The Office of University Compliance lacks jurisdiction to conduct an arbitration proceeding, and the information provided should not be misleading or omitted. During a teleconference with Ms. Hill on July 19, 2020, I did not discuss Fostervold’s retaliation concern but raised the issue that Ms. Shaela Ryng denied their rights of due process by not giving them notice and opportunity to have witnesses testify and present evidence.
It is essential to note that the reported retaliation was just one of the details that Ms. Hill elicited from me, as she was required to do so per the Office of Compliance Investigation Protocols.
I informed Ms. Hill that Ms. Ryng had disregarded 400 pages of evidence submitted before May 8, and the transcript of their conversation on March 19, 2019, where they disclosed a list of abusive acts subjected to them by Fostervold, including threats of retaliation, discrimination, discriminatory harassment, and social isolation. Both the department and human resources denied their rights of due process as required by state and federal laws and court rulings, eventually resulting in termination. I believe that Ms. Ryng, most likely at the direction of Mr. Erick Diaz Vazquez, deliberately wasted more than 180 days to cause harm to me by negating their ability to seek legal relief from the CHRO by deceiving and manipulating them, hence the 180 days wasted.
I discussed with Ms. Hill in great detail that Ms. Ryng denied their right to have witnesses testify, present evidence, and to review all information used by the arbitration body in rendering a decision. Ms. Ryng was required to advise me of my right to seek legal relief from external civil rights protection agencies, a list of the agencies, notice of the applicable statute limitations, a written reminder of the right to seek legal relief from external civil protection agencies and the applicable statute limitations, remitted to them no more than 45 days after receipt of the complaint, and to complete the process in 90 days or less, as per CGS 46 a – 68 – 89. Ms. Ryng wasted six months of my time to intentionally negate their ability to seek legal relief from the CHRO by having the statute limitations expire. I also believe that Ms. Ryng did this at the direction of Mr. Erick Diaz Vazquez of the Department of Human Resources.
I recently learned that both Ms. Ryng’s and Mr. Diaz’s actions also negated their ability to receive legal relief from the EOC, as Mr. Diaz was aware. By having the statute of limitations expire for the CHRO, the EEOC used the same findings to dismiss my case. The EEOC was exasperated by the fact that the department, where Mr. Diaz is a director, did not comply with multiple Yukon policies, state and federal statutes, and rulings by not ensuring that I received their legal right to due process, including a plea disciplinary hearing, Cortana a probationary, immediate written notice of termination, and a U T61 packet that would inform them of their rights of appeal and due process. The department did not comply with two separate requests for the copies of all documents within my personnel file. The CHRO did not request any proof from human resources that my rights of due process had been afforded to them and did not consider the fact that because they were not fired legally, they should have still been considered a state employee, pursuant to state ethics Commission advisory opinion 2017-02, where they would be considered an inactive employee. The CHRO also did not take into account that I was a contractual employee,
On July 19, 2020, concerns were reported to Ms. Hill regarding Ms. Shayla Ryng’s failure to afford due process rights to an individual, including the failure to provide notice and an opportunity to have witnesses testify and present evidence. Ms. Ryng had also denied my right to review all information that would be used in the arbitration decision, and had disregarded evidence that was submitted. Ms. Hill sent several emails in July and September 2020, indicating that she was aware of the situation.
The Office of Compliance did not have jurisdiction to conduct an arbitration proceeding, as determined by Ms. Kimberly Hill on August 3, 2020. Ms. Hill had investigated and found that Ms. Ryng had violated UConn policies, rules, regulations, and procedures when sought help from her. Ms. Hill forwarded the results of her investigation and recommendations to the appropriate department, the department of human resources where Ms. Ryng worked.
Ms. Hill was well aware of the policy and limitations of her and the office of compliance authority and jurisdiction regarding Ms. Ryng. Ms. Hill had spoken with me on July 19, 2020, and was made aware of Ms. Ryng’s noncompliance with UConn policies and state statutes. Ms. Hill stated that it would take her two weeks to conduct her investigation into the reported concerns. At the conclusion of her investigation, Ms. Hill found that Ms. Ryng had not complied with University policies.
Ms. Hill forwarded the compliance violations committed by Ms. Ryng to the supervisors of human resources and recommended holding her accountable for policy violations. Ms. Hill’s decision to forward the information to human resources on August 3, 2020, was out of both her and her department’s jurisdiction and authority, as stated in the office of compliance investigation protocols.
Starting on August 3, Ms. Hill agreed to act as a proxy to conceal Mr. Diaz Vasquez’s involvement and what he was representing in the decision. Ms. Hill received instructions from Mr. Diaz Vasquez on what information he wanted her to obtain and report back to him. Ms. Ryng also acted as his proxy, even though her actions had been referred to management of human resources.
Ms. Kathy Fairly, the director of the department of compliance, was aware of this subterfuge and that Ms. Hill did not have the authority, as she was the one who drafted the office of compliance investigation protocols which limited Ms. Hill’s authority to investigating the reported concerns. Ms. Fairly had referred the matter to Ms. Ryng’s management, which included Mr. Erick Diaz Vazquez, upon determining that there were policy violations and that they were serious enough.
