AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION CASE 13 160 01426 12

Marcus I. Washington, pro se Claimant

V.

William Morris Endeavor Entertainment LLC, formerly known as the William Morris Agency, et. al., Respondent

PARTIAL FINAL AWARD

SUMMARY ^vi'ii I FIND William Morris Endeavor Entertainment LLC (hereinafter ^ N^Respondent) discriminated against Claimant in violation of pertinent federal, y^c,fof state, and local law prohibiting discrimination in employment on the basis of race. \^ N ^ ' V cufj ^v/vo^ (Z^Hfy LAA*J i FIND that Claimant has suffered money damages. I FIND, pursuant to the Arbitration Agreement, that Claimant is entitled to reasonable fees and costs, as a pro se non-attorney prevailing party on statutory claims in a case of considerable procedural and substantive complexity. 1 A . ^ c^Uo e^^-HH^*^-^ /'('^'l^'^oKv-t o-^c( ci.H^rno^Mtrz\\c^f^lWdf.

^^J4PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW, FINDINGS OF FACT, AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - ^ ^ ^ ' ^ ^ ^ \\,ai)ff^ed "joy wcv''^ f A * / \ o r t * ) 7 e ^ '^hM 'S\*^h+^ J ( f^l^ft^

Claimant was hired by Respondent as an Agent Trainee in mid-August, w*vV 2008. He began work on September 2, 2008. Following lunch on April 8, 2010 in ^ ^(p^cfc^ef New York City with Ms. Carole Katz, the Los Angeles based head of ^Z^j^Iom'^ (i^scAM'^^\i^. Respondent's Human Resources., Claimant ceased work but remained on the r^^]!{g, L, I ^^'^ ""^i payroll until mid-August 2010. 'W^^^JU4^

In early 2011, Claimant unsuccessfully sued Respondents in the United y^i^j i^iV cA^'-ff^cd States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and unsuccessfully N^f^^vlu^ ^^^^^ appealed to the Second Circuit. He has yet to meet with any success whatsoever t^]c&s tj-^t ^^^^ in the federal courts; they have unequivocally repudiated all of Claimant's \j^}l^^^\r^ cPL SAi,^ I initiatives to avoid arbitration and instead obtain a jury trial in federal court, i^^^q^^^ .^Niac^ '

Respondents moved to compel arbitration in early February 2011. In mid- <^3.ovi<i+-c>Alv/ June, 2012, the Clerk of the Court issued a Non-Jurisdiction Letter. -pc-lxuw^ ^:js<ic7^"^^^

I accepted the AAA administrative appointment in late July, 2012 to serve as the Arbitrator in this matter. Shortly thereafter, in an August 24, 2012 conference call, the parties unequivocally stated that they were amenable to me deciding this matter solely on Motions and without the need for an on-site hearing. The AAA rules allow for decision of employment disputes without a hearing and based solely on the parties' submissions. Via their extensive Motion papers, the parties seek summary judgment, dismissal of the opposition's claims \)tfv ^o^lx'" ^^^'"^ entirety, significant money damages (e.g., "I [Claimant] should receive ^(iy/Lsec^ more than $125 million...") and additional remedies and attorneys' fees and

^ ^-^^^ J^j^
oo^fh^n^n

^ f

-fu.v ^^^fvo^f

i^^^^

^ ,

tA/^^^

a conference call on July 30, 2013, however. Claimant abruglly changed adJtyfss con^^'yh'is mind and said he wanted a hearing. He thereafter promptly^^er^anded to \A\Ao\<fHy\ Urvjr. depose Respondent's Chief Executive Officer Ari Emanuel and Respondent's "^^^j^ '^^^ko^ principal attorneys, including Mr. Michael Zweig, Esq. and his colleagues at the vT^ctt-ofc/. ' those request\"Concurrently, discovery e f f o r t ^ to the m*^fly l'^ genesis and history of "Exhibit A" aka "Exhibit 31" were not productive, me. \M>^fU elaborate conditional discovery calendai; I had set forth in Interim Decision 3 otv '-^ September 25, 2013 (I issued two prior>(nterim Decisions, dated April 18 and ^fiiis^^^sUl^ July 12, 2013 respectively, incorpor^d herein by reference, and several j / v ^^.71 ^tf'?

procedural orders.) was eclipsed by the reality that nothing not already ^^^^^^'^I'^fe'xhaustively addressed in the parties' thousands of pages of Motions was 1 remotely likely to surface even if the arbitration hearing was to continue WA^fu eAfiU '"definitely and to thus take on the multi-decade dimensions of Charles Dickens' pwrpoc Jarndyce V. Jarndyce.

