, after conducting an exit interview with a police detective who was retiring, HR
8 Director Segle broadcasted to City employees that she was not wearing any underwear and had
9 accidentally flashed the detective, exposing herself, resulting in a sexually offensive office-wide
10 joke. The joking was the most concerning, given that it was coming out of the HR office and the
11 police department, and from Katie Knight of the City Attorney's office. Segle told me that she
12 thought that the detective had seen up her skirt, and she was naked under it. Moreover, Leslie
13 Burns apparently confirmed it according to Ms. Knight, (as confirmed by the Reed Statement to
14 Knight).
15 23. Although Defendant denies that the flashing occurred, I was offended and
16 complained to Rich Conrad, Pete Mayer and Bob Sterbank about HR Director Segle joking
17 about having a "Brazilian wax job" so her pubic area was "hardwood instead of shag carpeting."
18 She said this in the hallway openly with Katie Knight, and employees could have overheard
19 these types of comment, which continued. In fact, employees did hear similar comments from
20 Segle as is apparent in Joy Johnston's statement to Marcella Reed, and this led to the joke
21 continuing with an employee bringing panties to work for Ms. Segle’s missing underwear and a
22 toupee for her missing pubic hair. I also opposed this conduct, but Conrad did nothing.
23 24. Despite knowing about this incident and even hearing about it from Segle that
24 she was not wearing underwear and that the detective probably saw up her skirt and that Conrad
25 would likely hear giggling and joking, City Manager Conrad disregarded my specific
26

1201 Third Avenue
(206) 343-2700
1 complaints about the behavior and failed to take any effective remedial measures or disciplinary
2 action against Segle.
3 25. I began to have serious concerns over City Manager Conrad’s relationship with
4 HR Director Segle, starting with the Eggers’ complaint, and based on comments he would make
5 like "Kryss and I have a special connection you can't understand,” “I will leave the City if Kryss
6 leaves,” “Kryss is the only reason I want to get up in the morning and come to work,” and “I'm
7 not going to have a male bureaucrat in the office next to me.” I also was troubled by his overly
8 emotional response to Ms. Segle's threats to resign and opposed Conrad comparing his
9 relationship with Ms. Segle to my marital relationship with my husband and telling me my
10 inability to have these types of close intimate personal relationships at work hurt me. These
11 comments by Conrad were eerily similar to the way he had described his relationship with Ms.
12 Eggers. During the Eggers’ sexual harassment investigation, Conrad told both Investigator
13 Stephson and me that he had a special “connection” with Ms. Eggers; she was one of the
14 reasons he wanted to get up in the morning and come to work. He also had an emotional
15 response to Eggers’ suggestion she might leave the City and sent her overly emotional emails. I
16 objected to Mr. Conrad's unprofessional and emotionally intimate relationship with Ms. Segle
17 because I saw it was causing him to ignore my complaints and fail to comply with
18 discrimination and anti-harassment laws such as refusing to take any action against Ms. Segle
19 and Ms. Knight for the flashing joking or his anger and retaliation against me for insisting that
20 Mr. Segle be disciplined for violating discrimination and anti-harassment laws.
21 26. In the fall of 2007, Conrad inappropriately interfered in the discipline of HR
22 Director Segle’s husband, Johnny Segle, refused to hold HR Director Segle accountable for
23 violations of policy when she wrote her husband’s grievance against that discipline and
24 retaliated against me when I complained that a violation of discrimination laws had occurred. I
25 worried that history was repeating itself, with Conrad now covering for the Segles’ breaches of
26 the City’s anti-harassment policy just as Segle had covered for Conrad earlier for his breaches

1201 Third Avenue
(206) 343-2700
1 of the City’s anti-harassment policy when he propositioned a female subordinate for sex. Now it
2 appeared that Conrad was returning the favor, and trying to cover for Kryss Segle's husband.
3 Marcella Reed found that Conrad was “not candid” about how he handled disciplining the
4 Segles.
5 27. The investigation began in June 2007. Maintenance workers were caught
6 watching a video of animals having sex during work hours and were yelling sexually offensive
7 comments like “look at the size of that thing” referring to the animal's penis, and “look at them
8 go at it.” Johnny Segle, the husband of Kryss Segle the HR Director, was watching the animal
9 sex video although he later denied seeing the video. This occurred with at least one female
10 present. It was a serious matter and the City Attorney, Segle’s Department Director Boettcher
11 and I all supported discipline for Segle and the other involved City employees. Prior to any
12 disciplinary action being taken, the employees were counseled by their supervisor. During the
13 counseling, Johnny Segle made a highly inappropriately comment undermining the supervisor
14 and the seriousness of the matter by stating something to the effect of, “what, no more boobies.”
15 This also implied that he and possibly other maintenance workers were looking at naked
16 pictures of women while at work.
17 28. As HR Director Segle was prohibited from handling issues involving her
18 husband, I was directed by Conrad to step in. Within less than two weeks of being notified of
19 the incident, I completed my investigation of the incident, and handed off the final decision to
20 the Department Directors, recommending the lowest level of written discipline. Attached as
21 Exhibit P is a true and correct copy of my email and a draft of the Johnny Segle discipline
22 memo. Attached as Exhibit Q is a true and correct copy of the final signed version of the
23 Johnny Segle discipline memo.
24 29. The retaliation against me started almost immediately after I completed the
25 investigation of Mr. Segle and recommended the lowest level of written discipline. Mr. Conrad
26 started to raise performance issues about my handling of the sexual harassment investigation

1201 Third Avenue
(206) 343-2700
1 and my recommended discipline telling me “you've really screwed this up Londi,” “This is not
2 the way Kryss would have handled it,” “You should never have referred to the boobie comment
3 as a sexually explicit comment,” “I've heard you women say a lot worse things,” and blaming
4 me for the delay in delivering the discipline to Mr. Segle even though the record clearing shows
5 I completed my work within 2 weeks of being assigned the task. I heard Mr. Conrad testify that
6 he disagreed with how I handled Mr. Segle's harassment investigation,; that he thought my
7 interpretation of discrimination and anti-harassment laws was "heavy handed" and although Mr.
8 and Mrs. Segle were the employees engaging in the misconduct, Mr. Conrad "blamed" me.
9 Conrad dep. Transcript at 189: 17 - 190: 23; 197: 19 - 198: 4; 206: 11 - 207: 4.
10 30. HR Manager Segle, upset that her husband received discipline, drafted Johnny
11 Segle’s grievance opposing the discipline for her husband and consulted with Conrad before
12 Johnny submitted the grievance. HR Manager Segle’s involvement in her husband’s grievance
13 and Conrad’s knowledge of her involvement is reflected in Segle’s discipline attached to my
14 declaration as Exhibit R. Segle also lobbied Conrad to intervene in Johnny’s discipline,
15 threatening to resign if he did not reduce Johnny’s write-up to a warning. In response, City
16 Manager Conrad stated he was “tempted to break all the rules” by “tearing up” Johnny’s
17 discipline and implementing an “alternative process.” Attached as Exhibits S-U are true and
18 correct copies of email correspondence between City Manager Conrad and HR Director Segle
19 reflecting these conversations.
20 31. Upon my discovery that Conrad was planning on not following the City anti-
21 harassment policies, I voiced my opposition, telling Conrad that he was failing to take my
22 complaints seriously. City Attorney Bob Sterbank was also very concerned, and drafted a legal
23 memorandum on October 3, 2007, advising Conrad that such conduct could place the City at
24 risk by tolerating sexual harassment and discussing liability for both quid pro quo harassment
25 and a hostile work environment. Sterbank noted in his memo that Conrad's failure to take
26 corrective actions for Ms. Segle's attire such as the flashing incident could be seen as creating a