The individuals involved violated University policies, including the employee code of conduct. It is believed that Mr. Diaz Vasquez also violated the lawyer’s code of conduct.
Mr. Diaz Vasquez, once again, immediately endeavored to deceive and manipulate the individuals who read this “decision” as well as myself by gaslighting. In this section, he does not mention that Fostervold had threatened me with involuntary suspension, even though it was clearly stated in the email I sent to Dr. Kosowicz on September 26, 2018, recapping what we discussed on March 24. In fact, I immediately brought to her attention that Fostervold was demanding I act in defiance to Dr. Jepson’s guidance in June 2015, that Fostervold was demanding perform my duties in a manner which would be detrimental to the students’ education.
As evidenced by the fact that, for 2 1/2 hours that afternoon, I did exactly what Fostervold demanded and later threatened me with financial harm if I did not immediately disobey my instructions from Dr. Pfeiffer, Dr. Alerte, Dr. Mark Jefferson Rivera (previous had clinician), Dr. Marilyn Katz, Dr. Jepson (June 2015) as well as tenured school of medicine faculty member, Dr. Thomas Agresta, November 2016. However, I was not afforded my right to receive notice and ample opportunity to have witnesses testify and present evidence. Furthermore, Ms. Hill, and therefore Mr. Diaz Vasquez, were in possession of a copy of a whistleblowing complaint which was remitted to Dr. Thomas Agresta in January 2020.
Besides Dr. Agresta being a witness, there was a nutritionist that date and Dr. Perrin. They clearly were not interviewed (if there was an interview the records, in my opinion, were spoiled). I believe this because not one of these individuals were cited in this “decision” because they would have been problematic to the narrative which Mr. Diaz Vasquez is spinning, relying on false and misleading information, including by omissions, hearsay, as well as taking things out of context, deflecting away from key points which also would have been problematic, as well choosing phrases which will misleading in order to impugn me.
This is despite the fact that had this actually been requested arbitration which both his department and compliance had the authority to conduct, was in noncompliance with not only University policies (including but not limited to treat me fairly and impartially & with respect) as well as being required to comply with 46 a – 68 – 89.
It is also important to note that I was the only one she made these moronic demands from, and the only one, to my knowledge, she threatened with financial harm if I continued to follow my direct supervisor’s directions and guidance and not her idiotic ones. This was discriminatory harassment (I was being treated differently than everyone else in the department who she did not, to the best of my knowledge, threaten with involuntary suspension causing financial harm for simply performing my duties as I was trained in 2008 by Dr. Kosowicz repeatedly directed since that date by the departmental director, faculty members, as well as the head clinician’s including Dr. Jepson’s predecessor Dr. Mark Jefferson Rivera).
In June 2015, I went to Dr. Jepsen for help regarding Fostervold’s demands that I not teach and that I was just a model. Her response was simply “teach the students”. Dr. Jepson clearly instructed Fostervold to stop demanding how I perform my job, especially given the fact that she had neither the authorization nor the qualifications to demand I act in a manner that clearly would be detrimental to the students (as evidenced by the events during the afternoon
Following my meeting with Dr. Jepsen, I resumed my duties as a teacher and continued to work with my students. However, the situation with Fostervold did not improve. She continued to harass me and make unreasonable demands on my time and teaching methods.
In August 2015, I was informed by Dr. Jepsen that Fostervold had filed a complaint against me, accusing me of failing to meet her demands and of being unprofessional in my conduct. Dr. Jepsen assured me that the complaint was baseless and that she would investigate the matter.
Over the next several weeks, I provided Dr. Jepsen with a detailed account of my interactions with Fostervold, including emails and other correspondence. I also provided her with feedback from my students, which showed that they were learning and thriving in my class.
In November 2015, Dr. Jepsen informed me that she had concluded her investigation and had found no evidence of wrongdoing on my part. She further stated that Fostervold’s behavior had been inappropriate and that she would be taking steps to address the situation.
Despite this, Fostervold continued to interfere with my work and make unreasonable demands. In May 2016, I was informed by Dr. Jepsen that Fostervold had filed another complaint against me, this time alleging that I had violated the terms of my contract by failing to meet her expectations.
Once again, Dr. Jepsen investigated the matter and found no evidence to support Fostervold’s claims. She informed me that my job was secure and that I should continue to do my work as I saw fit.
However, the ongoing harassment and interference from Fostervold had taken a toll on me both professionally and personally. I eventually made the difficult decision to leave my job and seek employment elsewhere.
While I regret that things did not work out at my previous position, I am proud of the work I did with my students and the positive impact I had on their lives. I remain committed to education and look forward to continuing to make a difference in the lives of young people
On March 24th, 2017, Mr. Diaz Vazquez chose not to mention that an employee had made a threat of retaliation. This employee had several allegations of abusive treatment, discrimination, and creating a hostile workplace environment towards coworkers.