t^o\r^<^M

^^\/Zt{^
l^/B

C~6A^o.,e^

Therefore, with everything before me that I needed to decide this matter, ^ ^ ^ H ' , . I set a deadline for final submissions. I completed receipt of same and closed the -j^6o/hoe| record on December 9, 2013. j ^ e j ^ f [ aiecjojcd M^-2e,3o|'?-SvW^t^ ^

'^^'^^
t^J^^^y "jo\fi\^i^\cc

In my thirty years as an Arbitrator of tabor and Employment Disputes, ^^^^ i^^S^o^^ this case presents the most extensive Motion practice that I have encountered.^, vj^ t^tu'-f have carefully read the parties' papers and the available relevant authorities cj/cv. cited therein. \^zo\3 [f,^^ 0 / 1

Conventional Summary Judgment is appropriate when no material facts ^,^*->vi f^tM p^iii t, i;f( t l ^ t are in dispute and the construction is conducted in a light most favorable to the ) , ^wick^topposing party. That dynamic significantly shifts, as a practical matter, when ^'^'^ \aoo<y p^cJjthere is a cross Motion for Summary Judgment and counterclaims. In this 1^1/1-^4 ^-wAiJMrbitration, under the rubric of Summary Judgment, the parties mounted a full scale arbitration by any measure.
c^^^l(*<^

-'^{ic^^se^s^ ^f^g inception of employment, and subsequently on July 1, 2009, ^-jHkirT'^ i^ollowing the William Morris Agency and Endeavor combining their businesses, Claimant signed the Mutual Arbitration Agreement, agreeing to arbitrate, inter alia, claims of unlawful race discrimination. The agreements sweep broadly. In 2009 in 14 Penn Plaza v. Pvett. 129 S,.Ct. 456 (2009), the United States Supreme l a c i f H ^ - t U i i Court upheld an arbitration agreement broadly analogous to those in this M o f i Co^ arbitration. See, David L. Gregory, Mandatory Labor Arbitration of Statutory ^ A / ^ o l i M G : L 4 ^ ( v ^ . Clalms and the Future of Fair Employment. 19 Cornell Journal of Law and Public ^Jerf V'c^^j.VPolicy 429458 (2010)(with E. McNamara). Ig'^^'i'S ^q\^^oc^ti^^^^ )^,*.e>^^^

[July (r,2t)(?

p^^pv, I find both of the Arbitration Agreements In this arbitration to be ^^/-f^ '^^^ -fi^ ( M y^^^ conventional, garden variety, and nonproblemati<;/>^here is no credible evidence yz^^l^ 'p\^2i^\i'<\o~ that they are unconscionable in whole or in part. i if / t o fJ \ A l r v j
(k>Ji \jcKl OMoiaCi^

THE "N" WORD MEMO EXHIBIT AND THE CLAIMANT e^^^zJ^n Claimant asserts that there were hundreds of despicable, scurrilous uses V \MII11-*V of the odious "N-word" and other racist pejoratives by decisionmaker agents of tAof^s ^^jRespondents. Claimant acknowledged that he was never called a "N" to his face by anyone at Respondent. The roughly twenty pages referred to as Exhibit 31, and/or as Exhibit A, '^'^{^^^cc'j ^^'^"'^' ^ Exhibit A hereinafter for consistency's sake, is i-kl Uc^ ^^HIE!l^* ^ ^ named persons correlated to the number of times ect-c4--^ the named person had any involvement as either a target or communicator of

jix o ^ o o f V f Claimant has asserted from the inception that, for more than a decade, M<^'f^'=^^ N ^ ' ^ ^ ^ the odious "N-word" has been used by superior agents of Respondent VtSe^^^ ^ j l f l ^ - j j regarding employees of color. By pure fortuitous circumstance (which Claimant ^ -{* ^ / (>f-i<4cl terms "miraculous") more than a decade ago, the "N-word" list was Af^c*^ /[r^c^ of inadvertently seen on the desk of SNR [Sonnenschein, Nath, and Rosenthal] "^'^f*^ e^'M^cn. attorney Raymond Heslin. Mr. Leonard Rowe, by Affidavit, affirms: "I ^^^2r"^!|e^. ^ ' ^ ' ' ' ^ ^ f j ^ personally saw [the] Exhibit... in its entirety. It contained all pages including 1 ^^^J^l^akjj t^e^c^ 17....At that time, it contained the word 'nigger' 349 times." Respondent, to fi^j^ the contrary, remains adamant regarding its inauthenticity, irrelevance, and 't^ u>^^o^^ inadmissibility. Respondent continues unequivocal denials. o^cMec* yko)cs