1201 Third Avenue
(206) 343-2700
1 hostile work environment. Sterbank also noted that Conrad's refusal to consider my complaints
2 was making me physically sick. Sterbank provided me with a copy of this memo. Attached as
3 Exhibit V is a true and correct copy of Sterbank’s October 3, 2007 memo.
4 32. Conrad became furious upon receipt of the Sterbank Memo. Conrad advised me
5 that Sterbank was to be fired, and directed me to pressure Sterbank to revise the memo. I refused,
6 and opposed Conrad's retaliation of Sterbank by telling him that firing Sterbank constituted
7 retaliation and would further expose the City. Conrad's threats to fire Sterbank were made in the
8 pressence of Assistant City Manager Pete Mayer. Mayer Declaration, Dkt. 54.
9 33. Conrad then pressured me, as well as the Assistant City Manager Mayer, to conduct
10 a sham investigation to invalidate Sterbank’s memo and “clear his name.” In this “investigation”
11 Conrad would select the witnesses, write the questions and sit in the room while I interviewed
12 the witnesses about his conduct. I sent Conrad an email opposing his conduct. Exhibit X is a true
13 and correct copy of this email. Conrad grew even more upset when Mayer and I refused be part
14 of this process and I explained that discrimination laws required a neutral and confidential
15 investigation upon an accusation of sexual harassment and that I was feeling harassed to take
16 actions inconsistent with federal and state laws that guarantee a discriminatory free work
17 environment.
18 34. After both Mr. Mayer and I refused Mr. Conrad, he directed us to attend a meeting
19 with Anne Pflug, a former City Manager. Prior to my interview but after Ms. Pflug had
20 interviewed Conrad, Segle, Boettcher and Sterbank, she suggested the City conduct an
21 investigation. At the Pflug meeting, Mr. Conrad again stated his retaliatory intent toward Sterbank
22 by admitting he had told the Mayor Cairns that Sterbank may not be working out. Both Sterbank
23 and I opposed Conrad's retaliation at this meeting and due to the conflict of interest, it was decided
24 the City should hire an outside independent investigator. Attached as Exhibit W is a true and
25 correct copy of the City’s Anti-Harassment Policy.

26

1201 Third Avenue
(206) 343-2700
1 35. Eventually the City hired outside investigator Marcella Reed to conduct an
2 investigation into the claims from the Sterbank memo including whether Conrad had created a
3 hostile work environment or engaged in quid pro quo harassment. Attached as Exhibit Z is a true
4 and correct copy of Marcella Reed’s Resume. Defendants have tried to characterize her
5 investigation as simply an internal administrative investigation having nothing to do with
6 discrimination or harassment laws. Ms. Reed labeled her investigation as the C&S Investigation,
7 which she testified stood for Conrad and Segle, and she was hired as a result of Sterbank's memo
8 which set forth his concerns and my complaints about Conrad's and Segle's conduct. Ms. Reed
9 also advised me she reviewed the Tina Eggers file in preparing for my interview.
10 36. Conrad's retaliation and harassment of me escalated once Marcella Reed was
11 hired. Conrad would come into my office or direct me to come into his office, where he would
12 close the door and start screaming at me at the top of his lungs and using profanity. Although
13 Pete Mayer and Bob Sterbank also opposed Mr. Conrad and Ms. Segle's conduct, Conrad did
14 not harass these male employees in the same way he attacked me. He was angry that I wouldn't
15 support the retaliatory firing of Sterbank. He was angry that I wouldn't testify in a manner so he
16 could “trust me,” which I interpreted to mean he wanted me to lie for him during the Reed
17 investigation. He told me I was the key and it would be totally unfair if he was disciplined in
18 any way as a result of the Reed investigation. He got very angry at me when he had to hire an
19 attorney and told me the City should pay for his legal fees. He blamed me for the investigation
20 and said none of this would have happened if I had spoken up for him and not complained. He
21 asked me to lobby Council on his behalf and I refused to do so. He told me my refusals were
22 making him lose trust in me and that he was trying not to believe the conspiracy theories but it
23 was getting difficult. I complained about Conrad’s conduct to Ms. Reed and she recorded it in
24 my interview. Further, City Clerk Speitz heard one of his screaming episodes at me and both
25 she and Ms. Segle testified to Ms. Reed about Conrad yelling at me. I recalled that this
26 physically intimidating and angry behavior was exactly what he did to Tina Eggers after she

1201 Third Avenue
(206) 343-2700
1 complained. See e.g. Lindell Interview at 31 (Exh. K)(screaming “I am just fucking out of here, if I
2 can't be friends with Kryss, fuck it!”); Spietz Interview at 5 (Exh. M) (City Clerk Ali Spietz
3 recounting hearing Conrad yelling at Lindell, noting that she had “heard Conrad on the phone in
4 heated exchanges with citizens, but never anything like what she heard between Conrad and Lindell.
5 Lindell never elevated her voice during this exchange, which lasted about an hour.”); Segle
6 Interview at 13 (Exh. G)(“Conrad was also heard yelling at Lindell, saying that Kryss might leave
7 over this issue and that he might, as well.” ).
8 37. Although Conrad was instructed to refrain from lobbying or communicating with
9 any of the witnesses during the Reed Investigation, he began meeting individually with City
10 employees. Conrad asked me to contact City Councilmembers and employees to convince them he
11 had done nothing wrong and he kept telling me I was the "key" to him surviving this discipline.
12 When I refused him, opposing his conduct by complaining to both Mr. Mayer and Mr. Sterbank
13 about it, Conrad's retaliation escalated and he told me he was losing trust in me and that people
14 were starting to wonder what my motives were for complaining. Conrad went so far as accusing
15 me of having an affair or some type of questionable relationship with Mr. Sterbank similar to the
16 threat he made to Ms. Eggers, which was totally false and offensive to me. Pete Mayer also told
17 me that Conrad had placed a straw on a table and told him he had to pick sides between Conrad
18 and me and that Mr. Mayer was naïve not to believe I was part of a conspiracy to get him fired. I
19 provided truthful information to Ms. Reed during the investigation, including that I objected to Ms.
20 Segle and Ms. Knight's joking about the flashing incident and I objected to Conrad screaming and
21 yelling at me when he didn't treat my male colleagues in a similar fashion. However, I did not
22 volunteer all information, as I feared for my job, especially with Conrad’s continued pressure to
23 protect him. I provided Marcella Reed with a chronology I began keeping in September 2007
24 which recorded much of my protected and opposition activity. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and
25 correct copy of my chronology I submitted to Marcella Reed.

