Douglas Trent’s emails became more damaging.
He had received at least two written warnings about time edits.
One from payroll analyst.
One from HR.
He responded:
Linda is aggressive but gets results. Temp agency sends low-discipline labor. We cannot let administrative concerns undermine floor control.
Naomi read at 1:30 a.m.
She did not sleep.
Friday morning, the board’s employment committee convened.
One director asked:
“Are you personally too involved?”
“Yes.”
Naomi answered before counsel.
The director raised eyebrow.
Naomi continued.
“I witnessed key incident.”
“I have personal history around sanitation work.”
“I am angry.”
“So final employment decisions should not be mine alone.”
Aaron nodded.
“That is our recommendation.”
An independent committee was formed.
Sarah.
General counsel delegate.
Outside investigator.
One board director.
Naomi would receive findings, not control conclusion alone.
That mattered to her.
A CEO who goes undercover and gets humiliated can become judge, victim, and executioner in one body.
Bad governance.
She refused.
The independent review took five weeks.
Publicly, nothing dramatic happened.
Employees continued working.
Corporate interim manager took Dayton.
Payroll was corrected weekly.
Within ten days finance identified 1,842 wage adjustments requiring review over thirty-six months.
Of those, 614 lacked sufficient documentation.
Employees received provisional restitution totaling $186,400 plus additional amounts for overtime calculations and applicable penalties where counsel advised.
Former workers were contacted.
Checks mailed.
Some addresses bad.
Tracing service.
Not glamorous.
Necessary.
Naomi signed a special restitution authorization.
This time she thought about title.
They learned she signed their paychecks.
That phrase would eventually appear online after incident leaked.
She hated it.
She did not “sign their paychecks” in the feudal way headline implied.
Workers earned wages.
Her signature authorized company to release money already owed.
Important difference.
She said this in a leadership meeting.
Nina, her COO, laughed.
“You know nobody on internet will care.”
“I care.”
“Of course.”
Naomi continued.
“Paychecks are not gifts from CEOs.”
“They are obligations.”
Nina stopped laughing.
“Good point.”
Naomi added:
“And cleaning toilets is not punishment.”
“Put both in internal communication.”
Nina looked.
“That’s awkward sentence.”
“Make it less awkward.”
Communications wrote:
No employee’s lawful wages depend on personal favor from a supervisor, and no honest role at Carter Manufacturing—including sanitation work—will be used as a tool of humiliation or retaliation.
Denise Carter read the draft.
She called daughter.
“Good.”
“That’s all?”
“You want medal?”
Naomi smiled.
“No.”
“Then good.”
The final investigation findings were severe.
Linda Marsh had repeatedly used sanitation assignments, undesirable tasks, and public criticism as informal discipline disproportionately against temporary workers.
She made unsupported timecard reductions.
She threatened replacement through staffing agencies.
She discouraged wage questions.
Evidence suggested race influenced some interactions and language, though investigators could not establish explicit race-based policy or motivation across every decision.