A decision handed down today in US District Court for the District of Columbia is not going make the Rubin-haters in DC very happy, but its another ruling in favor of former Fire Chief Dennis Rubin.
The case involved the termination of a Black female fire captain, Vanessa Coleman, who alleged race and gender discrimination, along with violations of her First Amendment Rights and violation of DC’s Whistleblower law. It is a complex case with the Plaintiff pointing fingers at virtually everyone in the organization: her immediate superiors, her immediate subordinates, the fire chief, an assistant chief, and the district’s legal counsel.
Rather than paraphrase what allegedly transpired, let’s use the court’s own words (quoted in italics below) to explain the case.
I would encourage folks who are genuinely concerned with understanding what a modern fire chief has to contend with these days, to read the entire 38 page decision. It is easy to see why some fire chiefs might find an excuse not to try to address these kinds of complex employee problems – when at the end of the day you have to defend yourself in Federal court.
Plaintiff, an African-American female, was a captain in FEMS on March 12, 2008 when a fire broke out in a high-rise apartment building in the Mt. Pleasant neighborhood of Washington, D.C…The fire was one of the “largest in the Department’s recent history, and drew a great deal of attention and criticism from the public.” … The fire was apparently not adequately controlled by FEMS, and led to a total loss of the building as well as damage to a neighboring church.
An internal FEMS dispute over plaintiff’s role at the scene of the fire triggered the main events leading to this litigation… Plaintiff claims that upon arrival at the scene, she began a check of the basement as required by the department’s standard operating guidelines before being interrupted by the operations commander at the scene, Battalion Fire Chief (BFC) John Lee, who diverted her away from the basement and towards the third floor…
In the months following the fire, FEMS began investigating the failure. Plaintiff filed a series of memoranda to superiors, providing her side of the story, contesting her innocence of misconduct, explaining that John Lee’s tactical error had caused the failure to control the fire, and requesting a formal investigation into the events…
Plaintiff also aired some of these grievances publicly, through a “personal journal” posted on a blog, and a phone interview that aired on a radio station…
On April 17, BFC John Lee cited the plaintiff for violating Article VII, Section 2 of the D.C. Fire and EMS Order Book for violating the Standard Operating Guide and “fail[ing] to ensure that the basement check was completed…
On May 19, plaintiff’s challenge was heard by BFC James Kane. … Kane found plaintiff guilty and recommended a 24-hour suspension…
Plaintiff reacted to all this by filing a series of memoranda and appeals in June and July contesting her innocence, complaining that the hearing before Kane was procedurally defective, and seeking reversal. … Several of these memos contained unusual language. In one, plaintiff purported to cite a superior, claiming that he “ha[d] orchestrated a behavior of mutiny” and referred to a “conspiracy against her.” …
Another complained that a “pursuit to diabolically cripple [her] professional career” had “become the primary agenda of [her] chief officials.” … The volume of these memoranda peaked when plaintiff filed six memoranda directed to a single officer (Chief Rubin) in the course of the single day – behavior which plaintiff acknowledges “a supervisor could perhaps find . . . out of the ordinary.” … Fire Chief Rubin affirmed Kane’s decision and the 24-hour suspension as penalty. …
On July 25, defendant and assistant chief Brian Lee ordered plaintiff to undergo a fitness for duty evaluation at the Police and Firefighters Clinic (PFC), with both psychological and physical components…
At her July 31 appointment, plaintiff declined to sign the waiver form requesting to speak first with counsel…
Next, BFC Begley told plaintiff that she would be charged with insubordination for disobeying the order to undergo the fitness for duty evaluation. … Plaintiff submitted a memorandum to Chief Rubin defending her actions in disobeying the order, alleging that the order was retaliatory….
On August 7, plaintiff returned for a rescheduled appointment to undergo the psychological component of her fitness for duty evaluation. This time, she signed the waiver form only after making alterations to it, and noting that she was submitting to the evaluation “under duress and under the threat of further retaliation or adverse personnel action.”…
Later that month, plaintiff and her counsel met with defendant Lee and FEMS deputy general counsel… to discuss the outstanding order to complete a fitness for duty evaluation and plaintiff’s pending claims of discrimination. … The meeting resulted in an agreement, formalized in a September 3, 2008 memorandum … that allowed plaintiff to return to work, referred plaintiff’s complaints about racial and sex discrimination in FEMS to an outside EEO investigator, and promised to hold in abeyance both the order for plaintiff to undergo evaluation as well as any accompanying administrative action resulting from plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order, pending resolution of plaintiff’s EEO claims.
