IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST THOMAS AND ST JOHN
**‘k*
CLAUDETTE A GEORGES ) CASE 1N0 ST 2014 CV 00123
)
Petitioner ) PETITION FOR WRIT
v ) OF REVIEW
)
GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN )
ISLANDS LAW ENFORCEMENT )
PLANNING COMMISSION and THE )
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RELATIONS )
BOARD )
Respondents )
_.._._.______.___—__)
Cite as 2021 VI 84U
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I INTRODUCTION
111 Before the Court is Claudette A Georges (hereinafter Georges ’) Petition for Writ of
Review, which was filed on February 27, 2014 Georges requests this Court vacate the Public
Employees Relations Board 5 (hereinafter PERB ) Decision and Order, issued on January 31,
2014, which dismissed with prejudice her challenge made pursuant to 3 V I C § 531, to her
termination by the Law Enforcement Flaming Commission (hereinafter ‘ LEPC ’) The Court
finds that PERB s findings were sufficiently supported by substantial evidence in the record
Therefore PERB 5 January 31 2014 Decision and Order will be affirmed
II BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
112 On March 27, 2009 Georges was appointed to the position of Director of Financial
Services Management with the LEPC The record reflects that at the time of her appointment
Georges reported to the former Director of LEPC, Meridith Nielsen ' By letter dated December
15, 2009, Director Nielsen outlined the duties and responsibilities of the Financial Department
within LEPC 2 According to PERB s findings of fact, on or about January 27, 2010, Georges was
notified by Director Nielsen that her overall performance was unsatisfactory, and she was
subsequently suspended on or about February 23, 2010 3 Georges was notified by letter dated
February 23, 2010 that her services at LEPC were suspended until further notice The record also
reflects that Director Nielsen sent a letter dated February 24 2010 to the employees at LEPC
' PERB 5 Decision and Oidei at 2
[d
3 [d at 3
Georges v Government of the Virgin Islands et a! 2021 VI 84U
Case No ST 2014 CV 00123
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 2 of 12
advising them that [Georges was] relieved of her duties and responsibilities as the Director of
Financial Services Management 4
113 On January ll, 2011, Victor Browne began his employment with LEPC as the Director
of the Agency 5 Browne later learned that Georges was not doing anything because the former
Director had relieved Georges of her duties The record reflects that Director Browne ‘ tried to get
[Georges] back into the work force by giving her some reconciliation of sub grantees to do;
however [she] only completed one (I) file of the twenty (20) that w[ere] assigned to her 6
114 Georges testified that she was an elected member of the Government of the Virgin Islands,
Elections System of the Virgin Islands, Joint Board, where she served as the Vice Chairperson of
the St Thomas St John Board of Elections 7 Pursuant to Act No 7090, Georges asserted that she
was entitled to administrative leave for time spent in attendance of official board meetings or
functions as an employee of the Government and a public officer During the hearing, the PERB
received testimony that the policy of the Agency is if any employee had to attend a meeting or
any function the office should be notified prior to the actual meeting or function [ and] there
were times when [Georges] was absent from the office and they would not know where she was
until the next day 8
115 On April 24, 2012, Browne sent correspondence to Governor DeJongh requesting removal
of Georges from the LEPC V citing her poor time and attendance record and her non
performance as to the fiscal operations of the office 9 The record also reflects that Georges sent
an email to Director Browne on August 3 2012 notifying him of several upcoming board activities
that she would be attending and attached a letter requesting leave without pay to run as a candidate
for public office ‘0
116 On August 9, 2012, Director Browne sent an email to Georges with an attachment, which
was a letter dated July 30, 2012 from Governor de Jongh’ informing Georges of her termination,
effective immediately ” On August 16, 2012, Georges filed an appeal of discrimination to the
PERB as it related to her termination On August 20, 2012 the PERB issued a pre hearing Order
and the parties appeared before the PERB on December 13, 2012 to discuss compliance with said
Order The hearing for this matter was held on February 7, 2013 and February 25, 2013 The parties
submitted closing arguments to the PERB by February 28, 2013 The PERB issued its decision
on January 31, 2014, finding that Georges failed to demonstrate that she was discriminated against
