By Jeff Devine, Editor-in-chief
In response to the discussion surrounding our recent investigative report concerning the Ozark Subway, owned and operated by Wild Subs, I believe it is important to explain how the report was developed and to address questions about our reporting process.
Investigative journalism does not begin with a predetermined conclusion. It begins with questions, documentation, interviews, and an effort to determine what happened, what can be substantiated, and what remains disputed or requires additional evidence.
For 10 days, The Chronicle spent several hours each day reviewing the information available to us. We examined numerous text messages provided by the Varney family, written communications between the former employee and the local franchise’s human resources director dating back to April, and a formal complaint submitted to Subway’s corporate leadership above the local level.
We also reviewed the family’s account of the events leading to the employee’s termination and attempted to obtain a response from the local franchise’s human resources director.
Our review of the text messages confirmed that certain conversations, including discussions about the employee’s menstruation and the turtle incident, occurred between Aries Varney and hourly employees accused of harassing her.
The written communications also documented that concerns about the turtle incident and sanitation were raised with Human Resources months before Aries’ employment was terminated.
Other allegations, including the extent of the alleged harassment, the circumstances surrounding the termination, and claims of retaliation, were clearly attributed to the family rather than presented as official findings. However, when the available documentation is considered as a whole, it raises legitimate questions about whether retaliation may have occurred.
The text messages also raise serious concerns about workplace conduct. They document conversations in which employees questioned Aries’ sexuality or identity and allegedly showed her pornography, behavior that, if accurately described, could constitute sexual harassment or inappropriate workplace conduct.
We also made multiple attempts to contact the local Human Resources Manager, K.R. We reached her by telephone on Sept. 22, at which time she said she would need to call us back. As of today, we have not received that return call.
Some have characterized our reporting as nothing more than the complaints of a disgruntled former employee. We understand that perspective, and we recognize that employment disputes can involve conflicting accounts.
However, dismissing a complaint simply because it comes from a terminated employee does not answer the questions raised by the documentation. The appropriate approach is to examine the evidence and its timeline, consider the available accounts, and determine what the records support.
Likewise, reporting a person’s allegations does not mean a journalist has accepted every claim as fact. Our responsibility is to distinguish between what the documentation supports, what a source alleges, and what remains unverified. That distinction is reflected in our reporting.
We have not claimed that a court, law enforcement agency, public health authority, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has issued a finding of wrongdoing. We have reported the family’s allegations, the records we reviewed, the steps taken to raise those concerns, and our efforts to obtain a response from Subway. Multiple agencies are currently investigating these complaints.
We also recognize that the business and employees identified in the report deserve an opportunity to respond. The Chronicle remains committed to reviewing additional documentation, considering credible information that challenges our reporting, and publishing substantive responses or corrections when warranted.
If new evidence changes our understanding of these events, we will report that as well. That is our duty as journalists: to follow the truth wherever the evidence leads.
Independent journalism is not about protecting one side, attacking another, or reaching a conclusion that satisfies every reader. It is about asking difficult questions, examining available evidence, and reporting matters of legitimate public interest as accurately and fairly as possible.
This investigation was particularly difficult for me because I previously knew the owners of the local Subway fairly well, and they had always been kind to me. The current HR Manager and I also attended Carroll High School together. Although she graduated a year before I did, she would often help me practice Spanish so I could become more fluent.
However, my personal dealings with them ended years ago, and I could not allow previous friendships or acquaintances to prevent me from reporting what I found to the best of my ability.
Readers do not have to agree with every allegation or conclusion presented in a report. However, we believe the community deserves the opportunity to examine documented concerns and understand why questions have been raised.
The Chronicle will continue to approach this matter with professionalism, fairness, and a commitment to following the evidence wherever it leads.
Thank you to everyone who has engaged in this discussion, including those who have raised questions about our reporting. Scrutiny is a vital part of fair and honest journalism, and we welcome good-faith questions and substantive information that helps establish the facts.
Anyone directly involved in this investigation who would like to speak with me or communicate by email can reach me at [email protected] or by text at (334) 955-9525.