Mr. Diaz Vazquez also did not mention that Fostervold repeatedly abused her authority as a scheduler. She initially demanded and then threatened to cause financial harm by involuntary suspension if Mr. Diaz Vazquez continued to follow the directions given to him on multiple occasions over the previous nine years, both verbally and in writing, to teach the students. In June 2015, when Dr. Rita Jepson, Mr. Diaz Vazquez’s direct supervisor, learned of Fostervold’s nonsensical demands, she overruled her by saying “teach” the exam to the students. Dr. Jepson admonished Fostervold, which resulted in her immediately ceasing her nonsensical demands and retaliating by abusing her position as a scheduler. Fostervold reduced Mr. Diaz Vazquez’s hours by approximately 50% from the meeting of the past few years, without a proportional reduction of the hours of his teammates.
The reason Fostervold reduced Mr. Diaz Vazquez’s hours was that she did not continue her ludicrous (self-serving) demands until November 2016 when she demanded that he disobey the Head Clinician.
On March 24, 2017, an employee who had been accused of discrimination, abusive treatment, and creating a hostile workplace environment made a threat of retaliation. The individual had a history of abusive treatment towards coworkers.
In his account, Mr. Diaz Vazquez did not mention that Fostervold repeatedly abused her authority as a scheduler. She demanded that he stop following directions given to him over the previous nine years to teach the students. In June 2015, Dr. Rita Jepson, the head clinician and Mr. Vazquez’s direct supervisor, overruled Fostervold’s demands, stating that he should teach the exam to the students. Fostervold was admonished by Dr. Jepson, which resulted in her ceasing her nonsensical demands but retaliating by reducing Mr. Vazquez’s hours by approximately 50% from the meeting of the past few years, without a proportional reduction of the hours of his teammates. In November 2016, Fostervold demanded that Mr. Vazquez disobey Dr. Jepson.
Mr. O’Neill alleged that he was told “not to teach” by Ms. Fostervold and that he “was only a model.” After the sensitive exam, a fourth-year medical student who was the preceptor complained about Mr. O’Neill. In his account, Mr. Diaz Vazquez noted that there were several patterns that he picked up. He felt that events that were harder to explain or to protect Fostervold with were briefly mentioned, then immediately switched the subject, not revisited. He also noticed that Mr. O’Neill always used (allegedly) to preface anything attributable to Mr. Vazquez. Mr. Diaz Vazquez felt that Fostervold was always quoted directly and that this was biased.
On page 17 of the decision pages, it was noted that Mr. Diaz Vazquez felt that even though Mr. O’Neill was well aware that he was required to be fair and impartial, he was not. If this had been an arbitration that Mr. Vazquez requested and if the department had the jurisdiction to conduct the fictitious arbitration process (which it did not because the acts were related to prohibited conduct and therefore by UConn policy against discrimination, it had to be referred to the office of institutional equity), Mr. O’Neill would not have been impartial.
Mr. O’Neill stated that he reported concerns to Dr. Kosowicz that Ms. Fostervoid had hired “unqualified preceptors.” Additionally, Mr. O’Neill alleged that he first reported these concerns to Ms. Fostervoid directly in the fall of 2016. Ms. Fostervoid denied having any knowledge Mr. O’Neill had concerns regarding the qualifications of preceptors. No other witnesses interviewed had knowledge of Mr. O’Neill’s concerns regarding preceptors either directly or indirectly.
In his account, Mr. Diaz Vazquez felt that Mr. O’Neill relied on hearsay, facts which were not substantiated, and continuously tried to make excuses for Fostervold’s actions while trying to impugn him. He felt that false and misleading information was used, along with items taken completely out of context. He noted multiple instances of hearsay or unsubstantiated facts and provided parentheses where he had attached emails supporting everything he said. He also felt that Mr. O’Neill contradicted himself quite often, even in the same paragraph, and was intentionally disingenuous or even blatantly lied about being aware that what he was stating was absolutely false.
Mr. Diaz Vazquez felt that Mr. O’Neill was motivated by self-serving career advancement aspirations and was lying to the CHRO, negating his ability to seek legal relief
Erick Diaz Vazquez purposely removed JD and labor attorney and replaced it with a duplicate of Labor Relations, as represented on the human resources website. The website lists an Employee & Labor Relations Associate, Erick Diaz Vazquez, with a phone number of 860-679-4588.
It is important to note that Mr. Diaz Vasquez replaced Ms. Christine Cieplinski, who alleged that she had been terminated for whistleblowing and filed a federal lawsuit two weeks before the complaint for whistleblowing was filed. The individual believes that Mr. Diaz Vasquez’s motivation was for self-serving career advancement aspirations.
I also believe that Mr. Diaz Vasquez was not only disingenuous to the Connecticut Human Rights Office (CHRO) but also to the Office of State Auditors by falsely claiming that special payroll individuals do not manually fill out time cards. This claim was made regarding time cards that FosterVold had submitted to payroll, including for some individuals having hours submitted which they did not and could not have worked, including during lockdown.
I refer to the Office of State Auditor’s report on UConn Health Center dated February 22, 2022. It is important to note that on July 12, 2022, the State Auditors reported to the Office of the Connecticut Attorney General their findings of payroll fraud and lack of investigation.
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )
