SCOTT WARRICK, ESQ.

ATTORNEY-AT-LAW
1147 Matterhorn Drive Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068 (614) 367-0842: Office (614) 738-8317: Cell
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE To: From: RE: Date: Judge Charles Pater and Gary Yates, Butler County Court Scott Warrick Report on Ms. Oliviers Complaint July 6, 2012 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND The purpose of this investigation was to investigate the sex discrimination, sexual harassment (hostile environment) and retaliation allegations made by Jennifer Olivier. Due the legal requirements of the claims she was made, this includes determining what the working environment truly is at the court (Is it an illegal hostile work environment because of her sex?) and, if so, why it is that way. The goal is to therefore not only determine if there is a legal basis for her claims, but to also make recommendations if there appears to corrections that needs to be made at the Butler County Court. It is also important to note that I am totally independent of the Butler County Court. I do not litigate in my practice, so there is zero chance that I would ever end up in front of one of the Butler County judges. So, I have no misgivings about finding that a judge has done something wrong ... or anyone else for that matter. I also have no personal ties to anyone at the Butler County Court. The Butler County Court was not a client of mine before I entered into this investigation. Likewise, I am not from this area. I live over 100 miles away and I have no ties to the area at all. Therefore, going into this investigation, I had no personal biases or prejudices towards anyone. I entered this investigation completely neutral. In order to keep this investigation free from any potential influences, I have also not responded to any inquiries by the press, and they have been numerous. The press was not going to influence this investigation in any way, including the time frame in which it took to complete it. When you go into an investigation, you simply do not know what you will uncover. An investigator follows the pertinent information where ever it takes him and not the other way around. As a result, the investigation would be completed when it was completed. It would not be rushed by setting some artificial deadline. The bottom line result has only one goal: Find the truth.

Also, this investigation was not influenced at all by any outside counsel, although there were attempts by various outside attorneys to do just that. Attorneys who represent a specific party are not concerned with the truth. An attorney is interested in making his/her client look good, and that may involve spinning the truth, or, in some unethical circumstances, lying or making false accusation against the parties involved or the investigator himself in an attempt to influence the final outcome. All of that has happened in this case, although none of these attempts have worked. It is important to note that never at anytime did anyone from the Butler County Court management or any of the judges ever even attempt to influence my investigation, its scope or its time frame. They have at all times given me the leeway and the room I needed to conduct my investigation the way I wanted it performed. In support of her claims, Ms. Olivier gave many examples of conduct directed towards her that she believes supports her position in both her January 6, 2012 and April 16, 2012 letters. In order to be thorough, I felt it was necessary to address each of these relevant instances. Therefore, you will see this report has become quite lengthy. If someone likes my findings, that is fine. If they do not like my findings, that is fine as well. Unfortunately, far too many people do not seek information. They seek affirmation of what they already believe. That is why I recorded all of the interviews I conducted in person. All of the interviewees knew they were being recorded. This helps to ensure the accuracy and accountability of what I have been told. I did not record my telephone interviews since I use a wireless blue tooth headset in order to remain mobile during the interview. Again, the goal has always remained the same: Find the truth. An investigator needs to follow what he is told where ever it leads. In that regard, an investigator really does not have as much control over the investigation as one might think. In the end, it simply is what it is. Quite frankly, my reputation in the field of human resources and employment law for almost 30 years is more important to me than any outside influence. What you will read in these pages are my findings and my opinion regarding what has been happening inside the Butler County Court that has led to these charges being raised by Ms. Jennifer Olivier. Throughout this investigation, I have reviewed hundreds of documents over a two month period and interviewed over 20 people for more than 30 hours in order to gain an accurate look at what is happening inside the court and to determine whether Ms. Oliviers charges have validity. Furthermore, I have read certain documents with my own eyes and listened to recordings that the parties involved did not even know existed in an effort to discover the truth. When I entered into this investigation, I was completely neutral. That is no longer true. I have formed my following opinions based solely on what I have discovered. These are my findings.
2

LEGAL STANDARDS Ms. Olivier has claimed that she has been discriminated against because of her sex, retaliated against because of her January 6, 2012 letter to Judge Sage and harassed because of her sex. In order to see if Ms. Olivier has in fact been discriminated against because of her sex, I needed to see if she had suffered any type of adverse job action because of her sex. This also means that if Ms. Olivier was replaced in her job as a court reporter, that she was replaced by someone who is of a different protected class than her, which would be a male. In order to see if Ms. Olivier has been illegally harassed because of her sex to the point that it has created a hostile environment for her, I next needed to see if she: 1. Was subjected to unwelcome harassment, and if so, 2. Was the harassment she complained of was based on her sex ("but for" or "because of" her sex test) or if it occurred for some other reason, and finally 3. Was the harassment Ms. Olivier was experiencing was so severe or pervasive that it adversely affected a "term, condition, or privilege" of her employment. Also, in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 118 S. Ct. 227 (1998); Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 118 S. Ct. 2257 (1998), the U.S. Supreme Court found that when no tangible adverse employment action is taken against the employee, the employer escapes liability if it can prove, as an affirmative defense, that: (a) The employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly the harassing behavior and (b) The employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise. And finally, we need to see if Ms. Olivier has been retaliated against because she had complained about being discriminated against or harassed because of her sex, which would be based on her January 6, 2012 letter to Judge Michael Sage. The primary case law governing retaliation under Title VII is Burlington Northern & Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006). In Burlington, the U. S. Supreme Court stated that Title VIIs anti-retaliation provision (Section 704(a)) forbids employer actions that discriminate against an employee (or job applicant) because he has opposed a practice that Title VII forbids or has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in a Title VII investigation, proceeding, or hearing. 2000e3(a).

The Court concluded that the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII covers those (and only those) employer actions that would have been materially adverse to a reasonable employee or job applicant. In other words, the employers actions must be harmful to the point that they could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. The Court held that the anti-retaliation provision protects an individual not from all retaliation, but from retaliation that produces an injury or harm. The Court stated that a plaintiff must show that a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse, which in this context means it well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. However, the Court then went to great efforts to separate those actions that are materially adverse from those that are simply trivial harms. The Court then, as it has done in so many of its previous cases, reiterated that Title VII does not set forth a general civility code for the American workplace. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 80 (1998) ; see Faragher, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (judicial standards for sexual harassment must filter out complaints attacking the ordinary tribulations of the workplace, such as the sporadic use of abusive language, gender-related jokes, and occasional teasing.). The Court then noted that an employees decision to report discriminatory behavior cannot immunize that employee from those petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work and that all employees experience. See 1 B. Lindemann & P. Grossman, Employment Discrimination Law 669 (3d ed. 1996) (noting that courts have held that personality conflicts at work that generate antipathy and snubbing by supervisors and co-workers are not actionable under 704(a)). Instead, the Court stressed that Title VIIs retaliation provision prohibits employer actions that are likely to deter victims of discrimination from complaining to the EEOC, the courts, and their employers. As a result, the Court held that normally petty slights, minor annoyances, and simple lack of good manners will not create such deterrence. By focusing on the materiality of the challenged action and the perspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiffs position, the Court concluded that it believed this standard will screen out trivial conduct while effectively capturing those acts that are likely to dissuade employees from complaining or assisting in complaints about discrimination. Therefore, in order to address all of Ms. Oliviers claims, I need to look at what is actually happening in the workplace at the Butler County Court. Such claims do not exist in a vacuum. They never do.

Instead, such claims arise out of issues that exist in the workplace. In other words, legal claims are not the source of the problem. They are the symptom. Something is happening within the Butler County Court that has caused Ms. Olivier to bring these claims. As a result, I needed to look at the environment within the court in order to determine why such legal claims have arisen. That will give me the answer. WAS THE DECISION TO ROTATE THE COURT REPORTERS BETWEEN THE VARIOUS JUDGES DONE AS AN ILLEGAL RETALIATORY ACT OR BECAUSE OF MS. OLIVIERS SEX? It is perhaps best to begin this report with Ms. Oliviers claim that the decision to rotate the court reporters between the various judges was a way to separate her from Judge Sage, which would harm her income. Ms. Olivier argues that the decision to transfer her away from Judge Sages court was illegal retaliation and it was done as an illegal discriminatory and harassing act because of her sex. However, I believe none of Ms. Oliviers claims on this point are valid. In her January 6, 2012 letter to Judge Sage, Ms. Olivier specifically states: I do not wish to be reassigned to another courtroom as you suggested. Reassigning me to another courtroom would not only be unfair, but it would be discriminatory to do so just because you have decided to end the relationship. Any such move would have a detrimental impact not only on my income, but also on my professional reputation and ability to continue to work as a court reporter. This paragraph from Ms. Olivier, in her own words, undermines her argument that the decision to rotate the court reporters was an illegal retaliatory act. If you recall, the U.S, Supreme Court ruled in Burlington that: Title VIIs anti-retaliation provision (Section 704(a)) forbids employer actions that discriminate against an employee (or job applicant) because he has opposed a practice that Title VII forbids or has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in a Title VII investigation, proceeding, or hearing. 2000e3(a). In this paragraph written by Ms. Olivier, she states that: Reassigning me to another courtroom would not only be unfair, but it would be discriminatory to do so just because you have decided to end the relationship.

In order to be an illegal act, the action taken by the employer must be because of the employees protected class (sex) or because the employee opposed a practice that Title VII forbids or has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in a Title VII investigation, proceeding, or hearing. However, in her letter Ms. Olivier admits that if Judge Sage moves her to another court room, and thus to another judge, it will be because he decided to end their relationship ... not because of her sex and not in retaliation of any actions she had engaged in that were protected by Title VII. While the fairness of such a decision is arguable, there is nothing illegal about transferring and employee to another position because an affair had come to an end. Such an action by an employer is not a protected activity. By Ms. Oliviers own admission, her claim on this point must fail as a matter of law. Further, Ms. Olivier claims that if she was moved to another court room with another judge that it would be unfair. Since the belief is that Judge Sage tends to try more cases than the other judges, which certainly was true in the previous 18 months due to the number of major cases that had come through Judge Sages court room, Ms. Olivier clearly believed she stood to lose a great deal of income by working in another court room. However, from a fairness perspective, if a rotation basis was used at the court, then Ms. Olivier would most likely have to share the transcript work she was getting from Judge Sages court with the other court reporters. In order to understand what Ms. Olivier is saying here, it is important to understand how the court reporters are paid. First, all of the court reporters are paid a base salary. On top of that, court reporters can make additional money by producing transcriptions of the trials or other types of proceedings that occur in the court. If a case goes to trial, the potential for the court reporter making a great deal of money is very high. The more serious the case is, the more likely the case will go up to the appellate court, which means the court reporter will have to produce a final transcript for the attorneys. This is where court reporters can make a great deal of additional money. They are paid additional money for every page of a final transcript they produce. Court reporters can make thousands of extra dollars every year on top of their base salary for producing these final transcripts. If these transcripts are produced from the request of a defendant who is paying for his/her own legal counsel, then the cost of producing the transcript is paid by the defendant to the court reporter who did the work. These are referred to as private pay transcripts. If these transcripts are produced from the request of an indigent defendant who could not afford legal counsel and therefore has had a public defender appointed to defend him/her, then the county will pay the court reporter for producing the final transcript. Therefore, working for a judge who tries a lot of cases will result in that court reporter making quite a bit of money off of these final transcripts.

