10 12 13 20 aL 22 Ricardo Jones ets 33 Regis Drive Staten Island, New York 10314 (917) 803-0583 ricohenry7 @ yahoo.com Pro Se IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU! THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW Y} RICARDO JONES, Case No. Plaintiff, Ne COMPLAINT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS BY FEDERAL OFricens: and individual capacity; STUART J. ISHIMARY, in his official and individual capacity; SPENCER LEWIS, in his official and individual capacity; KEVIN J. BERRY, uffivial and individual cap IS GRAZIANO, in his official and individual capacity; RICARDO CUEVAS, in) his official and individual capa icY BOYD, in her official and individual ) capacity; ROSEMARY WILKES, inher) official and individual capacity; ELECTRA ) YOURKE, in her official and individual) capacity; Lisa Sirkin, in her official and) individual capacity; Elizabeth Grossman, in) her official and individual capacity; and) NICHOLAS INZEO, in his official and =) individual capacity; Joann Riggs, inher official and individual capacity; Gabrielle) Martin, in her official and individual ) capacity; and Lavi Marrow in his official) and individual capacity. ) ) ) ) ) (DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL) ) ) ) ) , ) JACQUELINE A. BERRIEN, in her official ) . ) d ) ) > ) Defendants. This action is brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985 & Section 501 of10 12 3 1s 16 18 ag 20 21 22 23 24 25 the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 701. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1 Jurisdiction is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as this action arises under the Constitution of the laws of the United States. 2. Vertue is proper in this court because all events giving raise to thie action occurred in the State of New York. PARTIES 9. Micardo Jones (hereinafter, “Plaintiff” or “Yonoc”) ie and wae at all times relevant, an African-American male, citizen of the United States and resident of Richmond County, State of New York. Plaintiff was employed by the EEOC New District Office (horoinafter, “EEOC NYDO") from April 2001 to April 1, 2010, first ac an GS-7 Investigator and a GS-12 Investigator. 4. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a Federal Agency, responsible far the enfareament of anti-employment discrimination laws filed by| the general public against private employers. EEOC employs more than fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty (20) or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar vear. 6. Defendant, Jacqueline A. Berrien, African-American female, (hereinafter, “Defendant Berrien” or “Berrien”) upon information and belief, at all times relevant, held the position of Chairwomen, at EEOC's Headquarters, and through her subordinates, exercised direct and/or indirect supervisory authority over Plaintiff or, in the alternative, was involved in one or more decisions affecting Plaintitt’s employment status including, but not limited to, decisions regarding, promotions, transfers, salary, job classification, accommodations, case assignments, and disciplinary actions. Additionally, Defendant Bemen acted in ner Individual capacity was involved in Une UI more decisions affecting10 12 13 as 16 a7 1s as 20 an 22 23 24 2 Plaintiff's employment status including, but not limited to, decisions regarding promotions, transfers, salary, jul classifivatiun, accommodations, case assignments, and disciplinary actions. Defendant Berrien also has many other job duties; including labor/management relations, overseeing the complete operation of the U. S. Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and appearing before the U. §. Congroes testifying, and proving a report about what the Agency has accomplished to eradicate employment discrimination in the workplace in this country and other places where it has jurisdiction 6 Dofondant, Stuart J. lehimaru, Acian malo, (horeinafter, “Defendant Ishimaru’ or Ishimaru’) upon information an belief, at all times relevant, held the positions of Commissioner and Acting Chairman at EEOC's Headquarters, and through hie cubordinates, exercised diract and/nr indiract supervisory authority over Plaintiff or. in the altemative, was involved in one or more decisions affecting Plaintiff's employment] status including, but net limited to, decisions regarding promotions, transfers, salary, job| classification. accommodations. case assianments, and disciplinary actions. Additionally, Defendant Ishimaru acted in his individual capacity was involved in one or more decisions affecting Plaintiff's employment status including, but not limited to, decisions regarding promotions, transfers, salary, job classification, accommodations, case assignments, and disciplinary actions. Defendant Isimaru has many other job dutios; including appearing betore the U. S. Congress testifying, and providing a report about what the U. S. Equal Employment (EEOC) has accomplished to eradicate discrimination in the workplace across the country, and other places where it has junsdiction, 7. Defendant, Spencer Lewis, African-American male, (hereinafter, “Defendant Lewis” or Lewis”) upon information and belief, at all times relevant, held the pusilivn uf District Director at [LOC NYDO, exercised diroot and/or indiroct eupervisory10 a a2 13 14 1s. 16 ua 1s. 1g 20 au 23 24 authority over Plaintiff or in the alternative, was involved in one or more decisions Affecting Plaintiff's employment statuo including but not limited to, dooicione regarding promotions, transfers, salary, job classification, accommodations, case assignments, and disciplinary actions, Additionally, Defendant Lewis acted in his individual capacity wae involved in one or more decisions affecting Plaintiff’s omploymont status including, but not limited to, decisions regarding promotions, transfers, salary, job classification, accommodations, case assignments, and disciplinary actions. a Nefeandant, Kavin .