Subject: RE: Sharon Davis EEOC Charge -- Jenks, Oklahoma
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 09:08:44 -0800 (PST)

Discussed this briefly with Ben this morning as part of the discussion I had
with him reviewing the Alexander matter. Suggest to move this matter along,
I'll a have Connie set up a conference call first part of next week.

Connie pls try and arrange for on either Monday afternoon or on Tuesday.
Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Herman, Ben [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 6:40 AM
To: Cash, Michelle; Lund, David; Indivero, Michael
Cc: Seleznov, Ryan; Palmer, Lizzette
Subject: RE: Sharon Davis EEOC Charge -- Jenks, Oklahoma

Michelle,

I do not think reinstatement is a settlement option we want to pursue.
We should, perhaps discuss other options, though.

bh

>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	Cash, Michelle
> Sent:	Friday, November 16, 2001 2:24 AM
> To:	Lund, David; Indivero, Michael
> Cc:	Herman, Ben; Seleznov, Ryan; Palmer, Lizzette
> Subject:	Sharon Davis EEOC Charge -- Jenks, Oklahoma
>
> The EEOC investigator on the Sharon Davis charge called me earlier
> this week to make a settlement proposal.  Ms. Davis would like to be
> reinstated to work at another NEPCO job site at the rate of pay at
> which she was employed while working at Jenks.  She would not,
> however, like to go to El Dorado, as she believes the people who
> mistreated her now are working there.
>
> I told the investigator that I wasn't sure whether reinstatement was
> an option at all, given the reasons for her discharge.  I asked her
> what the alternative would be.  While she is obtaining that
> information, I told her that I would raise the reinstatement route
> with you.
>
> Although Ms. Davis was terminated for undermining the brass-in,
> brass-out rule by leaving her station, the investigation revealed
> several mitigating circumstances for her actions.  One, the power was
> out completely.  She previously had indicated a fear of working on the
> site at night, but she had no flashlight or any way to reach anybody
> from the site.  Second, there is the contention that the security
> guard came by and told her to leave.  Third, this offense is not a
> terminable one under the NEPCO progressive discipline policy (although
> of course that policy provides for flexibility based on the
> circumstances).  Ben's investigation revealed some other reasons why
> he was concerned about how Ms. Davis had been treated; he can provide
> detail, if we want.
>
> The bottom line is that I do not see this as a slam dunk situation,
> and I believe that some sort of resolution would be fruitful.  What
> that may look like remains an open question.
>
> Let me know your thoughts.
>
> Michelle

**********************************************************************
This e-mail is the property of Enron Corp. and/or its relevant affiliate and
may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the
intended recipient (s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by
others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or
authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender or reply
to Enron Corp. at [email-masked] and delete all
copies of the message. This e-mail (and any attachments hereto) are not
intended to be an offer (or an acceptance) and do not create or evidence a
binding and enforceable contract between Enron Corp. (or any of its
affiliates) and the intended recipient or any other party, and may not be
relied on by anyone as the basis of a contract by estoppel or otherwise.
Thank you.
**********************************************************************