Chevron Ombuds Mischaracterized in Press

A federal jury in San Francisco has found Chevron Corporation liable for retaliation and wrongful termination and awarded $5.5 million to a former employee. Unfortunately, in recounting the history of the employee's case, most media reports mischaracterize the role and involvement of Chevron's ombuds:

According to her complaint, in 2001 Pande [the employee] began to suffer harassment and discrimination at the hand of Mitchell [her manager]. By March 2002 Pande complained to Mitchell's supervisor, James Johnson, about Mitchell's conduct. Johnson did not investigate, according to the complaint; rather, Pande was given three choices: leave the company, leave the group, or stay for up to 18 months and get along with Mitchell. Later she filed a formal complaint against Mitchell with a company ombudsman. (Sacramento Business Journal [emphasis added].)

In fact, Chevron's ombuds practices to IOA Standards and would not have formally received such a complaint. The misinformation appears to have originated in a written decision by the appeallate court months before the matter proceeded to trial. (Pande v. Chevron Corp., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3247 [subscription only].) At that point, it's hard to unring the bell.