by LEPC ‘ on the basis of political discrimination or affiliation, and non merit factors of
harassment and differential treatment '2 Accordingly, the PERB dismissed Georges appeal
4 [d at 3
5 Id
6 Id
7 [d
8 Id at 4
9 Id at 4
10 [d
” 1d at4 5
‘7 PERB 5 Decision and Order at 13
Georges v Government of the Virgin Islands e! a] 2021 VI 84U
Case No ST 2014 CV 00123
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 3 of 12
117 Georges filed a Writ of Review, pro se, appealing the PERB s decision with this Court on
February 27, 2014 A Writ was granted and Georges subsequently filed a Reply to the Briefing
Schedule on August 27, 2018, arguing that the PERB’s Decision and Order should be overturned
On September 6, 2018, LEPC submitted Respondent s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in
Support of Affirming the PERB 5 January 31 2014 Order asking this Court to affirm the PERB 3
Decision and Order On September 10, 2018, PERB’s Response to Petitioner’s Brief was filed
requesting this Court to uphold its January 31, 2014 Decision and Order
III JURISDICTION
118 The Superior Court has jurisdiction to hear appeals of final orders issued by the PERB
pursuant to 3 V I C § 53021 Section 530a(a) allows ‘ [a]ny party aggrieved by any final order of
the PERB issued under § 530 or § 531 of this chapter [to] appeal to the Superior Court of the
Virgin Islands The party seeking review must submit an application for review within thirty (30)
days after the date of the final order and name the PERB as a party respondent '3 Failure to file
an application for review in a timely manner will entitle the prevailing party or PERB to summary
judgment enforcing the final order of the PERB '4 The appeal proceedings are procedurally
governed by Superior Court Rule 15 ‘5
1J9 Georges has satisfied the time requirements by filing her Petition within the thirty (30) day
limitation Further, Georges satisfied the requirements set forth in Superior Court Rule 15 by
reciting the PERB s decision in her Petition explaining why its decision was in error Therefore
§ 5 30(a) s jurisdictional requirements have been met and this Court has properjurisdiction to hear
the matter at hand
IV STANDARD OF REVIEW
1110 Title 3, § 530a of the Virgin Islands Code vests the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands
with appellate authority over PERB decisions which are final orders so long as an application for
review is filed within thirty (30) days ‘6 Section 530(a) indicates that the rules of procedure of
the Superior Court regarding a writ of review shall govern the appeal proceedings ‘7 When
hearing an appeal from the PERB the Superior Court functions as an appellate court, ‘8 and in
'3 3 V I C §530a(a)
14 [d
'3 Id Supei Ct R 15
'6 3 V I C 530a(a) provides
Any party aggrieved by any final order of the PERB issued under section 530 or 531 of this
chapter may appeal to the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands An application for review
must be filed within 30 days after the date of the Final Older and name the PERB as a party
respondent The 111165 of procedure of the Superior Court regarding a writ of Review shall
govern the appeal proceeding
‘7 § 530a(a)
’8 V I Nalcotzcs Strike F01 ce v Govt of the I 1 Pub Emples Rel Ed 60 V I 204 218 (V I 2013)
(citing 3 V I C §§ 530a(a) (c))
Georges v Government of the Virgin Islands er a] 2021 VI 84U
Case No ST 2014 CV 00123
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 4 of 12
reviewing a final order of the PERB, the [Superior C]ourt may enforce the order, modify the order
and enforce it, set the order aside, or return the matter to the PERB with instructions for further
proceeding[s] "9 When reviewing a final order issued by the PERB, this Court must accept the
PERB s findings of fact if such findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record
considered as a whole 20 Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as
adequate to support the agency 5 conclusions ”2' A final order ends litigation on the merits 2°
1H 1 This Court reviews an agency 5 legal interpretations and conclusions de novo 23 The Court
may set aside an agency decision if it is arbitrary and capricious but ‘ [t]his does not mean that the
Court may substitute its judgment for that of the agency, but that the agency action may be set
aside only where it is not supported by any rational basis ’24 Additionally, the Court determines
whether the agency acted within the scope of its statutory powers and whether its findings are
supported by substantial evidence on the record 25
1112 The Court recognizes that Georges is a pm se litigant It is this Court 5 practice to give
pro se litigants greater leeway in dealing with matters of procedure and pleading ’ 26 ‘ [W]hen a
litigant chooses to represent himself, it is the duty of the court to insure fairness, allowing