In response to Claimant's persistent assertion that Respondents and their I s^^-f^ lawyers have in their possession the infamous "nigger" emails, thus involving '^^ more than a dozen lawyers and three law firms suppressing evidence Respondent reiterates: "This is utter nonsense." (Respondents'Response at ^l^'f^<^xi^ pages 2-3, footnote 2, to Interim Decision 1) "Claimant's persistent contention -f*^ loo^that Rowe's expert and Rowe's counsel produced to WMA (and its counsel Loeb \ & Loeb) what Claimant now refers to as 'nigger' emails, and then concealed ^to\Cfi^ such documents for two years, is calumny. It is, demonstrably, an outright and n,^r^6-k^^cic knowing lie. Not a single such email was ever produced, or is even known ever ^^cl-J^^J-f^c^-to have existed." (Respondents' Reply at page 5 to Interim Decision 1)

OHh^V'

2^,j plui i ^ i v r i p ^< p f

V^eJiAc

Claimant situates his individual experience at Respondent against the broader backdrop of Exhibit A and the macro backdrop of his interdisciplinary critique of deeply embedded racism. ly?^ (A Zl^^ay>\^ ^o^V^Vcu.^
[c^o^

Some of Claimant's extensive Motion papers reflect sophisticated ^/t>Moiea <\v sociological jurisprudence grounded in some of the leading scholarship of the / ^ 4 ' /critical race theorists. {se> r^d^ m*^ ^ 'jw.-f. m^CW'-I^ c^-fv*. c^ih^rsdkd ^ Aoi o<^c^.l

liu^

v^-^coA^h^

V other parts of Claimant's Motion papers are counterproductive antif^^-S. Xje^^^'^'*'^ Respondent correctly points out, some of the defamation was f\/{^c^rr^io^^ w^^ jo/leofte particularly mean spirited, deliberately distributed to members of the Bar and ^-^^^x, \rts^\<is 'tv^ accusing Respondent's lawyers of "participating in a 'conspiracy to maintain ^ve^ rfVM m c^corufi'^a^ white supremacy throughout America.'" (Respondent's Final Position ^^s^2.o\i^-\^^ * WpS-HoAi i-i Statement, November 20, 2013 at 14.) Such pointless vituperation grossly -H^V Okjc vAw\'n ^Y^r<i ^^Cii^- debilitates the efficacy of Claimant's substantive arguments. 'f^-^ A-^A [^e <^m-U Claimant cites, inter alia, the influential legal scholarship of Harvard Law f^^'^'T I'^h ^ upst+o/^ School Professor Randall Kennedy (see Claimant's January 31, 2013 Motion, i^J^^ "^iS ^cL^sc P^8^ footnotes 243-246, ultimately culminating in Professor Kennedy's a^s^W. l> \- <^efinitive book "Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word" (Pantheon, \^ )o 2^ l^c^d cT 2002). ^tfJ^c^o^
if-

v^AJ tu^p^i^The "N word" persists. Isaiah Thomas, a college all-star at Indiana cf ^ (2\eJ ^tiA' W''^ University and a professional all-star and multiple world champion with the -\r, c^\^ i^iik' Detroit Pistons, candidly admitted while an executive with the New York Knicks, ^r^f^^^^'^^t^ -fWf 4 ^ there is a double standard vis a vis authentic Black usage of the N-word and the d ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^'*^*"'d misappropriated usage of the N-word by members of any other race. ^ ^1 . , Examples abound. (See discussion of same in my Interim Decision, including the 4. falifccfcc/" . ^i^jl fine arts of Spike Lee, "Bamboozled," 2000, a film accentuating the inexorability stereotype, with the emphasis on the targets of racism hyper-exaggerating c^sij f-ui "^'^ stereotypes in order to counter and freeze the metastasized racism as tepid; Dr. ^c^d '\*Ms Henry Louis (Skip) Gates, "The Signifying Monkey: A Theory of African Literary UM4-*^ Criticism" (1988 First Edition and post). ^X>c}-^
\\o'j o>*^-{

Wc

Claimant has situated himself in a paradoxical predicament. He asserts ^-^/>^vjfe|f that he is using the legal process as an instrument for social justice. The modern civil rights movement is replete with noble examples of courageous leaders who ^^/\ sought, and ultimately achieved, social change through legal process. See, for ''^.r^^v*l example, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his eloquent "Letter from a Q ^ v v k (Jov^^i
C^^cJ^^^

p^K+^-^f-'-

" ^ i P

^c:)v^l og4-s Birmingham Jail." Likewise, see the magnificent work of Thurgood Marshall and Wd^ ivic^4^i<jhis mentor at the Howard Law School, Vice Dean Charles Hamilton Houston. ^cii ^ While each of these gentlemen pursued aggressive multifaceted initiatives, I am t^ci^ not aware of a single instance wherein they deliberately engaged in libel per se. Most recently, the life of Mr. Nelson Mandela, a lawyer, eloquently exemplifies f*ri'^), revolutionary human rights activism;w/ithout counterproductive ad hominem

