Army News, opinions, editorials, news from Iraq, photos, reports - Army Times

Col. sues Guard for race, sex discrimination

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — A retired colonel with the South Dakota National Guard is suing the Guard and several commanders on grounds she was discriminated against because of her gender and Japanese-American heritage.

Col. Nancy Wetherill filed the federal complaint in U.S. District Court in Rapid City.

Named as defendants are: Army Secretary Pete Geren; the Army National Guard; Maj. Gen. Steven Doohen, adjutant general of the South Dakota National Guard; Brig. Gen. Theodore Johnson, Wetherill’s former supervisor; and the South Dakota National Guard.

According to the complaint, Wetherill joined the South Dakota National Guard in 1974 and was eligible for retirement July 31, 2007 — called the Mandatory Removal Date, or MRD — but not eligible for full civil service retirement benefits until Dec. 31, 2010.

The previous adjutant general of the South Dakota National Guard, Maj. Gen. Michael Gorman, requested and received for Wetherill in 2007 approval to keep her on staff until that later date so she could qualify.

But four months after Gorman retired and Doohen was appointed adjutant general, he asked the Guard to withdraw the extension and set Wetherill’s new retirement date as April 30, 2008, then delayed the “forced retirement” until July 31, 2008.

Wetherill in early 2008 “protested this unorthodox turn of events” and asked that her 2010 retirement date be reinstated on grounds “Doohen’s actions were motivated by improper gender and/or racial discrimination.”

That was denied.

In May 2008, Wetherill was assigned to a building by herself to do work normally given to soldiers with a rank lower than colonel.

Wetherill alleges that no other technician has ever been denied the opportunity to continue working until they qualify for full retirement; she was the only Asian-American female officer in the South Dakota National Guard; and she was the only female to have reached her rank.

The decision to revoke her extension was based on discrimination because of her gender and race or national origin, the complaint states.

“The acts of moving plaintiff to an isolated work station and forcing her to perform tasks for which she was severely overqualified were acts taken in retaliation for plaintiff’s protesting the revocation of her MRD waiver and in retaliation for plaintiff’s complaining of unlawful discrimination,” it states.

Michael Hickey, Wetherill’s lawyer, and Dennis Rounds, executive director of the South Dakota Office of Risk Management, which represents the South Dakota Guard and its staff, did not want to comment. An Army National Guard representative could not be reached for comment.

Wetherill’s lawsuit says she suffered embarrassment, was denied full retirement and prevented from future promotions and pay increases.

She’s asking that her later retirement date be reinstated, she be given a position similar to the one she had before her retirement, compensation for lost wages, lawyer fees and an injunction barring the defendants from other acts of discrimination.