NikkeiWest--Northern California Japanese American Newspaper

(Editor’s note: This article was received from the Law Offices of John Ota. A response from Chevron follows.)

Chevron Corporation’s multi-million-dollar “Human Energy” advertising campaign touts how much Chevron values people. Chevron’s website promotes the “Chevron Way” – the company’s commitment to complying with the law and placing “the highest priority on the health and safety of our workforce.”

The reality for John Suzuki, who worked at Chevron for over 35 years, was much different. An award-winning patent liaison in Chevron’s Law Department in Richmond, Suzuki was forced to take early retirement last month rather than risk his health by returning to work under a supervisor who harassed and threatened him, and called him a “stupid Jap.”

Suzuki wanted to continue working at Chevron, but the company refused his doctors’ directives that he must be moved to a different department or else he would be at high risk of having a heart attack.

Subjected to Slur

The doctors had diagnosed Suzuki as being at high risk of another heart attack after he had at least two episodes of severe chest pains following incidents in which his supervisor, Alan Klaassen, harassed him by yelling at him, making false accusations and threatening him.

After one such incident in January 2008, Suzuki went to his doctor, who told him that he had to reduce his workload or else he might have a heart attack. When Suzuki told Klaassen and a manager, Frank Turner, what his doctor said, Klaassen and Turner laughed at Suzuki.

Things came to a head in August 2009 when Klaassen again yelled at Suzuki, waved his fist in his face, threatened him and falsely blamed him for problems in the work. Klaassen also called Suzuki a “stupid Jap.”

Use of racial slurs by supervisors on the job violates federal and state anti-discrimination laws and laws prohibiting hostile and abusive work environments. As one federal appeals court noted in 1993, “Perhaps no single act can more quickly ‘alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment’ . . . than the use of an [unambiguous] racial epithet . . . by a supervisor....”

Following the August 2009 incident, Suzuki again suffered severe chest pains. His doctors put him on medical leave and have been treating him since then. They told Chevron that he could return to work only when he was taken out of his hostile work environment and moved to a different department.

Chevron categorically refused to cons ider moving Suzuki to a different department. If he did not return to his department and his supervisor Klaassen, he faced termination, Chevron told him.

Suzuki got an attorney, John Ota of Alameda, who pointed out to Chevron that under California law, the company must separate Suzuki from Klaassen, at the very least until Chevron did a fair and thorough investigation of Suzuki’s charges that Klaassen had insulted him with a racial epithet and otherwise created a hostile work environment.

Investigation or Cover-up?

Demanding that Suzuki return to work under Klaassen before Chevron had even investigated the matter assumed that Klaassen would be cleared, Ota noted, an indication that Chevron had no intention of conducting a fair and objective investigation as required by law.

Chevron refused to budge. Faced with termination and the possible resulting loss of his retirement benefits, Suzuki reluctantly chose early retirement on Feb. 1.

Meanwhile, Japanese American and Asian American organizations, disturbed about Suzuki’s situation, began contacting Chevron to express their concerns.

Richard Konda, executive director of Asian Law Alliance in San Jose, wrote Chevron on Jan. 12, stating that it was “highly inappropriate and insensitive” for Chevron to demand that Suzuki return to work under Klaassen before completing its investigation.

Patty Wada, regional director of the Japanese American Citizens League (JACL) Northern California-Western Nevada-Pacific District, said in a Jan. 22 letter that she was appalled to hear that Suzuki had been subjected to racial slurs by his supervisor.

Under pressure, Chevron hired an outside Japanese American attorney, Susan Kumagai, to investigate Suzuki’s charges. On her website, Kumagai describes herself as a specialist in “representing management” against discrimination charges.

Suzuki asked Kumagai and Chevron how many such investigations Kumagai had done in the past and in how many of those investigations, if any, she had concluded that a hostile work environment existed. Neither Kumagai nor Chevron responded to these questions.

Not surprisingly, Kumagai conducted a quick investigation and concluded that none of Suzuki’s charges could be substantiated. Chevron informed Suzuki of these results on Feb. 16, but refused to provide him with a copy of Kumagai’s report.

In her hasty effort, Kumagai failed to even talk to some witnesses Suzuki said could confirm that he told them about Klaassen’s racial slur soon after it happened. Because in this, as in many other harassment cases, there were no witnesses to the actual harassment, such corroborating witnesses are often crucial to verifying the victim’s account of what happened.

The failure to interview corroborating witnesses, hiring as the investigator an attorney who defends management for a living, and Chevron’s refusal to provide Suzuki with a copy of the investigation report – these are all “signs pointing to a cover-up,” not a fair and objective investigation, says Ota.

