Former Ontario Convention Center employee suing city, SMG

By Liset Marquez, Staff Writer, DailyBulletin.com

ONTARIO — The lone Ontario Convention Center employee who was fired last summer during an internal investigation has filed a lawsuit against the city and SMG alleging she was wrongfully terminated.

Sue Dang, the former director of finance at the center, alleges that she was fired by Pennsylvania-based SMG World, which operates the center, for failing to report her former boss Bob Brown’s “dishonest acts and concealment,” which violated company policy.

In her lawsuit, Dang alleges that she was fired for not notifying her employer about Brown, the center’s general manager and CEO’s inappropriate use of company money and funds.

“Bob Brown engaged in actions and omissions that included but were not limited to, using and purchasing company equipment, using company money, fund and credit, opening bank accounts that were separate from (SMG’s) control, obtaining loans that were done without permission or authorization,” the suit claims.

Dang filed the lawsuit June 6 in West Valley Superior Court in Rancho Cucamonga.

A representative for SMG could not be reached Monday for comment.

According to her attorney, Kyle Scott, Dang became very concerned about Brown’s actions and sought authorization from one of her fellow colleagues located in El Paso, Texas. Her actions tipped off an internal investigation at the center, he said.

Dang had worked for the company for 12 years, earning $93,000 a year including a car allowance. In her claim, she points out she had been continually praised by her employer during her tenure.

In July, SMG announced it had placed several key administrative staff members on leave while an investigative audit was performed on the facility’s finances.

Although never publicly released, the findings of an investigative audit performed by SMG led to a mass exodus of key management staff. Brown; Clemmie Taylor, director of operations; and Delana Grande, human resources manager, resigned in late July.

A letter sent from SMG World to Ontario city officials said there had been violations of policy and “business conduct” at the Convention Center.

“SMG’s internal audit confirmed that (Dang) engaged in no wrongdoing or dishonest acts. SMG internal audit confirmed that (Dang) was making an internal disclosure regarding CEO’s Bob Brown’s actions and omissions that violated SMG’s company policies and rules of conduct,” the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit also claims she was discriminated against by SMG. According to her suit, Dang said the company treated Brown more favorable than her because she was female, noting that the former CEO was able to negotiate his departure, allowing him to resign and “provided him with monetary and other benefits.”

The 11-page lawsuit fails to provide the details of how Brown violated the company’s policy.

After Dang was terminated, she attempted to get unemployment benefits in August and was denied. She appealed to the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board in Rancho Cucamonga, saying that she hadn’t even been informed as to why she was let go.

It was then that SMG revealed their case against her.

Brown’s first unapproved action occurred when he went on a leave for a medical surgery and installed a video conferencing equipment in his home so that he could continue with his managerial post. Even though the equipment was returned to SMG, Brown never received the company’s approval.

Another instance, according to the appeals document, occurred when Brown opened a bank account under the organization, Ontario Hospitality Group, but never was associated to the company. Dang had knowledge of the organization which SMG felt was inappropriate and should have been reported.

The administrative judge in her unemployment appeal partially sided with Dang, stating she was let go “for reasons other than misconduct,” and should not be disqualified from receiving benefits.

“At the heart of finding misconduct there must be some actual knowledge of wrongdoing on the part of the claimant and/or at least a wanton disregard of the employer’s interest. In the instant case, neither of those things exist,” the judge states.