In the previous 18 months, Judge Sages court had encountered the perfect storm of cases. He tried seven major cases all of which required large final transcripts to be completed. Since Ms. Olivier was assigned to his courtroom, she got to perform all of this work. That is why there is such a tremendous discrepancy between what she made in additional transcript fees for that period of time. In support of her claim that the decision to rotate court reporters from court room to court room rather than having court reporters assigned to one specific judge was an illegal act, Ms. Olivier points to her allegedly observing Judge Sage carrying a stack of papers on his way to see Gary Yates, the Butler County Court Administrator, on January 24, 2012. Ms. Olivier also points to the fact that Judge Noah Powers went to see Judge Sage in his chambers on this same date where they met for an hour, which she claims is a rarity. Then, in the judges meeting on January 25, 2012, Judge Craig Hedric moved to begin rotating the court reporters between the judges and Judge Powers seconded the motion. However, from my discussions with the judges and the courts management, as well as from reviewing the minutes from each of the judges meetings, the discussion to rotate the court reporters from court room to court room and from judge to judge began long before the issues between Judge Sage and Ms. Olivier came to the forefront on December 16, 2011. On October 26, 2011, Gary Yates advised the judges in the judges meeting that he was scheduled to meet for a Budget Hearing with the Butler County Commissioners on Monday, November 14, 2011. Unfortunately, the Butler County court reporters were at that time $7,093.25 over-budget for the year. Mr. Yates presented this information to the judges, as well as detailed information regarding the great discrepancies that existed between what the different court reporters were making. This started a more in-depth examination of how the court reporters were paid and why these great discrepancies existed. Then, on December 2, 2011, Judge Andrew Nastoff was visiting a law firm in Cincinnati on a personal matter when he saw Jill Cutter, the Butler County court reporter who was assigned to his courtroom. She was at the law firm performing transcription services for a deposition that was being conducted. When Judge Nastoff returned to Butler County, he asked Gary Yates what the policy was on moonlighting. It is important to note that neither Judge Nastoff nor Mr. Yates thought Ms. Cutter had done anything wrong in this instance. Ms. Cutter had taken a personal day to transcribe the deposition at the law firm.

Instead, the problem was that the Butler County Court did not have a clear policy on this issue of moonlighting outside of the court. The immediate problem here is one of a potential conflict of interest. Since these same attorneys who hired Ms. Cutter to transcribe a deposition for them in Cincinnati could also very easily end up in a Butler County court room one day trying a case, this could present a conflict of interest for the court and the court reporters. The Butler County Court did not want there to be any appearance of impropriety in that a court reporter might be tempted to alter a trial transcript because a court reporter might have a financial relationship with one of the attorneys trying a case in its court. So, at the December 14, 2011 judges meeting, Mr. Yates presented a policy on moonlighting. The judges passed the policy by a vote of 4 to 2. However, seeing Ms. Cutter in Cincinnati trying to get additional work brought a greater urgency to the issue of the court reporters pay. Several judges were concerned that Ms. Olivier had an unfair advantage regarding the number of trials she was getting to cover compared to the others. Since Ms. Cutter is a single mother trying to provide for her family, this was disturbing to the judges. Judge Keith Spaeth asked to see more information regarding the court reporters wages. It also became clear that the court reporters were beginning to identify themselves as working for a single judge and not so much for the Butler County Court. With only five court reporters to cover seven court rooms, this was not a viable way to ensure coverage. I was specifically told that if a judge was off from work, his/her court reporter would think nothing of taking the day off as well. This could leave Mr. Rob Menke, the Butler County Manager of Court Administration, short in trying to cover all of the various court rooms. So, between the discrepancy in pay and the need to more centralize control over the court reporters, Mr. Yates was told to look into some alternatives. At the January 11, 2012 judges meeting, Mr. Yates again presented a report on the court reporters pay. Mr. Yates reported the following income that was earned by the various court reporters in the previous years:

NAME Cutter Greene Haberer Nicholson Olivier Tuttle

2009 $11,170.00 $14,916.75 $4,780.00 $3,382.00 $20,014.00 $18,873.00

2010 $11,452.50 $2,073.00 $7,709.60 $11,222.50 $16,107.10 $14,524.00

2011 $9,376.50 0 $12,690.00 $5,106.00 $30,309.00 $16,836.25

At the January 25, 2012 judges meeting, the final plan for rotating the court reporters throughout the various judges was presented to the judges. The plan passed by a vote of 5 for, 1 against (Judge Spaeth voted against the rotation because he did not want Ms. Olivier in his court room. He saw her as a cancer and a very disruptive presence, which I will discuss later.) and one abstention (Judge Sage). The final rotation plan was quite elaborate and involved devising a system where all of the court reporters would rotate through all of the various judges court rooms, as well as identifying who all of the back ups would be for each report. Such a system took quite some time to design. Therefore, the decision to rotate court reporters throughout all seven of the Butler County Court judges had nothing to do with Judge Sage and Ms. Oliviers relationship, the ending of the relationship, Ms. Oliviers January 6, 2012 letter or Ms. Oliviers sex. Actually, their relationship had not yet been disclosed to anyone at the time this vote took place. Further, none of the judges had any pressure placed on them one way or the other from Judge Sage in how they decided to vote. Every single one of the judges who voted in favor of the rotation plan told me in no uncertain terms that their decision was based primarily on the great disparity of pay that existed between the court reporters. It simply was not fair for one court reporter, Ms. Olivier, to be getting so much more work than the other court reporters. However, if the court reporters rotated throughout the various judges, if one judge happened to have another stretch of major cases come through his/her court room, such as happened to Judge Sage in the previous 18 months, then more than one court reporter would be able to share in the final transcript work. Throughout this entire process, Judge Sage completely removed himself from the discussion as well as the final vote on this issue. This struck several of the judges very odd, considering what a vocal proponent Judge Sage had always been for the court reporters. However, this time, he exerted no influence at all over the discussion or the vote.

In short, the decision making process to rotate the court reporters began long before Judge Sage ended his relationship with Ms. Olivier on December 16, 2011. This decision was therefore totally independent Ms. Oliviers sex, Judge Sage and Ms. Oliviers relationship, the ending to of the relationship or Ms. Oliviers January 6, 2012 letter. This fact is very well documented by the minutes from the judges meetings. Also, all of the judges, Gary Yates and Rob Menke, were very consistent in their reasoning and recollections of what led to this decision. Therefore, the decision to rotate the court reporters in no way constituted any type of illegal act against Ms. Olivier. Ms. Olivier also tries to argue that because the decision to rotate the court reporters was received in a very negative manner by the court reporters themselves that this is somehow evidence that this decision was really and act of illegal discrimination, harassment or retaliation against her. This argument has no merit at all. It is overwhelming clear that the decision to rotate the court reporters was based on the pay discrepancy that existed between the court reporters and the desire to gain more control over the court reporters. There is no evidence that any inquiry was ever made with the court reporters as to what their preference would be on this issue. Instead, the decision makers saw the detrimental issues relating to assigning each reporter to a particular judge and acted upon it. In short, if the decision makers never inquired as to what the court reporters preference was, then it could not have been a factor in making their decision. Therefore, the preference of the court reporters was a non-issue in reaching their decision. THE DECISION TO MOVE MS. OLIVIER AND KATHY NICHOLSON FROM THEIR 3RD FLOOR OFFICE TO THEIR 4TH FLOOR OFFICE Ms. Olivier claims that the decision to move her and Ms. Nicholson from their 3rd floor office to their new office on the 4th floor was also an illegal harassing, discriminatory and retaliatory act. In researching this matter, it became clear to me that there were many other factors at work here that led to the decision to move Ms. Olivier and Ms. Nicholson from the 3rd floor the 4th floor. I believe these factors were totally unrelated to Ms. Oliviers relationship with Judge Sage.

10

First, Keith Hunt, an IT person with the county, had his office on the 4th floor. Gary Yates noticed that Mr. Hunts office was also filled with a great deal of computer hardware, such as monitors, hard drives, etc. So, additional storage space was clearly needed to accommodate all of this equipment. Next, Angie Anglin, a Butler County Court Administrative Assistant, was assigned to work at the 3rd floor administrative desk. Ms. Anglins duties included paying bills, processing purchase orders, and so on. However, because the administrative desk is an open area where the public comes to ask various questions and to get information, Ms. Anglin was constantly being interrupted. As a result, she was having a great deal of trouble getting her work done. Court administration therefore saw the need to move Mr. Anglin to a private office for part of the day so she could work in private and get these billing duties competed. At this same time, Ms. Olivier and Ms. Nicholson were located on the 3rd floor while the other three court reporters were already located on the 4th floor. Since the decision to rotate the court reporters had already been made and announced to everyone, it was clear that the court reporters would need to communicate with one another much more frequently than they did before because they would now be sharing court rooms. The coordination that would be needed between court reporters would now be greater than ever. Therefore, moving Ms. Olivier and Ms. Nicholson to the 4th floor made sense. Also, Ms. Oliviers and Ms. Nicholsons new office on the 4th floor is considerably larger than their previous office on the 3rd floor. This would give them both more room to share between them. So, the decision was made to move Mr. Hunt out of his office and across the hall into another office on the 4th floor. Ms. Anglin would work in the early morning and in the late afternoon at the open administration desk as she had always done, but she would work in Ms. Oliviers and Ms. Nicholsons old 3rd floor office in the middle of the day where she could complete her billing duties in private. It also made sense to keep Ms. Anglin on the 3rd floor close to the open administration desk in case she was needed. Also, since Ms. Anglin works very closely with Cheryl Welch, who is in the Butler County Court Services Department and is also located on the 3rd floor, it made sense to keep her close to Ms. Welch. Ms. Oliviers and Ms. Nicholsons old 3rd floor office would also be used for storage.

11

Therefore, moving of employee offices had nothing to do with the relationship that had ended between Judge Sage and Ms. Olivier. It also had nothing to do with any attempt to illegally discriminate against, harass or retaliate against Ms. Olivier. THE LACK OF ASSISTANCE IN HELPING MS. OLIVIER AND MS. NICHOLSON MOVE FROM THEIR 3RD FLOOR OFFICE TO THEIR 4TH FLOOR OFFICE Ms. Olivier also contends that the lack of assistance in helping her and Ms. Nicholson move from the 3rd floor to the 4th floor in February 2012 was also evidence of illegal discrimination, harassment and retaliation against her. On February 2, 2012, Ms. Olivier and Kathy Nicholson were told that their new office on the 4th floor was ready for them to move into. Ms. Olivier claims they were not offered any assistance in moving their books, office supplies, etc. Ms. Olivier also claims they had to move their large desks around in their new office by themselves. However, according to Ms. Oliviers February 1, 2012 email to Rob Menke, Ms. Olivier knew that she needed to begin gathering some boxes in order to assist with the move. According to Mr. Menke, employees typically move their own personal items when they change offices. However, if Ms. Olivier or Ms. Nicholson needed help, he let them know in his email response that the maintenance department would help them. He also let them know that maintenance department would put their desks where ever they would like them positioned. Apparently, this did not happen. According to Ms. Olivier, while the desks were in fact moved from the 3rd floor to the 4th floor, they were not positioned correctly. As a result, Ms. Olivier claims that she and Ms. Nicholson had to move these heavy desks themselves. Ms. Olivier also claims that they called the county maintenance department and asked for some help in hanging their pictures and a mirror on the wall. However, instead of helping them with these items, Ms. Olivier claims that the maintenance department simply left them a drill so they could do it themselves. Clearly, it appears as if Ms. Olivier and Ms. Nicholson were not given the assistance they were promised in executing this move. However, if maintenance did not show up to help them move the items they wanted moved, or to position the desks where they wanted them or to hang the items they wanted hung on the walls, then they should have called Mr. Menke. Calling the maintenance department certainly did not get the response they wanted, and since Mr. Menke had assured Ms. Olivier that she would get them the assistance they needed, then she should have called him immediately and put the ball in his court.

12

Mr. Menke told me that he had no idea that Ms. Olivier and Ms. Nicholson did not get the help they needed. In the real world, as well as in the world of employment law, you are expected to take appropriate action to help yourself. More specifically, in this instance: (b) The employee (Ms. Olivier) unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise. (Faragher and Ellerth) If she was not getting the help she needed, then it was her responsibility to let Mr. Menke know. You cannot have something go wrong, fail to notify the person you are going to hold accountable that there is a problem and then later try to claim that this person is trying to intentionally and illegally harass you, discriminate against you or retaliate against you. You have to at least let that person know. Sitting back and playing the blame game will not work here. If Ms. Olivier and Ms. Nicholson did not get the help they were promised in this move, it was their responsibility to let Mr. Menke know. They failed to do this. NOT BEING ALLOWED TO WEAR JEANS Additionally, Ms. Olivier claims that when she asked Mr. Menke if they could wear jeans the next day because they would be cleaning their new office, Mr. Menke said they had to have their regular attire with them in case they had to go into court, but they could bring their jeans with them. Ms. Olivier claims that this was never a problem in the past. Consequently, Ms. Olivier points to this instance as an example of illegal harassment and retaliation. However, it is important to remember that Rob Menke at that time had been in his position for less than one year. (He took over this position in April of 2011.) After Mary Swain, Butler Countys former Manager of Court Administration, left this position, Mr. Menke took over her responsibilities. Clearly, whenever a new person assumes such a position, not only is there a learning curve that is needed for the new person, but the new person is most likely not going to do everything the same way his/her predecessor did. Whereas Ms. Swain might have allowed the staff to wear jeans to clean their offices, to move offices or to perform other such duties without bringing in a change of clothes in case they are needed in court, clearly, that is not Mr. Menkes policy. That is fine. He is the new manager of court administration. It is his call. Also, Mr. Menke did not say Ms. Olivier or Ms. Nicholson could not wear jeans to perform these tasks. He simply said they had to bring a change of clothes in case they were needed in court.

