1. If the investigation was “impartial and thorough” why is Chevron refusing to give Mr. Suzuki a copy of the report of investigation? If the investigation was “impartial and thorough” the investigation report should make that clear to all. What does Chevron have to hide?

2. Comey says that Chevron’s investigator interviewed 14 witnesses, but I know for a fact that the investigator failed to interview 2 of the 3 witnesses Mr. Suzuki said could confirm that he told them about the racial slur close to when it happened. Such corroborating witnesses are important evidence in harassment cases such as this where only the harasser and the employee were present when the harassment took place. I also have reasons to believe that Chevron did not talk to the third corroborating witness, either. Chevron’s failure to interview the corroborating witnesses show that its investigation was not thorough or fair.

3. Chevron says the so-called investigation was done by “an independent, third-party attorney, Susan Kumagai, who specializes in employment law.” The fact is, Ms. Kumagai, on her firm’s website, describes herself as a “specialist in representing management” in employment discrimination cases. Not exactly who you’d hire if you wanted a truly independent investigation. Mr. Suzuki asked Ms. Kumagai and Chevron how many such investigations Ms. Kumagai had done in the past and in how many of those cases, if any, she found that harassment had in fact occurred. Ms. Kumagai and Chevron have steadfastly refused to respond. What is Chevron trying to hide here? Perhaps Mr. Comey will provide this information.

4. Chevron ordered Mr. Suzuki back to work under his supervisor even before the investigation was complete, and threatened to terminate him unless he complied. This shows that Chevron was assuming that his allegations were false even before the investigation was done — otherwise it makes no sense to order him back to a supervisor who had harassed him to the point of causing him severe medical problems. Such an assumption again shows that Chevron’s investigation was not “impartial,” but rather, rigged from the beginning to achieve the pre-determined result that Chevron desired.

Conclusion: Chevron has not conducted an ‘impartial and thorough investigation” of Mr. Suzuki’s allegations — it has merely gone through the motions. Chevron likes to talk about its “commitment to equal employment opportunity,” but more and more people are seeing through its hypocrisy.

John Ota

Because we take the concerns raised by Mr. Suzuki seriously, we engaged an independent, third-party attorney, Susan Kumagai, who specializes in employment law, to conduct an impartial and thorough investigation. That independent counsel interviewed 14 witnesses, including those identified by Mr. Suzuki. She was unable to substantiate Mr. Suzuki’s allegations.

So while we disagree with Mr. Suzuki and his attorney’s version of the events, we want you to know that we remain steadfast in our commitment to equal employment opportunity.

We appreciate the opportunity to address the concerns raised in this forum.