'"V^
-^j^f-^ ^r\\a\je.c^

JO^k^

In this case before me at this Arbitration, the parties' assessments of ^^^^ ef -fvioseExhibit A dramatically vary. Some of my original questions about Exhibit A J, c 1 /ziUl^/tfi'T^a'n open. Who authored it?. What was the context? <Yif^^<^ ce-iri*f -if,f( rT^. w

y^^^

' asked the parties to endeavor to provide the full name, title, and dates '^^'^^f g.(jcp^V^\^ ^ ^ ^ employment for each and every person named in whole or in part In Exhibit ^ n<of\L. JtycO^A. I asked the parties to further identify all named persons within Exhibit A who \^VovS Ifl/iNr{^h'2J are presently employed by Respondents. I asked the parties to identify any such ^^s(js.\o^ ^tdJpi- \c^<^ persons named in whole or in part in Exhibit A who were involved in the of^-U'^j '^"^ recruitment, hiring, orientation, training, supervision, discipline, severance, '^^f^ and/or cessation of the employment of Claimant. LS"^ ^^"^ o{^"^s^o^uU*.j-j p^jj^^ {

Claimant, not Respondent, did most of this tedious work in a good faith S^e^^i^ effort to answer my questions. Although Respondent is the presumptive esre^^^fd[ cl4v)( custodian of the email and other communication archival records. Respondent's \]CA^ c^co^-\u4 efforts in that regard were relatively desultory, compared with the resolute o^.cyo^\^ ^No'\tcK -/ tenacity of Claimant. ^^^ce^^^W^ p6of le fv>i&7<
OA W .ifz4rc( h -^^l (nsf ivj \%

Although the "N" Word Memo Exhibit A was admitted into evidence, it is
ff'^'"^ vwkw^i^' The original authorship, and, thus, the significance of Exhibit A remains

^cx. ^4

'ef\\\>\\t it is not necessarily nothing,

uncertain, standing alonef^jjt, fast forwarding the better part of two decades C U J M J Af" j [f^z^i^ from the time Mr. Rowe first s&vyExhibit A to the present, ^lesallent fact is sl^ce-^t^ l-vfc^/yi Dfc^i'oespecially compelling about Respohdent's workplace-- Africarr^Amfiricans get o-e^i^'uiA hired at the boot camp trainee entry level, including Claimant, but thev also get ^fe-W'-^ ^ J ] ^ fired, virtually without exception and irt short order. Claimant's stateni^that ^oK^ "there were more African American Agents employed at William Morris in\l963 ^ ' J ^ ^ ^ p,^|f;c^(one) than there were when I began^mployment in September 2008)" is ndt
c^vi,(Xc\.

Jl^''^'

/
V f c c ^ p e ^ -fs-fk^ft . .

Employers, Including Respondent, are entitled to hire, retain, and 1 5 e! ceA\',}^ . promote whom they wishprovided that they do so lawfully-Employers in the lli^^ c'^c^'f^j industry apparently rely on the high attrition rate among new employees as a ^W^'^*;^^^/'- sort of boot camp rite of passage. Fair enough. Most employees come aboard ' '^^S\^*^ ''^^^^^^'j^l^' with their eyes wide open, knowing that upwards of ninety percent of the new yj;ro>;^',^o.. 2 ^ u i i ^ recruits won't make it, but each one resolved to be among the survivors. Again, /^ne of-^oje. fair enough. l^^^)^ The revolving door, or, perhaps more accurately, the insurmountable e^^<iAa. ^X^^f^^'""^^ celling encountered by Claimant effectively, and unlawfully, operates as an ^wai'A^^'^^ exclusive gate keeper. Claimant contends that there are virtually no AfricanqT^irMvi'^ Americans surviving Respondent's new hire boot camp, "....there continues to (^'^/J^^^ jl cc\--\i^ be zero African-American Agents or Coordinators employed in the New York y\^f ^u:^^ " (Claimant's September 30, 2013 Emergency Motion at page 9, ) 80 p-oH**^ office...' ^'J-.^S^footnote 9; emphasis in original) P^\'Jv,^^^ ^y<^^^^\-\^<^\^ p=c(ic ^f ^l^^J,. Respondent disagrees, but does not provide a specific list by name, title, ^vt U/ft-plM" date of hire or equivalent particulars. Instead, Respondent cites Claimant as ^'^^ o , u < 's ^ u e ^ ^^^"^^ saying "that approximately 20 African Americans were hired and/or promoted -^(K j , " ^ * ^ "^wl^ to agent." Respondent Final PositioirStatemejt at page 9). Claimant does not ' ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ h i ^ c^Scy sue because 20 may have been hirech'1'atl^e^ he sues because he was fired and '^'^ p ^ / K < 4 e ^ X" that no African American survived to become an Agei^ I find Respondent's hfApresentation of such data insufficient to rebut. Respondent is the custodian of co)/n(3f record, in business for more than a century. It seemis a simple matter for \QilcAj^ I VjATT^Respondent to list by name and particulars each pers^ hired at the entry level, fv^ i^^v^ ^f^eM -fVrtf including Claimant since, say, 2007. The number of^rsons of color hired, (^Y^c c:U4^l* ^^XtdlifJ^ promoted,,and fired would thi/s be forthrighjiy^esented. I find Claimant did 5^^^ ^"'^ ork orx-this ^ ^ ^ ^ ^2^^^ferl^k'^^^^^^ ^ score than did Respondent. Claimant went further, and read and incp^p6fated into his presentation the Harvard Law i^o^M or -\V4, Review article on thgjsigfftficanca of "zero" In the workplace.I find it internally ^ l ^ f '^^ discordarrtthatl^pondent can {irecisely list more than twenty instances of rant's various delinquencies especially those considered issues of (non) j^^ci^ ~ ' punctuality, but seemingly cannc t list the number and race of persons hired , s^\rs \i^<M^ promoted, fired 2007-present (pr, at least for the 2008-2010 time period) as "ioAGA^o of trainees. ^'-^ ^(^S i^f4y^t^Vp<^.4^
it^^tro^

