Part IV: “You shouldn’t need anything further”
Last weekend I shared a screenshot from a document created by Jonathan Metzger, the Director of JSI’s Center for Digital Health, where I am criticized for calling him “in a state of rage” to complain about how women were being treated on one of my projects:
There are three things that I would like to point out about this screenshot:
The screenshot Metzger included from his phone shows an Outgoing call, meaning that he actually called me.
I found the message that preceded this call. It is polite and respectful while conveying appropriate urgency, leading me to doubt Metzger’s “state of rage” characterization.
The screenshot comes from a 40-page summary of my performance issues, and JSI fought to prevent me from accessing it even though they were legally required to share it with me.
As I have said before, I am writing to bring attention to my story because I worry that others could face similar challenges. In my last post, I highlighted issues around transparency and conflicts of interest in JSI’s SOP for investigating complaints of fraud, ethics, and workplace misconduct. These issues could negatively impact any JSI employee who makes a complaint, or is named in a complaint.
In this post, I will share how JSI’s refusal to comply with state labor law prevented me from obtaining documents that I believe strengthen the argument that I was improperly terminated. I eventually was able to compel JSI to provide those documents, but the process was long, difficult, and required a working knowledge of the law beyond what a normal employee could reasonably be expected to possess.
Maine Law
I live in Maine, where the state’s “Employee right to review personnel file” statute (26 MRS §631) affords all Mainers the right to view their complete personnel file within 10 days of requesting it, and also broadly defines what kinds of documents must be included in a personnel file:
a personnel file includes, but is not limited to, any formal or informal employee evaluations and reports relating to the employee's character, credit, work habits, compensation and benefits and nonprivileged medical records or nurses' station notes relating to the employee that the employer has in the employer's possession.
It’s clearly written and, thankfully, among the strongest in the country when it comes to what an employee has a right to see.
I made two separate requests for my personnel file—one in August 2024, before I was terminated, and one in September, the day I was terminated. The August request could not have been easier—I emailed JSI’s generic HR email and they responded later that day with my 40-page personnel file. This is how the law should work.
Knowing that I was likely going to be terminated that day, I had already prepared my second request for an updated personnel file in preparation for the meeting with Laura Colantropo and Jonathan Metzger that took place a few hours after JSI notified me that their investigation had been closed and that my allegations were unsubstantiated.
To her credit, Colantropo agreed to receive the request via email and, a week later, sent my full personnel file. This second version included everything in the August version, as well as training records and, to my surprise, the full, unredacted final investigation report into my retaliation claims. The report referenced the existence of additional documents that, under Maine law, should have been provided to me:
A 40-page summary of my performance issues
An email from Metzger claiming that he feared for his family’s safety
Although I would initially suspect that they were omitted from my personnel file by accident, I later came to understand that JSI did not consider them part of my file (even though I believed that they clearly fell under “formal or informal […] reports relating to the employee’s character”).
The New England Super Lawyer
To that point, I had been communicating with Colantropo, but when I sent follow-up questions about my personnel file, she referred me to JSI’s “outside counsel,” a senior litigator and shareholder from a prominent Boston law firm whose bio includes the distinction of being a “New England Super Lawyer.”
The Super Lawyer was at first professional and, although we were not able to find common ground on my separation agreement, he was at first polite and responsive. The tone seemed to change when I began asking for parts of my personnel file that had been omitted. You can read the lightly redacted email exchange here, but to summarize:
Friday, November 1
Jimi sends a polite email, requesting the documents mentioned in the bullet points above, and quoting the specific part of the Maine statute granting access to those documents.
The JSI’s lawyer acknowledges receipt and promises to review my request the following week.
Jimi thanks him for his quick response and wishes him a great weekend.
Friday, November 8
Jimi asks for an update.
JSI’s lawyer responds, “The week has gotten away from me” and promises to respond the following week.
Friday, November 15
Jimi writes again to ask for an update and remind him that the request is time-bound under Maine law.
JSI’s lawyer responds with the 40-page summary of my performance issues (but not the email from Metzger) and, to my shock, writes “I will say that you shouldn’t need anything further to evaluate the reasons why JSI decided to part ways with you.”
Jimi writes back that Maine law is not contingent on “need,” and that “proving a point” does not satisfy the law.
JSI’s lawyer sends a short response stating that JSI does not have anything else to share.