26

1201 Third Avenue
(206) 343-2700
1 38. After Conrad was instructed to refrain from communicating with any of the
2 witnesses during the Reed Investigation, he went to Chip Corder because I complained to him that
3 he was paying Ms. Segle in violation of the City’s compensation policy. Attached as Exhibit YY is
4 a true and correct copy of an email from Conrad to Corder setting forth my complaint that Conrad
5 was treating Ms. Segle differently than her male colleagues regarding compensation. Not only did
6 I oppose Conrad’s disparate treatment of Segle but I also opposed Conrad starting his own
7 investigation into the compensation issue at the same time that Reed was commencing her
8 investigation into his conduct and after he had been directed not to communicate with witnesses.
9 39. During her investigation, Marcella Reed reviewed voluminous documents
10 submitted by City employees and completed thirteen interviews. Attached as Exhibit AA are true
11 and correct copies of Marcella Reed’s interview list and index of documents reviewed. Also
12 attached are true and correct copies of the relevant excerpts from Reed’s notes from interviews
13 with myself (Exhibit CC), Katie Knight (Exhibit DD) , Rich Conrad (11-18-07 - Exhibt EE), Rich
14 Conrad (11-13-07 & 11-15-07 Exhibit FF), Chip Corder (Exhibit GG), Joy Johnston (Exhibit HH),
15 Glenn Boettcher (Exhibit II), Kryss Segle (11-8-07 – Exhibit JJ), Kryss Segle (11-13-07 – Exhibit
16 KK) and Ali Spietz (Exhibit LL). Attached as Exhibit BB is a true and correct copy of Marcella
17 Reed’s declaration verifying her records.
18 40. I was told by Mr. Conrad and Councilmember Dan Grausz that Marcella Reed
19 would be giving the City Council her report on December 3, 2007 and Mr. Grausz told me
20 “things weren’t looking good for Mr. Conrad.” Attached as Exhibit OO is a true and correct
21 copy of an email evidencing the City Council meeting and Exhibit PP is a true and correct copy
22 of notes that Holmes created regarding the meeting. Ms. Reed’s findings substantiated my
23 concerns, including that City Manager Conrad and HR Director Segle had “an emotionally
24 intimate relationship" which Segle used “to influence the disposition of discipline issued to her
25 husband.” Reed also concluded that my concern over Mr. Conrad’s refusal to discipline Ms.
26 Segle for joking about her failure to wear underwear to work and possibly flashing a police

1201 Third Avenue
(206) 343-2700
1 employee and my complaints that Conrad’s yelling and intimidating behavior was
2 discriminatory and harassing could result in “potentially successful gender discrimination,
3 sexual harassment, and hostile work environment claims.” Attached as Exhibit QQ is a true and
4 correct copy of Investigator Reed’s findings. Although Defendants’ attempt to discount Reed’s
5 findings by suggesting that Ms. Reed’s findings were made in the middle of her investigation
6 on November 15, 2007, in response to Conrad’s concerns about delays, Acting City Attorney
7 Bolasina noted that he was “optimistic” that the investigation would be “wrapp[ed] up by 12/3.”
8 Attached as Exhibit RR is a true and correct copy of Bolasina’s email.
9 41. Most significantly, Ms. Reed found that four employees were at risk of being
10 retaliated against by City Manager Conrad. Of those four were Bob Sterbank (offered a
11 severance of $137,000 and left the City soon after Reed’s investigation), myself (terminated in
12 April 2008), and Pete Mayer (resigned after he suffered retaliation.) Attached as Exhibit UU is
13 a true and correct copy of Sterbank’s severance agreement which was filed by Sterbank’s
14 attorney. The WCIA (Washington Cities Insurance Association), agreed to only pay $50,000 of
15 Bob Sterbank’s severance as reflected in the attached Exhibit VV. In fact, Sterbank has
16 continued to suffer retaliation by the City even after his termination. The City has alleged in
17 their pleadings in this case that Bob Sterbank has breached his ethical obligations to the City in
18 attempting to assist me in my case. Through his attorney, Bob Sterbank has filed pleadings in
19 this case attempting to refute the City’s defamatory allegations. Attached as Exhibits XX and
20 YY is a true and correct copy of a letter to Defense counsel regarding these unfounded
21 allegations against Sterbank and a pleading filed by Bob Sterbank’s attorney and. Pete Mayer
22 resigned his position as the Assistant City Manager/Parks Director after he could no longer
23 handle the retaliation by the City Directors and employees. Attached as Exhibit TT is a true and
24 correct copy of Pete Mayer’s declaration. Additionally, emails drafted by Pete Mayer at the
25 time of his resignation further explained his frustration and retaliation by the City. Although
26 these emails have been designated as “Confidential” by the City, Mr. Mayer provided copies of

1201 Third Avenue
(206) 343-2700
1 these emails to me at the time he made his declaration. Further, these emails should a public
2 record. These emails are attached to Scott Blankenship’s declaration as Exhibit EEEE.
3 42. Although I had received stellar evaluations and been respected for my work and
4 professionalism, as soon as Ms. Reed was retained to perform an investigation into the “C&S
5 Investigation” [Conrad and Segle Investigation], I was targeted for retaliation by Conrad and
6 others because my testimony to Ms. Reed was damaging to Mr. Conrad. Assistant City Attorney
7 Knight, HR Manager Segle, Burns, and Finance Director Corder turned against Sterbank, Mayer,
8 and me by spreading false rumors to advance Conrad's and their conspiracy theory. Burns, Knight
9 and Segle are close friends, who had vested interest in the outcome of Reed’s investigation.
10 Attached as Exhibit SS are examples of how close of friends Segle and Knight are.
11 Furthermore, Sterbank’s termination would also lead to Knight’s promotion to City Attorney.
12 City Manager Conrad attempted to convince City employees that I was engaging in a coup and was
13 “conspiring” to take his job. Attached to Scott Blankenship’s declaration as Exhibit BBBB is
14 Conrad’s review which reflects this.
15 43. On December 5, 2007, two days after Ms. Reed made her presentation to the
16 City Council, I was told that Ms. Reed had been fired and that the City Council would be
17 conducting their own investigation with Conrad’s golfing buddies: then Mayor Bryan Cairns,
18 then Deputy City Manager Jim Pearman, and Defendant El Jahncke. All members of the
19 investigation “Cabinet” had no experience or training in conducting investigations into sexual
20 harassment or retaliation.
21 44. Adopting Defendants Conrad’s and Corder’s conspiracy theory, the Cabinet
22 focused their investigation into whether Mr. Sterbank and I had planned a “coup.” Attached as
23 Exhibits ZZ and AAA is a true and correct copy of the document submitted by Corder outlining his
24 conspiracy theory. Additionally, in the attached email (Exhibit BBB) to the Cabinet on December
25 7, 2007, Corder claims that Segle had been “slimed” and “baited into taking the action that she
26 did.” Corder stated that he is concerned that Segle may be “damaged” in the eyes of the Cabinet

