GovernmentExecutive.com

A former Border Patrol agent has filed a civil suit in California against four of her former supervisors, alleging they blacklisted her with potential employers.

Darcy Garwood, an agent at the San Clemente, Calif., checkpoint, resigned from her post there in hopes of seeking a law enforcement position in Michigan. She applied for positions at 67 law enforcement agencies in Michigan before being hired and believes the statements of her former supervisors harmed her reputation and were the cause of her rejections.

At the center of Garwood's slander claim is the alleged contradiction between the supervisors' evaluations of her performance at the agency and comments they made to her potential new employers. According to Joseph Dassaro, president of Garwood's union, Local 1613 of the National Border Patrol Council, Garwood received very good performance evaluations. But according to the complaint, in discussions with Garwood's potential employers, her supervisors characterized her as "confrontational, snippy and self-serving." One supervisor called Garwood a "thorn in my side."

Dassaro said Garwood clashed with her supervisors because of her high level of education--she has a master's degree. Dassaro claims Garwood's supervisors resented her proclivity for voicing her opinion on how things should be done. "They often joke about it, saying 'Yeah, we got her,' " he said. "But in this case, we flipped it on them and we got them."

Dassaro said the situation involved a "really good agent who is spectacular, according to all rated elements, but has strong opinions about the quality of the supervisors, and it becomes confrontational. It's payback."

Three of the defendants in the suit are current supervisors and one is a former supervisor. In addition to the four, the complaint also lists 20 John Does, which are reserved in case the complaint is amended to add more defendants, according to Dassaro. The union, he said, hopes the case will have a widespread impact on what former or current employers can say about an employee to potential employers. It also hopes it will force supervisors to be more accountable for their actions.

Garwood wants compensation for the alleged blacklisting in the form of exemplary and punitive damages as well as court and attorney costs.

The defendants and the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection did not return calls for comment.

Darcy D. Garwood v. Luis Amavizca, Candice Brady, Steve Gonzalez, Wes Knippler and Does 1-20, Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, North County Judicial District.

COMMENTS

• The supervisors, if they made the alleged statements, are guilty of stupidity. The laws are pretty specific about what you can/cannot say regarding previous employees and are significantly slanted in the employees' favor. Any HR Mgr would have directed these supervisors to give a very vanilla answer on work habits to any potential employer just for the reason of potential lawsuits. While the lawsuit gives an impression that the individual may have the character stated, don't be too quick to judge guilt or innocence since there are a huge amount of factors that are unknown. I've been in both positions. Many with greater education can be seen as intimidating by those appointed over them, and many of these same employees will give every indication that they see themselves as superior to the supervisor appointed over them. The bottomline should be the performance on the job. I've let superior performers go for being disruptive to my workforce, and begged others to stay. Group dynamics are an inexact science. GovExec.com reader Posted June 14, 2004 8:22 AM
• All the supervisors that made bad statements and gave good performance reviews should be fined to the maximum and the government should remove them from supervisory status! These idiots need to be held accountable for their totally unprofessional manner of operation. The reason for their actions is not important - the actions speak for themselves. In private industry everywhere I worked they informed supervisors to provide potential employers of past employees with only the performance review that was written and signed by the employee and not to add anything negative to the reference. Government should be the same! These supervisors should not provide anything to potential employers about past employees unless it is written in the reviews of the employee. "Pay back" is a ridiculous reason to deny anyone employment outside of your organization and is very weak inside. HOLD THESE SUPERVISORS ACCOUNTABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DoD Posted June 14, 2004 7:01 AM
• This harkens back to the old days of "if it can't be done on horseback, it's not worth doing....................." Adavanced education was never a key to advancement in the Patrol. GovExec.com reader Posted June 11, 2004 4:10 AM