Former Employee of Arizona Department of Revenue Disputes Vice CEO’s Statements, Provides More Recordings

On August 19, B, a former employee of ADOR, posted a lengthy rebuttal on his Instagram account in response to statements made by Mr. A, Vice CEO of ADOR.

B clarified that their intention was not to seek revenge on Executive A, but rather to clear their name from the false accusations made against them during the Corporate Ethics team’s investigation. This was a result of CEO Min Hee-jin’s unfair handling of the complaint and her subsequent false explanations.

In addition, they indirectly mentioned the possibility of taking legal action as a motive for sharing their story with the media.

B further clarified that the previous investigation did not determine their complaint to be false. Following CEO Min Hee-jin’s second statement, B submitted further evidence in the form of recordings and messenger captures that had not been previously provided, as the claim of the report being false persisted.

When asked about the delay in submitting the evidence, B explained, “I was hoping that Mr. A’s behavior would improve and I didn’t want him to face humiliation or lose his job. I had intended to present the additional evidence only if any issues arose during the investigation. I was not expecting the case to be dismissed without any notice.”B further stated, “I trusted that the investigation was conducted fairly and accepted the outcome, which led to my resignation.”

B also stated their three main concerns that they wished to address: “If CEO Min Hee-jin had interfered inappropriately to conceal the complaint, if she had made derogatory remarks about me while training Mr. A, and if my personal details, such as my KakaoTalk conversations and income, were disclosed without my authorization.”

Their frustration was evident as they shared, “CEO Min Hee-jin and Executive A will never truly comprehend the challenges I faced as I patiently waited for an apology that never materialized. Additionally, they will never understand the immense devastation I experienced after being falsely branded as incompetent due to a retaliatory sexual harassment allegation, resulting in my resignation in July.”

The ex-employee also confessed to not having a recording of the exact comment that sparked the controversy, stating, “Since it was only Mr. A’s fifth day in the role, I didn’t expect to hear any offensive remarks. However, the ‘better than two men’ statement, which he has acknowledged, is concerning enough on its own.”

B questioned Mr. A’s assertion that his apology had not been retracted by asking, “If it is not a retraction, then would it be considered a correction?”

On the 19th, Mr. A’s position was made public in an interview with a media outlet. During the interview, he denied any allegations of sexual harassment and clarified that he never referred to any individuals as “young women.”He also mentioned that the investigation found no evidence of workplace or sexual harassment.

He declared, “I was suddenly branded as a ‘perpetrator of workplace harassment’ and ‘perpetrator of sexual harassment’ overnight. I had no other option but to take legal action and file a lawsuit in order to vindicate myself,” suggesting possible legal measures.

The source of this information is Daum.