1201 Third Avenue
(206) 343-2700
1 members. Corder additionally created a second memo after the independent Reed investigation
2 was halted. Attached as Exhibit CCC is a true and correct copy of Corder’s second memo which
3 Corder notes he provided to Conrad for his review. Corder’s performance review is attached to
4 Scott Blankenship’s declaration, as it has been designated as “Confidential” by the City.
5 45. I was contacted while on vacation by three Councilmembers and asked questions
6 that made it clear to me the Council was re-focusing the inquiry into whether my actions had
7 been appropriate in writing a chronology given to Ms. Reed describing Conrad and Ms. Segle’s
8 misconduct. The Cabinet was angry with me for recording evidence of Conrad and Segle's
9 violation of discrimination laws and told me so. Defendant Pearman's summary of this
10 conversation includes, “When El asked about the 50 page memo as to intent, Londi ducked the
11 issue and had no good explanation.” Pearman's notes of my interview also include a quote from
12 me that states I was “concerned about retaliation by Rich.” I later learned that other witnesses
13 interviewed by these three Councilmembers were asked whether or not I wanted Mr. Conrad’s
14 job or whether they believed I was part of a conspiracy with City Attorney Sterbank to get Mr.
15 Conrad’s job, which was nonsense and false. I was never asked about the allegations or for my
16 side of the story. Had they asked these questions, the Cabinet would have realized that Knight’s,
17 Burns’ and Corder’s allegations against me were entirely baseless and retaliatory, just as Reed had
18 warned. It was clear to me that the scope of the investigation had changed from Conrad and
19 Segle's misconduct to creating a pretextual reason to terminate me in retaliation. The first point
20 included in Defendant Pearman's notes from his interview with Assistant Attorney Knight is that
21 Knight “will swear in court” against me and that both “Kris [sic] and Ed have grounds against
22 Londi for defamation of character (largest legal threat against the city) textbook defamation claim.”
23 These notes verified my belief after my interview and the hostile questions posed by the Cabinet,
24 that the purpose of the Cabinet’s investigation was to seek ammunition to justify my wrongful and
25 retaliatory firing. Attached as Exhibit YY is a true and correct copy of typed notes created from the
26 Cabinet’s interviews.

1201 Third Avenue
(206) 343-2700
1 46. The accusations against me can all be rebutted. The Cabinet found that I fabricated
2 HR Director Segle’s flashing incident. However, numerous employees, including Knight and
3 Burns, reported the exact same incident to Reed. This is reflected in Reed’s notes of Knight’s and
4 Burns’ interviews. Additionally, the Cabinet found that I spread rumors about Officer Holmes
5 having an affair with HR Director Segle. In fact, deposition testimony uncovered in this case and
6 Investigator Reed’s own interview notes show that the only employees ever heard promoting the
7 idea that HR Director Segle was having an affair with Officer Holmes, was Segle herself, along
8 with Knight and Burns. I never made such an allegation. The only individuals who claim to have
9 heard me make these comments are Knight and Burns who lack creditability based upon their
10 friendship and what they could gain by making such comments. I heard Ms. Knight testify that I
11 made this false statement in front of the City Attorneys for Seattle, Bellevue and Kirkland. The
12 City has failed to produce any sworn testimony to support this false statement and I have personal
13 knowledge that neither the Seatttle nor Bellevue City Attorneys were even present at the social
14 function where I purportedly made this comment. In an email produced by the City in discovery, it
15 appears that Knight and Segle were directly involved in speaking with Officer Holmes regarding
16 this rumor. Attached as Exhibit DDD is a true and correct copy of an email referencing getting
17 Officer Holmes “riled up” during the Cabinet’s investigation.
18 47. Additionally, based on statements by Knight and Burns, the Cabinet also found that
19 I had expressed my desire to overthrow Rich Conrad at a social event in September 2007. The
20 social event that Ms. Burns and Ms. Knight attended and allegedly heard me announce my desire
21 to orchestrate a “coup” occurred in September 2007, long before the Reed Investigation started.
22 However, I have reviewed Ms. Burns’ and Ms. Knight’s interviews with Ms. Reed, and neither
23 allege that I made such statements, even though they discussed the September 2007 party with Ms.
24 Reed.
25 48. Additionally, the Cabinet concluded that the City Directors had lost confidence in
26 me and could no longer work with me at the City. Deposition testimony taken in this case, Ed

1201 Third Avenue
(206) 343-2700
1 Holmes’ notes, and Pete Mayer’s declaration prove this rationale false. Attached as Exhibit EEE is
2 a true and correct copy of Holmes’ notes of a conversation Ed Holmes had with City Directors,
3 including myself. Further, my last performance review reflects what Conrad and my colleagues
4 were saying about me prior to me opposing discirmination and retaliation. This is what Conrad
5 wrote about me: “The Council sees you as an integral member of their team; trusting your advice
6 and counsel,” “You are always the paradigm of professionalism and good nature . . . You treat your
7 peers, co-workers, subordinates and Council with respect and good humor,” “the City Council
8 uniformly trusts you and likes you. The Department Directors feel the same,” “You continue to be
9 one of the City’s greatest assets,” “You are the consummate team player. You have consistently
10 supported me and have shown profound loyalty to me, your fellow Directors and to the City,” and
11 “I continue to have absolute confidence in your decision making and problem solving skills.”
12 49. Contrary to the City’s contention, there were not problems with my performance
13 and I did not “initiate a dispute” with the Washington Cities Insurance Authority. I requested
14 the right to review billing statements from attorneys performing services for me and was denied
15 the right to review billing statements for accuracy. When I objected to WCIA’s refusal, the
16 Executive Director threatened Conrad and told him he would disclose the Tina Eggers
17 settlement to his fellow City Managers on the WCIA Board unless Conrad removed me as the
18 WCIA delegate. Conrad acquiesced to these threats and removed me. I wanted to brief the City
19 Council on WCIA’s misconduct and Conrad refused. No performance issues were
20 communicated to me or reflected in my prior performance reviews until I complained. Conrad
21 was angry that WCIA’s Executive Director had threatened him with disclosing the Eggers issue
22 and took his anger out on me by proposing to retaliate against me with an unfavorable
23 performance review. When I told Conrad an unfavorable review was retaliation, he removed
24 the negative comments.
25 50. In their “investigation” the Cabinet completely disregarded Investigator Reed’s