reasonable accommodations for the pro se litigant so long as no harm is done to an adverse
party 27 However, it is importantly noted that courts in the Virgin Islands will not typically
invoke [a] policy [of leniency for pro se litigants] to raise new arguments sua sponte on behalf
of a p10 se litigant 28 A pleading filed pro se is to be liberally construed however inartfully
pleaded must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers 29
V ANALYSIS
113 Georges challenges the validity and enforceability of the PERB 5 Decision and Order,
arguing that the manner of her termination was not in accordance with the Government of the
'9 Id (citing § 530a(c))
°3VIC §530(b)
7‘ See Williams Jackson v Pllb/IC Emps Relations 8d 52 V I 445 450 (2009)
7° P105353) t Publlc Servs Comm n of the US I I , 56 V I 391 401 (V I 2012) (Citing Estate ofGeOIge v Gemge
50 V I 268, 274 (V I 2008)) ( The September 14 2010 order from the Superior Court was a final ordei because it
end[ed] the litigation on the merits )
’3 See Br) an 1 Fawkes 61 V I 201 226 27 (2014) (adopting a plenary standard of review rathex than the Chewon
standard for reviewing an agency 5 legal determinations)
7“ Blanch 1 Bryan 18 V I 54 59 (D V I 1980) (citing N L R B t Jas H Matthews & (0 Industrial Mark Prod
DIV 342 F 2d 129 131 (3d Cir 1980)
’Angellv Pub Emp Relations 8d
73 VI 89 91 92 (VI Super Ct 2010) (citing anchv Bum?
18 VI 54
56 57 (D V I 1980)) ( In reviewing PERB s actions this Court must determine (1) whether the agency 5 findings
are supported by substantial evidence on the recoxd (2) whether the agency has acted within the limits of its
statutory powers and (3) whether the agency has abused its discretion by acting in an arbitrary or capricious
manner )
6 Appletonv Halitgan
61 VI 262 267 (VI 2014)
7 Bemhaldt \ Bernhardt 51 V I 341 352 n 8 (V I 2009) (quoting Bego v Bego 350 S E 2d 701 703 (W Va 1986)
8Malsh Monsanto v Clalenbach
66 VI 366 376 (2017) (quoting Fleming v Cru
62 VI 702 722 (VI
2015))(quotation marks omitted)
’9 Erickson v Paidus 551 U S 89 94 (2007) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted)
Georges v Government of the Virgin Islands et a! 2021 VI 84U
Case No ST 2014 CV 00123
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 5 0f 12
Virgin Islands employee handbook and, therefore, is in violation of due process She also asserts
that she was terminated for politically discriminatory reasons Finally, Georges urges this Court to
consider the Department of Labor 3 reasoning in granting her unemployment benefits as it relates
to whether she was terminated for a discriminatory purpose This argument is based upon LEPC’s
failure to respond to the Department of Labor’s request for documentation and information
providing the basis for Georges termination 3"
1114 In opposition to Georges appeal the PERB and LEPC both assert that the PERB s findings
of fact in its Decision and Order were supported by substantial evidence in the record considered
as a whole to uphold its findings Essentially, both entities argue that Georges 1) presents a
meritless argument about her unemployment benefits justifying the wrongfulness of her
termination; 2) that she was an exempt employee as the Director of Financial Services that did
not warrant due process protections, and 3) failed to provide specific examples of alleged
discrimination for this Court to consider the merits of her claim The PERB 5 Decision and Order
summarized that [Georges] argues that she has been subjected to unfair labor practices, lack of
due process and political discrimination by being terminated after she submitted leave to run for
public office in the 2012 election cycle as a senatorial candidate 3‘
a Political Discrimination
1115 In support of her claim for political discrimination, Georges argues that she was terminated
after she submitted a request for leave without pay to run for public office To evidence her claim,
Georges submitted a copy of her email dated August 3 2012, to Director Browne with an
attached request for leave without pay beginning on August 10 2012 to November 30, 2012, to
run for public office 37 Additionally Georges submitted a copy of Director Browne 3 email dated
August 9 2012 with a copy of the July 30 2012 termination letter 33
TI 16 In the hearing, LEPC stated that Georges ‘has no right to appeal her termination under
Title 3 V I C § 531 absent proof of discrimination” because she has failed to provide particular
dates, times, or places of each alleged occurrence of discrimination 34 LEPC further claimed that
Georges ‘tried to argue that [political discrimination] can be inferred because Director Browne
emailed a copy of the letter of termination one day before the commencement of [her] leave request
to run for public office 35 However, LEPC contends that the Office of Collective Bargaining
