Under the Latin term Respondeat Superior (Let the master answer), an individual would not be held personally liable in a civil proceeding if (a) he (or she) was acting within the scope and duties of his employment or if the action was taken on advice of counsel.
An example of that would be if a state employee withheld records from a reporter on advice of the agency’s attorney but it was subsequently determined in court that the records were actually public and should have been made available upon request. It would be the agency, not the employee, who would be liable in such a case.
A newspaper reporter would be protected from libel damages if he had written something he believed to be factual and it was vetted by editors and published only to be found to be inaccurate and damaging to the subject’s reputation or career. In that case, the newspaper or TV station (or, more accurately, the medium’s liability insurance policy) would pay.
So, it is more than a little curious that Louisiana Department of Health (LDH) paid to defend Attorney Supervisor Weldon Hill—and paid the settlement—in Bethany Gauthreaux’s sexual harassment lawsuit against Hill, a STORY first reported by LouisianaVoice earlier this month.
And why, when the news media requested names of cases involving sexual harassment, was this case omitted. Nowhere in the Baton Rouge Advocate STORY is the Gauthreaux case listed. Was this an honest mistake—or was it by design?
Not only did LDH pay the $40,000 settlement, but the agency also paid more than $76,300 in legal fees to the Baton Rouge law firm of Keogh Cox and Wilson ($69,828), the Louisiana Attorney General’s office ($1,258), Court Reporters of Louisiana ($2,183), Walgreen’s ($27), the East Baton Rouge Clerk of Court ($2,611), North Oaks Medical Center ($250), and for photocopies ($186).
And how did that particular law firm wind up with the contract to defend Hill and LDH? The very fact that the LDH Deputy General Counsel, under whom Gauthreaux worked, was Kim Sullivan should have disqualified the firm.
Attorney Chad Sullivan is Kim Sullivan’s husband and he works for Keogh Cox and Wilson, a fact that the firm should have disclosed. By virtue of supervising plaintiff Gauthreaux, Kim Sullivan was a potential co-defendant—and witness—in a case defended by her husband’s law firm. (Click HERE and move your cursor to the first photo on the third row—the first one with a beard. That’s Chad Sullivan.)
Including the $40,000 settlement, the TOTAL COST to LDH was just north of $116,300 to defend an employee who, it would seem certain, was not acting within the scope and duties of his employment. And it would appear he was certainly not acting on advice of legal counsel (though he is himself an attorney) when he was said to have asked highly personal questions about breast feeding her newborn infant, pressed his body against hers as she monitored her computer screen, and placed his hand on hers atop the computer mouse.
And moving her and two other women from their eighth-floor offices to the fifth floor—Gauthreaux to a converted supply room with no phone—would seem something of a gray area insofar as the Respondeat Superior doctrine would apply as would the statement attributed to Hill that he felt women “have nothing to say,” and his timing women employees’ bathroom breaks.
So, now the state is out more than $116,000 because of the actions of Hill, his supervisor, LDH Executive Counsel Stephen Russo, General Counsel Kimberly Humble, and others up the food chain—and because of the inaction of LDH’s Human Resources Office, which should have taken appropriate steps as soon as it was aware of the harassment, but curiously did not.
And just where was LDH Secretary Dr. Rebekah Gee while all this was going on? After all, someone anonymously (for obvious reasons, given the climate at LDH) placed a copy of Gauthreaux’s lawsuit on the windshield of Dr. Gee’s vehicle.
To get those answers, LouisianaVoice emailed Dr. Gee on Jan. 19, posing three simple questions:
- What action do you plan to take regarding the sexual harassment lawsuit settlement against your legal department, specifically, Mr. Weldon Hill?
- Why did Mr. Hill’s supervisor(s) and/or DHH HR not initiate some kind of remedial or disciplinary action?
- Why did you not take some type of remedial or disciplinary action when you first found a copy of the Ms. Gauthreaux’s lawsuit on your vehicle windshield?
Dr. Gee never responded even though LouisianaVoice received a return receipt indicating that she did open that email.
So, a follow-up email was sent to Dr. Gee on Jan. 23:
Dr. Gee, I don’t mean to pester you, but I would remind you that to ignore my questions below would not serve your or LDH’s best interests. It almost seems as if you are trying to conceal information. Many a public servant has learned the hard way that eluding questions and refusing to face issues head-on usually backfires in the end. This litigation was a serious matter that deserves your serious attention. I will not bother to ask you again but should you choose to continue to ignore this issue, I will have no choice but to so state in my follow-up articles.
The same three questions were attached to the bottom of that email and a return receipt indicated she opened that email as well.
But she still has yet to respond.
Meanwhile, Hill and Russo continue at their jobs which pay them $100,000 and $138,500, respectively, while Gauthreaux was forced to quit her $42,500-per-year attorney position. And the word is that Hill is planning to quietly retire.
Not only should Dr. Gee answer the three questions LouisianaVoice put to her, but these as well:
- Why did the state pay Hill’s attorney fees and the settlement without demanding some payment from him?
- Why was he not summarily fired once the details of his actions were known?