26 investigative interviews or materials. Investigator Reed worked for an entire month to as an

1201 Third Avenue
(206) 343-2700
1 independent investigator and ultimately charged the City with $38,000. Attached as Exhibit FFF is
2 a true and correct copy of an email between Corder and Conrad regarding Investigator Reed’s bill.
3 51. Investigator Reed’s conclusions about my retaliation proved all too prescient,
4 and on or around December 17, 2007, just fourteen days after Reed presented findings to the
5 City Council, Mayor Cairns called a meeting of all the City Directors and informed me (along
6 with Bob Sterbank) that we should leave Mercer Island and seek other employment. Attached
7 as Exhibit GGG is a true and correct copy of an email from Lew Leigh, Executive Director of
8 the WCIA, which reveals that Bob Sterbank and I were directed to leave the City.
9 52. As I believed that my upcoming termination was illegal and violated my civil
10 rights, I retained legal counsel. My attorney soon began to take action, including addressing
11 some of my concerns regarding retaliation in February 2008. Attached as Exhibit HHH is a true
12 and correct copy of my attorney’s letter addressing continuing retaliation.
13 53. Although I was previously told that I would be given reasonable time to find
14 alternative employment, I was notified on April 9, 2008 that my termination would be effective
15 on April 14, 2008, the day I returned from vacation. Attached as Exhibit JJJ is a true and correct
16 copy of an email notifying the City Directors of my upcoming vacation and attached as Exhibit
17 III is a true and correct copy of the email attaching my termination letter. I was told that my
18 termination would be effective on April 14, 2008; however, City Manager Conrad notified all
19 City employees and Councilmembers by email on April 11, 2008 that I had been fired.
20 Attached as Exhibit KKK is a true and correct copy of Conrad’s email to City employees
21 notifying them of my termination. Attached as Exhibit MMM is a true and correct copy of notes
22 from City Manager Conrad regarding what he will say regarding my termination. Upon
23 receiving a series of emails from Defendant in discovery, it appears that the City Directors
24 including City Manager Conrad, current City Attorney Knight, HR Director Segle who had
25 been retaliating against me since my involvement in the Reed investigation, had been
26 exchanging malicious emails about me. These emails include vindictive comments such as

1201 Third Avenue
(206) 343-2700
1 “Katie’s got the rope out already,” “I sure she’s crying inside,” “I think Londi may look a lot
2 like Tina Turn in Thunderdome, particularly when she wakes up in the morning,” “That evilness
3 that got us to this place will be gone shortly – for good,” and referencing that I “would have a
4 loaded gun pointed to [my] head” by an officer while I gathered my belongings after
5 termination. Attached as Exhibit NNN are true and correct copies of the emails I referenced
6 above.
7 54. I was fired without any due process or Loudermill hearing. City policy
8 mandates a pre-disciplinary hearing prior to termination. Attached as Exhibit FFF is a true and
9 correct copy of the relevant excerpt from the City of Mercer Island Handbook. City Manager
10 Conrad’s draft press release confirms that the City fired me before giving her any opportunity to
11 for a hearing, writing: “Londi Lindell was relieved of her duties as Mercer Island Deputy City
12 Manager on April 9 (?), 2008 following an extensive process of deliberation.” Attached as Exhibit
13 LLL is a true and correct copy of the draft press release.
14 55. Since my termination in April 2008, Defendants have continued to retaliate
15 against me. I have been threatened with bar complaints. Attached as Exhibit OOO is a true and
16 correct copy of a letter dated May 8, 2008, less than a month after my termination, I received
17 through my attorney from Defense counsel stating that they City intends to file an ethics
18 complaint against me. The City has filed pleadings and declarations containing false and
19 embarrassing information which is not relevant to anything in this lawsuit. The City has filed
20 baseless counterclaims against me and has alleged that I was “deceitful and dishonest.” The
21 public allegations of ethics violations by the City have impacted my ability to gain employment
22 in this community. Attached as Exhibit PPP is a true and correct copy of Defendant’s answer to
23 interrogatory no. 19 which outlines Defendants’ basis for their counterclaims. These allegations
24 are false.
25 56. Although I have contested many of Defendants’ “facts” above and in my Motion
26 in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, I believe many of

1201 Third Avenue
(206) 343-2700
1 Defendant’s facts are wholly inaccurate or mischaracterize my testimony and other sworn
2 witness testimony. Just some of the false claims made by Defendant are described below:
3 • Defendants claim that I never engaged in any legally protected conduct. However,
4 Defendant Rich Conrad has already testified that I was fired for complaining of
5 retaliation, which is in and of itself protected activity. Conrad Dep. Transcript at
6 313:13 – 17. In addition, I engaged in protected activity when I told the truth
7 about misconduct and harassment at the City to Marcella Reed during her
8 investigation into allegations of sexual harassment by Rich Conrad. Londi
9 Lindell Dep. Transcript at 110:8 – 111:24. I engaged in protected activity when I
10 complained to Rich Conrad of sexually offensive conduct engaged in by City
11 employees. Londi Lindell Dep. Transcript at 117:8 – 122:23. And I engaged in
12 protected activity when I refused to support the retaliatory firing of Bob Sterbank
13 after Mr. Sterbank wrote a memo complaining of, amongst other things, various
14 forms of harassment. Londi Lindell dep. Transcript at 110:8 – 111:22.
15 • Defendants claim that the basis for Tina Eggers sexual harassment claim was
16 simply what Rich Conrad has described as a phone call that was a mistake. But
17 Ms. Eggers claim involved much more than Mr. Conrad’s admitted proposition
18 for sex. Ms. Eggers complaint was also that Mr. Conrad was retaliating against
19 her after she refused to have sex with him, including threatening to terminate her
20 job. Investigator Stephson notes that the event that led to the current [sexual
21 harassment] complaint was Conrad becoming angry over Eggers relationship
22 with a City vendor, accusing her of having an affair and threatened her job which
23 Eggers interpreted as retalition because she rejected Conrad’s advances. There
24 are several other examples of Conrad’s retaliatory conduct throughout the
25 Stephson Report. Londi Lindell dep. Transcript at 183:11-22; 184:20-23; Rich