| Rerry, Caucasian male. (hereinafter. “Defendant Berry” or “Berry’) upon information and belief, at all times relevant, held the positions of President of Local #3555, Administrative Judge, and Deputy District Director at EEOC NYDO. exercised direct and/or indirect supervisory authority or, in the alternative, was involved in one or more decisions affecting Plaintiff's employment status including, but not limited to, decisions regarding promotions, transfers, salary, job classification, accommodations, case assignments, and disciplinary actions. Defendant Berry also acting in his individual capacity was involved in one or more decisions affecting Plaintitt’s employment status including, out not limited to, decisions regarding promotions, transfers, salary, job classification, accommodations, case assignments, and disciplinary actions. 9. Defendant, Louis Graziano, Caucasian male, (hereinafter, “Defendant Graziano” or “Graziano’) upon information and believe, at all times relevant held the position of Trial Attomey at EEOC NYDO. Defendant Graziano exercised no direct and/or indirect oupervioory authority over Plaintiff or, in tho altornative, wae not involved in one or more decisions affecting Plaintiff's employment status including, but limited to, to decisions regarding promotions transfers, salary, job classification, accommodations, case assignmente, and disciplinary actinns As a Trial Attorney, he was responsible for10 1 12 13 14 4s 16 7 18 19. 20 aL 22 23 24 25 tiling and litigating employment discrimination lawsults, providing advice and other assistance to agency staff for investigations, and resolving administrative claims of employment discrimination filed by members of the public. Defendant Graziano told Plaintiff that ne should nave gotten ten percent of the settiement for Tavern on the Green and the Adelphi University cases. 10. Defendant, Ricardo Cuevas, Hispanic male, (hereinafter, “Defendant (Cuevas” or “Guevas”) upon information and pellet, at all times relevant, held the positions of Union President of Local #3555 and Administrative Judge (AJ), at EEOC NYDO, exercised no direct and/or indirect supervisory authority over Plaintiff or, in the alternative, was involved in one or more decisions aftecting Plaintitt's employment status including, but not limited to, decisions regarding promotions transfers, salary, job classification, accommodations, case assignments, and disciplinary actions. As the Union President, ne nas a Tiduciary responsibility of making sure that Plaintiff's rignts as a bargaining employee are protected. In addition, as an AJ, Defendant Cuevas has a fiduciary responsibility of exposing management officials who engaged in discriminatory practices 11. Defendant, Nancy Boyd, Caucasian female, (hereinafter, “Defendant Boyd” or Boyd”) upon information and belief, at all times relevant, held the position of Deputy District Director at EEOC NYDO, and acting in her official capacity exercised direct and/or indirect supervisory authority over Plaintiff or, in the alternative, was involved in one or more decisions affecting Plaintiff's employment status including, but not limited to, decisions regaraing promotions, transfers, salary, Job classification, accommodations, case assignments, and disciplinary actions. Defendant Boyd also acting in her individual capacity was involved in one or more decisions affecting Plaintits employment status including, but not limited to, decisions regardingprunmuuns, uarorrs, oa Juv wiassimvanuiy, eeuuINuAMUND, LASS ADoIYHIH TENS, and disciplinary actions. 12. Defendant, Rosemary Wilkes, Hispanic female, (hereinafter, ‘Defendant "Wilkes or ‘Wilkes") upon information and belief, at all times relevant, held the position of Enforcement Supervisor, at EEOC NYDO. and acting in her official capacity exercised direct and/or indirect supervisory authority over Plaintiff or, in the altemative, was involved in one or mote decisions affecting Plaintiff's employment status including, but not limited to, decisions regarding promotions, transfers, salary, job classification, accommodations, case assignments, and disciplinary actions. Defendant Wilkes also acting in her individual capacity was involved in one or more decisions affecting Plaintiff's employment status including, but not limited to, decisions regarding promotions. transfers. salary. job classification. accommodations. case assignments. and disciplinary actions. 