Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
CV2012 090514 Complaint_Redacted

CV2012 090514 Complaint_Redacted

Ratings: (0)|Views: 478|Likes:
Published by Len Harris

More info:

Published by: Len Harris on Jun 22, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

11/04/2013

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 Plaintiff Pro Se
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONAIN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA
 Plaintiff,vs.Sullivan Motor Company, inc., et alDefendant.Case no.
CIVIL ACTIONWRONGFUL TERMINATIONIN VIOLATION OF THEPUBLIC POLICYINTRODUCTION
 ¶1.Comes now the Plaintiff, ., a natural born law abiding American,a lay person unschooled in the practice of law, who is over the age of 18 and aresident of Mesa, Arizona. ¶2.The Defendant, Sullivan Motor Company, inc.,(SMC) is a for profit corporationdomiciled in Arizona, the county of Maricopa. SMC operates an entity at 1515 W.Broadway Rd., Mesa, AZ 85202 of the same name, a ‘used car lot’ replete with asales department, service department, vehicle detail department and vehicle towingdepartment. With buildings, offices, structures, equipment and staff to facilitate theoperation. ¶3.Keith Canete (Mr. Canete) is SMC’s Service Department Manager and charged withthe task of implementing and managing the newly formed towing department.Fabian is the General Manager of SMC.
 
Page 1 of 8
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
 
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
 ¶4.This court has original jurisdiction pursuant to ARS Title 12, Chapter 1, Article 2§123 and the Arizona Constitution Article VI §14. ¶5.Venue is proper pursuant to ARS Title 12, Chapter 4, Article 1 §401.
JURY DEMAND
 ¶6.Pursuant to the Arizona Constitution Article VI §17, Plaintiff demands jury trial.
BACKGROUND
 ¶7.Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Tow Truck Driver. Plaintiff’simmediate supervisor was Mr. Canete and Fabian above him in the hierarchy of SMC. ¶8.On December 23, 2011, about 8:15am Mr. Canete informed Plaintiff that there is amandatory company meeting at 9:00am. Around 8:30am Mr. Canete instructedPlaintiff to assist a person loading a vehicle on a car trailer in ‘the dirt lot’. This task overran the time frame for the entire meeting. ¶9.About 9:30am while passing through the meeting area Fabian handed Plaintiff a paper [Plaintiff exhibit A] with no further explanation or instructions, he just handedit to me as I passed through. The paper was from Icon Employer Service, inc. aProfessional Employer Organization(POE) and addressed to the employees of SMC.It was signed by Gary C. Mecham an officer of the POE. This paper reads like anelementary school assignment whereas the author has no knowledge of the law or ethics concerning the subject. ¶10.Mr. Mecham does however successfully isolate his organization from all damagescaused to the Plaintiff by being wrongfully terminated by the Defendant and that iswhy the POE is not named as a Defendant party to this civil action. I’ll explain: ¶11.The paper is a memo that Mr. Mecham has arranged a company wide drug test for all employees of SMC, who are willing to
“ voluntarily go to the area you are
Page 2 of 8
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
 
directed and provide your specimen.”
This instruction is unambiguous: Anyemployee wishing to deprive themselves of their right to privacy and submit to anotherwise unlawful employee drug test may do so. Period. ¶12.About 10:00am Mr. Canete asked me if I took the drug test, told him I had issue withit and that if he could show me in the written policy were this drug test is authorizedI would take the test, otherwise it is an invasion of privacy and I don’t have to. ¶13.Mr. Canete found the written policy and showed it to me the only condition drugtesting of employees is allowed is post-accident, I had not been involved in anaccident, therefor am not subject to a drug test under the authority of Arizona Lawso Plaintiff exercised his lawful right not to participate. ¶14.At this point Mr. Canete turned Plaintiff over to Fabian who in turn ushered Plaintifinto his office. He asked why I wouldn’t take the drug test and I explained he didnot have the lawful authority to arbitrarily drug test employees and that if he wantedme to respect his rules he has to respect the laws that govern him as an employer.Fabian obviously disagrees with this notion as manifest in his next actions: ¶15.Fabian ridiculed and made fun of Plaintiff by insinuating that because I wouldn’turinate in a little plastic cup and hand it over to a perfect stranger so he/she could inturn deliver it to a laboratory for medical analysis, combined with the fact that noone else questioned Defendant’s authority that I
“must be on drugs”
. ¶16.Plaintiff considers this behavior degrading and appalling and right out of thecommunist play book: Saul Alinsky’s Rules for radicals Number 7 Tactics rule 5:
“Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
 It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.” A
ny reasonable thinking person would have to agree, Fabian could not win thatargument honestly, it’s fallacious inasmuch as any person with a lick of sense knowsthat drug testing is not a perfect science and the results are not one hundred percentaccurate, therefor it would only stand to reason that if person was on drugs thelogical thing to do would be to take the drug test in hopes of a false negative result
Page 3 of 8

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->