forwarded the termination letter to [Georges] via certified mail return receipt requested, but she
never collected and signed for it and the reason the letter was sent via email was because
[Georges] was never present in the office and [therefore, Director Browne] deemed email to be the
only available option 36 The record reflects that on or about January 27, 2010, Director Nielsen
3" Pet 8 Reply to the Briefing Schedule at 1
3' PERB 5 Decision and Order at 5
3’ [d at 10
33 [d
34 Id at 6
33 Id
36 Id at 7
Georges v Government of the VIrgm Islands et a! 2021 VI 84U
Case No ST 2014 CV 00123
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 6 of 12
advised [Georges], in writing, that her overall performance was unsatisfactory and cited her lack
of knowledge of the job she was hired to perform 37
1117 Moreover, LEPC argues that after the former director suspended [Georges’] services, the
agency retained [her] in the position with full salary although she was not performing any duties 38
In support, the agency contends that Georges was not terminated for political reasons or motives,
or any non merit factor reasons, but she was terminated due to non performance and in regard to
her time and attendance 39 Thereafter, on April 24, 2012, Director Browne sent correspondence
to Governor deJongh requesting removal of Georges, citlng to her poor record of time and
attendance [t]he records show that for the period January 2011 to [April 24, 2012] she has been
absent eighty (80) times and has been late one hundred and fifty nine (159) times ”40
1118 In addressing the political discrimination claim, PERB argues that it followed the three
prong standard of analysis as set forth by the Third Circuit in Lzburd v Gmernment 0f V11 gm
Islands41 and determined that the record shows that [she] was unable to perform the requirements
of her employment as outlined by her supervisors and that she failed to report to work 42
1119 Title 3 V I C § 531(b) provides that [a]ny applicant or employee who has reason to
believe that he has been discriminated against because of religious or political opinions or
affiliations or race, age or sex or national origin in any personnel action may appeal to the Board 43
To succeed on a discrimination claim based on political affiliation a public employee must make
a prima facie showing that (1) that the employee works for a public employer in a position that
does not require a political affiliation, (2) that the employee maintained a political affiliation, and
(3) that the employee's political affiliation was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse
employment decision 44 Once the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case the defendant may
avoid a finding of liability by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the same
employment action would have been taken even in the absence of the protected activity 45 The
third prong requires proof that the employer knew of the plaintiff‘s political affiliation and that the
affiliation caused the adverse action ’46 “A public employee’s claim of political discrimination
must be based on more than speculation ’ 47
37 [d at 3
38 [d at 7
3" PERB 5 Decision and Order at 7
4" PERB Hearing on Febmary 25 2013 Joint Ex 17
4' Lzbmdv Govemment 0f! 11 gm Islands 2013 WL 960780 (D Virgin Islands 2013)
4’ PERB 3 Response to Petitioner 5 Brief at 3
4 Brldgewatel v Public Employees Relations Boald
2016 WL 3554936 at *1 (VI Supel 2016)
”‘4 McIntosh Luts 1 DeJongh
2012 WL 1139746 at *3 (D Virgin Islands 2012)
(Citing SMItl’I v City ofAllentown 589 F 3d 684 692 (3d Cir 2009) (quoting H1111) Bomugh ofKut 101m 455 F 3d
225 243 (3d Cir 2006))
4 [d at 692 93
46McKeeveI v Twp ofWashmgton No 11 1093
2012 WL 1023056 at *1 (3d Cir Mar 28 2012)
“‘7 Lzbuld v Government of Pugm Islands
2013 WL 960780 at *6 (D Virgin Islands 2013) (citing Liana v Borough
ofSprmgdale
985 F 2d 119 122 (3d cn 1993))
Georges v Government of the Virgin Islands et a1 2021 VI 84U
Case No ST 2014 CV 00123
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 7 of 12
1120 Throughout her filings and the PERB hearings, Georges repeatedly states that she felt
unfairly treated Georges claims that she was harassed and treated differently in comparison to
other employees at LEPC without alleging any specific instances of discrimination Whereas, the
LEPC presented substantial evidence showing Georges ‘failure to perform assigned tas1<[s],
excessive absenteeism and generally poor job performance 48 It is well established that such
subjective ‘ feelings and speculation are insufficient to support a first
amendment political affiliation discrimination clalm 49 For example, in McKeeveI V T11]? of
Washmgton the Third Circuit found that mere speculation and conjecture cannot form the basis