- Why was Russo and LDH’s HR Department not held accountable?
- And finally, just what is the purpose of the mandated sexual harassment classes for state employees if those in supervisory positions are going to simply look the other way and not themselves be held accountable?
We’re waiting.
Louisiana Voice 
This is how the AG’s office operates with no regard for 13:5108.1. Someone needs to pass some reform legislation. There is literally no oversight on any of this. And don’t expect the worthless IG to look into it.
Where did this policy of using tax money to pay off personal infractions for elected officials or government employees originate? There needs to be a law passed to prohibit any of this misuse of our tax money. Oh, wait, the ones benefiting from this pass the laws?
Agree totally, and whomever in Gov. Edwards’ office allegedly told former LSPC Executive Director Cathy Derbonne to “shut the f— up” regarding her insistence that Edwards adhere to the Louisiana Constitution along with the LSPC members who strong-armed her resignation over being a whistleblower need to pay our defense costs on her lawsuit as well:
http://www.soundoffla.com/?p=1328.
Tom, I can answer these questions but fairness is on target, will try to call later, on my way to Shpt Mardi Gras, sure to see Elvis Presley the blvd love always ron thompson
The answer —- cliques.
I worked there. It went downhill when Frank Perez left.
When I was a federal agency manager, I was advised to carry my own insurance policy to defend such work force violations and accusations. I would have to pay for my own lawyer and settlements, unless I was found not guilty. Isn’t it interesting how elected officials are exempt from so many things that state and federal employees are not.
But here they are civil servants – lawyers. In my opinion, the trouble starts when you hire your close friends – or maybe your brother’s employee — and then you draw a tight circle—having lunch maybe with a person you supervise and who your kids refer to as “uncle.” And then there is a red line between who is in your circle and who is outside of the circle. Or perhaps you lash out sharply against people who are not part of your crew. They are not advised of job openings which are advertised as near as you can get to the closing date. So, now you are surrounded by your peeps and when one of them goes astray what can you do? You lose all sense of fairness and your judgment is compromised. And since most staff are outside of your circle, getting things handled gets expensive. Civil service should not be like this. But some governmental decisions are relationship driven – crazy huh? In this particular case — in this particular department – HR listens to the lawyers. The asst. sec. probably listens to the lawyers. So, in my opinion, if I wanted my questions answered, I would look into the personal relationships of the people involved.
I wonder what the Attorney Disciplinary Board would think of this. Chad Sullivan represents professionals in license issues according to Keogh Cox’s jazzy snazzy website. That knowledge will come in handy when he’s defending his and his wife’s attorney bar licenses. How convenient. Isn’t that special?
Once again, JBE must step in and force Hill to be personally financially liable or the Republicans are going to insist that more health and education cuts be made rather than raising revenue; i.e., taxes. The Republicans will spout the John Kennedy mantra that Louisiana has a spending problem, not a revenue problem, and they will cite this case as proof positive. So Governor, you must insist the Dr. Gee immediately institute proceedings against Hill to recover all monies spent in defending and ultimately settling his sexual harassment suit.
Unfortunately, the governor seems disinclined to involve himself in these situations or to even hold his appointees accountable for doing so. As long as this is the case, your second point will continue its dominance in the public’s perception.
The fiscal hawks’ cry that we cannot raise taxes until the waste reported almost daily is eliminated will continue to fall on the open ears of the public who have little reason to believe otherwise. As long as these neocons, eager to enhance their own images and power, can provide anecdotal evidence that we have a spending problem – and the governor provides no concrete evidence he is doing something to prevent its recurrence – they will win, or at least achieve stalemate, because the public desperately wants to believe they are right.
Related Side Note: At this point a lot of taxpayer money could be saved by simply renewing the current revenue base and making it permanent rather than temporary. At least everybody would have a base from which to operate and plan for the future – something totally lacking in the current environment. Sure this base is regressive, but it appears to be the best our self-aggrandizing politicians can muster. We mullets are the last thing on their minds as they continue to play their petty games at our expense. As long as partisan politics rule the day, reform is dead – and I don’t see a future where this changes.
Am I mad and disgusted – You’re damned right I am.
Stephen, if this is translated that we need “revenue management reform ” I can and will agree with you 100%!!!
Great points, and I can tell we are gearing up (including a major all-day meeting I’ll be attending Tuesday) to expose and take out ANY legislator who votes to renew that penny:
http://www.soundoffla.com/?p=1316.
If you thought the opposition to the 17 cent a gallon tax was stiff last year, to use a little bad grammar: “You ain’t seen nothing yet!”
EVERYBODY is frustrated no matter which side of the argument they take and with excellent reason. We don’t know who or what to trust anymore, speaking for myself. Based on my 20+ years analyzing the state’s budget first-hand, I do not believe we can make up the shortfall resulting from the expiring sales tax with cuts alone. However, I also firmly believe the governor has done a poor job holding agency heads accountable for waste and explaining the cuts he has made.