13. Defendant, Electra Yourke, Caucasian female, (hereinafter, ‘Defendant Yourke” or “Yourke") upon information and boliof, at all times relevant held the positions of Supervisory Investigator and Enforcement Manager, at EEOC NYDO and acting in her official capacity exercised direct and/or indirect supervisory authority over Plaintiff or, In the altemative, was involved in one or more decisions attecting Plaintitt’s employment status including, but not limited to, decisions regarding promotions, transfers, job classification, case assignments, and disciplinary actions. Defendant Yourke also acting in her individual capacity was involved in one or more decisions affecting Plaintiff's employment status, including, but not to, decisions regarding promotions, transfers, salary, job classification, accommodations, case assignments, and disciplinary actions.20 an 13 Fry 1s. 7 ae as 20 an 22 23 24 25 14. Defendant, Lisa Sirkin, Caucasian female, (hereinafter, “Defendant Sirkin ‘or “irkin’) upon information and boliof, at all times relevant, held the pocition of Supervisory Trail Attomey at EEOC NYDO, and acting in her official capacity exercised no direct and/or indirect supervisory authority over Plaintiff or, in the alternative, was not| involved in one or mare decisions affecting Plaintiff's employment statis, ineliiding bust not limited to, decisions regarding promotions, transfers, salary, job classification, accommodations, case assignments, and disciplinary actions. Defendant Sirkin acting in] her official and individual capacity exercised direct and/or indirect supervisory authority over Defendant Graziano, 15. Defendant, Elizabeth Grossman, Caucasian female, (hereinafter, “Defendant Grossman’ or “Grossman’) upon information and belief, at all times relevant, held the position of Regional Attorney at EEOC NYDO, exercised no direct and/or Indirect supervisory authority over Plaintif or, In the alternative was not involved in one or more decisions affecting Plaintif’s employment status, including but not limited to, decisions regarding promotions, transfers, salary, job classification, accommodations, case assignments, and disciplinary actions. Defendant Grossman acting in her individual capacity was not involved in one or more decisions affecting Plaintiff's employment regarding promotions, transfers, salary, job classification, accommodations, case assignments, and disciplinary actions. Defendant Grossman has} the responsibility of making sure that the legal unit and attorneys are complying with the policies and procedures outlined in the Regional Attorney's Manuel when filing and litigating employment discrimination lawsuits. 16. Defendant, Grossman has told Plaintiff that he should not show his EEOC, identification to respondents and/or their representatives when conducting on-site investigations because they might be reluctant to cooperate. Plaintiff has no control over10 a 12 a3 a4 as 17 a8 19 20 21 a2 23 24 25 uncooperative respondents and/or representatives. 29 C.F.R. § 601.16(a) of EEOC's rogulatione gives the agoney cubpoona authority te deal with roependente whe fail to cooperate in an investigation. Section 709 (a) of Title VII, § 11 (a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and § 7 (a) of the ADEA, authorize EEOC representatives conducting ‘on-site investigations ta enter and inspect respandent facilities, tn examina and eapy records and to interview employees. 17. Defendant. Nicholas Inzeo, Caucasian male, (hereinafter, "Defendant Inzeo” or “Inzeo") upon information and belief. at all times relevant. held the position of Director of Office of Field Programs at EEOC Headquarters, and exercised direct and/or indirect supervisory authority over Plaintiff or, in the altemative, was involved in one or more decisions affecting Plaintif’s employment status including, but not limited to, decisions regarding promotions, transfers, salary, job classification, accommodations, case assignments, and disciplinary actions. Aaaitionally, etenaant inzeo acting in nis individual capacity and was involved in one or more decisions affecting Plaintiff's employment status including, but net limited to, decisions regarding promotions, transfers, salary, job classification, accommodations, case assignments, and disciplinary action. Defendant Inzeo also have many other job duties; which include supervising alll the aspects of field office operations. Defendant Inezo has the the authority to approve or disapprove employee's requests for hardship transfers. 18. Defendant, Joann Riggs, African-American female, (hereinafter, “Defendant “Riggs” or “Riggs") upon information and belief, at all relevant times, held the position of Assistant Diractor of Labor/Management Relations, at the FEOC Headquarters, exercised no direct and/or indirect supervisory authority over Plaintiff or, in the alternative, was in one or more decisions affecting Plaintiff's employment status, including but not to, decisions regarding promotions, transfers, salary, job classification,1 |] accommodations, case assignments, and disciplinary actions. Defendant Riggs major job roeponcibility ie to provide advice to managomonte offioiale to aooure that they are 3 || complying with the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). 