of an actional claim of political discrimination 50 Additionally, in McIntosh Luzs v DeJongh, the
District Court of the Virgin Islands concluded that a Plaintiff‘s termination that occurred four
months after the Plaintiff took public office was insufficient to sustain a First Amendment C laim
because the Plaintiff failed to show any evidence that Defendants even knew about her political
activities 51 Accordingly, in the Third Circuit, mere speculation and conjecture cannot form the
basis of an actional claim of political discrimination 52
1121 In its Decision and Order, the PERB found that in review of the record as a whole,
[ Georges] has not demonstrated that she was terminated from her position because of her
political affihation ”53 The PERB reasoned that Georges ‘ may have held a policy making position
that required a political affiliation 54 In its review, PERB applied the three prong test stated above
to the facts as alleged by Georges and found the most salient question [to be] whether or not
[Georges’] political affiliation was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse employment
decision 55 Ultimately, the PERB reasoned that LEPC by the preponderance of evidence, have
sufficiently proven that the same employment action termination would have taken place even
in the absence of [Georges ] political affiliation[] and [t]herefore [the] termination was not
politically motivated 56
1122 Having reviewed the parties’ submissions and the record, the Court finds that the PERB
provided substantial evidence to support its conclusion The Court agrees with the PERB’s analysis
in that Georges’ would have been terminated regardless of her political affiliation her termination
43 PERB 5 Response to Petitioner s brief at 3
4" Supt a n 31 See e g szth 589 F 3d at 684 (affirming grant of summary judgment where Plaintiff‘s evidence was
based on speculation and subjective belief)
5°McKeevert Twp ofWashmgton Civ No 09 1175
2011 WL 53178 at * (DNJ Jan 7 2011) (Ctllng Connmv
Cranmel
117 Fed Appx 186 190 (3d Cir 2004)) aff d 2012 WI. 1023056 (3d Cir Mar 28 2012)
" Supla n 31 (I efeiemmg Laskm IS t Thombmgh
733 F 2d 260 266 (3d Cir 1984) (plaintiff alleging wrongful
discharge for political reasons cannot sustain her burden of proof without evidence that the employer knew of
her political affiliation)
Id (Citing Contlm v Clanmer
117 Fed Appx 186 190 (3d Cir 2004)) aff d
2012 WL 1023056 (3d C11 Max 28
2012
33 PE1KB 3 Decision and Order at 10
34 [d
55 [d at 11
56 [d
Georges v Government of the Virgm Islands e! a! 2021 VI 84U
Case No ST 2014 CV 00123
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 8 0f 12
was not politically motivated ’57 Therefore, the Court will affirm the PERB’s Decision and Order
as it pertains to George 8 claim of political discrimination
b Due Process
1B3 In her Petition Georges contends that under the labor laws that governs the United States
and its territories, an employee cannot receive unemployment benefits if the employer is justified
in terminating an employee from the job ”58 She claims that she received employment benefits
because LEPC failed to justify their actions[;] ’ thus, entitling her to relief
fl24 LEPC argues that [Georges] was an exempt employee and was at will therefore she could
be discharged at will by the Governor 59 LEPC also contends that Georges argument regarding
unemployment benefits ‘ does not go to the validity of the PERB’s order but rather seems to imply
that because the LEPC failed to submit any documentation regarding the reason for her termination
to the [Department of Labor] it means that there was no justification for her termination 60 Rather,
LEPC sets forth that the Department of Labor s determination ‘ as it relates to Georges’ eligibility
for unemployment benefits bears no weight on whether or not she was terminated for a
discriminatory purpose as alleged by a [section] 531 filing before PERB 6‘
1125 In response to Georges due process appeal, LEPC asserts that ‘the record and the
testimony of Georges supports the PERB s determination that she was an exempt employee
[and] [a]s an exempt employee, she did not have a property interest in her continued
employment 62 Furthermore, in its response to Georges brief, the PERB claims that the matter
before the [Department of Labor] did not impact the PERB decision 63 In fact, it alleges that [t]he
PERB convened to determine whether the LEPC had discriminated against her and not whether
the [Department of Labor 5] decision had a bearing 64
1126 In evaluating Due Process claims in the context of public employees of the Virgin Islands,
‘ a plaintiff must demonstrate that (l) he was deprived of an individual interest that is encompassed
within the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of life, liberty, or property, and (2) the procedures