|AmA ^ c e . Case.

of pcy-ploiTT^

Claimant satisfies tjre prima facie test, wi Impressive qualifications (University of Miami^jB^lerated graduation and a m a s t e r ' s ^ f e g r e J i y ^ g e 2 3 ) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ and some initial CKf^TPQQPC in th inrliictrv hpfnrp \unr\t\na fnr RpcnnnHpnt^ H P ^"^f
r\lP; 260O

n(X\e/ijh*^- A g W ^

M-V*v/^H^ A,Ut^t^t,1p^

-feel IcKrt-

acknowledges he was not the perfect employee, with a few lateness incidents in l^4c"^-j^^"^^ coming to work and perhaps a mismatch between his qualifications and the e*)^W^ entry level position for which he was hired. Claimant, and every entry level new cS^ilSlt^K employee, starts with some time in the mail room; the problem, however, is evivUn^*we4[*that, for Claimant, it was effectively a one way ticket. Claimant cites several \r,]ffire^^^ colleagues complimentary of his work (e.g.. Melody Carter). S^r^n^ Co^*^. W ^-fj/wp^-^

ctjrx^o vi/if^j .-f Indeed, while Respondent subsequently asserts that there were more [/^e^ ff-^ ^'^lij'v^'T*'^'*" twenty negative comments regarding Claimant, significantly more than any -^p^e^^felse in his trainee class, some of Respondent's own documents are facially ^ t^<5^vgf^7 oi\jtA(^^ inconsistent with Respondent's emphasis on Claimant's "negative attitude." VP e.g., Mr. Jonathan Lomma described Claimant as :"'very nice.'" (Respondent f^^^'^f''"^ Memo, November 12. 2012 at 13); note, however, that Mr. Lomma's \J^<r^& compliment was not included in Mr. Meade's November 2, 2012 Affidavit. r>^^o\J<i Respondent concludes that Claimant's job performance was mediocre at best, and repeatedly emphasizes that he was not punctualproblems best solved in, or failing that, at least confined to, the mailroom. One of the most pernicious stereotypeschronic latenessagainst African Americans was bureaucratically prioritized by Respondent with apparently no awareness of its tragic irony. Claimant's admitted naivete both complicated and clarified some matters. Respondent asserts that Claimant was not terminated, despite more than twenty negative reviews from across the spectrum of fellow trainees, and supervision ; rather, he voluntarily took a very lucrative buyout relative to his ' low seniorityfive months of full pay and benefits after only nineteen months of employment. The mirror Image of such facial generosity may have been the context of the Great Recession negating any genuinely voluntary choice by ' <|x<3^^^ Claimant. I do not find the voluntary quit assertion by Respondent to be the o^la<^Hv(L'' only lens through which to evaluate Claimant's decision in 2010. I find it more ^il^o-^iS, ^J^ir likely that paternalistic soft racism identified Claimant as potentially y^ld^i^i^}^ Co-role problematic upon his first outreach to Human Resources. Any one of the ^ Cc^-Uj^',oc\. ^7 ' \e twenty incidents cited and relied on Respondent as evidence of ['^^a^s^ ' i l ^ . Claimant's substandard work would, theoretically, be grounds for termination. J ^ ^ ^ l ^ " ^ 'T)>f/^ Yet, that did not occur contemporaneous with the alleged incident. Rather, they (vA^^j^lve^ okfi^(te/il^ bofW^are subsequently relied on by Respondent for maximum cumulative adverse ^'^V-^^e^o. ^ fVV^Iiil^ influence after-the-fact. Meanwhile, when not relegated to the mail room, "^^f^ Qc^Wo^ Claimant was sent on errands to buy furniture and office supplies. Rather than xo;ftf (^^|^ ^ Respondent providing, or Claimant receiving, any supervisory mentoring of any ^Vo|>#^j,w,>i-.

