So what is Ty doing now?

Shanetta sounds like a diva to the extreme, but as far as I can tell from talking to people at the Civil Rights Division, Shanetta's section is one of the few still allowed to enforce civil rights laws during the Bush administration. I mean, when was the last time you heard about the voting rights section actually helping out anyone?

I bet the congressional committee might find her a little unprofessional, but the Democrats will like that the diva in extremus is able to deal with Bush political appointees and actually enforce some civil rights laws.

"A necessary diva": Good point, and one of the more solid defenses of Cutlar so far.

She may not win "Miss Congeniality", but she's doing her job. She has been honored for her job performance:

http://www.theiacp.org/awards/CivilRights/2005civilwinners.htm

Even Ty Clevenger admits that she's "extremely intelligent":

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/01/doj_diva_of_the_day_shanetta_y.php#more

Look, people: "To make an omelet, you have to break some eggs."

That parting remark by Ty was remarkably poor judgment that's going to count against him if he really is going to bring litigation. DOJ will claim that the poor performance evaluation reflected insubordination, that his memo outside of appropriate channels reflected further insubordination that made his continuing at DOJ out of the question, and here he is admitting to just plain rude insubordination.

Nor especially good judgment. Young rude white male anti-gay Christian vs. senior black female career staffer who specializes in office maneuvering? That's a political mismatch if ever there was one.

What with the pronouncements of good and evil, he's also not especially humble before the Lord, whom I picture on Judgment Day to look a lot like Shanetta Y. Cutlar.

Yeah, I was sympathetic for Ty until googling his name and discovering that he's a homophobe.

Looks like Shanetta has organized her response team. Gotta go nuclear: Racist! Homephobe! The sky is falling! BTW, who raised race as an issue here?

God looks like Shanetta Y. Cutlar? Her minions have arrived indeed. And everybody gets to say nasty things anonymously. How convenient.

Um, I don't see anything homophobic anywhere.

Let's see... abuser, many complaints. Nothing being done. Accusers discredited. Abuser protected. Is the DOJ run by the Catholic church? Yoo-hoo, DOJ management?

Mr Clevenger, go for it.

Do you have a blog?

Mr Clevenger, go for it.

I'm skeptical about the timing of all this. If things transpired as Ty suggests, then there are two options: either (1) it just so happened that Shanetta moved against Ty the day after he send his "letter" (email?) to Paul McNulty, or (2) McNulty tipped Shanetta immediately about the email. The first is improbable and the second seems inconsistent with how the government operates. So here's a third possibility, one I find more likely: Shanetta was going to can Ty before the letter, and told him as much; then he sends the letter; then he gets fired. Nowhere does Ty actual SAY that he had no forewarning---he does note that he had forewarning of the bad performance report, and the "no specifics" could simply mean no specifics regarding what performance was poor, rather than what the consequences of such poor performance would be. In other words, Ty's letter may simply have been in response to Shanetta's firing him, and although Ty has implied otherwise, he has not actually said that his letter was an independent event.

There have to be some people familiar with retaliation claims here who can give their two cents on this. Even if sleepy's facts are right, you would think there'd be some record -- ie, a letter to Ty saying "Buddy, you were ALREADY fired when you sent that letter." How do employers deal with such scenarios?

For the record, I had no forewarning about termination. The attorney who was fired 10 months before me did have a warning. It does seem unusual that an attorney would be fired so quickly (though I had only been there 13 months and was still on probation), which is why I filed the FOIA request. BTW, DOJ has not responded even though the response date already has passed.

When it comes to "what goes around comes around" Ms. Cutlar will surely get hers. There are steps that have to be taken before anyone is terminated from their position in the federal government and it appears Ms. Cutlar has truly shorten those steps to benefit herself. She is truly acting like a very spoiler and jealous child. I am sure, real justice will be served against madame Cutlar. Kudos to Mr. Clevenger and stay strong.

Well, Ty's response is good enough for me. That's very odd, especially since I can't imagine what would impel someone to immediately leak a complaint like that. It's an HR nightmare waiting to happen. Maybe it really was random. Good luck with the FOIA request --- keep us posted.

Law question: if Shanetta denied knowledge of the complaint letter, and there is no evidence in record that she knew of it, can her firing be deemed retaliatory? Will it survive SJ motion? Or can you infer knowledge from firing immediately following the letter?

uh, hello, the Civil Rights Division is responsible for prosecuting two boarder patrol agents who shot a fleeing Mexican drug smuggler in the butt. DOJ gave the smuggler full immunity to testify against the agents. So, I wouldn't say the Civil Rights Division under the Bush Administration doesn't do anything for anybody, they are protecting the citizens of Mexico.

In regard to the poster USC's comment on the DOJ prosecuting the Border Patrol agents in Texas...
The comment lays claim that the Civil Rights Division prosecuted the two agents. The simple fact needs to be clarified that the Civil Rights Division did not prosecute the two agents. The prosecution was decided on by a female assistant U.S. Attorney in the Western District of Texas, a career DOJer who may very likely have been a holdover from the Clinton administration.

It order to bring a prosecution like that, you need AG -- funny, AG the AG -- approval, and the Chain my friend for this type of case . . . it goes through the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division up through the AAG, Assoc, DAG and then the AG. You think this happen in a vaccum? Something this politically sensitive?

Cutlar's awards and otherwise competence be damned! If you can't get away in the private sector with breaking federal employment laws and use "but I produce results!" as a defense, why should she be able to?

Ty is a homophobe?!??? ...this can't be. Shanetta had it coming...

I don't know Clevenger or Cutlar from a a can of paint but it seems there is a cross-cultural dynamic going on, in addition to whatever personal animus. Cutlar likely didn't chew out the intern because she failed to address the boss-lady; she likely was chastised for not speaking to Cutlar whether she knew Cutlar was the boss or not. In Af-Am circles, it is considered a slight not to greet someone when you first cross paths with them, regardless of their standing. I can't say for sure but if the intern was not Af-Am, she might not have realized that many black executives are sensitive to perceived slights to the boss -- it is the intern's business to know who the boss is -- and to any rank-and-file Af-Am in the organization. Moral: don't just say hello because the black lady is the boss; say hello to whomever is in the hallway with you. As for the paper-clip, if there was an announced policy about the use binder clips vs paper clips and this person habitually violated the policy, you can imagine the violator would be upbraided. We don't have enough facts to judge whether Cutlar's response was too harsh. Not to attack Clevenger or undermine his acusations but all of this will need to be described (likely in depositions ad nausem) before the full picture is clear. Finally, no one needs to introduce the "race" issue. It is fallacy to treat it like a card being played. Race was present as soon as Clevenger joined Cutlar's unit. Like it or not, America is not used to the ways of Af-Am women; high-functioning women like AKAs (if you don't know, look it up) and other such are not to be trifled with so do your research. That relationship (Cutlar = boss, Clevenger = subordinate) presents an inverted social dynamic, to say the least, particularly in a Republican administration. No one should be shocked that Cutlar, who joined DOJ during the Clinton administration, and Clevenger, an apparent right-wing Bush appointee, are like oil and water.