Tamara Thermitus: her slow victory against the State
Jean Numa Goudou ·
Nearly a decade after the events began
In a judgment rendered on April 29, the Superior Court "declares null the final report of the Protecteur du citoyen dated November 13, 2018" against the former president of the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (CDPDJ) Tamara Thermitus. In doing so, the Court PARTIALLY GRANTS the application for judicial review filed by Ms. Thermitus in this case.
In this matter that opposes the protectrice du citoyen (PC), Marie Rinfret, who was in office from March 2017 until early 2022, to Ms. Tamara Thermitus, the court reproaches the PC for having heard only one side of the story (the witnesses) during her investigation and reported based on this.
"The transmission to the Minister of Justice of the initial report, which omits Ms. Thermitus's version, is bewildering. The process was thereby tainted. Also, while the evidence was totally contradictory, the PC did not sufficiently justify why she judged the witnesses' version to be preponderant rather than that of Ms. Thermitus," wrote Judge Lukasz Granosik.
Ms. Rinfret, the PC at the time, on July 13, 2017, decided to undertake an investigation related to the alleged wrongdoing, more specifically regarding the following grounds:
-A serious breach of ethical and professional standards;
-A serious case of mismanagement within a public organization, including abuse of authority.
This was the very first investigation by the PC under the new functions with which it had recently been endowed. And Ms. Rinfret entrusted it to her internal resources.
While in summer 2017 Ms. Thermitus was facing health problems, she received, upon leaving the hospital after surgery on July 24, a phone call informing her that the PC had received complaints filed by CDPDJ employees against her and that she was the subject of an investigation.
Quickly, the media became involved despite a confidentiality agreement for the process, signed by 27 witnesses interviewed. Despite the confidential nature of the process, on August 30, 2017, the newspaper La Presse published an article reporting on the PC's investigation, titled "Commission des droits de la personne: the president at the center of a crisis."
"Regarding the PC's approach, before even being interviewed, Ms. Thermitus was invited to comment on the first version of the investigation report dated November 29, 2017," the judgment notes.
Despite the absence of Tamara Thermitus's version, Marie Rinfret communicated the initial report, without Ms. Thermitus's knowledge, to the Minister and Deputy Minister of Justice.
Note that in the transmission letter, the PC indicated that her investigation was "for all practical purposes, completed." And she denounced the fact that despite justified sick leave supported by medical notes, Ms. Thermitus had "solicited and intervened" several times with CDPDJ employees to obtain information about the case.
Ms. Thermitus learned completely by chance, on December 8, 2017, about the transmission of the first report. And in March 2018, the newspaper La Presse published, once again, troubling revelations about a CDPDJ vice-president, which led to the latter's resignation.
Later, in May, Ms. Thermitus was finally interviewed for five days about her version: on April 24 and 30 and May 1, 7 and 8, 2018. The arrival of the new president, namely Tamara Thermitus, disrupted CDPDJ operations in 2017. She claims to have noticed several anomalies within this organization, which, according to her, required taking action.
The measures she envisioned or attempted to implement provoked resistance from management and, ultimately, complaints to the PC, while she wished to reform the CDPDJ, review its structure and make this organization more agile and efficient.
Ms. Thermitus argues that she was the victim of mobbing (psychological harassment) by CDPDJ employees and that the complaints against her were made maliciously, to harm her and to get rid of her.
"The present application does not allow this question to be settled, however, the judge specified, the Superior Court cannot conduct an investigation in place of the PC and make recommendations that should have been issued."
The court finally indicates that "It is possible that the present judgment may not be entirely satisfactory, as it neither confirms the conclusions of the PC's investigation nor exonerates Ms. Thermitus, but judicial review in this case admits no alternative."
It requires that legal costs be awarded to Ms. Thermitus. Since this affair, the lawyer has lost numerous employment opportunities and has not managed to work according to what the judgment indicates.