26 Conrad Dep. Transcript at 147:15 – 148:11; Stephson Report Exhibit I.

1201 Third Avenue
(206) 343-2700
1 • Defendants claim that I was responsible for Rich Conrad’s discipline over the
2 Tina Eggers claim and that I determined that Conrad had not engaged in
3 unlawful conduct. However, I had no authority to discipline Conrad and was not
4 responsible for the ultimate level of punishment that was meted out. The memo
5 itself does NOT conclude that Conrad never engaged in unlawful conduct;
6 specifically it is silent on concluding whether Conrad engaged in retaliation. The
7 Stephson Report is in fact replete with examples of retaliatory conduct on the
8 part of Conrad with regard to Ms. Eggers. Londi Lindell deposition, Transcript at
9 176:5 – 177:5; Merkle Disciplinary Memo, Exhibit J; Stephson Report, Exhibit I.
10 • Defendants claim that I frequently expressed a desire to replace Mr. Conrad as
11 City Manager. This is false. I was not interested in becoming a City Manager
12 until my children were safely through high school. In fact, I frequently reassured
13 Conrad I was NOT interested in his job and even offered to sign something to
14 that effect. During my deposition I expressly responded to Defense counsel’s
15 questioning that, “I never expressed interest in taking Mr. Conrad’s job away
16 from him. I had a communication with Mr. Conrad that I would like the
17 opportunity to be mentored in the field of city administration, and I would like to
18 end my career, if the right opportunity arose, regardless of the city, as a city
19 manager, but that I would not be interested in taking on that type of
20 responsibility until after both girls went off to college, which at the time of that
21 conversation was a six-to-seven year range.” Londi Lindell Dep. Transcript at
22 262:13-21. In fact, as already stated, I had declined other opportunities to
23 become a City Manager. Londi Lindell deposition, Transcript at 46: 21 – 47:1;
24 160:1 – 161:5; Katie Knight deposition, Transcript at 68:21 – 23; 69:22 – 70:3;
25 Jill Barringer deposition, Transcript at 71:6 – 7 (“her goals were to one day be a
26 city manager, but she wasn’t ready.”).

1201 Third Avenue
(206) 343-2700
1 • Contrary to Defendants’ assertion I did not solely solicit Robert Sterbank for the
2 position of City Attorney and Conrad did not hire him based on my endorsement.
3 The City went through an extensive competitive process and I solicited a number
4 of City Attorneys in the area to apply for the position, including Mr. Sterbank.
5 Conrad hired Mr. Sterbank based on the recommendation of all involved in the
6 interview process. Mr. Sterbank was nearly a unanimous first choice candidate
7 out of all the people interviewed. Londi Lindell dep. Transcript at 34: 7 – 36:17;
8 Declaration of Pete Mayer Dkt 54.
9 • Defendants describe the incident leading to Johnny Segle’s discipline as simply
10 individual’s laughing at a video of dogs copulating and Segle making the
11 comment “Does this mean no more boobies” during counseling on the
12 inappropriate behavior. Defendants fail to acknowledge that the video showed
13 multiple graphic images of various animals copulating in front of male and
14 female workers and the male workers were shouting “look at the size of that
15 thing” to describe the male’s “penis” and “look at them go at it”. Rich Conrad
16 dep. Transcript at 202:10 – 203:15.
17 • Defendants state it is undisputed that no complaint was ever made based on Mr.
18 Segle’s boobies comment. I was contacted by Mr. Segle’s immediate supervisors
19 complaining about his conduct. There was clearly a complaint about Mr. Segle’s
20 conduct. Londi Lindell dep. Transcript at 115:9 – 11.
21 • Defendants claim that I was upset with Conrad’s attempts to de-escalate the
22 Segle situation and met with City Attorney Sterbank to discuss writing a memo
23 Conrad would not want to hear. I met with City Attorney Sterbank to discuss
24 various concerns both he and I had over Conrad’s behavior. However, I did not
25 attempt to persuade Mr. Sterbank to write the October 3 memo, though I had
26

1201 Third Avenue
(206) 343-2700
1 similar concerns as those expressed in that memo. Lindell Dep. Transcript at
2 233:10 – 234:17; 236:10 – 238:1.
3 • Defendants claim that I initiated a dispute with the Washington Cities Insurance
4 Authority (WCIA). I did not initiate a dispute with the WCIA. I requested the
5 right to review billing statements from attorneys performing services and was
6 denied the right to review billing statements for accuracy. When I objected to
7 WCIA’s refusal, the Executive Director threatened Conrad and told him he
8 would disclose the Tina Eggers settlement to his fellow City Managers on the
9 WCIA Board unless Conrad removed me as the WCIA delegate. Conrad
10 acquiesced to these threats and removed me. I wanted to brief the City Council
11 on WCIA’s misconduct and Conrad refused. Lindell Dep. Transcript at 63:5 –
12 64:14.
13 • Defendants claim that Conrad immediately recused himself from involvement
14 with the disciplining of Mr. Segle after receiving Mr. Sterbank’s October 3
15 memo. This is inaccurate. Conrad continued to lobby Mr. Mayer and me for
16 Segle even after he had received the October 3 memo. Defendants’ citation to my
17 deposition testimony at 254:16-17 does not even relate to Conrad’s “recusal”
18 from the Johnny Segle discipline.
19 • Defendants claim that Mr. Sterbank’s October 3 memo, which discusses Quid
20 Pro Quo and Hostile Work Environment Claims by other employees was based
21 on the other “male” employees making claims. Actually, the October 3 memo
22 specifically states that it encompasses concerns of “other employees, particularly
23 Directors, who are male” and is non-exclusive. See Sterbank’s October 3, 2007
24 memo. Sterbank’s memo also contained my concerns about Conrad’s conduct.
25 • Defendant’s claim I had a “skip in my step” or “looked invigorated” over the

26 Reed investigation and nothing could be further from the truth. As mentioned in

1201 Third Avenue
(206) 343-2700
1 Mr. Sterbank’s October 3 memo and as described in both my sworn testimony
2 and my chronology, I was extremely unhappy and saddened about the Reed
3 investigation, particularly the retaliation I suffered as a result of the
4 investigation.
5 • Defendants claim I left a single page of my chronology on the copier which
6 states I was “nail in Rich’s coffin”. First, Conrad had obtained access to my
7 computer from the City’s IT department by this time as evidenced by my
8 attorney client privileged material the City produced during discovery. Second, I
9 dispute the Defendant’s characterizing this statement as evidence of the
10 purported coup. This statement was made when I was describing to Mr. Mayer
11 how difficult the Reed interview had been that day and how I felt like I was
12 being forced to give adverse testimony about Mr. Conrad because Mr. Conrad
13 had expanded the scope of the investigation to include Conrad’s misconduct
14 around WCIA. Again, I was saddened to be the one to provide much of the
15 damaging testimony to Ms. Reed regarding Segle and Conrad’s conduct.
16 • I dispute that Conrad tried to reestablish trust among Mr. Sterbank, myself and
17 the Department Directors following the Reed Investigation. Nothing could be
18 further from the truth. As Pete Mayer describes in his Declaration, Conrad was
19 meeting with my colleagues and asking them to support my firing. On the other
20 hand, I was trying to schedule meetings with my fellow directors, including
21 trying to schedule a facilitated discussion with Rhonda Hilyer to allow the
22 Department Director team to move forward. When Directors refused to meet
23 with me following the completion of the Reed investigation, I was told they had
24 been advised by Conrad that legal counsel directed them not to meet with me.
25 When I asked Mike Bolasinga why he had told my fellow directors not to meet
26 with me, he told me he had never given Conrad this advice.