13

The court does not shut down operations just because someone is moving or needs to clean their office. Quite frankly, this seems like one of those very trivial matters the U.S. Supreme Court warned us about that is not really even worth discussing any further. ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT, AND RETALIATION BY LAW ENFORCEMENT Ms. Olivier also contends that the discrimination, harassment and retaliation she is alleging also came from a member of law enforcement. She states that on March 4, 2012, an off-duty police officer and a close friend of Judge Sage showed up unannounced at her home early in the afternoon and asked her 10 and 13 year old children of Ms. Oliviers whereabouts. They told the officer that Ms. Olivier was not home, but would be back around 5:00 pm. The officer said he would be back about then. He then left and returned around 5:00 pm. When he returned, Ms. Oliviers daughters told the officer that she had not gotten home yet. The officer said he would simply wait in his car for her in the driveway. Ms. Oliviers daughters then told Mr. Olivier that there was a man waiting for her in the driveway. Mr. Olivier then went outside to see what was happening. Mr. Olivier recognized the officer, Sgt. Ed Buns of the Hamilton City Police Department, so he invited the officer into their home. Officer Buns then explained that he was there as a friend to Judge Sage and wanted to know what was happening between Ms. Olivier and the judge. Officer Buns explained that he had never seen the judge so stressed out and he was very worried about his physical and mental health. Officer Buns also explained that he was there to see if there was anything he could do to help resolve whatever conflict was happening between the two. (Sgt. Buns did not know of the affair yet.) Ms. Olivier, who was visiting her ailing father at a nursing home at the time, called her house and talked to her husband. Mr. Olivier told her that Officer Buns was there and wanted to talk to her about Judge Sage. Ms. Olivier asked her husband to bring the children to the nursing home and to meet her there. Mr. Olivier asked Officer Buns to leave. Officer Buns then allegedly began repeatedly calling Ms. Olivier on her cell phone and leaving messages for her to call him. Officer Buns said that he was very concerned about Judge Sages well being and to call him back. Ms. Olivier said that when she called Officer Buns back, he repeatedly questioned her about what was going on and what he could do to help resolve what appeared to be some type of conflict between her and the judge.

14

When I interviewed Ms. Olivier, I asked her why she never mentioned Sgt. Buns by name in her April 16, 2012 letter. To me, it sounded like she did not know the officer. However, Ms. Olivier explained to me that she was afraid of retaliation and harassment by the police. She then went onto to describe how she was afraid for her safety, her husbands safety and the safety of her children. She claimed she knew that off duty police officers carry a gun strapped to their leg, especially the old school officers like Sgt. Buns. She was very afraid for her familys safety. I asked Ms. Olivier if she knew Sgt. Buns very well. I knew that Sgt. Buns was in fact very good friends with Judge Sage. I also knew that whenever the Oliviers vacationed together with the Sages in Florida, the judge and Deby Sage would stay in their condo and the Oliviers would use the Buns condo free of charge. Since the Buns condo was close to the Sages condo, that simply made sense. To me, whenever someone lets you stay in their Florida condo multiple times free of charge, that is someone who you might know rather well. However, Ms. Olivier told me that simply was not the case. Ms. Olivier told me that the most time she ever spent with Sgt. Buns was maybe five minutes or so at a party they both just happened to be attending. Ms. Olivier also told me that she never even met Sgt. Buns in order to get the key to their condo. This key had always been passed from Sgt. Buns to Judge Sage to her. This amazed me. So, I asked her why in the world did Sgt. Buns think he could just come over to her home and mediate whatever conflict was going on between her and Judge Sage. (Again, at the time Sgt. Buns went over to Ms. Oliviers home, the affair and the ending of the relationship by Judge Sage was not known to anyone outside of the court other than Ms. Sage.) Ms. Olivier said she thought this was all a ploy by Judge Sage to intimidate her and her family through Sgt. Buns. I then asked Ms. Olivier if she had ever used Sgt. Buns as a confidant in any way that would lead him to believe that he had some kind of relationship with her that would allow him to mediate this conflict between them. Ms. Olivier said there was no such relationship between them. Instead, Ms. Olivier said this was all an attempt to harass and intimidate her. She also explained that she had even informed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of Sgt. Buns attempt to intimidate her. The EEOC then referred her onto another federal agency to investigate him on charges of intimidation of a witness. However, in April of 2011, Ms. Olivier apparently did call Sgt. Buns and said that she needed to meet with him. She needed to talk to him, but they could not be seen together in the office.

15

So, on April 15, 2011, Ms. Olivier secretly met with Sgt. Buns for almost an hour in his car as he drove around the city of Hamilton to discuss the problems she had with Deby Sage, Judge Sages wife, at their sons wedding in Mexico. What Ms. Olivier did not know is that Sgt. Buns recorded their entire conversation without her knowing it. (That is legal in the state of Ohio and under federal law.) Sgt. Buns attorney allowed me to listen to this recording. On this recording, Ms. Olivier got into his car and the first issue they discussed was the key for the Buns condo in Florida. I saw this as being one of several lies or half-truths Ms. Olivier told me in our interview. When Ms. Olivier claimed she had always gotten the key to the Buns condo from Judge Sage and did not have any such contact with Sgt. Buns, I heard with my own ears that this simply is not true. Ms. Olivier then began to complain about Deby Sage to Sgt. Buns. According to Ms. Olivier, Ms. Sage treated her in a very rude manner at her sons wedding. Ms. Olivier kept asking Sgt. Buns why Ms. Sage would treat her in such a manner. Specifically, Ms. Olivier told Sgt. Buns that it was so weird the way Deby Sage was treating her. She then asked Sgt. Buns why Ms. Sage was being so nasty. Sgt. Buns tried to give her some insight and advice on her relationship with Deby Sage. Therefore, contrary to Ms. Oliviers earlier statement to me that she had never used Sgt. Buns as a confidant, she was now meeting with him in his automobile asking his for insight into Deby Sages behavior for almost an hour. This is what I would call a confidant. I also understand that Sgt. Buns had been to the Oliviers home previously, such as to watch the NCAA basketball tournament. I also understand that Ms. Olivier had visited the Buns home in West Chester as well. This certainly does not mean Sgt. Buns and Ms. Olivier were best friends. However, it certainly does help to explain why Sgt. Buns would go over to the Oliviers home to try and mediate whatever conflict was going on between the two. It is also not true that she had never met with Sgt. Buns for more than five minutes or so, as Ms. Olivier had told me earlier. It appears to me that Ms. Olivier tried to hide her relationship with Sgt. Buns. In reality, contrary to Ms. Oliviers contention, it makes perfect sense to me why Sgt. Buns would go to the Oliviers home to meet with her and to try and mediate this situation.

16

MS. OLIVIER AND DEBY SAGE On December 16, 2011, after Judge Sage broke off the affair with Ms. Olivier, she claims she then received an angry telephone call from Deby Sage. According to Ms. Olivier and Ms. Erin Rosen, Judge Sages staff attorney and mediator, Ms. Sage became verbally abusive towards Ms. Olivier. Ms. Olivier also contends that Ms. Sage was threatening her children, as described in her April 16, 2012 letter. Ms. Rosen confirmed most of this. While Ms. Rosen could not confirm exactly what Ms. Sage said, Ms. Rosen did confirm that Ms. Sage was shouting at Ms. Olivier over the phone. Ms. Olivier then went into Judge Sages chambers with Ms. Sage still on the phone. Ms. Olivier then allegedly asked Ms. Sage to repeat what she had said to her. However, Judge Sage denied that Ms. Sage ever threatened Ms. Oliviers children. In our interview, I asked Ms. Olivier if Deby Sage ever had any idea that she was having an affair with the judge. Ms. Olivier said no. In fact, Ms. Olivier told me that she and Judge Sage went to great lengths to keep their relationship a secret. Therefore, no one, including Ms. Sage, knew of their affair. However, from the interviews I conducted, it is very clear that the vast majority of the people working at the Butler County Court assumed the two were having an affair. Everyone knew how much time they spent together and that they would always go to lunch together. It was also suspected that the two were having an affair from due to the bullet proof status Ms. Olivier seemed to possess. Therefore, it was a common suspicion throughout the court that this affair had been going on for quite some time. So, when the affair became public knowledge, it really was not that big of a surprise to most of the employees at the court. Therefore, I reasoned if most of the employees suspected that they were having an affair, then certainly Ms. Sage would have her suspicions. Additionally, some of the advice Sgt. Buns gave to Ms. Olivier in his car on April 15, 2011 was that Ms. Olivier should stop spending so much time with Judge Sage. Sgt. Buns told Ms. Olivier on the recording that if he spent that much time with another woman, not to mention that fact that such rumors were circulating, his wife would be very upset. Also on the recording, Ms. Olivier admits that Deby Sage was very upset that Ms. Olivier went back to Judge Sages room with everyone else for a drink. Ms. Olivier then states that Ms. Sage called Judge Sage a fucking asshole and then called Ms. Olivier a fucking whore. To me, that certainly indicates that Ms. Sage certainly suspected something was going on between them.

17

I then asked Ms. Olivier in our interview if Ms. Sage had ever called her a gold digger. Ms. Olivier denied that Ms. Sage had ever called her that. Ms. Olivier was once again not telling me the truth. On the recording, Ms. Olivier clearly admits that Ms. Sage did in fact called Ms. Olivier a gold digger. I took such a comment to again indicate that at the very least, Ms. Sage suspected something was going on between the judge and Ms. Olivier. Still, Ms. Olivier claims that Deby Sage had no idea that they were having an affair just eight months before the judge ended it on December 16, 2011. I also asked Ms. Olivier if she had ever called Deby Sage any derogatory names before December 16, 2011. Ms. Olivier told me that she had never called Ms. Sage any derogatory names. This was not true either. For almost an hour on the April 15, 2011 recording, Ms. Olivier vented about Deby Sage, saying she was fucking nuts, calling her a fucking lunatic and saying Ms. Sage was certifiably bipolar. Ms. Olivier described Ms. Sage as the most vicious, evil, disgusting person Ive ever met. In our interview, I asked Ms. Olivier if she was ever afraid that Ms. Sage would try to get her fired because she suspected the two were having an affair. I also asked Ms. Olivier if she ever feared for her job before she gave Judge Sage the January 6, 2012 letter. To all of this, Ms. Olivier unequivocally answered, no. This is not true either. On the recording, she clearly tells Sgt. Buns that one of her fears is that one day, Ms. Sage will simply say, Youre out of here regarding Ms. Oliviers employment as a court reporter. Ms. Olivier further stated that she was afraid that one day Ms. Sage would tell the judge that its me or her. Ms. Olivier then described Ms. Sages conduct at the wedding as bizarre and asked Sgt. Buns who does that? I believe someone who suspects that you are having sex with her husband might very likely act like that.

