March 30, 2013 9:12 am ET
Judge grants probation and one year of supervised probation in case involving an illegal taping of an employee’s conversation . The victim is still encountering problems with the county.
In several blogs related to these events involving Mr. Bryant, it was revealed in an e-mail from the Baltimore County State Attorney’s office in which they wrote the following on March 25th, 2013:
“Tony Bryant pleaded guilty to Ct. 1- Interception of a Wire Communication before Judge Alexander, was granted Probation Before Judgment and placed on 1 year unsupervised probation.”
The victim in this case (who I will not identify for their fear of retaliation) said they were relieved that the criminal matter was over but still faces an uphill battle in reclaiming their life back. This stems from an incident that began when Mr. Bryant was involved in another situation with an employee who filed a Sexual Harassment charge against him. Mr. Bryant was ultimately fired by the county.
“The state’s attorney’s office called and said Mr. Bryant was pleading guilty and there would not be a need for me to testify,” the victim said. The victim was relieved that they would not have to go in and face the man who illegally recorded a conversation with them.
One may think that this culminates in closure for the victim but that is far from reality. There are roadblocks that impair the ability of the victim to move on with their life.
One of the major roadblocks comes from (guess who) Baltimore County. This is a classic example of the Pot Calling the Kettle Black.
Case in point; the county is claiming that the victim should be denied unemployment benefits because they failed to follow the Department of Humane Resources (DHR) instructions by calling the agency. The county’s DHR was recently investigated by the feds for their involvement in violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and allowed the victims taped recorded conversation to be heard by numerous employees from DHR in front of the police detective.
“It became so embarrassing I asked them to turn it off,” the victim said. The victim felt completely humiliated in front of these people.
That kind of situation should have never happened. The interview process is not a free-for-all and is supposed to be conducted with discretion. It gets worse from there.
The county claims the victim did not call HR as instructed. “I did call twice, and no one answered the phone” the victim said. “I was not leaving a message because I got my number changed so no county employees could contact me until I got things together.”
Pertaining to the county’s claim of her termination the victim writes, “I was not terminated but rather put on FMLA. She also related the fact that Mr. Bryant was also on a two-week suspension and that influenced her decision not to return to work and face the man who violated her rights and ultimately caused her to become a crime victim.
What is appalling is that the victim is not only a causality of a crime committed against them but is being persecuted by the county. Here are some of the county’s own reports:
“Claimant made the decision not to return to work, but did not make a reasonable attempt to contact employer with her decision. She did not provide medical documentation at the hearing related to her leave in August 2012 or her decision not to return to work in November 2012.”
“One of the claimant’s co-workers reported the claimant’s harassment to the county’s DHR office in July/August 2012. DHR began to investigate claimant’s allegations and the Baltimore County Police Department started a criminal investigation of her supervisor’s behavior.”
The victim explained that with no insurance they could not afford to go to the doctor and was dealing with emotional problems stemming from this incident. It’s rather ironic that during their employment with the county the victim was honored with a Certificate of Appreciation for outstanding performance and valuable contributions to the bureau in 2010. (See PDF)
I find the same bullying tactics the county used in the Bill Blake case as reported in this article. It appears the victim in this case (an employee worthy of recognition) is undergoing the same treatment and was victimized not once but twice.
You see I know quite well, what that is like. One more thing, the county should answer their phones and respond in a manner unlike like this!