The following are three pages of handwritten notes that I prepared immediately after I was fired from my job as a paralegal at the law firm of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld on October 29, 1991. During my employment I did not keep a diary of daily events. After the termination I wrote down everything I could remember, sometimes trying to discern patterns of behavior. The following notes look for a pattern in the behavior of my direct supervisor, Chris Robertson.
I can't say for sure now, but it's possible I wrote these notes during my employment at the firm, sometime in October 1991, and that I left them in a prominent place in my apartment for Elaine Wranik to see. I had the paranoid suspicion that apartment manager Wranik inspected my apartment surreptitiously every day after I left for work and reported her findings to Akin Gump's managers. These notes would have enraged Akin Gump's supervisors. The fact that I did not "name names" in the following notes (namely, Lutheria Harrison and Katherine Harkness) is circumstantial evidence that I did not write these notes solely for my reference, but rather wrote the notes with the intent that Elaine Wranik would read the notes and report this information to Akin Gump's managers. That is, it appears that I was trying to avoid antagonizing specific employees out of fear that I might invite retaliation.
1. April 16, 1990
Inference: J.D. Neary meets with Dr. Palombo
Outcome: Chris Robertson calls staff meeting. She appears unusually agitated. Her voice drops when she mentions J.D. Peculiarity--Monday afternoon staff meeting.
2. April 2, 1991
First meeting with Dr. Lewis Winkler. Upon returning to office, Chris Robertson advises she is calling a staff meeting on April 3, 1991 to train coders on Hoechst.
April 3, 1991
2 4/10 hour meeting re Hoechst coding appears to have been prematurely and hastily called in that a number of important issues re data base have not been worked out with attorneys such as agreed on list of document types. There seem to be many double entendres relating to my session with Dr. Winkler the previous day. Cynthia Hogue make a comment about David Callet that can be interpreted as mildly ridiculing him. (Perhaps David Callet said something favorable about me, possibly in connection with my session with Dr. Winkler?).
3. August 8, 1991
Inference: Telephone conversation between Dr. Winkler and Malcolm Lassman. Possible comment by Dr. Winkler that he couldn't understand why I terminated my work with him since I had told him I was enthusiastic about working with him.
Outcome: Reference by litigation support employee [Lutheria Harrison] to word "rude" -- possibly related to Dr. Winkler. After 5:00 PM Chris Robertson says to me, "I spoke with Maryellen Connor about your working on Hoechst chem analysis; she said she was enthusiastic about your working on the project."
4. August 30, 1991
Inference: Telephone conversation between Dr. Palombo and Malcolm Lassman.
Outcome: Telephone call to me from Chris Robertson re: plans she has to have me enter Hoechst chem analysis in "Notebook." Her tone of voice is affectedly professional. References to me as guinea pig, use of term "bugs," data conversion, scroll down and scan, "It will be better for you" (Miriam Chilton?), "fine tuning" (phrase used by Dr. Palombo).
5. October 2, 1991
Inference: Telephone conversation between sister and Malcolm Lassman (Met with Dr. Brown on October 1, 1991). Sister becomes hysterical or enraged?
Outcome: Meeting with legal assistant in her office [Katherine Harkness]. Perception of sexual harassment. Inference that legal assistant is attempting to enrage me. Uses M.O. typically used by Chris Robertson, namely, first plant idea that I am more valuable than other employees. Intent: "Feel free to have a temper tantrum!"