“WASA Whistle-blower Wins Vindication, Reinstatement”
Washington Post, November 3, 2005
Former WASA employee Seema S. Bhat, right, testified last year with her attorney.
She has been unemployed since her firing.
A water quality manager fired by the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority in 2003 was ordered reinstated and awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars yesterday by a judge who said she was improperly terminated after warning federal authorities about excessive lead in the District’s tap water.
Seema S. Bhat, who had worked for WASA for four years, had “become an unwelcome whistle-blower” after informing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that lead in the city’s drinking water had risen above federal limits, according to a 186-page ruling by Stuart A. Levin, an administrative law judge for the U.S. Department of Labor.
“By reaching out to EPA, she forced the lead issue to the forefront of her supervisor’s agenda, and shortly thereafter, he recommended that she be fired,” Levin wrote of Bhat.
Under the terms of Levin’s ruling, WASA must pay Bhat $50,000 in compensatory damages and $10,000 in exemplary damages, as well as the back pay based on her salary of just over $73,000 a year, benefits, interest and attorneys fees and court costs.
The costs for WASA could total more than $500,000, said Bhat’s attorney, Bryan J. Schwartz of the D.C. firm Passman & Kaplan.
“This is a great victory for Ms. Bhat, but also for the people of D.C.,” Schwartz said. “It shows that [WASA] will have its feet held to the fire if it fails to provide service in a safe manner and violates the law set forth for people’s protection.”
Bhat, 59, who lives in Columbia, has been unemployed since her firing, Schwartz said. Although Bhat has sought work, she has had trouble because she was terminated and because she works in a specialized field, Schwartz added.
WASA Board Chairman Glenn S. Gerstell and a spokesman for General Manager Jerry N. Johnson declined to comment, saying they had not seen the ruling.
Although WASA was aware of the lead problem as early as 2002, the contamination, which affected thousands of homes, was not made public until a Washington Post story disclosed the results of the agency’s tests in January 2004.
In the face of public concerns, WASA distributed free water filters and agreed to replace more than 20,000 lead service pipes by 2010. In June 2004, the EPA ruled that the agency had violated the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.
The Washington Aqueduct added chemicals to the water supply in an effort to stop lead from leaching from service pipes. Lead levels fell below the federal action limit this spring. But WASA has yet to emerge from stricter federal oversight and has continued to urge consumers to take precautions such as using filters.
Bhat was the water quality manager responsible for the lead testing program when the excessive lead was discovered in small-scale testing in 2001 and 2002. After being fired by WASA in March 2003, Bhat challenged the agency under federal laws to protect whistle-blowers. She said she had been dismissed because she had reported the lead results directly to the EPA. A federal investigator ordered her reinstated in a ruling on the case in summer 2003.
But WASA did not reinstate her and instead appealed the case immediately. Before Levin, WASA officials portrayed Bhat as an abrasive, renegade employee whose failure to follow a chain of command resulted in the agency getting a delayed start in attacking the lead contamination problem.
Levin found that while Bhat made mistakes, WASA did discriminate against her.
“Simply put,” Levin said in the ruling, “WASA failed to demonstrate that Bhat would have been fired in the absence of her protected activities. The record shows, to the contrary, that she was terminated not because she incurred the displeasure of her supervisor over the abrasive tone she exhibited toward him and others . . . she was fired because she engaged in activities protected by the” Safe Drinking Water Act.
Asked whether Bhat would return to work at WASA, Schwartz noted that the two men who recommended her termination — her supervisor, Kofi Boateng, and his boss, Michael A. Marcotte, who was the deputy general manager — have since left the agency.
In a statement released by Schwartz, Bhat said: “I have mixed feelings about returning, but I loved my job. That is what they objected to, the fact that I really cared.”
When no other attorney would touch my case, Bryan took it on with zeal. Since then, the EEOC certified a class action and has ruled in our favor in every motion the other side has thrown at us. A five-star rating does not come close…
I was fortunate to have found Bryan Schwartz Law while searching for reputable and reliable law firms in the Oakland area that specialized in labor law, and I couldn’t be more pleased by the results they secured for my family on my father’s behalf! After…
Bryan's firm came highly recommended to deal with an employment discrimination and harassment case. Bryan and his staff were very professional, ethical, extremely organized and diligent. They are strong advocates who worked extremely hard to get me a very fair resolution to my case. I…
Bryan Schwartz is an attorney who gives good, sound advice and empowers you to believe in your convictions. I reached out to him because no other attorney wanted to assist me. Bryan has been my advocate for the last six years. He is compassionate, empathetic…
Bryan Schwartz is without a doubt a fantastic attorney. As tenacious as he is intelligent, I would absolutely recommend his services to anyone seeking justice. Not only is his legal expertise top notch, his interpersonal skills with his clients are superb as well. Working with…
Bryan and his team were highly recommended by a friend and another attorney. I reached out to Bryan when I was sick, hurting and afraid, not knowing what to expect or how to ask for help. Bryan offered to help, he and his team fought…
When I first met Bryan, and the team at Bryan Schwartz Law, I was blown away by how understanding, sympathetic, and outright dismayed they were to the unlawful situation my coworkers and I were (to say the least) uncomfortably having to endure and work through.…
Bryan Schwartz represented me successfully in mediating my age discrimination claim against a large employer....[T]here can be few lawyers with greater legal acumen or a more relentless drive to get an acceptable result for their clients. Bryan is all business and probably works too hard.…
I could never imagine having any other attorney on my side when I needed someone. This office is beyond professional and intelligent from the person answering the phone right to the attorneys. These attorneys will fight tooth and nail for you.
These guys were amazing. Just on the ball, knowledgeable and friendly as hell. I presented my case over the phone and I immediately got some preliminary feedback which was awesome. I was asked for more details which I provided via email the next day. Two…
Schedule an initial consultation to have Bryan Schwartz Law
evaluate your situation.
*Your submission of an intake request form does not guarantee that Bryan Schwartz Law will take your case or provide legal advice. You must be offered and sign a representation agreement with the firm before you will receive any legal advice.
How did we do?
Note: Your review may be shared publicly.