HAGÅTÑA (The Guam Daily Post) — Donna Lawrence, who had been working as an assistant attorney general at the Office of the Attorney General and who had filed grievance appeals against the OAG at the Civil Service Commission, has been terminated from the office.
The firing happened Dec. 12, 2023, according to the termination papers, which allege that Lawrence engaged in discourteous treatment against other employees in addition to other misconduct. Lawrence, through her attorney, argued that the adverse action was defective and is fighting the termination at the CSC.
The termination papers discuss two alleged incidents. In the first, reportedly taking place Aug. 11, 2023, Lawrence allegedly hugged and kissed another employee on the neck without consent. The employee reported the alleged incident Sept. 14, 2023.
In the second case, reportedly taking place Oct. 6, 2023, Lawrence allegedly approached the OAG Administrative Division reception window at the ITC building and “unprofessionally demanded” to see another employee.
“You demanded that employee to sign receipt of your personal employee grievance. Although you were aware that documents addressed to any section of the Administration Division, including the attorney general, shall be received and processed by reception window, you persisted to demand another employee besides the receptionist on duty receive your employee grievance. While you were present at the reception window, you recorded your interactions with other AG’s office employees, making them feel uncomfortable. This constitutes unacceptable behavior in this law office,” the termination papers stated.
Regarding her grievances, Lawrence made initial filings in August 2023 based on alleged harassment, bullying, retaliatory denial of sick leave and retaliatory conduct. These allegations, and other grievance matters, ultimately ended up at the CSC as appeals.
Lawrence has asked the commission to find that Attorney General Douglas Moylan violated personnel rules and Guam law by allegedly subjecting her to harassment and retaliatory conduct. She also asked the CSC to order Moylan to direct Deputy AG Frank Gumataotao to immediately refrain from “any further” harassment and retaliatory or threatening conduct and for Gumataotao to obtain employee training on workplace violence, in addition to a number of other requests.
Lawrence has accused Gumataotao of allegedly interfering with or harassing her as she attempted to proceed with the grievance process.
As for the termination papers, they go on to say that Lawrence was served a notice of proposed adverse action Dec. 1, 2023, but hadn’t answered the notice by Dec. 12, 2023, lapsing the 10 calendar days for a response. Following that, Moylan made the decision to terminate Lawrence.
The Dec. 1, 2023, notice date were disputed in the termination appeal, which was filed at the CSC Dec. 22, 2023.
In addition to the grievances, the adverse action appeal indicated that Lawrence lodged complaints at the Guam Department of Labor and the Superior Court of Guam regarding alleged actions by the OAG.
“Following employee’s efforts to preserve and invoke her employment rights between March (2023) through October 2023, Deputy AG Gumataotao on at least two occasions threatened retaliatory adverse action culminating in the unlawful termination of employee effective Dec. 12, 2023, without notice,” Lawrence’s termination appeal stated.
Her attorney, Jacqueline Terlaje, argued that there were various defects throughout the termination process.
Terlaje stated that Lawrence initially received a proposed notice of adverse action Nov. 3, 2023, which was dated Oct. 30, 2023, and signed by attorney William Pole.
According to Terlaje, Pole has a contract for legal services with the OAG but is not a government employee nor a deputy AG or assistant AG, and there is no statutory authority that allows a private attorney to act in Moylan’s place as the appointing authority for the OAG.
Lawrence responded to the first notice in writing, objecting to the alleged disclosure of confidential employee information to a private attorney.
“Employee has not consented to the unwarranted disclosure of her confidential information, and believes that such disclosure is simply another effort not only to harass, bully and intimidate her, but also to retaliate against her for invoking her employment rights,” the termination appeal stated.
A final adverse action wasn’t taken based on this first notice of proposed action, nor was the notice amended, according to the appeal.
A second notice of proposed adverse action was the one dated Dec. 1, 2023. Here too, Terlaje alleged various defects. The notice doesn’t have Lawrence’s signature, nor is there any representation of personal service on Dec. 1, 2023, the appeal stated.
According to Terlaje, Lawrence was actually served Dec. 4, 2023, although Moylan allegedly declared “unilaterally” that the service date was Dec. 1, 2023.
The first and second notices were identical, save for one sentence, according to Terlaje, who added that she requested a meeting Dec. 14, 2023, 10 days after Dec. 4, 2023, to respond to the proposed adverse action.
Moylan allegedly insisted on meeting on a government holiday or on Dec. 11, 2023, and refused to allow the employee to respond afterward.
“On Dec. 12, 2023, after denying employee a full (10-day) period to respond, as required by (Department of Administration personnel rules), AG Moylan terminated employee improperly, without notice on Dec. 12, 2023, and in violation of several rules and Guam law,” Lawrence’s termination appeal stated, which added that the termination happened while she was on sick leave.
Lawrence is requesting numerous relief from the CSC, largely having to do with findings that violations of rule or law had occurred, including a violation of the 90-day rule for adverse actions regarding the second notice, as management knew or should have known of the facts giving rise to allegations against Lawrence on or about Aug. 11, 2023.
“The expiration of time for final action … was no later than Nov. 9, 2023,” the termination appeal stated.
Lawrence and Terlaje are also asking the CSC to find that the OAG engaged in misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation regarding the disputed Dec. 1, 2023 service date and events related to that, up to concerns over the final adverse action.
At a status call for Lawrence’s grievance appeals on Friday, Terlaje asked for a reset status hearing in May so that the grievances trail the adverse action matter.