.^.^^^r^^ C^fff
\ ^

h^e^-^-^^^ U - ^ ^ ^-MC^
^ b S
t^o^'j

^,

^^^^^^^

CO-ISdc^^

vi^/vf^'x w
M ^ ' A

'

Wo^- cM^d-

<r?ta.3^f,'4J L'.i^a , vi'k^v

flj v ^ / t \C3

<f^vv ^ iVi'llfo^

" * (^"fi'/^|

/ic^cU$0^/^e^^ vecj,or ^i^\ogc^ Vin>^dcd-

oUii-i^'/j

significance, some supervisors complained about Claimant within less than one hour of his being on the job. ^ Msof^ f^o^ Before his April 8, 2010 lunch with Ms. Katz, Claimant's days probably were already numberedhe just didn't know that yet. [did }i\J.JWj
"'e^rf of
"^h -W-

-fo H-4i'(K^ ^

It Is a close question, but I find Respondent did not sufficiently rebut ' ^ ^ / ^ ^ j , ^ ^ \^^kv*^\, Claimant's prima facie case with legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons, neutrally \j^a^\so and impartially applied, for terminating Claimant's employment. MtV^iP-l^^ fai] ^r-e 4. VU. I f jnjj that Claimant did not voluntarily quit. If he had done so, it would u ^ have been relatively easy for Respondent to have immediately endeavored to return Claimant to work. Instead, Respondent sweetened Claimant's departure while adamantly precluding any possible return by Claimant. i find that Claimant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that he was unlawfully discriminated against because of his race. Within a few days of receipt of my Interim Decision 1, Claimant expressly ^ ^ ^ ^ states in his email writing to Mr. Michael Zweig, Esq. that "I [Claimant] refuse to vv^evif . communicate any further with him [Mr. Christian A. Carbone, Esq., a lawyer ' ^ ^ j j ^ colleague of Mr. Zweig at Loeb & Loeb, the law firm representing Respondents ] ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ w V "...."Based on Christian's arrogant and defiant response to my request to 'meet \3 and confer,' coupled with the fact that he was not involved in Rowe and clearly ^ " ^ " ^ J j ^ knows nothing about what actually occurred in electronic discovery." (^^\^^^^^ , (Respondents' Reply to Interim Decision 1, Exhibit 2)

piyifcUv<^

^4o

<n]^oc>iJrt^e^

(^poifVle^fe"^55 ij 0. ^orensib^. and I anticipated correspondingly dramatic cost reductions. Reliable t t ^ ^ f^joj. o>M ^ estimated were not forthcoming, with the parties blaming one another for cxA^i^aL^\oOf tffechVblocklngWfective discovery. Respondent was confronted with 329 ^^^li U, interrogatories. The first generation of IT specialists circa 1998 were no longer '"j s1\ employed, slowing the process. Consequently, there was nothing more to v \ fivrwa^l* l ^ < w e likely come forward from hundreds of thousands of emails beyond a grossly \ (T^^^ disproportionate huge bill. (Respondent October 11, 2013 letter). Although J Claimant suggested that his expert may charge only a fraction lof the prevailing f?VUS^ (^^^ btcl^v^ rates, the logistics of each party's IT email expert simultaneously being in the ^ ' ^ X J L V ^W-* 50 I same room, to say nothing of Claimant and Respondent's attorne^ys being in """^ "^^^ that same room, was the recipe for a virtual guarantee of a quick ^ridlocked r^l^^t^Ah fiasco.

5^<:^'3cov^|^.lJ^i took Arbitral notice of the stunning advances in e-discovery retrieval

