Here is an update on the story of a US Army nurse set on fire by a civilian co-worker at the hospital at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Her supervisors ignored her pleas for months before the attack to do something about the guy. Now she is launching a lawsuit against the Army:
Before and after photos of 1st Lt. Katie Blanchard, who was set on fire by a civilian Army employee in 2016. (Facebook)
One year ago, an Army civilian who tossed a water bottle full of gasoline onto his supervisor and lit a match was sentenced by a judge to 20 years in prison for attempted murder.
The Feres doctrine prevents service members and their families from suing the Defense Department in the event of injury or death, but for 1st Lt. Katie Blanchard, that is beside the point. In September, she filed a personal injury claim against the Army Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, where she was working at Munson Army Health Center at the time of the September 2016 assault.
“Is it okay for us to have gross negligence and zero accountability in the military? Because if you look at my case, that’s what it is,” Blanchard told Army Times in a Wednesday phone interview. “Zero accountability for the way they treated me and the things that they missed that will forever affect my life.”
Blanchard, 28, is asking for just under $3.5 million to cover some of the costs of the permanent disabilities she faces, after more than 100 surgeries to date and an intense battle with post-traumatic stress. [Army Times]
I recommend reading the whole thing at the link because she was obviously failed by her leadership at Ft. Leavenworth. With that said the other failure I see in this case is the difficulty with trying to fire government civilian workers. I wonder how much that played into the attitude her superiors had with dealing with her co-worker?
With that all said it is going to be interesting to see how this lawsuit plays out because if the Army can be sued for negligence this will open a Pandora’s Box of lawsuits against the Army.
1st Lt. Katie Blanchard: got set on fire
Clifford Currie: set Katie on fire
Audrey Harris: AFGE Union Local 738 President
Here is what Katie’s mother wrote:
“The AFGE Union Local 738 President Audrey Harris went above and beyond her job to protect Currie and his job. He was a union employee that should have been fired 3 years prior due to his lack of performance and certainly prior to his attack on my daughter. As a matter of fact, Ms. Harris attended the trial, personally supported and testified on behalf of Currie, as well. (The last that I heard, the AFGE still had Ms. Harris as the Local President. Shame on you AFGE for your support of this behavior by Currie or any employee and also for your support of President Harris!)”
So the union protected this guy at every step. It seems he got paid for some time after the incident and was not terminated until his conviction.
More from Katie’s mom:
“The week that Currie set my child on fire and stabbed at her, Currie was set to be served with a suspension for his very FIRST assault on her, which occurred 9 MONTHS EARLIER. Yes, you heard me correctly. He had assaulted Katie 9 months prior to his attempt to murder her and he was finally being disciplined 9 months later. From my personal experience with other cases, this time frame is a typical situation in the military. I personally believe that this lack of consequences for almost a year led to the escalation of his behaviors that continued to go undisciplined (with the help of the AFGE, his Union President Harris, and the previous command leadership during that time – yep, COL G I’m calling you out with the other people in leadership positions that had the power to take action and make changes over the years and didn’t) which led Currie to feel empowered, eventually leading to my daughter being set on fire and physically attacked. I personally hold the Union, Audrey Harris, and the Federal Government responsible for the attack on my daughter – due to the ridiculous red tape involved in the discipline and firing of personnel.”
Interesting.
Now let’s look at some rumors.
The Stormfronty-type sites are covering this in a slightly different way than military sites… as Katie is white and Clifford is black. Their speculation is that the military did not want to do anything against a black employee for fear of looking racist. Is that possible? The opinions here are likely more valid than a bunch of whiny Nazi wannabes.
Another rumor going around is that Katie was not a good boss… a hostile leader… and not managing this guy well… yet not convincingly documenting this guy’s problems so that action could be taken… and much of the “I saw it coming and tried to tell you” is revisionist history in her own mind (much like some women dream up the “I was raped” story years after they were not).
Katie’s mother wrote of an assault 9 months prior… but no details about that.
This whole thing is odd… and likely more complicated than Crazy Employee Snaps and Sets Boss on Fire and Stabs Her in the Face with His Foot on Her Neck for No Reason.
Questions:
– Why would the union back this guy after an “assault” and then still back him after clear attempted murder?
– Why would leadership ignore her concerns if she had already been assaulted?
If one were to speculate a scenario based on the best fit of all available evidence, one could guess the first “assault” was not really assault… but something Katie semi-manufactured… and was not clear to anyone from the union to leadership that this “assault” was a real issue. Then Katie created 9 months of hostile work environment which caused the guy to spiral downward in performance and mental health but she was never able to document anything actually worth firing. Leadership knew this but would neither act against a woman nor a black man… so did nothing and hoped it could be ignored until they moved on and it became someone else’s problem.
…but that theory could change with more evidence.
Anybody else have some informed opinion or wild speculation to add?
(I looked through other court documents and noticed defense was trying to introduce a video interview with Katie’s boss… leading to the conclusion that there was likely a dimension of Katie’s relationship with Clifford that explained the situation more clearly.)
setnaffa
6 years ago
I thought this month “believe all women” or “talk like a pirate” or something?