The EEO investigation concluded with no action in late October. …
After the EEO investigation of plaintiff’s complaints was concluded, plaintiff’s obligations to complete the fitness for duty evaluation were no longer held in abeyance, and on November 20, plaintiff was informed that she was scheduled for a psychological evaluation on November 26….
On the morning of the appointment, plaintiff filed a complaint in D.C. Superior Court, seeking to enjoin defendants from compelling her to submit to a fitness for duty evaluation, and called the PFC to inform them she would not be able to appear for her appointment…
On January 13, 2009 defendant Lee issued formal charges of insubordination against the plaintiff for challenging the order that she submit to a fitness for duty evaluation…
In February, with charges pending, plaintiff was again ordered to report to the PFC for an evaluation. … On February 11, plaintiff attended the PFC appointment, signed the waiver without alteration, completed the written exam portion of her psychological evaluation. … Plaintiff returned on February 18 to complete the oral interview portion of the psychological evaluation, during which she informed the attending doctor, Dr. Morote, that she was at PFC under duress. … After hearing this statement, Morote stopped the interview, and requested that plaintiff submit a written statement clarifying her reasons for appearing at PFC. … On February 24, plaintiff submitted a statement in which she asserted that she was being forced to undergo an evaluation “in retaliation for raising concerns about a number of important issues within the department.” Morote later wrote that she would be “unable to proceed” with the evaluation in light of plaintiff’s written statement.
On March 11, plaintiff was further charged with insubordination for failing to complete the February 18 fitness for duty evaluation.
In June and July 2009, a FEMS Trial Board was held concerning the charges of insubordination. The Trial Board concluded that plaintiff was guilty of insubordination for failing to complete the fitness for duty evaluations as ordered on July 31, 2008, and November 26, 2008. … The panel recommended that plaintiff be demoted two ranks, to Sergeant, and ordered (again) to submit to a fitness for duty evaluation or face termination.
On June 26, 2009, plaintiff reported again to PFC for a psychological exam, where she was informed she would be terminated unless she stated that she was taking the psychological evaluation voluntarily. She refused to do so….
In August, 2009, plaintiff was informed of yet another appointment for the psychological exam. … On August 25, 2009, plaintiff did not attend the appointment, and instead filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, seeking to enjoin the defendants from forcing her to take the evaluation. …
In September, plaintiff was notified that she had until October 1 to complete the exam or face termination. Plaintiff declined to do so, and on October 7, she was terminated….
Throughout 2008, plaintiff maintained a blog describing the race- and sex-based discrimination and harassment she had experienced and witnessed at FEMS.
On March 31, 2008, plaintiff submitted a memorandum to several superior officers, detailing an incident in which her radio transmissions were ignored.
In April, 2008, plaintiff filed a grievance with her Union complaining about being forced to attend an EEO training class, and attributing this order to her race and sex and in retaliation for her previous orders. … She also filed a memorandum complaining of this order to attend the EEO training to Chief Rubin. …
In May, 2008, plaintiff filed a memorandum complaining that several previous reports placing disciplinary charges on subordinates had not been properly and timely acted upon by her superiors.
Also in May, plaintiff sent a memorandum to Chief Rubin, complaining of an incident involving a firefighter violating the grooming policy, and her thwarted efforts to punish him. … In June, plaintiff was reprimanded for failing to enforce the grooming policy. …
In June, plaintiff sent numerous memoranda to Chief Rubin purporting to charge her superior officers with failing to timely process disciplinary charges she had filed against subordinates. … Plaintiff also sent other memoranda to Chief Rubin – complaining about being forced to take her unit out of service while she worked on her report about the Mount Pleasant incident, and also about the discipline incident regarding the firefighter who violated the grooming policy. …
Also in June, plaintiff sent letters to D.C. Councilmembers, the Mayor, and Chief Rubin complaining that FEMS officials were retaliating against her for speaking out.