OtjpOr

H u e - Asj+M< ^ ey?^--^

-(^t^ a;^-ntij^ fv^n ^M(^ (J^.^. "Pe^twii LL?J^ |i^,l5The possible testimony of Mr. Raymond Heslin, Esq. seemed essential in 1>JX ^'^"^'"S the chain of custody and control regarding Exhibit A. Claimant, o^^eJy^ however, decided he would rather depose Respondent's CEO and lawyers. That , ^ fw+oe was a classic non-starter, designed to keep this matter going nowhere indefinitely. Claimant's deposition "strategy" is analogous to Marburvv. T v | t ^ ^ -^^K ^e^J^vrJi. Madison. 1 Cranch (5 U.S. 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). It necessarily meets with a 7>wc \T similar result. It is a sensationalistic in terrorem tactic designed to induce chaos li^^ayil^. I among the opposing side. Just as Marbury was compelled to proceed ^s<^d j^^l^-wJ^ incrementally and thus could not simply walk into the Supreme Court and be ^t^.^]^^ ^cj( cLcl^vuvfel^^/'^^'"^^^ instance, deposing Respondent's CEO in the first instance flies JTv^'^.v^V^ ^^L^'^eA' ^^^^ ^ established procedure. I granted In part Respondents' August 20, ' t ^ ^ f ^ \y<is 00 2013 Letter Motion in Response to Claimant's August 7, 2013 Submission. d^Vns\1 ^ A t t o r n e y s Zweig, Carbone, and Gavaris, and WME Co-CEO Ari Emanuel shall not ^^V^'^ '^J^ts/^T^ be deposed and shall not be called to testify by Claimant. There are additional - ^ j ^ ^ ^ , ^ ^ xjg^fQ^ considerations militating against such potential depositions. Throughout this c ^ ^ ^ ^ * ^ \'^^2ofl entire matter. Claimant has vociferously and repeatedly accused each of these (/^'vtH CotJ^. px/'A' persons of criminal conduct. To require any of these Loeb attorneys or Mr. V-b^^ \AoUclo^rnanuel to provide testimony in this civil arbitration would potentially violate ^ p^CT" eSf^^ their Constitutional S'^ Amendment right against self-incrimination in the C^^^UTT^ event that Claimant follows through on his persistent threat of seeking criminal ^^^.e.], \jd^n^\prosecution. Jl'^'^'TplAL A^^ <^\<^ f CW^C -l^e wz^j /vh ph^'^vrV>/^ Ergo, upon completing my receipt of the parties' final papers on ^ ! ^ ' " ^ v J S + C ' December 9, 2013,1 declared the record closed. no^^W
\p&j^o^'2^c^

\'^1T^rT"^

In addition to my FINDINGS set forth in summary on page one above,

Vlel^rH^ < s f 'Pvi/v\ ZfiSC-- c^lcc) on)\wjo\ ^ aS^ ' f t h a t any "lien" practice involving either party or their agents is jL^e ^Ic^d contrary to the good faith and confidentiality expectations of this arbitration. o/tea-sa is^'f^Each party is bound by their written promise "to keep the award confidential |7^^c^ ^-fttr^taiS"*^... execute all documents necessary to maintain such confidentiality." In his ^ ^ J ^ ^ ^^^^^'lorthcoming Motion for reasonable fees and costs as the prevailing party, Kc^^ Claimant shall set forth and thoroughly explain his involvement, if any, in any Hs.\^-M ^ p/onc7-1e-s "lien" practice and shall further show cause as to why any and all money m. a>Cd ^/2cl^ciamages, fees, and costs awarded Claimant should not be escrowed by ^'^!!^!ff^ V^S/^chRespondent's attorneys until there Is sufficient affirmative proof Claimant was ^ 9 not and is not Involved in lien practice regarding any person whatsoever, or ^/^jjl^tj^l^ business, corporation, law firm, or the AAA, involved, identified, or named in '^^^/QJ^^
-\K.. c.s.\s

w , ^ rv^

^ ^ " I Z ' ^ h

" ^ r " ' ^

'"^'^^

W^^i'ej.^

any fashion whatsoever in this arbitration. Going forward from the date of this Partial Final Award, offensive lien practice by either party or any of their agents, identifying, involving, or naming any person, business, corporation, law firm, or the AAA whatsoever, is permanently enjoined. h^rc^ ^bcJrH^ I FIND insufficient nexus between any individual person named as among Je^'^SfKMsiwi^fjRespondents, including, but not necessarily limited to, Jeffrey Meade and Sarah ^ j i ^> ] ^ Hoven (Winiarski), and they are dismissed from this matter.
cud \ .r^^^'^.T
,

I FIND that the arbitration agreements are not unconscionable.

lr\\n^

' ' ^ ^

\I^<^\M-

e^f ^lAccftMM offte

fv (T)|(OV>

I Pll^l^ ^1^^^ I

1^^^^ jurisdiction over the political question doctrine

'^'^y^

related Issues. Neither does any court or arbitrator. Political questions of ^ sep^a^*. magnitude alleged by Claimant can be resolved only by the legislative and
cvffc^ ch^iCo/<L^ ^

t o T A p c v ^ y ^a\lo^ executive elected branches of government. See, Gerald Gunther and Kathleen Sullivan, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (13^" Edition 1997) at 45-46 "...political questions are inappropriate for judicial resolution and are therefore u>rr\^v^JC (J^'A^ nonjusticiable" ^"^^ c^-V^->f cw)t e^^\ '^'i/^J^^'r^^lrur^^ %\^Ai^e