18

Ms. Olivier then notes that on January 19, 2012, Deby Sage came to observe the SAMI (Substance Abuse and Mental Illness) court docket, which was one of Judge Sages sessions. Ms. Olivier claims that this was just another way to harass her. However, simply coming into the judges court room comes no where close to constituting harassment under the law. Further, it is my understanding that it was not such a rare occurrence to see Ms. Sage in the judges court room. Actually, before the judges father died, Ms. Sage used to bring the judges father in to watch him in court. Additionally, I also understand that the Sages marital counselor suggested that Ms. Sage spend more time in her husbands court in order to better understand and appreciate what he does. Therefore, again, I believe Ms. Olivier simply failed to tell me the truth on several points relating to her allegations of harassment and retaliation from not only Sgt. Buns, but also from Deby Sage. DIFFERENT TREATMENT DIRECTED TOWARDS MS. OLIVIER Ms. Olivier states that she has been having an affair with Judge Michael Sage going back to 2003. Judge Sage disputes the time frame, but acknowledges that there was indeed an affair going on between them. Therefore, the fact that there was a consensual relationship going on between the two of them over the last few years is not in dispute. On December 16, 2011, Judge Sage arrived at the courthouse and met with Ms. Olivier privately in his chambers. Judge Sage then informed Ms. Olivier that their physical relationship had to come to an end. Judge Sage informed Ms. Olivier that he was going to work on repairing his marriage with his wife, Deby. Ms. Olivier then alleges that Judge Sage suggested that Ms. Olivier be reassigned to another courtroom. Ms. Olivier claims to have responded absolutely not. After Ms. Olivier left the judges chambers, she contends that Judge Sage met with Ms. Jones and Shirley Lakes in private. Ms. Olivier believes that Judge Sage directed both Chris Jones, the judges bailiff, and Shirley Lakes, the judges judicial assistant, to treat Ms. Olivier differently. Ms. Olivier bases this belief on her contention that she was treated very differently from then on by Ms. Jones and Ms. Lakes. When I asked Judge Sage, Ms. Jones and Ms. Lakes in their interviews as to what was said in this meeting, all three told me basically the same thing:

19

The judge said that he had a falling out with Ms. Olivier. As a result, he had decided to make this a strictly professional relationship with Jennifer. He also told them that he and Deby were working everything out. The judge then told them both that they were to treat Jennifer with professionalism and respect. On the afternoon of Friday, December 16, 2011, Judge Sage cancelled his annual Team Sage Christmas Party scheduled for Saturday, December 17, 2011, at his home. Ms. Olivier then claims that Ms. Jones, Judge Sages bailiff, told everyone that the party was not cancelled but that it was merely Ms. Oliviers choice not to attend. However, I could not find anyone that believed the party was still on for December 17, 2011. In fact, everyone corroborated that the party had in fact been cancelled. That was common knowledge. Further, both Ms. Lakes and Ms. Jones claimed that neither of them told anyone that it was Ms. Oliviers choice not to attend. Either way, the party was not held period. Further, even if what Ms. Olivier is saying is true, if either Ms. Jones or Ms Lakes had said that it was Ms. Oliviers choice not to attend the party, this is clearly what the U.S. Supreme Court would refer to as being a petty slight. (i.e.: snubbing by supervisors and co-workers.) In short, the reasonable person in the community would consider this to be trivial and not a material issues. Therefore, this point needs to be dismissed without any more time spent discussing it. On Monday, December 19, 2011, Ms. Olivier contends that Ms. Jones, who had always been kind and professional towards her, suddenly treated her in an angry and rude manner. Ms. Olivier contends that it had always been Ms. Jones practice to let Ms. Olivier know when the judge was about to come out onto the bench. That morning, however, Ms. Olivier contends that Ms. Jones knocked on her office door and asked rather pointedly, Are you coming or not? When I asked Ms. Jones about this, she told me she did not remember ever saying anything like this to Ms. Olivier. Ms. Jones told me that all she ever tells Ms. Olivier is that the judge is ready to go on the bench. That is it. On Tuesday, December 20, 2011, the second day of trial, during deliberations, the jury notified Ms. Jones that they had a question. In such instances, the court reporter typically goes back into the courtroom with the bailiff, the attorneys and the judge to go on the record regarding the jurys question.

20

Ms. Olivier claims that Ms. Jones had always in the past notified her in a respectful manner that the judge was ready to come out onto the bench so she could record what was being said. On this instance, Ms. Olivier contends that Ms. Jones never notified her that the jury had a question so she could get ready to record the discussion. Instead, according to Ms. Olivier, Ms. Jones very rudely told her to get into the courtroom because the judge is going on the record. When I interviewed Ms. Jones about this incident, she told me that everyone was a little sensitive that day, probably because of the incident on December 16, 2011. She said the judge usually lets her know before he enters the court room so she can make sure everything is ready. However, on this day, the judge did not notify her that he was going to enter the court room. Instead, he was on his way into court before Ms. Jones had a chance to get Ms. Olivier. So, Ms. Jones rushed to Ms. Oliviers office to tell her to get into place as quickly as possible. Actually, by the time both Ms. Olivier and Ms. Jones made it into the court room, the judge was already approaching the bench. Ms. Jones told me that while such situations are rare, they have happened in the past. Ms. Olivier contends that this type of confrontational behavior continued on Wednesday, December 21, 2011. Ms. Olivier claims that Ms. Jones physically blocked her from getting one of the Panera breakfast sandwiches that were brought in for everyone by Susan Schultz, an attorney from the prosecutors office. Ms. Olivier claims that Ms. Jones kept asking her what she wanted. Ms. Olivier claims that when she tried to retrieve the key to the employee storage refrigerator for her lunch, Ms. Jones again blocked her way. Ms. Olivier claims that when Ms. Jones blocked her access to get past the judges judicial assistant, Ms. Lakes, prevented her from delivering her payroll and exhibit release paperwork to the judge for his signature, all of which she claims she did on a routine basis before December 16, 2011. However, Ms. Jones tells me that on that morning, Susan Schultz of the prosecutors office, did in fact bring in from Panera an assortment of breakfast sandwiches for everyone. That was at about 7:15 am that morning. About that same time, Judge Sage entered the office. He was carrying a bag from McDonalds. Ms. Jones asked the judge if he wanted a breakfast sandwich. He held up his McDonalds bag and said something to the effect that he already had gotten his breakfast and he might get one later.

21

Ms. Schultz then left the office. Three or four attorneys then entered and went into the judges chambers for a meeting. At about 7:30 am, according to Ms. Jones, Ms. Olivier very quickly entered the office and was talking a mile a minute. Ms. Olivier then allegedly said, Susie told me these were here. Ms. Olivier then allegedly put one on a plate and headed for the judges office. It was at this point that Ms. Jones claims she blocked Ms. Oliviers entrance to the judges chambers and told her, You cant go in there. Ms. Olivier then allegedly replied, But this is his favorite and it will get cold. Ms. Jones then allegedly explained that the judge was in a meeting and she could take it to him when he was finished. Ms. Jones then said that Ms. Olivier looked into the judges chambers, said thank you to the judge and then left. Ms. Jones told me that it was very common for Ms. Olivier to bring the judge some type of food as peace offering whenever they had a falling out of some kind. Ms. Jones saw this as being that type of behavior. Ms. Jones also said it was very unusual for Ms. Olivier to be in the office that early. Since court did not start until 8:30 am, Ms. Jones said that she had rarely seen Ms. Olivier in the office much before 8:25 am. Ms. Jones thought that it was unusual for Ms. Olivier to in that early. However, a few minutes later, Ms. Olivier re-entered the office. This time, Susan Schultz was with her. Once again, Ms. Olivier tried to get a breakfast sandwich and take it into the judge. Once again, Ms. Jones blocked her way, telling her that the judge was in a meeting and that she could not go in, but she could go see the judge once it was over. According to Ms. Schultz, Ms. Olivier appeared to be very disappointed and left the room. However, Ms. Schultz simply did not recall what was said by everyone. Ms. Schultz also mentioned that it was unusual for the judge to keep his court reporter out of his chambers. However, Ms. Jones stated that the judge simply did not want to be disturbed. If Ms. Olivier wanted to see the judge, all she had to do was wait until his meeting was over and she could have gone right in to see him. Again, this all seems logical to me. If the judge did not want to be disturbed, he did not want to be disturbed. That is the end of it. It does not matter what the meeting was all about. That was his preference ... and to violate his preference over a breakfast sandwich is ridiculous.

22

Let me be frank: It is a breakfast sandwich. If Ms. Olivier had an important and confidential message for him, perhaps that would have been different. But that was not the case. Ms. Olivier wanted to give the judge a sandwich after he had indicated to Ms. Jones and to Ms. Schultz that he had already taken care of his breakfast. Further, Ms. Jones did not deny Ms. Olivier access to the judge. Instead, she denied Ms. Olivier access to the judge at that specific time. Again, I believe this entire episode falls under the U.S. Supreme Courts definition of trivial matters. In other words, if this was on the front page of the Cincinnati Enquirer that the judges bailiff denied access to his chambers while he was in a meeting to his court reporter who wanted to deliver a breakfast sandwich to him, what would the reasonable person in the community think? I believe they would think it is a pretty slow news day and what in the heck is this doing on the front page. In other words, the reasonable person in the community simply wouldnt care. That means it is to be classified as a trivial matter and deserves no further discussion. Ms. Olivier also claims that she was denied access to the refrigerator key and was not allowed to turn in her paperwork needed for payroll. Ms. Jones denies this entirely. Unfortunately, it is not possible to verify the veracity of either persons statement on this point. However, again, just as in the case where Ms. Olivier and Ms. Nicholson were not given the assistance they needed in moving their belongings and equipment from the 3rd floor to the 4th floor, she never said anything to anyone. If Ms. Olivier was not allowed to submit paperwork that would allow her to be paid, then she needed to assume some of the responsibility here and let either Rob Menke or Gary Yates know about the problem. Again, Ms. Olivier cannot later claim that she was wronged in some way when she did not follow the internal protocols required to resolve such issues. Ms. Olivier also claims that Shirley Lakes, Judge Sages judicial assistant, started treating her differently after December 16, 2011. For instance, Ms. Olivier claims that Ms. Lakes used to hand deliver the inter-office envelopes to Ms. Olivier containing the recently filed appeals. Court reporters have a genuine interest in knowing which of their cases get appealed because they will most likely be asked to produce a transcript of the trial. Producing such transcripts makes up a great portion of the court reporters income. After December 16, 2011, Ms. Olivier claims that Ms. Lakes began putting these envelopes into her mailbox rather than hand delivering them to her.

23

When I asked Ms. Lakes about this, Ms. Lakes told me that she had always delivered these notices to Ms. Olivier as a courtesy. She was never required to deliver them to Ms. Olivier. Instead, she did it as a courtesy and continued doing it after December 16, 2011. Mr. Lakes also told me that she had used inter-office envelopes to deliver these notices to Ms. Olivier before December 16, 2011 and she used them to deliver these notices after this date as well. Sometimes she would hand deliver them to Ms. Olivier and sometimes not. Again, it is Ms. Oliviers burden to prove that she has experienced some sort of retaliation or harassment based upon her protected status that the reasonable person in the community would see as being material. Here, Ms. Lakes offers a plausible explanation. Ms. Olivier also claims that Ms. Lakes, at Judge Sages direction, deleted the Sage Groupwise Calendar. This was a digital calendar, similar to Outlook, that had the all of the appointments and schedules for each member of Team Sage, including Judge Sages. This Groupwise calendar had both the personal schedules and the court schedules for each person. This calendar could be accessed from either inside or outside the Butler County Courthouse. The Groupwise calendar contained only this information for Team Sage. The official calendar for the Butler County Court is a different program called Courtview. Courtview contains only the court-related calendars for the court employees. However, it does not contain any personal information for the court employees. Also, unlike the Groupwise calendar, the Courtview calendar cannot be accessed from outside the court house. Ms. Olivier therefore contends that because Ms. Lakes took down the Groupwise calendar, she no longer has constant 24 hour access to the courts calendar. As a result, she claims she now runs the risk of missing a hearing in Judge Sages courtroom, thus subjecting her to a loss of income and disciplinary action. However, in discussing this matter with other members of Team Sage, it appears as if Ms. Olivier does not have her facts straight. First of all, after he returned from Christmas break in January of 2012, Judge Sage told Ms. Lakes that he no longer wanted his personal information on the Groupwise calendar. He said it was no one elses business what his personal calendar looked like, so he wanted his personal information removed.