1201 Third Avenue
(206) 343-2700
1 • Defendants claim I never complained about discrimination but I complained
2 about Conrad’s retaliation against Sterbank and I to Ms. Reed and retaliation is a
3 form of discrimination under Title VII.
4 • I dispute that Conrad’s retaliation did not materially alter the terms of my
5 employment. Following the Reed investigation, Conrad, the City Council and
6 my fellow Directors all treated me differently, refusing to meet with me and talk
7 to me. My working conditions and assignments also changed dramatically and I
8 was excluded from meetings that I customarily had been invited too. Obviously,
9 my employment was severely altered when it was terminated.
10 • I dispute that I dressed inappropriately. Notably, although complaints were
11 made against Ms. Segle and Ms. Knight’s dress prior to Marcella Reed’s
12 investigation, no comments about my attire were made until after I complained
13 and was terminated.
14 57. I do not believe that Defendants’ witnesses are credible because much of their
15 testimony about me and about the facts of this case is directly contradicted by the documents, and
16 the information that was gathered by Marcella Reed. I have worked with investigators like Ms.
17 Reed before, and these lawyers who do primarily employment investigations are well informed
18 about the importance of being accurate, and know that it is likely that the reports produced may be
19 produced in litigation, if a lawsuit is subsequently filed. My experience has been that if the
20 recommendations are followed from these types of personnel investigations, litigation is usually
21 avoided. In the municipal realm, these investigations are public records so it imperative to be
22 accurate and truthful. Ms. Reed has the highest credentials, and testified that she was careful and
23 accurate in recording the statements of witnesses, consistent with all best practices for employment
24 investigations.
25 58. Some examples that show a lack of credibility of Defendant’s witnesses include:
26

1201 Third Avenue
(206) 343-2700
1 a. Rich Conrad testified under oath that he had no knowledge that Kryss Segle helped
2 write her husband’s grievance before it was filed. Conrad Dep. Transcript at
3 118:24-120:25. This is directly contradicted by the written discipline letter from
4 Conrad addressed to Ms. Segle where he admits “just prior to filing the grievance ,
5 you called me to notify me that you had assisted John [Segle, her husband] in the
6 drafting of the grievance. He told her “Kryss Segle [Kryss] contacted Rich Conrad
7 and informed him that she had written the grievance for her husband either the
8 Sunday of the Monday before the grievance was filed.”
9 b. Rich Conrad actually admitted that although he did not know about Segle’s
10 involvement until after the grievance had been written (which is false), he testified
11 that “I am inclined to tear up…or ask for the tearing up of the grievance letter and
12 the disciplinary matter,” which puts in question his objectivity regarding Kryss
13 Segle, and the investigation. Conrad Dep. Transcript at 123:7-126:10.
14 c. Although central to Defendants’ Motion is that the Marcella Reed investigation was
15 merely a name clearing investigation that was internal and administrative, this
16 claim is not credible. Conrad testified that the Marcella Reed Investigation was all
17 about rebutting City Attorney Bob Sterbank’s October 3, 2007 which contained
18 many of my complaints. Conrad Dep. Transcript at 287:25-289:11 After admitting
19 he could not force me or Pete Mayer to do an investigation of him [both of whom
20 he directly supervised], he testified that “I wanted some kind of process that would
21 get at the truth.” … Q. And the Marcella Reed investigation was going to be that
22 process, wasn’t it? A. In the absence of anything else, the third-party process was to
23 be that process.” Conrad Dep. Transcript at 289:11-22.
24 d. City Attorney, Knight directly contradicted numerous things that she told Marcella
25 Reed. She testified that she never used the word vagina. Knight Dep. Transcript at
26 34-35:9; 36:18-37:6; 38:18-24. She actually used that word according to Marcella

1201 Third Avenue
(206) 343-2700
1 Reed “it occurred to Kryss later that he might have been able to see her vagina.”
2 Although Knight actually drafted the detective’s declaration according to Mayor
3 Pearman, she told Marcella Reed that Commander Leslie Burns confirmed that the
4 detective had noticed. “Burns went down and asked the officer whether he had
5 noticed and he said “yes”. . . . It should be noted that that Kryss was not wearing
6 underwear, but she was wearing pantyhose. [Interviewers note: the suggestion that
7 Kryss was wearing pantyhose is inconsistent with Kryss’ description of the
8 incident.]” Q: [I]t’s your testimony that Lesslie Burns went down to check to see if
9 the officer had seen anything but the officer said that he hadn’t; is that right? A.
10 Correct.” Knight Dep. Transcript at 38:7-17; and 41:3-7
11 e. Knight denied under oath that Kryss Segle was teased in any way about the flashing
12 incident by the police department. 38:25 But according to Knight’s statement to
13 Marcella Reed: “The police officer told other people and Kryss was teased
14 unmercifully…when you go to the police department it is a little bit like leaving
15 ordinary reality behind” Exhibit DDD at 14.
16 f. Mayor James Pearman (a cabinet member), cannot credibly deny the sexual nature
17 of the emailed pictures of a woman with her legs spread in very skimpy black
18 underwear on top of her desk sent by Katie Knight to Segle referencing the exit
19 interview. However Pearman denied under oath that the pictures were “provocative
20 to him;” “they were not sexual” and that he showed it to his friends (none that he
21 could identify) and they said “My, that woman is really flexible.” Pearman Dep.
22 Transcript at 338:4-342:23.
23 g. Although James Pearman the mayor testified under oath that Kryss Segle would not
24 be working at the City if the allegations about the flashing and the joking were true,
25 he never asked Segle if it happened or Conrad if she told him about not wearing
26 underwear and the flashing. Pearman Dep. Transcript at 141:21-143:8; 36:4-43:10.