Ccik]

^^i7'"^lVluch of Claimant's theory of his case invokes his desire to achieve the l^^'^tt^'-r ^eradication of what he alleges is a White Supremacist Jewish regime and the CLKA^^ '^^T^^Pr^^'^'^ corresponding structural redesign of the political, economic and social order of '-^^^ rZ^^V'hc the United States, e^.c^'o.-^ i^^^M^l-^ci.- ' ^ . ^ ^ ^ r ^ ^ ' l T ^u'^ >^'"f^'^^^St'^^ I' c<rhoue The antitrust law elements of Claimant's case are likewise not justiciable ^ fT-e/i^A^e (A in this arbitration. They are too closely interwoven with the political question cixs^^>s^ doctrine and with Claimant's repeated reiterations of Respondent's and cl^^ ^%o^^sRespondent's attorneys alleged criminal conduct to be addressed in this . u^VLibUo bitration. I ORDER that Claimant's political question and antitrust claims are dismissed from this arbitration. A cc^A -"^^W a^e-f. dic^iU -fvjf 'jSiugJ^in -UcrV I i-iwu FIND tnai that Liaimant Claimant iioeiea libeled K Respondent and Respondent's attorneys. iuxyvp'^<4. ^ I e s p o n a e n i ana K e s p o n a e n r s attorneys. L(l+wtfc| \^-^'a'*^a"t states that he raised claims that Messrs. Zweig and Carbone engaged COUI<J( tyi^^Tk^'^ ^ "criminal conduct on William Morris' behalf...conspiracy, collusion, and CLKX J:^^\CA o(^4eo^i-5rc^ l^vj fraud" violating, inter alia, RICO. I award the $1,000 counterclaim of ^2)5^ a\\i-rj o*]-^ Respondent. This $1,000 shall be subtracted from the money damages awarded (^i^ j^f ^ f *^^'^t6 Claimant. Rather than clutter this Partial Final Award with a litany of libel, I c^^^^^ airect Respondent's lawyers to provide a list of case citations corroborating ^A^'^
^ t / ^ a ^ lAi*'^^

^ ^ ^ K S ^ I S

k ? v J

VI-WA ^ ^Vw.t I'-lCsoid

cs-p^\))i. U < j v j ^ j ( - V T J I M I ' - ^ ^ ' ^ o ' ^ f ^ ^ ' < ^ l

cti^i5^-ii<^-

Claimant's unprotected speech as libelous/defamatory to the AAA to forward to Claimant and copied to me. Having found that prevailing party Claimant was discriminated against on the basis of his race, and having found that Respondent's work place is not viable for Claimant's return to work: I ORDER back pay for Claimant from the August 2010 date he was ^p^^^ AojsA removed from Respondent's payroll and his buy-out at full pay ceased through \/Vi Li-l/hv] iq7V.2to^ - the date of this PARTIAL FINAL AWARD. Thisamount of back pay shall be at his ^ ^ \ S ^ original hiw rate of $400 per week. I ORDER three years of front pay going forward from the date of this PARTIAL FINAL AWARD. This amount of front pay shall bo calculated arrd awarded at the rate of $75,000 per annum (see pages 16-17 and footnote 25, g'l^^^j^^^^laimant's Motion for Clarification of Second Interim Decision) -e^U^^)i

fio^-pvovV ' ORDER Claimant to file his detailed (by date, hour, and work description) s(/Yi{\cw[y Motion for reasonable fees and costs on or before January 31, 2014. I ORDER s(f=^fM Claimant also to set forth the amount and type (e.g. compensatory and/or \AVt-[-e-^/^3evj}unitive) of damages he claims beyond actual back pay and front pay, and his v^^v^) rationale for same. As stated above regarding Respondent's bureaucratic y ^^j^^^v^ elongation of readily ascertainable hiring data, for example, I am particularly J / V N C H O M I amenable to appropriate recompense awarded for avoidable delays and I direct '^^'-'^*-^s<sk <iv/p>cAi|i|Claimant's attention especially to address such instances in his forthcoming ^M/WL^'^'^^'" Claimant needs more time beyond January 31, 2014, due to the thristmas. New Year, and Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. holy days/national ^''Tp holidays. Claimant may request same of me via AAA and any such reasonable ^ i * ^ request shall be liberally granted. Respondent shall have 30 days following r^^J^ Respondent's receipt from the AAA of Claimant's Motions to respond to same, and Claimant shall have 30 days thereafter to file a final reply. ^^^\ouA

12

All filings shall be submitted to AAA for forwarding to me and to the opposing party.

So Ordered,

David L. Gregory

I, David L. Gregory, affirm that, on this 17th Day of December, 2013, I have executed this document as my Partial Final Award in this matter.

David L. Gregory

Partial final award

13