24

Ms. Lakes told me that Judge Sage never used the Groupwise calendar anyway. Further, since Team Sage had its own Groupwise calendar in addition to the Butler County Courts official Courtview calendar, both Ms. Jones and Ms. Lakes had to enter all of their information twice once into the Groupwise calendar and once again into the Courtview calendar. Consequently, neither of them wanted to do the Groupwise calendar anymore either. So, Ms. Lakes began removing Judge Sages personal information from the Groupwise calendar, as well as her own and Ms. Jones. Ms. Rosen then asked Ms. Lakes about the Groupwise calendar. Ms. Lakes told Ms. Rosen that the judge did not want his personal calendar on the Groupwise system, so she was removing all of the information. Ms. Rosen then told Ms. Lakes that it would be easier and faster if she just deleted the Groupwise calendar entirely. Therefore, it was not Ms. Lakes who deleted the Groupwise system, it was Erin Rosen. Removing this personal information from such a system in no way constitutes illegal discrimination, harassment or retaliation. It is a matter of personal privacy, which is fully understandable considering the fact that Judge Sage had just ended his relationship with Ms. Olivier. I believe this instance, again, would constitute a minor annoyance and a trivial matter, rather than being a material issue. Ms. Olivier is also mistaken in claiming that she no longer has access to this information 24 hours a day as she did previously. Ms. Jones informed me that while the Courtview calendar is still in place and since it is not accessible to those working in Judge Sages court 24 hours a day from outside the courthouse, she now sends an email to everyone twice a week through Groupwise to keep everyone in Judge Sages court room apprised of what is on the schedule. If anything changes on the courts calendar, Ms. Jones sends an email update. (Groupwise, just like Outlook, has a calendar feature and an email feature. While the Groupwise calendar feature is no longer being used, the Groupwise email feature is being used by Ms. Jones. Therefore, the basic information relating to the courts schedule is still available for Ms. Olivier to view, although it is not in a calendar format. It is in an email format. She also no longer had access to the judges personal calendar, which she does not have a right to view anyway.) Therefore, Ms. Oliviers claim that she no longer has access to the courts schedule from outside the Butler County Court House is simply not true. Ms. Olivier, just like everyone else, can access the Groupwise email system at anytime from anywhere and this email is updated by Ms. Jones whenever anything changes and at least twice a week.

25

As a result, Ms. Oliviers claim that she does not have access to the information she needs to do her job is simply not true. Next, Ms. Olivier contends that on December 21, 2011, Judge Sage tried to be nice to her by placing a bottle of wine under her desk. She did not see this as professional behavior. However, when I asked Judge Sage about this incident, he explained to me that the bottle of wine he put under Ms. Oliviers desk already belonged to her. This was not a bottle of wine that he bought for her, but he was instead merely returning it to her. Again, there is simply no evidence to the contrary of what Judge Sage told me. Also, Wednesday, December 21, 2011, was docket day in Judge Sages court. (On docket day, the new cases that have been added to the judges calendar are presented with the defendants and their lawyers present. Dates are set and the case is prepared to move forward.) After the docket was over, Judge Sage and all of his team returned to their work areas. Later, Judge Sage had everyone on Team Sage gather in his office so he could distribute his Christmas gifts to them. Ms. Olivier contends that Judge Sage waited until after she left for a doctors appointment to call everyone into his office and distribute his Team Sages gifts. Ms. Olivier felt that this was an intentional slight in order to exclude her from this function in Judge Sages office. Actually, to the contrary, Ms. Lakes told me that she was very particular about inviting Ms. Olivier to various Team Sage events after December 16, 2011. She did not want to appear as if she was excluding her from anything. Mr. Lakes even mentioned that Ms. Olivier left the court room before the docket was finished that day, but she did not know where she was going. After the docket was over, Ms. Lakes met with Judge Sage in his chambers. He showed her the gifts and asked her what she thought he should do. Ms. Lakes said he should get everyone together and distribute them. So, everyone was called to the judges chambers. However, unbeknownst to Ms. Lakes, Judge Sage and Ms. Jones, Ms. Olivier had already left the building for the day. I find this to be an interesting example used by Ms. Olivier. It was her choice to leave early that day, not anyone elses. When the judge returned to his chambers, he took care of a few various items that needed to be addressed because he was leaving for Florida that afternoon. By the time he completed those items, and by the time Ms. Lakes had called everyone, Ms. Olivier had gone. If she wanted to go to the judges chambers to get her gift, then she should have planned accordingly.

26

After Judge Sage returned in January from Christmas break, Ms. Olivier claims that Judge Sage would avoid eye contact with her and would not speak to her unless it was absolutely necessary. She claims that Judge Sage would go to great lengths to avoid her. This is probably all true. However, what Ms. Olivier fails to appreciate is the fact that her reputation throughout the entire Butler County Court was one of being a terribly manipulative and vindictive person. (This will be discussed in more detail later.) Actually, both Ms. Jones and Ms. Lakes said they tried to keep Judge Sage away from her as much as possible because they saw her as being such a manipulative and hurtful person. Judge Sage now saw her that way as well. Actually, it appears as if only two other people at the court affiliate with Ms. Olivier: Ms. Erin Rosen and Ms. Kathy Nicholson. In other words, hardly anyone wants to be around her. Judge Spaeth even voted against the rotation of the court reporters because he did not want her in his court room. Therefore, I do not see this type of behavior as constituting illegal discrimination, harassment or retaliation, but instead as their attempt at self-preservation. I do not find this behavior to be all that unusual at all. I can see where the judge would want to avoid her. As a result, it was at this point that Ms. Olivier delivered her January 6, 2012 letter to Judge Sage complaining about the aforementioned conduct directed towards her. However, what Ms. Olivier forgets to mention is that all of these instances she mentions predates her January 6, 2012 letter. If she was treated differently before she delivered her January 6, 2012 letter to Judge Sage, it could not have been because of retaliation because there was nothing to retaliate against. She had not complained about anything yet. Further, it is doubtful any different treatment she might have received was because of her sex. A better argument is that it was because of Judge Sage ending their affair, but that is not illegal. To discriminate against someone or harass someone because of their sex is illegal. To discriminate against someone or harass someone because of they ended an affair with you is not. Additionally, both Ms. Jones and Ms. Lakes made this point very clear to me: At no time did they ever treat Ms. Olivier any differently than they did before December 16, 2011 largely because they never liked her. They think she is a horrible person now and they have thought she was a horrible person for years. This has not changed at all.

27

ROB MENKE Ms. Olivier also claims that this alleged illegal discrimination, harassment and retaliation was also perpetuated by Rob Menke, the Butler County Manager of Court Administration, under the direction of Judge Sage. On January 27, 2012, Mr. Menke had a meeting with Ms. Olivier which he referred to as a pre-evaluation meeting to review a survey that all of the court reporters had been asked to complete. At this meeting, Mr. Menke also discussed Ms. Oliviers attendance. Ms. Olivier claims that such meetings were never held before she gave her January 6, 2012 letter to Judge Sage. Ms. Olivier claims that such a pre-evaluation meeting and survey was just another way to harass and retaliate against her. However, again, Mr. Menke took over this role in April 2011. As a result, Mr. Menke is certainly going to put new procedures into place and new systems that Ms. Swain did not use. Mr. Menke informed me that this was all just a way for him to gain more insight and information into the court reporters and to give them an update on such issues as their attendance. His reasoning here is that many employees often do not realize how many days they have actually missed. This was a way to keep them up to date. According to Mr. Menke, Ms. Olivier was not the best and she was not the worst when it came to attendance. Again, this was a mere update session according to Mr. Menke, and all of the court reporters went through this process, not just Ms. Olivier. Also, Ms. Olivier claims that no further action has been taken on this pre-evaluation session and survey, which she claims further proves that this was simply another way to harass and retaliate against her. However, I do not see anything at all unusual about someone giving their employees a mid-year evaluation, or as Mr. Menke calls it, a pre-evaluation. Actually, in the world of human resources this happens all the time. Additionally, Mr. Menke told me that nothing further has happened with these preevaluations because he simply has not addressed it yet. Evaluations will be coming later. Also at this January 27, 2012 meeting, Ms. Olivier informed Mr. Menke that the software she was using would not allow her to provide a real time transcript for any judge other than Judge Sage. Mr. Olivier claims that Judge Sage did not like the software the court was using, so he wanted Ms. Olivier to continue using the software she had already been using.

28

Ms. Olivier contends that after the court reporters were put into a rotation with the other judges, Mr. Menke failed to get her the proper software that she needed in order to give real time transcription service in any court room other than Judge Sages. Ms. Olivier contended that since Judge Sage wanted her to use her software (Procat) in his court room, that is how his court room was set up. Ms. Oliviers software was different from what the rest of the court rooms at the Butler County Court were using, which was Case Catalyst software from a company called Stenograph. As a result, she was not licensed to use Case Catalyst, so she would not be able to produce a real time transcript in any court room other than Judge Sages. As a result, when she was assigned to Judge Hedrics court room in March of 2012, and the judge wanted her to produce a real time transcript for the trial he was conducting, Ms. Olivier was not able transcribe the trial for Judge Hedric. As a result, Ms. Olivier lost the revenue that she would have earned from this trial. Ms. Olivier estimates that she lost about $1,500.00 since she did not have the proper training or a license to use Case Catalyst software. However, in researching this issue with several Butler County employees, including Andrew Steed, a Senior Support Technician for the Butler County IT Department, it has become quite evident that Ms. Olivier had been given many opportunities to learn the Case Catalyst software going all the way back to 2009. Mr. Steed even offered to give her one-on-one tutorials to help her learn the Case Catalyst software, but he felt it was obvious Ms. Olivier never had any desire to learn how to use the software. Other trainers told me the exact same thing: Ms. Olivier had been given numerous chances to learn the software, but she never took any real interest. In fact, she told one trainer that she simply was not going to learn this new software. On one occasion, I was told that Ms. Olivier showed up for training without her equipment. This made it impossible to conduct the training. I am also told that she would also look very bored and apathetic when she was in training. Soon, it became clear that Ms. Olivier was simply not going to learn the new Case Catalyst software. Therefore, I am told that it simply was not economically feasible for the county to buy Ms. Olivier a license to use the software when she would not be trained in how to use it. Furthermore, Judge Sage informed me that never at anytime did he care one way or the other what kind of software Ms. Olivier was using in his court room. All he cared about was that Ms. Olivier was able to provide real time feedback to the court regarding what had been said.

29

Actually, attorneys who want real time transcription feedback at the Butler County Court are required to have a software system called Case View Net on their laptops, which is a free download from the internet. Case View Net is a software program that is compatible with the Butler County Courts Case Catalyst program used by the court reporters except for Ms. Olivier. If they do not have this software on their laptops, then they must give the court a proper prior notice. I am also told by numerous court employees that the reason Ms. Olivier liked the ProCat system so much was because she was a representative for the company. Actually, I am told that it was Ms. Olivier who demonstrated the ProCat software for the Butler County Court. In short, I am told by several people at the court that Ms. Olivier was openly defiant to using the Case Catalyst software and refused to be trained on it. At one point, I understand that Ms. Olivier went so far as to try to discredit the Case Catalyst software and its ability to keep transcripts secure. Apparently, Ms. Olivier alleged that an attorney in the court room was able to hack into the software and download a transcript she was working on in Judge Nastoffs court room from his iPhone. This launched an entire investigation and testing of the courts firewalls and systems by the IT Department. The IT Department ran tests against its firewalls to see if any intrusions at all had occurred. There were no signs at all of a breach. The IT Department contacted the attorney and asked him about it. He was very upset by this accusation. The attorney said Ms. Olivier was crazy. He informed the IT Department that he had simply connected to the internet to view photos from his sons Little League game. In short, the IT Department determined that this simply did not occur. When I asked Mr. Menke why the license for the Case Catalyst software was not ordered for Ms. Olivier after their January 27, 2012 meeting in which she told him she did not have a license for this software, he told me that he simply forgot to order it. With everything that was going on at the court regarding the rotation of the court reporters, as well as other new systems he was putting into place in order to better control the budget, he simply forgot. He simply did not think about it again until Ms. Olivier was not able to provide Judge Hedric with a real time transcript since Judge Hedrics court room uses Case Catalyst, just like every other court room now at the Butler County Court. However, the record shows that on March 5, 2012, Judge Hedric sent an email to Mr. Menke informing him that Ms. Olivier was not able to provide a real time transcript for his court because she is using a different kind of software.

