Adrian Butler Case

741 Words3 Pages

In “William Adrian BUTLER v. CITY OF PRARIE VILLAGE, KANSAS,” the plaintiff argues that he was unjustly fired from his position with the City of Prairie Village, Kansas after he testified in an arbitration hearing involving the city and one of its contractors. He reported rumors of employee thefts to his supervisors. After a couple of years, he reported that he was clinically depressed and asked that if he could work only 40 hours per week. In September of 1987, Butler was hired by the City as an assistant director in its Public Works Department. He had numerous duties which included “Planning and organizing construction and maintenance of storm drainage systems, and open water courses; planning and implementing training programs for employees; …show more content…

Butler’s work performance was never in question. Although there were some areas that required improvements, he was rated as “exceeded expectations” in most of the evaluation. He had received pay increases 1991, 1992, and 1993. In March or April, Butler confided in Mr. Robnett and told him that he was “suffering from severe depression”. He backed up his statement by providing his supervisor with a letter from his psychologist. The letter stated that Butler should be limited to a work only 40 hours a week because more than that would stress him out and make him less productive. Consequently, Mr. Robnett, helped Butler with his work load, but complained about it by saying, that he was drowning in the work assignments. Robnett, added that Butler was falling short and no longer able to finish his work as his work was …show more content…

Vernon became acting director and was now Butler’s supervisor. Butler expressed his concerns to her claiming that he had too much work and asked her to take over some of the contracts. She had worked with some of the contractors and agreed to take help Butler with the contracts. Although tension built between Butler and Vernon, Butler never worked more than 40 hours while under MS. Vernon’s supervision. Yet he claimed that Vernon was targeting him by increasing his workload, giving him shorter deadlines, and denying him the secretarial assistance needed, which was preventing him from completing his work. In the fall of 1993, after being disciplined by Vernon, Butler reviewed the evaluation that Robnett had previously given him. Then it became evident that Butler’s 1992 evaluation had been altered. It showed that he needed improvement in every category, which was not the case. One of the evaluations was dated October 1, 1993, and Vernon’s evaluation was not dated. According to Vernon, Butler had made threatening remarks and she felt threatened. Butler advised Vernon that he felt that she was retaliating against him because of the lawsuit that the City had lost to the

Open Document