Ole Tanker
6 years ago
I know some GS workers who work directly for Green Suiters. When I talk to them they tell me the Green Suiter has no control over them or can tell them what to do. Thank God, I work for a good ole GS himself who kind of knows the rules of the work place. If Curry Sauce had worked for a GS12 he would have been transferred FAST!
johnhenry
6 years ago
It really isn’t all that difficult to fire a civilian government worker, provided (<-repeat that last word at least a dozen times) the chain of supervision keeps accurate records. At my last unit in the Navy, there was one civilian worker who wasn't even doing the bare minimum required of her job description. My next-to-last officer in charge kept accurate performance records from day one and in less than three months the civilian worker was canned. The problem is that too many supervisors (both civilians and military) of civilian workers don't keep such records.
/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3.amazonaws.com/public/OHTYBLR6YZBKFK55GTXQLTWRE4.jpg?resize=640%2C480&ssl=1)
WTF?
There is more to this story.
The players:
1st Lt. Katie Blanchard: got set on fire
Clifford Currie: set Katie on fire
Audrey Harris: AFGE Union Local 738 President
Here is what Katie’s mother wrote:
“The AFGE Union Local 738 President Audrey Harris went above and beyond her job to protect Currie and his job. He was a union employee that should have been fired 3 years prior due to his lack of performance and certainly prior to his attack on my daughter. As a matter of fact, Ms. Harris attended the trial, personally supported and testified on behalf of Currie, as well. (The last that I heard, the AFGE still had Ms. Harris as the Local President. Shame on you AFGE for your support of this behavior by Currie or any employee and also for your support of President Harris!)”
So the union protected this guy at every step. It seems he got paid for some time after the incident and was not terminated until his conviction.
More from Katie’s mom:
“The week that Currie set my child on fire and stabbed at her, Currie was set to be served with a suspension for his very FIRST assault on her, which occurred 9 MONTHS EARLIER. Yes, you heard me correctly. He had assaulted Katie 9 months prior to his attempt to murder her and he was finally being disciplined 9 months later. From my personal experience with other cases, this time frame is a typical situation in the military. I personally believe that this lack of consequences for almost a year led to the escalation of his behaviors that continued to go undisciplined (with the help of the AFGE, his Union President Harris, and the previous command leadership during that time – yep, COL G I’m calling you out with the other people in leadership positions that had the power to take action and make changes over the years and didn’t) which led Currie to feel empowered, eventually leading to my daughter being set on fire and physically attacked. I personally hold the Union, Audrey Harris, and the Federal Government responsible for the attack on my daughter – due to the ridiculous red tape involved in the discipline and firing of personnel.”
Interesting.
Now let’s look at some rumors.
The Stormfronty-type sites are covering this in a slightly different way than military sites… as Katie is white and Clifford is black. Their speculation is that the military did not want to do anything against a black employee for fear of looking racist. Is that possible? The opinions here are likely more valid than a bunch of whiny Nazi wannabes.
Another rumor going around is that Katie was not a good boss… a hostile leader… and not managing this guy well… yet not convincingly documenting this guy’s problems so that action could be taken… and much of the “I saw it coming and tried to tell you” is revisionist history in her own mind (much like some women dream up the “I was raped” story years after they were not).
Katie’s mother wrote of an assault 9 months prior… but no details about that.
This whole thing is odd… and likely more complicated than Crazy Employee Snaps and Sets Boss on Fire and Stabs Her in the Face with His Foot on Her Neck for No Reason.
Questions:
– Why would the union back this guy after an “assault” and then still back him after clear attempted murder?
– Why would leadership ignore her concerns if she had already been assaulted?
If one were to speculate a scenario based on the best fit of all available evidence, one could guess the first “assault” was not really assault… but something Katie semi-manufactured… and was not clear to anyone from the union to leadership that this “assault” was a real issue. Then Katie created 9 months of hostile work environment which caused the guy to spiral downward in performance and mental health but she was never able to document anything actually worth firing. Leadership knew this but would neither act against a woman nor a black man… so did nothing and hoped it could be ignored until they moved on and it became someone else’s problem.
…but that theory could change with more evidence.
Anybody else have some informed opinion or wild speculation to add?
Police report:
http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/currie+criminal+complaint+.pdf
(I looked through other court documents and noticed defense was trying to introduce a video interview with Katie’s boss… leading to the conclusion that there was likely a dimension of Katie’s relationship with Clifford that explained the situation more clearly.)
I thought this month “believe all women” or “talk like a pirate” or something?
I know some GS workers who work directly for Green Suiters. When I talk to them they tell me the Green Suiter has no control over them or can tell them what to do. Thank God, I work for a good ole GS himself who kind of knows the rules of the work place. If Curry Sauce had worked for a GS12 he would have been transferred FAST!
It really isn’t all that difficult to fire a civilian government worker, provided (<-repeat that last word at least a dozen times) the chain of supervision keeps accurate records. At my last unit in the Navy, there was one civilian worker who wasn't even doing the bare minimum required of her job description. My next-to-last officer in charge kept accurate performance records from day one and in less than three months the civilian worker was canned. The problem is that too many supervisors (both civilians and military) of civilian workers don't keep such records.
Was gonna add my usual griping but JohnHenry covered it.