30

On March 7, 2012, the license for Ms. Olivier was ordered. The entire process of securing the license for Ms. Olivier was completed on April 9, 2012. Since Mr. Menke was out of the office that day, and the fact that Ms. Olivier was off from April 11, 2012 to April 13, 2012, the Case Catalyst software was given to her on Monday, April 16, 2012. However, since Ms. Olivier had not previously installed the 2011 version of the Case Catalyst software and license onto her equipment, the new software did not immediately recognize her 2012 license. Mr. Menke tells me that this problem was resolved as quickly as possible once he was reminded that she needed this software, which allowed Ms. Olivier to provide real time transcription services using the Case Catalyst software from then on. Mr. Menke then informed me that according to the court reporter calendar, other than the two day jury trial for Judge Hedric on March 5 and 6, 2012, Ms. Olivier did not miss any other trials or hearings due to not having real time capability. Clearly, Mr. Menke should have ordered the Case Catalyst software license for Ms. Olivier soon after their January 27, 2012 meeting. However, I do not believe that Ms. Menke failed to order her software license in an effort to illegally discriminate against Ms. Olivier, harass her or retaliate against her in any way. Instead, he simply forgot. However, again, some of the blame comes back on Ms. Olivier. First, Ms. Olivier should have taken the training offered to her so many times since 2009. Even though she was assigned to Judge Sages court room, she was also required to provide back for other judges at the Butler County Court. Specifically, Ms. Olivier was a 1st Backup for Judge Powers and for Judge Patricia Oney. She was also a 2nd Backup for Judge Charles Pater. Therefore, the possibility that she could be called upon to provide real time transcription services for another judge in another court room had been a possibility since 2009. This was exactly one of the problems Mr. Menke identified regarding the court reporters: They identified with their assigned judge and not with the court itself. Therefore, Ms. Olivier had about three years to get trained on this software and get it loaded onto her system. Yet, for three years, she refused. Now, in 2012, it became a problem. Even if Judge Sage did want her to use ProCat in his court room, which I highly doubt, she still faced the possibility of being called into one of three other judges court rooms and not being able to provide the required services. Therefore, this is a problem Ms. Olivier failed to address for about three years.

31

Furthermore, this is her livelihood. She knew she did not have the proper software or the necessary license on her equipment to provide real time services for any judge other than Judge Sage. As 2012 moved into February and this software had not yet been loaded onto her equipment, I would have thought she certainly should have at least checked to see where Mr. Menke was with getting her software license. If it was me, I would not just sit back and wait for someone else to control my destiny. People do forget things, which is why Ms. Olivier should have also taken some responsibility and followed up to see what was happening with her software. Ms. Olivier knew that previous week that she was going to be in Judge Hedrics court room for a trial and that he might want to use real time for his transcription services. She knew she was not ready for such a request yet she said nothing to anyone. Ms. Olivier should have taken some responsibility here not just now in 2012, but across the last three years. Also, in mid to late February 2012, Mr. Menke asked all of the court reporters to document their certifications and education for their personnel files. Since this had never been requested before now, Ms. Olivier asked if a national certification was going to be a requirement for the court reporters, since it had never been listed in their job descriptions and it was not a requirement when she was hired ten years ago. Mr. Menke allegedly did not confirm or deny that such certifications would be required. Instead, he said he was just updating the courts records. In response to this allegation, Mr. Menke explained to me that he is still trying to learn as much as he can about the court reporters and their profession. So, he had been doing some research into their certifications, in particular with the National Court Reporters Association, or NCRA. Mr. Menke had learned there were several different types of certifications a court reporter could obtain. He also learned that several of the Butler County Court Reporters had earned various certifications in this field. So, he wanted to see exactly which certifications his court reporters had obtained. If someone had not gotten a certification, he wanted to encourage them to do that. If they already had certain certifications, then he wanted to encourage them to maintain them. When Mr. Menke sat down to discuss Ms. Oliviers certification with her, which was the CMRS (Certified Manager of Reporting Services) designation she had been putting at the bottom of the courts official transcripts, he asked her if she had maintained this certification. Ms. Olivier told me Menke that as long as she maintained her membership in the NCRA, her certification was still good. Since Mr. Menke had researched this issue of maintaining court reporting certifications, he knew this was not true.

32

In fact, Mr. Menke had researched the matter and discovered that Ms. Oliviers certification had expired on January 31, 2007. What bothered Mr. Menke most was that Ms. Olivier continued to put her CMRS certification at the bottom of the official court transcripts. Mr. Menke told Ms. Olivier either she had to re-certify her CMRS designation or stop putting it on the official court transcripts. However, rather than obtaining her certification, Ms. Olivier chose to stop putting this designation on the court transcripts. Next, Ms. Olivier contends that the discriminatory, harassing and retaliatory treatment she suffered at the hands of Mr. Menke continued on March 8, 2012 when he moved up the due date on a large trial transcript that she was working on. Ms. Olivier claims that the transcript was due to be delivered to the court of appeals according to the Scheduling Order issued by the court of appeals. However, Ms. Olivier claims that Mr. Menke informed her that from then on the court was going to set the due date based upon the date the attorney requested the transcript and not on the date of the Scheduling Order. Ms. Olivier makes it clear that this procedure had not been followed in the 10 years she had been employed by the court. Ms. Olivier then claims that Mr. Menke sent to her text messages authorizing her to come in and work after hours and charge the county comp time in order to meet the new shorter time frame. Ms. Olivier claims she tried to meet the new shorter time frame, but due to her court schedule and the late notice, not mention having two young daughters at home, she informed Mr. Menke that it was simply not possible to meet this new deadline. Ms. Olivier then claims that Mr. Menke allowed her to follow the previous due date set by the court of appeals on the Scheduling Order. Ms. Olivier claims that this has never happened to her in her previous 10 years as a court reporter in Butler County. In order to understand the situation Ms. Olivier is describing here, one has to understand how this process works. Whenever a trial is completed, there is always the chance that the case will be appealed to the appellate court. If it is a serious criminal case, such as in a rape case, an appeal is almost assured. As a result, the attorneys are certainly going to request a transcript in order to prepare for the appeal. If the defendant was an indigent individual and used a public defender, then the county would pay the court reporter to complete the final official transcript. If the individual hired his own attorney, then that individual would pay for the transcript. (This is referred to as a private pay situation.)

33

The notice that a court reporter needs to finalize a court transcript for appeal has typically come in two forms: 1. A Scheduling Order from the court of appeals and 2. A Transcript Request Form that needs to be completed by the attorney requesting the transcript. When the court of appeals schedules a case on its docket, a Scheduling Order is generated. This notifies the lower court that it usually has 40 days to finalize the transcript for the upcoming appeal. However, the local Butler County Court rules require that all transcripts must have a Transcript Request Form completed by the attorney. The Transcript Request Form has a place on it to for the attorney to complete which is the Requested Completion Date. In this space, the attorney can choose to have the transcript completed in 30 day to 60 days later. Therefore, the due date the attorney puts on the Transcript Request Form may coincide with the date of the Scheduling Order generated by the court of appeals or it may not. However, the past practice of the court reporters was to go by the Scheduling Order set by the appellate court and basically ignore the requested due date set by the attorney on the Transcript Request Form. As a result, Mr. Menke started receiving emails from attorneys who were upset that they were not receiving their transcripts by the dates they were requesting them according to their Transcript Request Forms. So, Mr. Menke decided to re-institute the local rules requirement of making sure that the court reporters were going by the date set by the attorneys on their Transcript Request Forms and not by the court of appeals Scheduling Order date. Mr. Menke reminded the court reporters of this change in an email he distributed on February 23, 2012. The particular case Ms. Olivier is referring to in this situation is the Elsberry case. In this case, the Scheduling Order came down from the court of appeals and set the due date for the final transcript to be ready by March 10, 2012. However, the attorney requesting the transcript completed the Transcript Request Form on January 23, 2012 and requested that the transcript be completed in 30 days, or on February 23, 2012. Still, since this was in fact a change in the way the court reporters had been scheduling their due dates for these transcripts, Mr. Menke agreed that Ms. Olivier would have until March 10, 2012 to complete the Elsberry transcript for the attorney.

34

However, since Ms. Olivier had scheduled herself to be off from work on Thursday, March 8 and Friday, March 9, 2012, she wrote to Mr. Menke on Wednesday, March 7, 2012 informing him that she would not be able to get the Elsberry transcript done by the time she left at the end of the day. Since she was going to be off form work for the next two days, this presented a problem because the Scheduling Order due date was March 10, 2012, which was Saturday. In her email, Ms. Olivier states that she knows that the court does not award comp time for any work she does at home. However, she wanted to know if she could: possibly come back tonight after dinner and finish the transcript and leave it on my desk, or I can try to run in tomorrow, but I am not sure if it will be in time for you to file. Fortunately, Mr. Menke discovered that since the actual due date, March 10, 2012, fell on a Saturday, the court of appeals would accept the transcript on Monday, March 12, 2012 and not mark it as being late. Ms. Oliviers accusations regarding Mr. Menke on this issue are appalling. Ms. Olivier knew since January that this transcript was going to be due on March 10. This gave her approximately five to six weeks to get this transcript finished. She then accuses Mr. Menke of applying the new policy to her in an attempt to make it look like he was somehow blind-siding her with a new due date. This is not true at all. The due date set by the Scheduling Order had been from the very beginning March 10, 2012. It was only by luck that the due date fell on a Saturday and the court of appeals would therefore accept it on Monday, March 12, 2012. I have been told by several sources that meeting deadlines has been a problem for Ms. Olivier for a long time now. However, such a mistake could not happen today under the new system Mr. Menke has put into place. All of the transcripts must now go by the date set by the requesting attorney on the Transcript Request Form. These forms are all sent to Mr. Menke so he can track their progress. Every week, he updates an Exel spreadsheet that indicates what is due that week. He then sends reminders to all the court reporters to make sure everyone is on track to meet their deadlines. Under the old system, Mr. Menke had no idea where the court reporters were in relation to their deadlines.

35

Also, under the old system, the court reporters would sometimes produce transcripts based on the court of appeals Scheduling Order, but the attorney would never order a transcript. As a result, a completed transcript would show up that no one ever ordered. If this was an indigent case, which many of them are, the county would end up paying the court reporter for a transcript that nobody wanted. Under Mr. Menkes enforcement of the local rules and his tracking system, this cannot happen, which saves the county, and therefore the taxpayers, money. This is what Ms. Olivier refers to as harassment, retaliation and micro-management. I call this running the business of the court. Ms. Olivier also contends that her privacy was breached by Mr. Menke on March 13, 2012 when a fax was sent to her that was marked personal and confidential from an attorney in Columbus. The attorney called Ms. Olivier to let her know the fax was on its way. Ms. Olivier immediately got up and went to the fax machine and discovered that Mr. Menke had already pulled the fax off of the machine, read it and had it on his desk. Mr. Menke told her that she had to be in Columbus at 9:00 am the next morning. Ms. Olivier confronted Mr. Menke about the confidentiality of the fax. Mr. Menke informed her that he had not read it but had merely glanced through it. In our interview, Ms. Olivier assured me that this subpoena had nothing to do with the business of the court. It was a personal matter that was marked confidential so her privacy should have been respected. What Ms. Olivier fails to appreciate here is that she was using a county fax machine for her own personal business. This fax machine is not intended for her own personal use, so she does not enjoy a right to privacy. Clearly, Mr. Menke, as the Butler County Courts Manager of Administration, he has the right, as well as a legal obligation, to view what comes through his office. Mr. Menke made it clear that he glanced at it, saw it was for Ms. Olivier, and passed it onto her. There is nothing even questionable about that. Actually, in many government agencies, employees are terminated for using government resources for their own private use. I do not see this issue as a matter of harassment or retaliation. It is just another example of Mr. Menke doing his job.

36

KATHY NICHOLSON Kathy Nicholson did not start off as a major player in this investigation, but she soon became one. On the afternoon of February 8, 2012, Kathy Nicholson came into the office of Jill Cutter and Elaine Haberer. Linda Tuttle and Sandy Fowler were also in the area. Ms. Nicholson was complaining about the new court reporters rotation schedule. She adamantly complained about Gary Yates in his role in overseeing this change. The others did not agree with her assessment. Ms. Haberer then asked Ms. Nicholson, What did Jennifer do to make this happen? With that question, Ms. Nicholson went into a torrent of disrespectful and insubordinate statements, which she shouted loud enough to be heard by anyone in the hallway. In short, I am told she went into a rage. Ms. Fowler turned up her radio in an attempt to prevent other people from hearing. Some of Ms. Nicholsons comments included: Gary is a fucking idiot Jennifer is the victim Jen is not the one who fucks him; he has other women who fuck him. Who would want to fuck Sage? How gross is that? This question was followed by an artificially induced vomiting sound loud enough to be heard way down the hallway in Judge Paters judicial assistants office. She claimed that Deby Sage was accusing Jennifer and Sage of having an affair. Deby Sage came into court Tuesday to watch the trial just to intimidate (Jennifer Olivier). Ms. Nicholson then called Ms. Sage a cunt several times with pure hatred, as well as a bitch. One witness described this rant as nothing but pure venom. Additionally, Ms. Nicholson also said: Dont underestimate Jennifer. You dont want to get on her bad side. If Jennifer finds out I told you this I will deny it.

