Ex-Corrections officer files discrimination complaint vs DOC

A former Corrections officer has filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging that the Department of Corrections discriminated against him when it terminated him from his job.
Edward Matagolai Cepeda said he received three separation letters—from Corrections Commissioner Ramon C. Mafnas, from Corrections director Gregory F. Castro, and from the Office of Personnel Management—citing three different reasons to justify his separation from the department.

Cepeda believed these are forms of harassment and discrimination in many ways.

“It clearly demonstrates that all appointing authorities have communication barriers within the CNMI government that creates liabilities in the future comings,” he said.

Saipan Tribune tried but failed to obtain comments from Mafnas and Castro.

Cepeda said he does not understand how DOC came to a decision to terminate him.

“The hours that I have contributed to the department will clearly show that I was dedicated to the department, always available for emergency coverage of manpower shortage, regardless of time or day,” he said.

Cepeda said there were days that he worked up to 20 hours a day.
“It saddens me to know that my 200 percent dedication to the department did not satisfy the two highest authorities in the department, leading to my wrongful separation from the department,” he said.

Cepeda said his termination on the day of his birthday was extremely humiliating and shows that he was targeted.

Furthermore, Cepeda disclosed, he was instructed on a number of occasions to escort detainees and inmates outside the prison without a firearm—a violation of policies and procedures.

Cepeda said that OPM had claimed knowing the reasons for his termination, but then later told him he was separated because he has already reached the maximum days in his provisional appointment status. He said none of the two appointing authorities (Mafnas and Castro) cited this reason in their letters.

According to Cepeda’s complaint, a DOC safety and security officer gave him a written reprimand on Nov. 7, 2013, for allegedly violating policies and procedures after he and another officer failed to ask for more officers when they were guarding a pod housing unit that consisted of about 140 detainees and inmates.

Under the policy, that housing unit should be managed by more than two officers.

Cepeda said he was just assigned to the unit and the lieutenant should have taken control and called for additional officers.

Instead of doing so, Cepeda claimed he was cited for the violation and yet his immediate supervisor was not disciplined.

In another incident, Cepeda said that his supervisor instructed him to write a self-statement alleging unprofessional misconduct by himself and a female corrections officer. The supervisor did not explain to Cepeda the extent of the allegations, but instructed him to simply write what happened when they were at a Female Housing Unit.

Cepeda told the supervisor he will not admit to an unprofessional misconduct allegation when he knows for a fact that it did not happen.

On Dec. 30, 2013, Cepeda was served with another letter labeled “separation of service” as directed by Castro. In Castro’s letter, he cited a couple of mistakes that compromised the health, welfare, safety, and security of DOC.

Cepeda’s last day to report for duty was Jan. 13, 2014. The effective date of separation was Jan. 14, 2014, his birthday.

On Dec. 30, 2013, Cepeda asked permission from his immediate supervisor to take his annual leave so he could respond to Castro’s letter. The supervisor initialed his annual leave request forms, recommending approval. Three days later, he was accused of being absent without leave and was told he should have known that annual leaves must be approved by the department head.

On Jan. 6, 2014, Cepeda responded to the AWOL charge, citing a provision in the Personnel Service System Rules and Regulations that states that all annual leave requests must be approved by the employee’s division head upon recommendation of such employee’s supervisor.

On Jan. 10, 2014, the complainant said, a sergeant came to his residence in Dandan to serve him again with another letter from Mafnas labeled “appointing authority’s final decision.”

In the letter, Cepeda said, Mafnas told him that the department’s budgetary constraints and surrounding circumstances leads him to conclude that it is in the best interest of the CNMI and DOC to separate him from service without cause.

Cepeda said he verified with OPM if his position was budgeted and was told that his position was budgeted because his provisional appointment extension was signed and approved by the Budget Office and Finance secretary.

On March 24, 2014, assistant attorney general Ghassan Harb gave Cepeda a letter of final disposition dated March 20, 2014. He said Harb provided him a third reason for his separation.