Clinics owned by Alameel, Democrats' U.S.

Senate
hope, battled 5-year discrimination suit
Share
Comments

HOEP
In this undated photo provided by his campaign is David Alameel, a U.S. Senate candidate in Texas' Democratic
primary on March 4. Alameel has been endorsed by Democratic candidates for governor and lieutenant governor but
his past donations to many of the state's top Republican leaders has sparked an intraparty battle with another
Democratic U.S. Senate hopeful, El Paso personal injury attorney Maxey Scherr. (AP Photo/Alameel for Senate)
By Kevin Diaz
May 8, 2014 | Updated: May 8, 2014 8:48pm
A chain of dental clinics owned by wealthy Dallas businessman David Alameel, the Democrats'
top choice in the U.S. Senate race, entered into a federal court agreement in 2008 to settle claims
brought by four women who said they lost their jobs after complaining about a sexually hostile
work environment.
Alameel strenuously denied any wrongdoing this week, as he did throughout a trial in Dallas
County District Court and a subsequent federal suit brought by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission.
A Dallas jury found in favor of Alameel's Jefferson Dental Clinics after an emotional seven-day
civil trial in November 2004. The EEOC complaint was settled four years later through a consent
decree that involved no admission of wrongdoing but required Alameel's clinics to publish a
non-harassment policy and conduct training for all his employees and managers.
"This case involved charges that were proven to be false, untrue and without merit in a court of
law against an employee of the Jefferson Dental Clinics over a decade ago," Alameel's campaign
told the Houston Chronicle in a written statement. "Although Dr. David Alameel was the owner
of (the clinics) at that time, he was not named as part of the alleged incidents."
Court records show that the four women accused Alameel of retaining the supervisor who
allegedly harassed them, and getting rid of them instead.
Democrats' hope
The case resurfaced among GOP operatives this week in advance of the May 27 Democratic
primary runoff, where Alameel faces Houston political activist Kesha Rogers, a "Lyndon
LaRouche Democrat" who wants to impeach President Barack Obama. Alameel, who was
endorsed in January by gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis, has emerged as the top choice of
Democratic leaders hoping to rebuild the party in Texas by mobilizing women and minorities.
If he wins, Alameel would face two-term Republican incumbent Sen. John Cornyn in November.
Cornyn's campaign declined to comment on the case.
The accusations
The May 2008 federal consent decree ended a five-year legal battle that started when four
women claimed they were sexually harassed by their supervisor, Kadri Cumur, then chief
financial officer of Jefferson Dental Clinics, which at the time included 11 dental practices in the
Dallas area.
The women's 2003 lawsuit accused Cumur of repeatedly engaging in inappropriate personal
remarks and offensive touching at the company headquarters where they worked. In one
instance, he allegedly reached inside one woman's blouse and touched her bra. Another woman
testified that he unbuttoned her blouse. When one of the women turned down his invitation to
dinner, he allegedly called her a "whore."
Alameel sold clinics
Cumur could not be reached for comment. Alameel sold the Jefferson Dental Clinics in 2009 and
no longer has any association with Cumur, according to the campaign. The campaign also said
that when Alameel owned the clinics, 95 percent of the managers were women.
The four women who sued claimed that when they took their complaints to Alameel, he
acknowledged that his wife and son had previously expressed doubts about Cumur's behavior.
But after initially firing Cumur, the women alleged, Alameel immediately changed his mind and
rehired him.
A few days later, according to the women, the clinic instituted new workplace rules prohibiting
female employees from wearing sleeveless shirts and dresses. Three of the women, identified in
court records as Heather Sooter, Carol Cantu and Linda Householder, were reportedly fired. A
fourth, Esmeralda Jimenez, said she quit.
Asked about the specifics of the women's stories, a spokesman for Alameel wrote in an email
"there is no point re-examining all the details of a decade old lawsuit, except to reiterate that the
allegations were adjudicated in court and found to be without merit."
Troubles in court
All four women claimed Alameel's actions were retaliation for their complaints about Cumur.
They filed complaints in state court and with the EEOC.
None of the women could be located for comment. Dallas attorney Theodore Anderson, who
represented them, said they are no longer in touch and he is no longer authorized to speak for
them.
Although the EEOC took the women's side, the state court case did not go well for them. After
an unsuccessful attempt at court-ordered mediation, the matter went to trial, where some
testimony indicated that the women had socialized with Cumur outside of work, weakening their
case. The jury finally decided in the clinic's favor on two claims of intentional infliction of
emotional distress and negligent retention.
Court records show that the jury was instructed that in order to cause emotional distress, Cumur's
behavior would have to be "reckless in the extreme beyond all possible bounds of decency
(and) utterly intolerable in a civilized community."
The women were awarded no monetary damages. According to Alameel, the verdict required
only about 30 minutes of deliberation - a nanosecond in the measured world of court
proceedings.
Civil rights claim
Meanwhile, an EEOC investigation determined that there was "reasonable cause to believe that
the charging parties were subjected to a sexually hostile work environment and were discharged
in retaliation for complaining about the discriminatory conduct."
In August 2004, while the case was still in state court, the EEOC filed suit in federal court
alleging separate violations of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The EEOC case was stymied, however,
by a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the women's federal claims of sexual harassment
and discrimination were redundant because their allegations had by then been decided by a Texas
court.
The federal courts also concluded that the women's civil rights claims could have been made in
state court but weren't. The result was that they were never adjudicated in any court.
With no way of securing monetary damages or any other legal remedy for the women, the EEOC
and Alameel's clinic decided to settle.
The final consent decree noted that while the clinics would agree to put a new non-harassment
policy in place, nothing in the agreement "shall be construed as evidence that (the clinic)
committed any wrongdoing."
The clinic, Alameel's campaign said, "felt totally vindicated as a result of these legal
proceedings."