37

Judge Pater put most of this into a written memorandum to Gary Yates dated February 10, 2012. I would have recommended that she be immediately terminated after this February 8, 2012 tirade. Gary Yates then met with Ms. Nicholson and directed her to apologize to everyone who heard her rant. However, Ms. Nicholson, went back to the others and told them that she had been told that she had to apologize to them. Ms. Nicholson said she was sorry that Judge Pater had to get involved, but she was not sorry for what she said and she would not take back anything she said. I was then informed that Ms. Olivier, who accompanied Ms. Nicholson on one of her apologies, said that she had carried this program on her back and that she has had to suck the tailpipe for all of them. Ms. Nicholson also stated that all of the court reporters had to stick together. The employees present took this to mean that all of the court reporters owed Ms. Olivier, so they needed to back her up now. It was after this instance that I met Ms. Nicholson in order to interview her. She entered the interview room and was instantly defensive. Before she even sat down, she started drilling me on what the scope of the investigation was going to be and to what end. Taken back a bit, I smiled and told her that I was here to look into Jennifers allegations. She continued interrogating me as to what exactly was going to be the scope of my investigation. She then asked me if she was in trouble. I was truly surprised, because at this point she was not a major player in this investigation. So, I asked her if she had done anything that would get her in trouble. She again asked me about the scope of what I was going to ask her, which I took as an attempt on her part to narrow the scope of what I could ask her. To me, as I explained earlier, this is a cardinal sin in any investigation. An interviewee is never to attempt to restrict the investigator in any way. So, again, I told her that I was there to look into these allegations. However, I told her that the investigation goes where ever it goes. I told her I was a lawyer and a human resource person. So, if there are corrections and changes that had to be made from a legal perspective or from a human resource standpoint, I would be looking into them.

38

She then glared at me and said that it looks from my website that I try to make problems go away by simply covering them up. I was taken back by this. I told her that I thought she was projecting her view of the world onto me. I told her that I have had this particular website up for over ten years and I had never heard that from anyone before now. She then claimed that my website does not say that I resolve issues or help improve anything. It only says that I bury them. It was at this point, only about three minutes after I met her, that I threw her out of the interview room. Ms. Nicholson from the very beginning was inexcusably rude, verbally abusive and used an insulting tone that was simply intolerable. This is highly unusual in an investigation. In my 29 years of conducting investigations, I have never had such an encounter. Typically, people who are interviewed in an investigation come in and try to butter up the investigator. Investigators have to be on guard for interviewees who try to schmooze them. Interviewees simply do not come in and try to bully the investigator. From the beginning, I saw her as being difficult, argumentative and trying to manipulate and limit the scope of my investigation. No one does that. I follow the line of questions that I feel are pertinent to getting to the bottom line truth. She was argumentative over what I was going to ask and insisted on knowing if she was the subject of any of my questions. Apparently, I was later told that this is typical behavior for her. Ms. Nicholson will commonly invade the personal space of others and literally yell at them when things do not go her way. After my session with Ms. Nicholson, I was told that her behavior was not a fluke. From what I have been told, that is the real her and it was not pretty. I simply could not imagine having to work with this woman. I pity the Butler County employees who have to put up with this foul-mouthed offensive person. As a result of my first hand encounter with her and her behavior documented by Judge Pater, her opinion carried no credibility with me at all. With over 20 witnesses to interview who were not trying to manipulate this investigation, there was simply no point in interviewing Ms. Nicholson.

39

OTHER HARASSMENT AND RETALIATION ISSUES BROUGHT UP IN MS. OLIVIERS INTERVIEW In our interview, Ms. Olivier brought up two other issues relating to her alleged harassment and retaliation. First, Ms. Olivier told me that the Butler County Court had released false information to the media relating to her salary. When I asked her what she meant, she explained to me that administration had told the media that she made $80,000.00 last year and that was not true. Ms. Olivier told me that she made $67,000.00 last year. Ms. Olivier then handed me a copy of her 2011 W2 form. As I reviewed the form, I saw that in the Wages, tips and other compensation section, sure enough, it said $67,191.05. I asked Ms. Olivier how the county could make such a mistake. She claimed that this was just another way to harass to her. I asked Ms. Olivier for a copy of her W2 form. However, if you look in the lower right hand corner of the W2 form, you will see $8,035.22 was deducted from her wages in section 14A. I am informed that this deduction is for her retirement plan. Then in section 14B, Ms. Olivier had another voluntary deduction taken from her pay in the amount of $5,125.92. Of course, if you add the two sums together, you get $13,161.14. If you add this $13,161.14 to the $67,191.05 of reported wages, you get a total of $80,352.19. This is what the Butler County Court reported to the media, which is accurate. I saw this as yet another attempt by Ms. Olivier to try and manipulate the truth, which I refer to as a lie. Next, Ms. Olivier complained that she has been ready to stroke out wondering if she was going to get arrested for blackmail. I asked her what she meant by that. Ms. Olivier then explained to me that there was a rumor circulating around the court house that she had tried to blackmail Judge Sage. I asked her how such a specific rumor would get started. Ms. Olivier assured me that she had no idea how it got started. She told me that she would not put it past these people to do anything to get at her.

40

I reasoned that this was such a specific allegation that it is hard to imagine how something like that had just gotten started. So, I asked Ms. Olivier if there was a demand letter that started this rumor. Again, Ms. Olivier told me that she had no idea how it got started that she was trying to blackmail Judge Sage. She then asked to take a break from the interview and speak with her attorney in private. So, we took a short break. When they came back, I asked Ms. Olivier again what started this rumor. I asked her again if there was a demand letter or if someone just made this all up to stick it to her. Ms. Olivier explained that everything started to amp up after she gave Judge Sage the January 6, 2012 letter. Again, I took this to mean that Ms. Olivier was implying that the January 6th letter is what sparked the alleged discrimination, harassment and retaliatory treatment she was experiencing. Ms. Olivier then explained that she consulted with legal counsel after this rumor of the blackmail started. Ms. Olivier then stressed that she has had very little contact with Judge Sage after the January 6th letter. In short, she claimed that he had been avoiding her at all costs. He has avoided eye contact, sat away from her and so on. So, she could not have made a demand from him. So, again, I asked her if she had made any kind of demand at all to Judge Sage. She said she had not. She told me it was not true at all. So, I then asked her if her attorneys had made any kind of demand from Judge Sage. Ms. Olivier explained that her lawyers engaged in letter writing with Judge Sages attorneys in an effort to resolve the issue. I then asked a clarifying question: So, your attorneys are trying to work through all of these harassment and retaliation issues? She agreed that was the purpose of the letter writing. So, I then asked, So, you are not talking about money, you are talking about Which is when Ms. Olivier interjected, stopping the madness. It was then that her lawyer interjected and stated, I think the point she is making is that she has never made a personal demand to him.

41

I corrected the attorney and stated that was not what Ms. Olivier just said. Ms. Oliviers attorney then stated that was all Ms. Olivier was going to say on that issue. In short, this was all just a game. I believe Ms. Olivier was trying to play dumb here and pretended like she had no idea where this rumor came from. However, the truth of the matter is that a demand letter was in fact sent from Ms. Oliviers attorneys to Judge Sage. I know that this letter existed because not only did I have several attorneys tell me that they had read this letter in detail, but I saw it myself. I have read it and saw very clearly that Ms. Olivier was asking for $350,000.00 from Judge Sage. What also struck me about the letter is that it did not contain even one legal basis for demanding such a sum in it anywhere. Interestingly, I spoke to several other attorneys who had also reviewed this letter. None of them could find anywhere in the letter where her lawyers stated a legal basis to justify Ms. Olivier asking for a sum of $350,000.00. In fact, Judge Sages attorneys told me that they asked Ms. Oliviers attorneys for a legal basis upon which she was making a claim for money several times before a legal theory was actually put forth. This certainly struck me more than odd. It also struck the county prosecutor odd as well, who saw the letter as a bunch of double talk that asked for a substantial sum of money. Due to the potential politics involved, this letter was then passed onto a special prosecutor at the Ohio Attorney Generals Office for review. Moreover, it also struck me odd that a demand letter was sent to Judge Sage himself, the actual alleged harasser. Usually, in my experience, the demand letter is sent to the employer and it should state a legal basis upon which the settlement is going to be based. (i.e., The employers supervisor has committed sexual harassment. To settle this matter, we request $350,000.00.) That apparently did not happen in this case. Instead, Ms. Oliviers attorneys went right to Judge Sage and demanded money without also presenting a legal theory upon which the settlement offer was based. What is important to understand here is that Ms. Oliviers attorneys represent her. That means when they speak and make demands, they are doing so on her behalf. It is ridiculous to claim that her attorneys somehow made a monetary demand from Judge Sage that did not have her approval. If they did, then I think these attorneys should be explaining themselves to the Ohio Supreme Courts Disciplinary Counsel. In the end, these are the types of games I believe Ms. Olivier plays with people, including me. She may believe she is playing smart with the truth. However, I see it as good old fashioned lying. Half-truths are still lies in my book.

42

Of course, this also makes me wonder why she would ask for such a sum as $350,000.00. Perhaps it could be based upon any income she thinks she will lose as a result of Judge Sage ending their relationship or because of this alleged discrimination, harassment and retaliation. So, I asked Ms. Olivier if her income had actually been harmed as a result of the new rotation basis. She told me that she has lost a substantial sum. (I later discovered that she had lost about $1,500.00 because she did not have the proper software to give real time transcription services to Judge Hedric. See previous discussion.) I then asked Ms. Olivier what her finances were like before all of this started. She told me that before this all started, her financial situation was fine. That was not the case now, however. I find it hard to believe that Ms. Oliviers financial situation was good before all of this happened, considering Ms. Olivier has a pending court action against her for the collection of back taxes on one of her properties in Hamilton County that was filed on December 22, 2011. Additionally, Warren County lists on its website that Ms. Olivier is thousands of dollars delinquent on paying the taxes on her home in Mason, Ohio. After speaking with the Warren County Auditors and Treasurers Offices, Ms. Olivier has been delinquent on her home in Mason, Ohio since 2010. This certainly gives me cause to wonder. HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT AT BUTLER COUNTY COURT One thing that has become very clear to me is that there is most definitely a hostile working environment at the Butler County Court. However, I do not believe that it is directed at Ms. Olivier. To the contrary, I believe Ms. Olivier is largely the cause of this bad environment, with a great deal of help from Ms. Kathy Nicholson. Further, this environment did not begin with Ms. Oliviers complaint to Judge Sage. It has been going on for years. Is has become abundantly clear to me that the vast majority of the people, including the judges, see Ms. Olivier as being a bully who instills fear throughout the organization. I believe Ms. Oliviers reputation throughout the organization, along with Ms. Nicholsons, is almost universally negative. Time and time again, I heard the following terms used to describe Ms. Olivier: manipulative, liar, hateful, vengeful and sociopath. The horrendous reputation of these two is overwhelmingly widespread. The only ally the two seem to have is Erin Rosen, Judge Sages magistrate.

43

It is commonly believed throughout the organization that if you poke the bear, which means to cross Ms. Olivier, she will get you. For instance, Ms. Sandy Fowler explained to me that Ms. Olivier has tried to get her fired on three separate occasions. Ms. Fowler explained to me that on one occasion, Judge Sage recused himself from a case, so Judge Crehan took it over. One afternoon at about 3:00 pm, the jury was still deliberating. Ms. Fowler said that if the jury comes back and finishes, she had scheduled to take the next day off, which was a Friday. However, if the jury does not finish that day, then she would not take the next day off as she had planned. Ms. Olivier apparently heard this conversation. At about 7:00 pm, the jury was still deliberating. So, Judge Crehan asked what they thought they should do about dinner for the jury. Ms. Olivier then interjected and said that she had just gotten off the phone with Judge Sages bailiff, Ms. Jones. Ms. Olivier said that Ms. Jones said it was alright for Ms. Fowler to take the next day off from work. If the jury has to come back the next day, then Ms. Jones said she would cover for Ms. Fowler. Ms. Fowler then looked at Ms. Olivier and asked if she had called Ms. Jones and asked about her taking the day off. Ms. Olivier said that she had to talk to Ms. Jones anyway about next weeks schedule. Ms. Olivier said that Ms. Jones was very appreciative of Ms. Fowler covering for her while she was out of town that week and she would cover for her tomorrow if the jury was not finished. Ms. Fowler thanked Ms. Olivier. At 11:30 pm, the jury had still not finished deliberating. So, Judge Crehan decided to send them all home and to let them start again the next day at about 10:30 am, which would give them all a chance to get a good nights rest. When Ms. Fowler got home, she sent Ms. Jones an email thanking her for covering for her that next morning in Judge Crehans court, as well as giving Ms. Jones some instructions for the next day. This email was sent to Ms. Jones at 12:16 am on November 19, 2010.