Wednesday, November 20
Jimi writes again, restating his belief that there are more documents that need to be handed over as part of his personnel file.
JSI’s lawyer responds, informing me that they don’t have anything else to share.
A short while later, JSI’s lawyer responds again and sends the emails where Metzger claims he fears for his family’s safety.
Tuesday, December 3
Jimi writes again, requesting additional documents that are mentioned elsewhere in his file, but JSI’s lawyer never responds.
It is worth noting that Massachusetts also has a strongly written statute (149 M.G.L. § 52C) guaranteeing employees (and former employees) timely access to their personnel files. The Massachusetts statute, however, includes a narrower definition of what must be included in a personnel file. JSI’s Lawyer seemed to argue (in his first email from November 15) that the documents I requested did not meet the definition for inclusion in my personnel file. Was he purposely using the wrong state’s definition? Or was he unaware of the differences between Maine and Massachusetts law? I have no way of knowing, but I can say that I had to work harder than I should have to gain access to these documents.
It is also worth quickly going back to his statement on November 15, that “I will say that you shouldn’t need anything further to evaluate the reasons why JSI decided to part ways with you.” Reading this from JSI’s designated legal representative was stunning, and goes to the heart of why I’m speaking out—nowhere in our correspondence on this issue did I argue the facts or raise questions about the validity of my termination. The singular topic of the discussion was access to documents that satisfy the State of Maine’s definition of a personnel file under 26 MRS §631. Even if everything JSI had accused me of was completely true, the company was required to hand over my entire file within 10 days of receiving my request. I called out this disparity between what the law requires and how JSI responded to my requests in my final email from December 3:
[Maine law] does not require the employee to discover and then compel an employer to turn over their personnel file one page at a time, as I have had to do here.
As an employee in Maine, timely access to my complete personnel file is guaranteed by law, and companies that do business in Maine are required to follow the law. Relative to what the law requires of employees, I was forced to go to extraordinary lengths to advocate for myself. I have no insight into whether JSI’s lawyer accidentally misinterpreted the law (perhaps forgetting that I live in Maine, not Massachusetts), or if there was a strategic decision to prevent me from accessing these documents. What I do know is that the first time I requested my personnel file, it was provided the same day, but the second time it took more than a dozen emails over several months and JSI has still not given me access to my full personnel file.
Why is this important?
Just like healthcare or education, employee rights are of no value unless employees can easily access and enjoy those rights. In the experience described above, I had to put substantial effort into accessing rights that should have been easily accessible. I believe that three factors made a difference in compelling JSI to turn over some of (but not all of) documents in my personnel file:
I enjoy and have a natural talent for understanding and applying the law
I had help from a fantastic lawyer (thank you, Maine Employee Rights Group!)
I had the resilience and confidence to persist despite significant stress
I am proud of the way I advocated for myself, but I have to ask—are all JSI staff required to go this “extra mile” in order to access their legal rights? These factors are not required by law, and many employees may not be able to advocate as strongly or for as long as I did.
One More Thing…
In my first post in this series, I promised to discuss and share details on the two charges of workplace misconduct that were brought against me. I had originally planned to include that in this blog post, but have decided against it (at least in the near future) for three reasons:
The redactions are difficult, time-intensive, and make it challenging to tell a coherent story (much less explain why I believe the allegations are false).
Related to the above—while the first allegation was brought by (and investigated by) Laura Colantropo, the second claim originated from a colleague that I had a legitimate, professional disagreement with. Although I do not think I did anything wrong, I believe she voiced her concerns in good faith and therefore deserves complete anonymity, which makes it nearly impossible to discuss.
It’s not why I’m writing. I will admit that I take pride in my character and my work, and it’s hard to not become defensive when I think about those documents and what they contain.
On that third point—my goal is to illustrate the ways in which I felt my former employer fell short in their handling of my whistleblower protection complaint, and to do so in a way that encourages JSI to make changes to prevent this from happening to anyone else ever again. Those goals do not require you to believe that my concerns were valid, or even raised in good faith (although I hope you do), they only require that I illustrate the way those concerns were received and addressed, and how the company responded.
—
This blog post reflects my personal experiences and opinions. It is based on my recollection of events and the information available to me at the time of writing. While I strive for accuracy, if any individual or organization believes a factual statement is incorrect, I welcome the opportunity to address and, if necessary, correct the record. Please contact me directly with any concerns, and I will promptly review and consider corrections in good faith.