available to him did not provide due process of law 65 ‘[W]hether an employee has a property
right in continued employment is a question of state [or territorial] law 66
57 Respondent s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Affirming the PERB 5 January 31, 2014
Order at 4 (referencmg PERB 5 Decision and Order) at 1
’8 Appellant 5 Reply to the Briefing Schedule
’9 PERB 5 Decision and Order at 6
6" Respondent s Memorandum ofPoints and Authorities in Support of Affirming the PERB s January 31 2014 Order
at 3
6' 1d at 4
67[d
63 Id at 3
6“ PERB 3 Response to Petitioner 5 Brief at 3
6 [[63 v DeJongh 638 F 3d 169 173 (3d Cir 2011)
(’6 Supra n 31 (citing [les v De.longh 638 F 3d 169 173 (3d Cir 2011) (citations omitted)
Georges v Government of the Virgm Islands er (I! 2021 VI 84U
Case No ST 2014 CV 00123
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 9 0f 12
1127 The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Iles v DeJongh outlined the relevant Virgin
Islands law governing public employment 67
The employee classifications contained in the relevant statutory provisions are
important because they determine which employees are entitled to due process
protection before termination As the Court of Appeals explained, under Virgin
Islands law, public employees are divided into (1) career service and (2) exempt
service employees As set forth in 3 V I C § 451a, an employee is in the career
service unless the employee holds an exempt position as described in 3 V I C §
451a(b)(1) (8) 68
1128 In the instant matter, the PERB 5 Decision and Order notes that the record reveals that
Georges was not hired as a regular classified government employee
Under the Virgin Islands Personnel Merit System in Title 3 of the Virgin Islands
Code, Chapter 25, there are three categories of public employees (1) exempt
services, (2) regular ’ classified or career services and (3) not regular’ career
services Only regular career service employees enjoy due process protection,
and regular government employees have a property right in continued
employment and cannot be fired without cause 69
The PERB also indicates that Georges did not go through the process of becoming a regular
classified employee, nor did [she] submit any additional information that would prove that she is
a ‘regular classified employee 70
1129 The record reveals Georges was not hired as a regularly classified employee but rather,
appointed by Governor DeJongh to the position of Director of Financial Services Management at
LEPC Accordingly, Georges does not have a property interest in continued employment and,
therefore, is not entitled to due process protections under these circumstances
c Unfair Labor Practices and Harassment
1130 In addition to her claim for political discrimination, Georges argues that she ‘faced
harassment at LEPC and that she was treated differently when compared to other employees in the
office, as another form of discrimination 7' Georges also argued that the work environment at
LEPC was unprofessional and uncomfortable, and that she was treated differently from other
employees 7’ Furthermore Georges claimed that Director Browne interfered and made it
67 Supla n 43 at 173 74
68 Sup] a n 31
69 [d at 11 (czttngsuplan 31 at *4)
7° PERB 3 Decision and Older at 12
711d
77 PERB s Decision and Order at 5
Georges v Government of the Virgin Islands e! a! 2021 VI 84U
Case No ST 2014 CV 00123
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 10 of 12
difficult for her to carry out her duties and responsibilities as a member of the Board of
Elections ’73
1131 Similar to its political discrimination response, LEPC asserts that nothing was entered into
evidence that supports overturning PERB s decismn as it pertains to the harassment decision
‘ Georges failed to state the date, time and place of the alleged discrimination as is required
by PERB s Rules and Regulations 74
1132 The PERB responds to Georges’ brief by claiming that it rendered a decision after
reviewing the facts presented and the arguments raised and concluded that Georges did not produce
enough evidence to demonstrate her claims ‘ [t]he only information elicited or required from the
[Georges] was whether she was capable of performing the duties and responsibilities of her
employment [and] [t]he LEPC demonstrated [that she] did not 75
1133 The Court finds that PERB sufficiently considered evidence in the record to determine
whether Georges presented substantial evidence for a finding of harassment or disparaging
treatment In its Decision and Order, PERB considered Georges claims that LEPC ‘ harassed her
by interfering with her duties as an elected member of the Board of Elections and whether
requesting information regarding her attendance at Board functions and activities amounted to