Letter-Writing Efforts

Suzuki is continuing to ask organizations to write Chevron on his behalf. What is important to him, he says, is “the principle of the matter – racial remarks like this cannot be tolerated.”

The points he wants organizations to make in their letters to Chevron are first, that Chevron conduct a fair and thorough investigation of his charges, an investigation by someone who has a history of doing even-handed investigations, not by a management defense attorney.

Second, Suzuki wants Chevron to provide him with Kumagai’s investigation report, and also to provide the report when a fair and thorough investigation is completed.

Last, Suzuki asks that Chevron fire Klaassen if it finds that Klaassen did call Suzuki a “stupid Jap” and that Suzuki be allowed to return to work at Chevron in a different department.

Leaders of Nikkei for Civil Rights and Redress (NCRR) in Los Angeles wrote to Chevron on Feb. 10. Paul Osaki, executive director of the Japanese Community and Cultural Center of Northern California in San Francisco, sent Chevron a letter on Feb. 19.

Other organizations in Los Angeles, San Jose and San Francisco have also agreed to write to Chevron.

Those interested in contacting Chevron should write to: John S. Watson, Chief Executive Officer, Chevron Corp., 6001 Bollinger Canyon Rd., San Ramon, CA 94583.

Susan Kumagai did not respond to requests for comment on this case. Chevron’s spokesperson, Sean Comey, issued the following statement on March 17:

“Chevron is committed to equal employment opportunity. We believe that a workplace free from harassment is critical to successful business operations.

“All employees are required to conduct themselves in a manner to ensure that they comply with the provisions of the company’s policy to maintain a working environment free of harassment. Harassment of any kind is prohibited and will not be tolerated.

“We take all claims of discrimination seriously. Underscoring Chevron’s commitment to an impartial and thorough review of Mr. Suzuki’s concerns, Chevron initiated an independent third-party investigation.

“The independent counsel who conducted that investigation interviewed 14 witnesses, including those identified by Mr. Suzuki, but was unable to substantiate his allegations.”

Letters to the Editor: Attorney’s Rebuttal

(Note: This letter is a follow-up to the March 17 article about John Suzuki, a former Chevron employee who alleged that he was subjected to a hostile work environment, including a racial slur from a superior.)

I am Mr. Suzuki’s attorney and I am responding to Chevron spokesperson Sean Comey’s statement, which shows that Chevron is saying nothing new, only repeating its same lame excuses. Comey claims that Chevron did “an impartial and thorough” investigation which was “unable to substantiate Mr. Suzuki’s allegations,” but these fact show that Chevron’s so-called investigation was not fair or thorough:

1. If the investigation was “impartial and thorough,” why is Chevron refusing to give Mr. Suzuki a copy of the report of investigation? What does it have to hide?

2. Comey says that Chevron’s investigator interviewed 14 witnesses, but I know for a fact that the investigator failed to interview two of the three witnesses Mr. Suzuki said could confirm that he told them about the racial slur close to when it happened. Such corroborating witnesses are important evidence in harassment cases such as this where only the harasser and the employee were present when the harassment took place. I also have reasons to believe that Chevron did not talk to the third corroborating witness, either. Chevron’s failure to interview the corroborating witnesses show that its investigation was not thorough or fair.

3. Chevron says the so-called investigation was done by “an independent, third-party attorney, Susan Kumagai, who specializes in employment law.” The fact is, Ms. Kumagai, on her firm’s website, describes herself as a “specialist in representing management” in employment discrimination cases. Not exactly who you’d hire if you wanted a truly independent investigation. Mr. Suzuki asked Ms. Kumagai and Chevron how many such investigations Ms. Kumagai had done in the past and in how many of those cases, if any, she found that harassment had in fact occurred. Ms. Kumagai and Chevron have steadfastly refused to respond. What is Chevron trying to hide here? Perhaps Mr. Comey will provide this information.

4. Chevron ordered Mr. Suzuki back to work under his supervisor even before the investigation was complete, and threatened to terminate him unless he complied. This showed that Chevron was assuming that his allegations were false even before the investigation was done — otherwise it makes no sense to order him back to a supervisor who had harassed him to the point of causing him severe medical problems.

Conclusion: Chevron has not conducted an “impartial and thorough investigation” of Mr. Suzuki’s allegations — it has merely gone through the motions. Chevron likes to talk about its “commitment to equal employment opportunity,” but more and more people are seeing through its hypocrisy.

John Ota

Law Offices of John Ota

Alameda