Still in June, plaintiff filed yet more memoranda to Chief Rubin complaining about superiors’ failure to timely process her disciplinary charges, alleging racial discrimination as the cause of this failure
And, in June, plaintiff claims that defendants removed her ability to obtain case reference numbers necessary for tracking her disciplinary matters. …
In July, plaintiff wrote another memorandum to Chief Rubin alleging that her superiors were selectively disciplining Black firefighters, but declining to support her efforts to discipline her own subordinates. …
On July 2, 2008, plaintiff alleges that her ability to cite superior officers was removed…
On July 8, 2008, plaintiff was detailed from Engine Company 21 to the Facilities Maintenance Division of FEMS, where she was assigned “to count and catalogue chairs.” …
On July 13, 2008, plaintiff was detailed to the facilities maintenance division away from her company. …
On July 21, 2008, plaintiff was ordered to attend EEO training. …
In February 2009, plaintiff filed charges with the D.C. Office of Human Rights and EEOC, disparate treatment, and retaliation
The court granted the defendants summary judgment concluding that the facts failed to support the Plaintiff’s legal claims. The court continued:
[D]efendants claim that they acted in response to plaintiff’s erratic, paranoid, and otherwise worrisome behavior – as manifested in the “barrage” of dozens communications and memoranda which plaintiff documents in her filings in this case. These filings, as well as plaintiff’s other behavior, gave the defendants legitimate concern about plaintiff’s mental state, and her ability to safely command her company. While several of these filings (the ten or so listed above) do mention race and sex discrimination, the majority of them do not. Thus, defendants have a legitimate, non-Title VII retaliatory reason for taking each of the eight actions against defendant.
Plaintiff falls into the same trap under her Title VII claim as she did in her WPA [Whistleblower Protection Act]and First Amendment Claims. By repeating and documenting her long trail of filings and memoranda, she has inadvertently provided documentary support for defendant’s legitimate reason for taking action against her. …
Finally, plaintiff claims that defendant, the District of Columbia, created a hostile workplace. … Because plaintiff has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies, this claim also fails. …
Here is a copy of the full decision. Vanessa Coleman
Curt….I don’t want my comment to seem negative or hateful towards Dennis Rubin, however, after a dismal Red Sox season, its hard to find happiness…..
Anyways, I don’t know all the specifics to this case, as in the communications Ms. Coleman sent and what was said in those communications, but I can relate in many ways to what she was put through by the Rubin Administration.
Now I agree, Ms. Coleman could have sucked it up, took her lumps, took the psychological test, then moved on, but she decided to question Brian Lee(AKA to present and past employees as Lyin Brian)and Rubin about the charges related to the fire incident. Everything has to start somewhere to escalate to all her reports, public comments and opinions, but the foundation of where her situation started was on the Mt.Pleasant fire…
I won’t speak of Ms. Colemans ability to perform her job, the many rumors about her throughout her career, but this was about whether Capt.Coleman at the time did indeed check the basement of this fire…Afterall, its said this fire was to have started there and not on any of the floors above.
Now if the radio transmission by BFC Lee indicate he did in fact instruct Capt. Coleman to another assignment away from her responsibility to check the basement and we find out later the basement was not thoroughly checked or wasn’t checked at all, who’s fault is this?
This wasn’t a room or two off with no media coverage, this was a big fire, many rescues and rescues of DCFD’s own, so this would be a big media event. I’m not sure where the leak, story or what have you about if the basement was checked, this fire may not have been the magnitude it was, but its not the case and we know the basement was NOT properly checked…..