1201 Third Avenue
(206) 343-2700
1 59. Attached as Exhibit GGGG, is a true and correct copy of a transcription of Lew
2 Leigh video excerpts taken from the Kirkland City Council Study Session on August 3, 2010,
3 wherein Mr. Leigh acknowledges that Mercer Island is “in a lot of trouble” because City
4 Councilmembers inserted themselves into the Marcella Reed discrimination investigation when
5 they have no training to do so. A hard copy of the video will be filed in hard copy with the Court.
6 60. Attached as Exhibit QQQ is a true and correct copy of the relevant excerpts from
7 the deposition of Londi Lindell on November 17, 2010.
8 61. Attached as Exhibit RRR is a true and correct copy of the relevant excerpts from
9 the deposition of Richard Conrad on March 9, 2010.
10 62. Attached as Exhibit SSS is a true and correct copy of the relevant excerpts from the
11 deposition of Katie Knight on March 16, 2010.
12 63. Attached as Exhibit TTT is a true and correct copy of the relevant excerpts from the
13 deposition of Jim Pearman on February 24, 2010.
14 64. Attached as Exhibit UUU is a true and correct copy of the relevant excerpts from
15 the deposition of Charles Corderon June 10, 2010
16 65. Attached as Exhibit VVV is a true and correct copy of the relevant excerpts from the
17 deposition of Ed Holmes on June 11, 2010.
18 66. Attached as Exhibit WWW is a true and correct copy of the relevant excerpts from
19 the deposition of Brian Cairns on June 16, 2010.
20 67. Attached as Exhibit XXX is a true and correct copy of the relevant excerpts from the
21 deposition of Glenn Boettcher on June 15, 2010.
22 68. Attached as Exhibit YYYis a true and correct copy of the relevant excerpts from the
23 deposition of Marcella Reed on October 29, 2010.
24 69. Attached as Exhibit ZZZ is a true and correct copy of the relevant excerpts from the
25 deposition of Jill Barringer Smith on March 5, 2010.

26

1201 Third Avenue
(206) 343-2700
1 DECLARATION OF SERVICE
2
The undersigned hereby declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
3
Washington that, on the below date, I mailed or caused delivery and/or electronically filed a
4
true copy of this document, which will send notification of such filing, to the following
5
persons:
6
7 Stephanie R. Alexander, Esq.

Suzanne K. Michael, Esq.
8 Thomas P. Holt, Esq.
Michael & Alexander, PLLC
9 One Convention Place
701 Pike Street, Suite 1150
10 Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 442-9696
11 Fax: (206) 442-9699
Email: stephanie@michaelandalexander.com
12 suzanne@michaelandalexander.com
thomas@michaelandalexander.com
13
Attorneys for Defendants
14
15
16 DATED this 24th day of January, 2011, at Seattle, Washington.
17
18
/s/ Scott C.G. Blankenship
19
Scott C. G. Blankenship, WSBA No. 21431
The Blankenship Law Firm, P.S.
20 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2880
Seattle, WA 98101
21 Telephone: (206) 343-2700
Fax: (206) 343-2704
22
Email: sblankenship@blankenshiplawfirm.com
23
24
25
26

1201 Third Avenue
fa240301 (206) 343-2700

#286 - Dec. of Lindell in Opposition To Def.'s Partial SJ Motion

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

#286 - Dec. of Lindell in Opposition To Def.'s Partial SJ Motion

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Case 2:08-cv-01827-JLR Document 286 Filed 01/24/11 Page 1 of 33

DECLARATION OF LONDI LINDELL THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.

2 Washington State and the United States depose and say:

3 1. I am the Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter.

9 Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the relevant interrogatory answers.

12 Throughout my employment, I always received the highest rating for my performance

DECLARATION OF LONDI LINDELL THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.

23 in charge of Human Resources.

DECLARATION OF LONDI LINDELL THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.

12 disposition of his future employment or discipline.

13 8. Due to my conflict of interest as his subordinate, I hired an outside investigator,

19 privileged or work product.

25 similar conversations with Pete Mayer, and I would presume others.

DECLARATION OF LONDI LINDELL THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.

10 misconduct by my boss and direct supervisor, Rich Conrad.

20 likely lose. I believed him and agreed with him.

DECLARATION OF LONDI LINDELL THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.

19 and very concerned about his reputation and future employment.

DECLARATION OF LONDI LINDELL THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.

11 (“WCIA”), the pooled fund of insurance money.

16 over his very vocal and angry objection.

22 aspects of human resources.

DECLARATION OF LONDI LINDELL THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.

5 correct copy of the dress code presentation.

DECLARATION OF LONDI LINDELL THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.

2 action against Segle.

20 Mr. Segle be disciplined for violating discrimination and anti-harassment laws.

21 26. In the fall of 2007, Conrad inappropriately interfered in the discipline of HR

DECLARATION OF LONDI LINDELL THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.

16 pictures of women while at work.

23 Johnny Segle discipline memo.

DECLARATION OF LONDI LINDELL THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.

13 and Conrad’s knowledge of her involvement is reflected in Segle’s discipline attached to my

14 declaration as Exhibit R. Segle also lobbied Conrad to intervene in Johnny’s discipline,

19 reflecting these conversations.

DECLARATION OF LONDI LINDELL THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.

3 Exhibit V is a true and correct copy of Sterbank’s October 3, 2007 memo.

25 correct copy of the City’s Anti-Harassment Policy.

DECLARATION OF LONDI LINDELL THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.

5 investigation as simply an internal administrative investigation having nothing to do with

DECLARATION OF LONDI LINDELL THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.

7 over this issue and that he might, as well.” ).

25 correct copy of my chronology I submitted to Marcella Reed.

DECLARATION OF LONDI LINDELL THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.

9 39. During her investigation, Marcella Reed reviewed voluminous documents

17 Reed’s declaration verifying her records.

DECLARATION OF LONDI LINDELL THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.

2 discriminatory and harassing could result in “potentially successful gender discrimination,

8 Attached as Exhibit RR is a true and correct copy of Bolasina’s email.

DECLARATION OF LONDI LINDELL THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.

14 Conrad’s review which reflects this.

19 investigation “Cabinet” had no experience or training in conducting investigations into sexual

DECLARATION OF LONDI LINDELL THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.

4 Scott Blankenship’s declaration, as it has been designated as “Confidential” by the City.

DECLARATION OF LONDI LINDELL THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.

17 Officer Holmes “riled up” during the Cabinet’s investigation.

DECLARATION OF LONDI LINDELL THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.

19 Council on WCIA’s misconduct and Conrad refused. No performance issues were

20 communicated to me or reflected in my prior performance reviews until I complained. Conrad

24 the negative comments.

25 50. In their “investigation” the Cabinet completely disregarded Investigator Reed’s

DECLARATION OF LONDI LINDELL THE BLANKENSHIP LAW FIRM, P.S.