Another Harassment Lawsuit

Posted in the Carondelet Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Lookie Here

United States

#1 Aug 1, 2013
It looks like Doris Borgelt and Ken Moss are the defendants in a lawsuit filed by Chief Shockey for employment discrimination.

Casenet case number 13SL-CC02633. Go look it up. Filed on 7/26/2013. Case Type CC Employmnt Discrmntn 213.111.

That's all we need is another lawsuit, but nobody can say they didn't see this coming.
Lookie Here

United States

#2 Aug 1, 2013
For those that don't know, Doris is an former councilwoman for Ward 1 and Ken Moss is a current Councilman for Ward 4. Chief Shockey was acting as interim city administrator and Chief of police until just recently when a new city administrator was just hired.

I would not be surprised if this was from the behavior that resulted from the Susie Boone thing.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#3 Aug 1, 2013
I think we all know that.

This lawsuit came as a surprise to me. Did Shockey get a favorable right to sue ruling from the MCHR?(I may have the abbreviation incorrect).

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#4 Aug 1, 2013
All the comments yet all of the aliases remain quiet on this? Something doesn't look right here.
Looks of it

New York, NY

#5 Aug 1, 2013
Looks like he is going with Susie Boondoggle's attorney for this one. How coincidental. Very small pool of attorneys involved in all of this. Needs a bit of chlorine it seems.
Lookie Here

United States

#6 Aug 2, 2013
It's really quiet today. Why is that when this comes to light that it went quiet on here?
Looks Like Its

Arnold, MO

#7 Aug 2, 2013
just the Police Chief trying to add to his retirement nest egg.....

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#8 Aug 2, 2013
Doubt it. His case might have some merit. You never know. You weren't there to witness it. Or then again, maybe you were. Who knows?!
Seriously Folks

Arnold, MO

#9 Aug 2, 2013
Because of his actions or lack of them, $450,000 was paid out to Officer Ott on her claim of SEXUAL HARRASSMENT, the city and the risk management company chose to keep all of the testimony in that case hush, hush. They can't risk the truth coming out. The people need to demand they release the information.
Lookie Here

United States

#10 Aug 2, 2013
They can't release the information. They will be have to pay a fine if they do. It was written into the agreement/settlement. Keep demanding it and if it is released it will cost the taxpayers a huge sum of money and it will be your fault.

This is the subject of another thread. This one is about Shockey's lawsuit against Birgelt and Moss.
Lookie Here

United States

#11 Aug 2, 2013
Borgelt, not Birgelt. Sorry.
Seriously Folks

Arnold, MO

#12 Aug 2, 2013
The city can release the information. The city doesn't want to release the information. The city requested the information be kept secret. The city is the only party trying to hide anything.
Lookie Here

United States

#13 Aug 2, 2013
Incorrect. It was the other side that put the clause in there because the case and the publicity was taking a toll on them and they did not want the publicity and the city has to pay thousands of dollars for every time it is leaked.

I don't know who you are, but you better talk to the source and have your facts straight before you go spreading such lies.
Seriously Folks

Arnold, MO

#14 Aug 2, 2013
I have my facts straight and would be willing to ask in a very public setting if there are any objections to the information being disseminated to the public. I'm confident the only protests you would hear would come from the city side of the suit.
Lookie Here

United States

#15 Aug 2, 2013
Seriously Folks wrote:
I have my facts straight and would be willing to ask in a very public setting if there are any objections to the information being disseminated to the public. I'm confident the only protests you would hear would come from the city side of the suit.
And who did you get your information from? List the source. I got mine from a person that was party to the plaintiff m. The reason they would decline is because they would be fined to the tune of about $10K payable to the plaintiff.

Now ask yourself, why would the city, with all of their leaks, put in a clause that fines themself should they leak any information? Your story doesn't hold water. You're making up as you go along.

Yours is wrong and mine is correct.
Seriously Folks

Arnold, MO

#16 Aug 2, 2013
Lookie Here wrote:
<quoted text>
And who did you get your information from? List the source. I got mine from a person that was party to the plaintiff m. The reason they would decline is because they would be fined to the tune of about $10K payable to the plaintiff.
Now ask yourself, why would the city, with all of their leaks, put in a clause that fines themself should they leak any information? Your story doesn't hold water. You're making up as you go along.
Yours is wrong and mine is correct.
Prove it! It is the city who put the gag order in for this, maybe you are confusing this case with another. The city doesn't want the depositions to be released. I know someone who tried to retrieve them.
Lookie Here

United States

#17 Aug 2, 2013
Go talk to the plaintiff or her family. They will tell you. And it is this case. You just got schooled and can't admit it. They can't release them or they owe the plaintiff $10K. For someone so concerned about money and lawsuits you sure want to cost the taxpayers with this one.

For once get the truth before you speak.
Doris Borgelt

Arnold, MO

#18 Aug 2, 2013
I have it in black and white from the plaintiff. She did not order anythings sealed and has no problem with everything being released. The city asked to seal the depositions from the first hearing in 2011. Who are "we"?

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#19 Aug 3, 2013
What are you talking about "who are we"?
Doris Borgelt

Arnold, MO

#20 Aug 3, 2013
Lookie Here said:
"That's all we need is another lawsuit, but nobody can say they didn't see this coming."
For the record, I went to the courthouse and requested the depositions given on this case, as I felt the city council needed to know the true FACTS of the case instead of the fiction we were fed. Although I was unable to get them and the council NEVER had the opportunity to review any of the facts, I was able to obtain a copy of the request for damages and had it posted on line for all to see. Why did the city keep this from the full council? Don't you think they needed to know about this? I certainly do. I can honestly say that had I known I would NEVER have appointed him to take over the additional duties of Interim City Administrator, a position that he currently holds until September 1st.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Carondelet Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Effects of Ferguson on Jefferson County 12 hr cedar hill 4
Fox C6 Board of Education : Discussion 15 hr cleanhouse 846
Ferguson Police Officer Not Charged in Black Te... Mon nationwide race war 1
25 people Arrested on Federal Meth Charges (Sep '13) Nov 23 beeen there 38
Rascal's New Restaurant in Arnold Nov 23 Try it first 5
Triple shooting in Maplewood Nov 21 BDoherty 1
Reuters Calls Delmar Loop "Downtown St. Louis" ... Nov 20 Enough is Enough 4
Carondelet Dating
Find my Match

Carondelet People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Carondelet News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Carondelet

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 12:42 am PST