So who’s the blame…..Captain Coleman or BFC Lee…..hmmm…..well under the Rubin, Schultz and Brian Lee regime, you were either a yes man, follower, part of the team (a unique one I might say and you had to be one of Schultz’s pals to be on it) or an outsider (in this regimes mind), meaning you’re probably not a true fireman or one worthy of being elite member under Lawrence Schultz….hard to put all the blame on Rubin (pains me to say), because HE WAS OUT OF TOWN so often, which most of the time left Schultz and Lee were running the show…(kind of like a substitue teacher filling in)
So with an understanding of this mindset and the magnitude of this fire, who’s gonna take the fall….Hmmmm…BFC Lee or Capt. Coleman….well with Capt.Coleman’s reputation throughout her career (only going on rumors and not attacking her as a person) and BFC Lee, who I don’t know much of nor have I ever heard anything bad about….hmmm…its pretty easy to see who’s gonna take a charge or two or in this case, a reprimand……
Well, with the audio telling Captain Coleman to redirect her company to (I believe was the second floor), the basement doesn’t get properly checked and we found out down the road, that’s where the fire originated. Now nobody, well nobody who’s a TRUE DC Fireman in the eyes of Schultz or Rubin is going to put blame on theirselves, its easier for them to give Capt. Coleman a verbal reprimand……
So she like myself, says HELLS NO, I did what I was ORDERED to do, I’m not gonna take even a slap on the wrist…..So maybe after this point, Capt. Coleman got frustrated, angry or what have you which led to her public comments and special reports, and emails, but this is where her situation starts. If Rubin takes responsiblity without blame, like he did on this MAJOR FAIL sprinkler demonstration (WHERE NOBODY HELD HIM ACCOUNTABLE),then
http://statter911.com/2009/10/12/chief-dennis-rubin-takes-full-responsibility-for-sprinkler-demo-mishap-no-briefing-or-backup-line-the-rube-thought-it-looked-like-a-comedy-act/ Captain Coleman doesn’t get a reprimand, because afterall, someone has to take the blame and TRUST ME its not gonna be anyone in the click or ON THE Schultz TEAM…
Now let me give you the scoop on the Psychological test, who orders it and why its really used and how one gets to the point where under the Rubin regime, you find yourself subjected to it…..
I speak of my own situation and how the Psych test was used and the cours of action and how the Rubin regime used it to their advantage….See, you had 2 choices if you found your situation subjected to a psych test/eval by the Rubin admin….you either take it or you refuse…..now the forms which were used prior to the evaluation say YOU CAN refuse to take the evaluation, but NOWHERE did it say you will be put on charges if you don’t take it….BFC Begley tells you you will be placed on charges if you don’t fill out and agree to take the evaluation, because I initially refused and this is what I was told. Now I too emailed Brian Lee (on my own computer & off duty)about my situation and how I was being treated and what do you know….I get to take a Psych eval/Fitness for Duty exam….Afterall, if you write a non threatening (BL will tell you its threatening..LOL)email to a BFC or higher, you have to be crazy and probably need to see if your fit for duty…..Now I sent another non harmful facebook message to Rubin and guess what….I get to take ANOTHER psych eval/fitness for duty test…yayyyy me…..once again, if you dare send Dennis Rubin a facebook message to tell him of your situation (incase he didn’t know) and he has an ounce of sympathy because he’s OUT OF TOWN SO OFTEN, that he may not know of what he 2 AFC minions are doing behind his back….then maybe..just maybe….he might right a wrong….no sir….straight to the Police & Fire Clinic (aka HELL) to take the old psych/fit for duty eval…..Even better….I was ordered back in June of 2009 by AFC LYIN BRIAN LEE, that while I was on Administrative Leave with pay, that until I completed the 3 part psych eval/fit for duty test, I was to be carried on LWOP (leave without pay)……
Now these little things here are what can drive a normally sane person over the edge, because honestly, I believe this is what the Rubin regime is wanting to happen…So at this point, you can either lose it because THEY’RE NOW AFFECTING YOUR LIVELIHOOD by messing with your finances, because they’re trying to get you to do something they want you to do and trust me, its not because your’re crazy or your elevator is not going to the penthouse….Well they did not break me one bit, however, they played their part well in making it seem I was this violent and threatening person to their advantage, despite passing every test they put in my face….
To the best of my knowledge, I completed 2 or 3 Psych eval/Fit for Duty exams and everyone I passed…And to make sure nobody was putting me in the trick bag, I successfully recorded Dr. Morote (who seemed like she needed to take the evaluation) and kept all documents for my own records….
And last….it seems this blog has twice posted two favorable posts about Rubin and trust me, I’m not commenting to ruin his reputation or as the Rubes himself likes to refer people like me, as being a cyberbully or stalker, however, its Dennis Rubin who’s responsible for his own reputation. Now whether Rubin pitched this latest case on you or you did this one on your very own, I think you should do a post on Rubin’s credibility…..