Consider this: IF we were able to cut general fund expenditures across-the-board by 5%, ignoring the Constitution and reserving only debt service as sacrosanct, but including a $175 million cut to the MFP for public schools, we would make up only about $450 million of the problem. If we don’t ignore the Constitution entirely and fund the MFP at its current level, we would only cut $275 million. If we went on the high side and said 10% of our general fund aside from debt service and the MFP is pure waste, we would still only cut $550 million.
I would personally estimate total pure waste/possible efficiency cuts in the budget, under current law, at a maximum of $150 million in general fund.
My point is we don’t know how much of our general fund budget is wasted, but the numbers just don’t work if you want to solve the problem with cuts alone. Notwithstanding that, the past 10 years have convinced me that people are not going to accept the impossibility of cutting ourselves out of this problem until we actually hit the wall and have to cut $800 million or more out of the budget.
Stephen, have you read the article on the PSC fund-sweep lawsuit?
Stephen, you obviously know budget numbers better than anyone who follows this blog, and I seriously doubt anyone can successfully challenge that. Having said that, it appears all of your focus is on the General Fund without making reference to all the spending that could be cut if Gov. Edwards had merely done what he SAID himself he would do (and Sen. Kennedy buttressed with the specific number of funds — over 300 — and the dollar amount — $4.3 billion).
May I assume your well-articulated arguments would have to be altered if Edwards HAD done what he SAID he would do?
Robert, clearly blowing away statutory dedications would ameliorate the problem. However, every single dedication is backed by a strong constituency and many of the things provided via statutory dedications are things we would want to do regardless of whether the dedication existed or not. The very largest one is the Transportation Trust Fund and almost all the ones with significant revenues are protected by the state constitution.
In 1988 we studied all the existing dedications and eliminated those that made no sense. Some have been added since then, including those dedicated in the constitution. So, I guess my bottom line from a cost savings standpoint is that it is more difficult to cut most dedications than to cut general fund and that they have been studied over and over and over again over at least the last 30 years.
Governor Edwards and many other candidates for the office of governor have made hollow promises about blowing dedications away – there is no doubt about that. Of course they have made a lot of other hollow promises and will continue to do so into the foreseeable future – as a matter of fact, such promises are more prevalent today than ever.
What I have recommended over and over and over again is that all dedications be carefully analyzed and that those that routinely result in retained surpluses should be right-sized. This still remains to be done and it is critically needed to give more relevance to both the dedications and the general fund.
Stephen, you mentioned those studies and you are correct. It appears that every new administration did one. You also talked about the “retained surpluses”. Do you think that once they see that they may lose the surplus, they will began to spend it?
Thanks for the thoughtful response, Stephen, and for you substantive contributions to this blog, both in the form of comments and guest articles.
Clifford: Excellent point and, unfortunately, I’m convinced some already have because of successive raids by Gov. Jindal – raids the results of which should not have been plowed into recurring expenses and that should have had follow-through in the form of right-sizing.
It sure does seem like the committee that oversees moral character for the state bar ought to be interested in situations like this involving attorneys. Misconduct in employment is on the list of matters considered for attorney character and fitness to practice:
https://www.lsba.org/members/BarAdmissionsFAQ.aspx
https://www.lsba.org/Public/AttorneyDisciplinaryProcedures.aspx
In my case it took the Governor himself to instruct the Director of GOHSEP to produce me the documents I had requested. The previous Administration’s Attorney had withheld documents and now I understand why because the previous Attorney for GOHSEP produced an affidavit to the Court that was misleading and the documents I was seeking, that I eventually got proved that.
And Gov. Edwards isn’t helping the situation one iota with his steadfast loyalty to Larry Bankston:
http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/article_7089ac8c-01f0-11e8-a8ef-f7f87a19b2a5.html
As I said at the end of my comment: “It’s your funeral, Governor.” Hard to believe JBE is allowing Landry to score points this easily!!
Regarding your last question for Dr. Gee, as an LSU employee I take “the mandated sexual harassment classes for state employees” each and every year. Many here are cynical about them and avoid doing them themselves. Managers have their secretaries do them. Profs have their grad students do them. The assumption by many is that they are simply something the lawyers will point to when something happens: “See, he took the training. All our employees do. It’s his fault, not LSU’s.” That’s probably true to some degree. Nonetheless, I find them useful as a reminder to myself about the complexities of sexual harassment, which is rampant at LSU. I hope many feel the same. The problem I suppose is that the sexual predators like those at LDH and LSU are the precisely the ones who get their secretaries and grad students to do them for them.
Here’s an interesting note: The managing partner for Keogh Cox Wilson is Drew Blanchfield. His father-in-law is State Sen. Francis Thompson. Should we still wonder how Keogh Cox Wilson managed to get the contract for defending LDH despite the Chad and Kim Sullivan connection? Very little in Louisiana state government occurs by accident.
If you could somehow extract the Louisiana government from Francis Thompson’s family (in-laws, cousins, etc.) , that would go a long way in bringing things back to a manageable position!
Did Louisiana Voice ever get a reply? It is my understanding that Mr. Hill did retire. I’m sure his yearly retirement is twice what the State paid in yearly salary to Mr. Hill’s victim. Sickening crap from a place that is supposed to keep this State Healthy, eh?