44

The next morning, Ms. Fowler put her child on the school bus, then called into Ms. Jones to thank her for covering for her that morning so she could take the day off as planned. Ms. Lakes, Judge Sages judicial assistant, answered the phone. Ms. Lakes told Ms. Fowler to hold on, which Ms. Fowler tells me meant that Ms. Olivier was in the room. Apparently, once Ms. Olivier left, Ms. Lakes informed Ms. Fowler that Ms. Olivier never spoke to Ms. Jones at all the night before. Actually, Ms. Jones found out that Ms. Fowler was not going to be in that day from the email that Ms. Fowler sent to her and not from any phone call from Ms. Olivier. Ms. Lakes informed her that Ms. Olivier had not called Ms. Jones the night before to discuss anything. There was no discussion between them about the next weeks schedule in Judge Sages court and there certainly was no discussion about Ms. Jones covering for Ms. Fowler that next day. Actually, Ms. Jones stated that she had not spoken to Ms. Olivier all week because she had been out of the office. Ms. Fowler thought for sure she was going to get fired. Instantly, she called her supervisor, who at the time was Mary Swain. Ms. Swain told Ms. Fowler to write it all down now that it was all fresh in her mind. Ms. Fowler recorded everything that happened and sent it to Mary Swain at 2:56 pm on November 19, 2010. In a November 19, 2010 email from Erica Dielring, another court employee, to Ms. Fowler, Ms. Dierling again confirmed that no such phone ever happened between Ms. Jones and Ms. Olivier. Ms, Dielring said that this entire situation was insane. She then asked if their environment could be any more toxic? She then described Ms. Olivier as just being an evil person. Afterwards, Judge Crehan apparently told Ms. Swain that Ms. Olivier was to never be in his court room again. On another occasion, Judge Nastoff was trying a capital murder case in his court room. The assistant prosecutor on the case was Jason Phillabaum. Jill Cutter was the court reporter assigned to Judge Nastoff. At one point, the defense filed a motion challenging a certain rule regarding the filing of the defendants plea. Judge Nastoff denied the defense attorneys motion. So, the defense appealed to the district court of appeals. As a result, Judge Nastoff ruled that the case could not go forward until the appellate court ruled on the defense attorneys motion. Jason Phillabaum vehemently opposed Judge Nastoffs ruling. Mr. Phillabaum argued that the case could move forward and the judge needed to set a date for trial. Judge Nastoff disagreed. They had a discussion on the record that was recorded by Ms. Cutter.

45

Afterwards, Mr. Phillabaum approached Ms. Cutter and asked if she could produce an expedited transcript for him. Ms. Cutter said she could get one for him by Monday, but that was the quickest she could get one for him. Apparently, that would not work for Mr. Phillabaum. So, I am told that Mr. Phillabaum went to Ms. Olivier for help. I then understand that Ms. Olivier and Mr. Phillabaum had Ms. Nicholson produce a transcript from the court systems audio recorder, which is called the FTR. I am told that Mr. Phillabaum then attached this transcript to his motion and filed it with the appellate court asking it to order Judge Nastoff to set a trial date. This episode clearly bothered Judge Nastoff. First, Jill Cutter was the official custodian of the record. Ms. Nicholson was not even in the room when this discussion was happening, neither was Ms. Olivier for that matter. What if Ms. Nicholson heard something different from Ms. Cutter? How clear was the recording? Having two transcripts floating around out there is less than an ideal situation. It raises the issue of which one is the correct version in case there is a difference between the two? The court reporters have argued for years that the FTR system was not reliable. This was a capital murder case, which means you certainly want to be as consistent and accurate as possible. Next, you have to wonder exactly who are the court reporters working for? This was a very disturbing instance. The court reporters do not work for the prosecutors or the defense attorneys. They work for the court. They are supposed to be neutral. Of course, once Judge Nastoff discovered what had happened, he corrected the situation immediately and restored Ms. Cutters version as the official transcript of the court. Since then, Jason Phillabaum has left the prosecutors office and has been experiencing his own issues with the law. Furthermore, more than one person told me that they heard Ms. Olivier say that it was important to get dirt on someone in order to get what you want. Specifically, when Ms. Olivier was once asked about using this tactic, she supposedly replied by flashing her gold rings and saying, How do you think I got all of these? Many of the court reporters are most upset over the new rotation system because that means they now had to deal with Ms. Olivier again. At least when Ms. Olivier was assigned to Judge Sages court, they tell me it was a lot easier to avoid her. Now, they have to interact with her and they do not like it. I believe it is because of these types of stories that the vast majority of the employees at the court simply try to avoid her. One said she avoids Ms. Olivier like the plague.

46

Further, several employees are afraid of Ms. Olivier not only because she is seen as having a manipulative and bullying nature, but they also see her as being a potentially violent and dangerous person. Court reporter Elaine Haberer told me about an incident late in the afternoon on Friday, October 11, 2011. As Ms. Haberer was leaving for the day, Ms. Olivier was entering the building at the security checkpoint. Ms. Haberer said, Hi, Jenn, how are you doing? Ms. Oliviers response was to yell at her, Dont talk to me, you steal from me, you are a liar, and a cheat. Ms. Haberer responded, Jennifer, what in the world did I steal from you? Ms. Oliviers response was to yell at Ms. Haberer, Just dont talk to me. Ms. Haberer documented this account on October 18, 2011. Ms. Haberer felt very threatened by this encounter. I am told this is a typical story regarding Ms. Oliviers verbal abuse of her co-workers. As a result, several of her co-workers truly are concerned for their safety regarding Ms. Olivier. Is Ms. Olivier truly a threat? I do not know. I have not seen anything that would lead me to believe that. However, several of her co-workers point to what they describe as being her verbal explosions and manipulative nature. I find it concerning that so many employees see her that way. It is also abundantly clear that the vast majority of the employees that I spoke to felt that Jennifer Olivier was protected by Judge Sage and could basically do whatever she wanted to do. I had been told by several people that Ms. Olivier clearly saw herself as bullet proof and that she cannot get fired. Ms. Oliviers former supervisors also agree with this assessment simply by the way Judge Sage looked out for the court reporters and Ms. Olivier was clearly his favorite. I believe Ms. Olivier certainly used this perception to her advantage. Have heard several people say that if you take on Jennifer, you take on Sage. In order to understand how this could happen, it is important to understand how a court works. Judges are typically concerned with running their court rooms period. It is their world and it is a fulltime job. They typically do not get involved in the day to day operations of the court itself only their court rooms. I have heard it said that a bomb could go off in the court house and a judge would only notice if some dust fell in their court room.

47

In this case, Judge Sage was concerned with his court room. It is a very well known fact that Judge Sage is a very particular judge who wants everything to run like clockwork in his court room. It was also a commonly held belief through the court house that he thought the world of Jennifer Olivier and no one was going to mess with her. This is what also led to the commonly held belief that there was an affair going on between them, which was true. I believe that Ms. Olivier was in fact protected by Judge Sage. However, it does not appear that he knew exactly how much she was doing in his name. I say this because his two closest assistants, Ms. Jones and Ms. Lakes, as well as several other employees, never shared with him what all she was doing to them. I am told that no one wanted to approach the judge and tell him that they thought his favorite court reporter was a bully. In fact, both Ms. Jones and Ms. Lakes told me specifically that they did not believe he knew what all she was doing. Judges truly are that isolated. Did Judge Sage know that people believed she was protected by him? I believe he did. Did Judge Sage know the extent to which I am told she abused this power? Probably not. Again, judges concern themselves with what is going on in their court rooms. Outside the court room is simply not typically on their radar. The belief throughout the court was that you simply do not mess with Ms. Olivier. I am told she did everything she could to encourage it this perception. In the end, Ms. Olivier wielded a great deal of power. Regardless, the commonly held belief amongst that staff at the court was that she was protected and could do whatever she wanted. What I am told she did with this power is has produced an environment that I would at least describe as being hostile. CONCLUSIONS In my opinion, Ms. Oliviers legal claims have no merit at all, for all of the reasons previously mentioned. While Judge Sage did in fact engage in a consensual affair with Jennifer Olivier, I have not found any evidence to substantiate any of her legal claims. Instead, the treatment she has experienced have all had plausible explanations, they preceded the January 6, 2012 letter she gave to Judge Sage, they fall into the U.S. Supreme Courts definition of trivial and not material instances of treatment, or some combination of these. In order to prove retaliation in this case, the U.S. Supreme Court stressed that the employer must create an environment that is to likely to deter victims of discrimination from complaining to the EEOC, the courts, and their employers.

48

This means asking if the leadership at the Butler County Court has formed an environment that would dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. The vast majority of employees told me explicitly that this entire ordeal has not at all dissuaded them from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. It is important to remember that in the legal analysis of this matter, the burden of proof lies with Ms. Olivier, the accuser. Likewise, her credibility is going to be a major issue, and her credibility in my eyes has been greatly damaged. What Ms. Olivier seems to forget throughout all of this is that she simply does not have clean hands here. Ms. Olivier is the other woman. Where I see Judge Sage experiencing a great deal of embarrassment, I do not see that same response in Ms. Olivier. If people treat her differently because they now know of this affair, which I do not believe is happening here, there is nothing illegal about that. There is nothing illegal about treating someone differently because you found out the person was having an affair with a married man. However, I do not believe that is why Ms. Olivier is being treated the way she in at the court. In short, I see Ms. Olivier as the bully ... and this conduct must not be allowed to continue for one more hour. The same goes for Kathy Nicholson. So, the first thing that needs to happen is that the Butler County Court must take a defined and official stance against both bullying and any perceived the threats of workplace violence. That means adopting and enforcing policies on both of these issues. I have attached two full versions of these policies to this report for the Butler County Court to review: Anti-Bullying and Workplace Violence As you will see, much of these policies have been based on the United States Supreme Courts decisions on harassment in relation to the reasonable person standard. However, since management must ultimately run the court, the definitions have been written to reflect how management views the reasonable person in the Butler County community. These policies provide the court with a specific and enforceable definition of bullying and harassment based on previous U. S. Supreme Court decisions. Many of the examples of bullying also come directly from the EEOCs regulations and enforcement manuals regarding harassment in the workplace. Consequently, they are based on the highest level of legal authority.

49

Defining Bullying In short, the Butler County Court defines bullying as follows: Any actual or threatened physical, verbal or nonverbal abuse occurring either inside or outside of the organization that can create an internal atmosphere where administration believes the reasonable person in the community would feel intimidated or threatened to the point they would not be able to function properly. The Butler County Court defines Workplace Violence as the following: Any actual or threatened physical, verbal or nonverbal abuse occurring either inside or outside of the work setting. For the purposes of this policy, the term violence will refer to any type of behavior that management feels a reasonable person would feel threatened. Examples include: Any action that constitutes an assault, Any behavior that a reasonable person would perceive as being obsessive, (i.e., intensely focused on a grudge, grievance, or romantic interest in another person and likely to result in harm or threats of harm to another person or property, etc.), Yelling at or verbally abusing someone to the point that a reasonable person in the community would feel threatened, Behavior that consists of a communicated or reasonably perceived threat to harm another person or in any way endangers the safety of another, Behavior that would be interpreted by a reasonable person as carrying a viable and potential for physical harm to another person, or would be perceived as intimidating, menacing, or provoking others to violence, Carrying, concealing or displaying of weapons, destroying property, or throwing objects in a manner reasonably perceived to be threatening, or Any type of threat reasonably perceived threat to destroy property.

50

I recommend that management adopt these definitions of Bullying and Workplace Violence. It must then edit the full policies have attached for adoption at the court. Management must then train its employees in these policies. Employees must understand what the policy means and how they will be enforced. And then, of course, they must be enforced, regardless of who violates them. The true problem in this case does not lie in the law. Instead, it lies in the environment and this environment must change.

51