See he’s named in what…like 3 million cases to date (ok…just joking Dennis) and whether he’s the direct cause of all these lawsuits against him or named because he was the agency head and its really the District or Atlanta lets say, is the real defendant, I don’t believe its really Dennis Rubin who’s actually winning….not all cases return a decision favorable to the plaintiff, but lets not forget the process and that one can appeal and have their case tried again by a higher court….I think a few cases in this world have been appealed and then won, by trying it in a higher court and with a different jury…
So as we hail Rubes record in court (not me), lets focus on the real Rubes in court…..Case in point…September 27, 2012, the case of Theresa Cusick v. District of Columbia….Theresa Cusick is the former General Counsel when Dennis Rubin first blessed us with his presence in the Nations Capitol…well instead of me blabbering about her case against the untouchable one, ill post a few links incase you were on vacation and did not get to see the real Rubes in action….
Warning Curt…Dennis Rubin uses some very foul language in these taped depositions, so you might want to cover your ears….and you can definitely tell Dennis Rubin is very very uncomfortable using this bad bad language…lol….they’re so packed with emotion and truth, I think the Rubes could make extra money by putting these into a Holiday Deposition DVD collection…
I have to first post this one, not because Rubes LIES about me, but its the first time EVER, you will see him ducking a camera..lol…and I wonder why Rubes lawyer told him to hush hush when talking about me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4-tqUGo_Tk
BTW and for the record..I was the first one out of the Council Chambers and first one into the elevator…remember Rubes, you walked right by mine to get on the other one and gave that same ARROGANT smirk as you did when I held up a picture of my son to you….
This was the first one…good job Rubes….I think one of Rubes Rules is…ALWAYS TELL THE TRUTH….words to live by right Dennis…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYkzPCv27RQ
Here’s the second…love the facial expressions and body language…definitely ones of someone who’s of great moral and ethical character….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTDdvbQc5MM&feature=relmfu
And they say, three’s a charm…i think someone said that….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt59wUCl4lY&feature=relmfu
Ok…now about the otherday….Mr Rubes once again finds himself on the stand at the Cusick trial and is under oath….remember Rubes Rules…always TELL THE TRUTH…<<<pretty hilarious
Richard Condit, Cusick's attorney, is about to question Mr. Rubes about some vulgar, degrading, demoralizing and out right defamatory Tweets about me, which were posted on Rubin's Twitter account not to long ago….I find them quite embarassing to write myself, but since they've become viewable to the over 300 followers he has on his Twitter account, I can't go and rewrite them and untweet the retweets to his many followers.
Anyways….without having to copy his Twitter account to my comments here, lets say his tweets about me referenced LRB (Chief Kenneth Ellerbe) and that I performed oral sex (I was a fluffer)on Chief Ellerbe to get my job back. Not only is the 100% percent defamatory and degrading to say about a person, but now Rubin finds his own foot in his mouth because he's now underoath in a court of law and his credibility ( I know his followers believe he's the greatest ever),if he ever had any to begin with, is on the line….well at least in the Cusick trial….
Condit asked Rubin what does LRB mean…Rubin's answer was that it was a term used in the fire department, as in not relating to his successor, Chief Kenneth Ellerbe…..then Condit asks him who's the current Fire Chief of the District of Columbia and Rubin responds, Kenneth Ellerbe…..WOW…hey what do ya know…LRB and Ellerbe sound alike….
Then Rubin is asked what a "fluffer" was and after fumbling and stumbling, he replies, someone who fluffs pillows….Remember Rubes Rules…always tell the truth….
At this point, Richard Condit asks Rubin about the vulgar tweets about me on his Twitter account and if he ever wrote that I was a fluffer who performed oral sex on Chief Ellerbe to get my job back……Rubin responds….I may have..as in he wasn't sure….well Rubin is questioned further, because Rubes is having a very hard time practicing his own Rubes Rules and finally admits to saying, I gave Chief Ellerbe oral sex to get my job back…..
Ok…one thing or a few things doesn't make a person an evil villian right Curt…afterall, they're still praising JoePa at Penn State for all the good he did, even though he turned his back on those young vulnerable kids being abused…
Well, you portray Dennis Rubin in a good way by saying how great he's doing in court cases, however, its like the kid in the candy store who repeatedly steals the same candy bar over and over and never gets caught….But eventually he does get caught….Same goes with Dennis Rubin…most see one side of him, hopefully I've shown the other…..you know what they say….Fool me once shame on me…Fool me twice…SHAME ON YOU….Trust me….The ole Rubes as being fooling alot of people, but I for one have never been fooled….And you wonder why this clown is in court all the time….
