Hicks' Charges Denied

In Harvard's official response to a former dining hall worker's charges of racial discrimination, a University attorney said the worker's claims had "no merit" and that he was fired because he was a "disruptive, difficult employee with a poor attendance record."

University Attorney Anne Taylor's comments, answering a complaint by former Harvard Union dining hall cook Darryl Hicks, were submitted to the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) on Wednesday. The comments were obtained by The Crimson yesterday through the Massachusetts Public Records Law.

Harvard's response to the charges was filed nearly three months after it was due.

Hicks had filed the discrimination complaint with both MCAD and the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in December, slightly more than three months before he was fired.

The former cook and labor union shop steward, who worked at the Union for more than five years, said he was harassed and unjustly disciplined because he is Black. Hicks said his one time boss, former second cook Anthony P. Amaral, issued unfair complaints about him to Union managers, resulting in several warnings and suspensions against Hicks.

Amaral was later demoted, suspended and transferred to the Dunster/Mather dining hall. Hicks has said Amaral's complaints had no merit and should have been removed from his record.

In a footnote to Harvard's MCAD response, Taylor said that Amaral was "not a good supervisor." But the Harvard attorney denied that the former second cook had harassed Hicks because of his race, and she said Hicks had never previously complained that Amaral was racially harassing him.

Taylor said Union managers had determined Amaral's complaints against Hicks to be justified, adding that much of Hicks' disciplinary record was not even linked to Amaral.

"There is absolutely no evidence that Mr. Amaral's supervision of Mr. Hicks was hostile, harassing or influenced by consideration of race," Taylor wrote. "Rather, there is clear evidence that Mr. Hicks had unacceptable attendance and exhibited a chronic unwillingness to take direction and work as part of a team."

But in an interview yesterday. Amaral, who now works at the Dunster/Mather dining hall, had harsh words for Harvard Union dining hall managers. The former second cook acknowledged that he had occasionally complained about Hicks, but said Hicks was generally "a good worker" who should not have been fired.

"I have [had] a few arguments about him. But I don't say he doesn't work," Amaral said. "I like the guy. I don't want to say I don't like him, because I like him."

Amaral said he thinks Hicks was fired because he often vocally opposed Union managers. Hicks has said he thinks his dismissal was in part due to his work as a labor union steward.

"You know why they don't like Darryl? Because he says a lot of things that are true," Amaral said.

In his MCAD complaint, Hicks also alleged that management discriminated against him by refusing to transfer him to another dining hall despite his six transfer him to another dining hall despite his six transfer requests and despite transferring Amaral.

Hicks said he wanted to transfer out of the Union's "hostile work environment" in order to salvage his employment.

In a December 9 letter to Domenic M. Bozzotto, president of the labor union to which Hicks belongs, Carolyn R. Young, associate director of Harvard's Office of Human Resources, said Hicks was not transferred because of his disciplinary record. Amaral was transferred as a part of his discipline, she said.

Citing an earlier letter from Berry to Hicks, Young denied Hicks' grievance of the transfer denial.

"[Hicks] was currently in a disciplinary mode and...the Department does not grant transfer requests unless an employee has a clean record," she wrote. "Other examples of transfers of employees being disciplined...were in fact disciplinary transfers, i.e. transfers arising out of the disciplinary process and not at the request of the affected employee."

"As an aside, in the case of the transfer that appears to have precipitated the grievance, the employee granted the transfer was more senior to Mr. Hicks," Young wrote, apparently referring to Amaral.

In Harvard's MCAD response, however, Taylor appeared to cite a different dining services policy, relating to attendance.

"Employees in disciplinary status are not...transferred at their own request...or where the discipline relates to issues of attendance and conduct which would not be addressed by transfer," Taylor wrote. "Mr. Amaral was transferred pursuant to the departmental policy described above."

"Unlike Mr. Amaral, Harvard does not dispute that Mr. Hicks has the job skills requisite for...his current job or a lateral transfer," Taylor added. "He was not, however, transferred because he was in disciplinary status related solely to his poor performance and inappropriate conduct."

But according to his demotion, suspension and transfer order, Amaral was disciplined in part for attendance problems.

"On Tuesday, June 26, 1990, you were given a letter describing performance and attendance problems related to your works as a Second Cook," wrote Union Manager Katherine E.D' Andria in the December 19, 1991 report. "Since that time, your record has not improved."

In Harvard's response, Taylor also denied that Hicks had been fired as a result of his MCAD complaint, citing as evidence that the complaint had been "inappropriately field and misplaced" at the Office of the General Counsel's.

"No notice of the complaint was, therefore, provided to Food Service management or the responsible [Vice President for Administration] human resource office," Taylor wrote. "The individuals responsible for [Hicks' dismissal]...were completely unaware of the pending MCAD complaints..."

Last week, Taylor told The Crimson she had discussed the complaint with Berry, but refused to disclose when their first conversation occurred

Amaral said he thinks Hicks was fired because he often vocally opposed Union managers. Hicks has said he thinks his dismissal was in part due to his work as a labor union steward.

"You know why they don't like Darryl? Because he says a lot of things that are true," Amaral said.

In his MCAD complaint, Hicks also alleged that management discriminated against him by refusing to transfer him to another dining hall despite his six transfer him to another dining hall despite his six transfer requests and despite transferring Amaral.

Hicks said he wanted to transfer out of the Union's "hostile work environment" in order to salvage his employment.

In a December 9 letter to Domenic M. Bozzotto, president of the labor union to which Hicks belongs, Carolyn R. Young, associate director of Harvard's Office of Human Resources, said Hicks was not transferred because of his disciplinary record. Amaral was transferred as a part of his discipline, she said.

Citing an earlier letter from Berry to Hicks, Young denied Hicks' grievance of the transfer denial.

"[Hicks] was currently in a disciplinary mode and...the Department does not grant transfer requests unless an employee has a clean record," she wrote. "Other examples of transfers of employees being disciplined...were in fact disciplinary transfers, i.e. transfers arising out of the disciplinary process and not at the request of the affected employee."

"As an aside, in the case of the transfer that appears to have precipitated the grievance, the employee granted the transfer was more senior to Mr. Hicks," Young wrote, apparently referring to Amaral.

In Harvard's MCAD response, however, Taylor appeared to cite a different dining services policy, relating to attendance.

"Employees in disciplinary status are not...transferred at their own request...or where the discipline relates to issues of attendance and conduct which would not be addressed by transfer," Taylor wrote. "Mr. Amaral was transferred pursuant to the departmental policy described above."

"Unlike Mr. Amaral, Harvard does not dispute that Mr. Hicks has the job skills requisite for...his current job or a lateral transfer," Taylor added. "He was not, however, transferred because he was in disciplinary status related solely to his poor performance and inappropriate conduct."

But according to his demotion, suspension and transfer order, Amaral was disciplined in part for attendance problems.

"On Tuesday, June 26, 1990, you were given a letter describing performance and attendance problems related to your works as a Second Cook," wrote Union Manager Katherine E.D' Andria in the December 19, 1991 report. "Since that time, your record has not improved."

In Harvard's response, Taylor also denied that Hicks had been fired as a result of his MCAD complaint, citing as evidence that the complaint had been "inappropriately field and misplaced" at the Office of the General Counsel's.

"No notice of the complaint was, therefore, provided to Food Service management or the responsible [Vice President for Administration] human resource office," Taylor wrote. "The individuals responsible for [Hicks' dismissal]...were completely unaware of the pending MCAD complaints..."

Last week, Taylor told The Crimson she had discussed the complaint with Berry, but refused to disclose when their first conversation occurred