harassment The PERB provided a standard for claims of harassment in its Decision and Order
‘ [i]n accordance with PERB Rules and Regulations, a notice of appeal in regards to a claim of
discrimination must state with particularity the date time and place of each alleged occurrence
which forms the basis of the discrimination claim, or if the alleged discrimination has been
continuous in nature then a statement to that effect 76 In reaching its decision to dismiss the
matter PERB ‘reviewed the record specifically as to these allegations, and cannot find evidence
in support of [Georges ] claims of being treated differently as compared to the other employees
within LEPC ”77 Likewise, PERB [could not] find evidence in support of her claims of
harassment 78 PERB concluded that ‘in order for [Georges ] to succeed on a claim of
discrimination, she is required to establish a prima facie case of discrimination” and in this matter
she failed to do so 79
1134 The record reflects that LEPC stated its policy is that any employee who has to attend a
meeting or function should notify the office prior to the actual meeting or function 80 PERB found
that LEPC 5 reason for requesting information pertaining to Georges attendance at board
functions did not amount to harassment or discrimination because LEPC requested said
73 Id at 6
4 Respondent s Memorandum of Points and Authmities in Support of Affirming the PERB 5 January 31 2014 Order
at 5
7’ PERB 5 Response to Petitioner 8 Brief at 3
7" PERB 5 Decision and Order at 12
77 Id at 13
78 [d
9 Id
8" Id at 13
Georges v Government of the Virgin Islands et (II 2021 VI 84U
Case No ST 2014 CV 00123
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 11 of 12
information for purposes of granting administrative leave 8' Accordingly, the Court finds the
PERB s decision and reasoning as it pertains to Georges claim for harassment was sufficient to
support its conclusion
IV CONCLUSION
1135 In reviewing the record as a whole, this Court will affirm the PERB 5 January 31, 2014
Decision and Order The Court finds that the PERB s findings of fact are supported by substantial
evidence in the record and adequate to support the Agency’s conclusion In her appeal, Georges
failed to provide particular dates, times, and/or places of the alleged occurrences of discrimination
for this Court to consider the merits of her claim Moreover the Court agrees with the PERB and
LEPC in that Georges claim regarding the receipt of unemployment benefits as it relates to the
alleged wrongfulness of her termination does not warrant overtumlng the PERB 5 Decision and
Order
1136 Additionally, this Court agrees that the record reveals Georges was not hired as a regularly
classified employee but, rather, appointed by the Governor to the position of Director of Financial
Services Management at LEPC and therefore is exempt from due process protections under these
circumstances Accordingly, Georges does not have a property interest in continued employment
and, therefore, may be terminated without cause In this case, the PERB determined that Georges
was terminated due to non performance and her poor time and attendance record
1137 Lastly, the Court finds that the PERB 3 Decision and Order, as it pertains to the harassment
decision, provided reasoning sufficient to support its conclusion Substantial evidence on the
record reflects that Georges failed to state the date, time and place of the alleged
discrimination’ as is required by PERB 3 Rules and Regulations 82 The PERB found by a
preponderance of the evidence that the LEPC proved that the termination would have taken place
in the absence of [Georges] political affiliation ”83 Therefore the Court will affirm the PERB’s
January 31, 2014 Decision and Order
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the January 31 2014 Decision and Order issued by the Public Employees
Relations Board In the Matter of Claudette A Georges t Government ofthe Virgin Islands Lam
Enforcement Planning C0mm19310n PERB GSA 12 46T (§ 531) is AFFIRMED and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this matter and it is further
811d
8’ Respondent s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Affirming the PERB 5 January 31, 2014 Ordex
at 5
*3 PERB 3 Response to Petitioner 5 Brief at 4
Georges v Government 0f the Vtrgm Islands et a1 2021 VI 84U
Case No ST 2014 CV 00123
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Page 12 0f 12
ORDERED that a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be directed to
counsel of record and mailed to Petitioner Claudette A Georges at P O Box 10316, St Thomas,
V1 00803
DATED ?/@/01/ W MUM)
DENISE M RANCOIS
Judge of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands
ATTEST
TAMARA CHARLES
CierL’ OfIhe C urt
DONNA DONOV
f” Lourt Clerk Supervisor 8 / a / 329/