Is my 3rd comment going to be posted or is it awaiting moderation because it sheds a dim light on Dennis Rubin…hate to break the positive trend he receives on this blog, if that’s indeed the case…
I rest my case.
Since Dennis Rubin tends to only tweet about things that make him look good, like this post and others like me look bad, maybe he could shed some light on the topic…
From my view, it appears Mr. Rubes has and still is in damage control to repair his image that only he’s responsible for and nobody else, however, its easier to blame others and write senseless and baseless article like his latest in Fire Engineering, to once again, make Rubes look good and make everyone else the problem…Remember, if you call Dennis Rubin out on his BS, he won’t write an article to dispute peoples open public opinions of himself like I’ve tended to do a few time, however, when you can’t face the 1 percenters (as the great one calls some that arent in his elite circle) its just easier to write an article that people such as myself are cyberbullies….
Don’t worry Curt, its not your case to rest and afterall, this is your blog and I do respect it, but I’m sure in the eyes of others, Dennis Rubin will be the victor in all that he does, the blame on his end will continue and no small town, suburban jurisdiction or big city will ever consider Dennis Rubin as their Fire Chief….Just because you think or believe you were victorious in the courtroom, doesn’t mean your morals and character are not in question…..I too rest my case…at least on this subject….thanks Curt….
Hookman
Trust me – my goal is not to help Dennis Rubin “clear” his name, untarnish his image, or anything of the sort. Dennis (who is a friend) will have to do that all by himself.
My goal here is alot simpler: to help people understand the nightmare that confronts fire chiefs today – the depth of the legal and emotional challenges that folks like Dennis Rubin have been through… the bullshit they have to put up with.
If Captain Coleman was the only “high maintenance” employee that DCFD had to deal with during this time period that would be one thing. But your case was another and there were no doubt other cases as well.
How in God’s name is anyone supposed to improve the DCFD under those conditions? Well it doesn’t really matter because folks would still find fault with the person.
But again – thank you for your input. It is invaluable for those who don’t know Chief Rubin or you – to gain insight into the challenges.
Thanks Curt and I hear you loud and clear….I’m really not sure who can turn the DCFD or as its currently known today as, DCFEMS, into the department everyone has known and respected for decades….sure its had its fair share of problems throughout different admnistrations and yes, I do agree, no one Chief could come in and make everything perfect and pleasant for all that work here, but I believe there’s someone out there that could become the Chief and return DCFEMS back to the DCFD and bring morale back to the members who work in the trenches day in and day out.
I fully realize that being a Fire Chief comes with much scrutiny, however, if you are a leader of great moral and ethical character and do the very very best you can and treat ALL members fairly and transparent, you will leave a very lasting impression on the job you did or tried to do, with the majority of the membership…
As it stands now, we currently are not being led by someone who has ALL of the memberships best interest. We’re being led by someone who’s picking up where Rubin left off and doing just the exact opposite of what he did and what he promised he would do…that is….be fair, transparent and give everyone a level playing field..
For those in a complete fog, we know this has not occurred and the members, though they come to work and do their jobs 120% and more, continue to work under a vindictive and retaliatory leadership because of what was left after Rubin was shown the door…okay..he resigned…insert roll eyes face….
However, we couldn’t be the better person and do what we said we would do once we were sworn in…Yes, that was put our personal feelings because of how Rubin treated me and subjected me to working at 441 4th Street, away from the Operations of the Department and forget the way Rubin, Schultz and Brian Lee treated those who were not compliant to the system run under Dennis….
Since Rubin was notoriously known for disciplining African Americans more than Caucasian members (hence the Class Action Lawsuit pending) of the department, our present Chief has developed a pattern of discipline where it seems only Caucasian members of the department are subjected to discipline..
How sad this has become….almost childish….Ok…I understand the immediate demotions of Assistant Fire Chiefs Schultz and Lee, but the continuing retaliation shown towards Caucasian members of the department could not be more noticeable then it is now…..
However, this trend will continue as long as Mayor Vincent Gray is in office….sad….very sad indeed….