4 19. Defendant, Gabrielle Martin, African-American, female, (hereafter, s || "Defendant Martin” or Martin") upon information and boliove, at all times relevant, hold 6 ||the positions of Trail Attomey and President of the National Council of EEOC Local No. 7 |]216, AFGE, AFL-CIO, at EEOC Denver Field Office. Defendant Martin exercised no 8 || direct and/or indirect supervisory authority over Plaintiff ar, in the alternative, was not 9 || involved in one or more decisions affecting Plaintiff's employment status including, but 10 || limited to, decisions regarding promotions, transfers, salary, job classification, 11 || accommodations, case assignments; and disciplinary actions. a2 20. Defendant, Martin is responsible for making sure that EEOC is 13 || compliance with its regulations when a grievance and/or a complaint of discrimination is 14 || covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) that permits such complaints to 15 ||be raised in a negotiated grievance procedure. In addition, Defendant Martin has the 16 || responsibility ensure that bargaining unit employees’ Weingarten Hights are protected 17 |] pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 7114(a)(2)(b). 18 21. Defendant, Levi Morrow, African-American, male, (hereinafter "Defendant ay || Morrow" or “Murrow") upon infurnation and believe, al all tines relevant held the 20 || positions of Investigator, and Chief Negotiator for Council Local No. 216. Defendant 21 || Morrow exercised no direct andlor indirect supervisory authority over Plaintif or, in the 22 || alternative, was not involved in one or more decisions affecting Plaintiff's employment 23 || status including, but limited to, decisions regarding promotions, transfers, salary, job 24 || classification, accommodations, case assignments; and disciplinary actions.22. Defendant, Marrow is responsible for making sure that EEOC is in compliance with its regulations when a grievance and/or complaint of discrimination is covorod by a Collective Bargaining (CBA) that permito ouch complainto to be raiced in ¢ negotiated grievance procedure, In addition, Defendant Morrow has the responsiblity tc ensure that bargaining unit employees’ Weingarten Rights are protected pursuant to 5 us. j. 1114(a)(2)(B). GENERAL ALLGATIONS 23. Plaintiff alleges that he was harassed and subjected to terms and conditions of employment, i.e., denial of a within-grade-inorease (WGI), union roprecentation by hie local, hardehip trancfor, poresived hac having a dicability (regarded as disabled), treated differently regarding case assignments, close scrutiny of his job performance, management issued him an Official Letter or Reprimand, Notice of Performance Deficiencies, placed him on an Performance Improvement Pian, put nin and administrative leave, and retaliated against him by discharging on the basis of race (Black), for filing a grievance and opposing practices made unlawful by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (Title Vil) as amended, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 24 During all times relevant, Plaintiff was employed at the EEOC NYDO. Plaintiff was recruited by a personal friend, Mr. Clyde Lo-Chin, who is currently employed as a mediator in EEOC Tampa Field Office, Tampa, Florida. Plaintiff was hired in April 2001, as & GS-7 Investigator. As a resull of his successful job performance over the years, he eventually was promoted to the position as a GS-12 Investigator. As an investigator, Plaintiff performed a full range of investigative functions, including substantial contact it charging parties, respondents, witnesses and attorneys;20 nn 12 23 14 15 16 17 18 1s 20 21 23 24 employment cases; negotiated settlements or conciliations; written resolutions of assigned oases; give formal opeechce or talke to groups on various investigative techniques and aspects about the anti-discrimination laws enforced by the agency; and train and, or assist lower-graded investigators in conducting investigations and applying relevant agency polices and procedures. 25. After plaintiff was hired and completed his orientation, he was assigned to the enforcement unit supervised by Mrs. Hazel Stewart, African-American, female. Mrs. Stewart held the position af Supervisnry Investigatar On uly 19, 2009, cha cant an email subject unit's accomplishments to Management Officials, Nancy Boyd, Rosemary Wilkes, and Harold Wilkes. In the email she stated that, she was happy to announce that Plaintiff had successfully negotiated charges resulting in significant monetary relief for the following charging parties. (i) Charge No. 160-A2-000615 for C. Silver v. Globlx monetary relief in the amount of $85,000.00 and (ii) Charge No, 18002-00898 for Margatet Marfunkel v. MBIA Corporation monetary relief in the amount of $650,000.00. Plaintiff's personal file shows that he received many awards about his dedication and Job pertormance to eradicate employment discrimination in the workplace. Plaintitt believed in protecting the civil rights of all charging parties regardless of their ethnicity of gender. 20. Shortly after Plalntff was hired, Mr. Clyde Lo-Chin told nim, that he was working on a large systemic charge filed against Polo Ralph Lauren. Mr. Lo-Chin had in his inventory a charged filed by Charging Party, Janynra Ebel, (Black) female, who was on of the class members. I le also knew that she was being represented by her sister, Attorney, Paula Kelly, of the law firm of Goldstein & West. Mr. Lo-Chin told Plaintiff based on the statistical data that he gathered from the EEO-1 Reports filed by roepondont; including other decumontation thore wae onough ovidenoe to chow that10 12 13 1s 16 18 19 20 2a 22 23 24 respondent had engaged in unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Title VII. In addition, he there was sufficient evidence tor nim to make a “vause" finding. Plaintiff asserts that he never seen such a finding. 27. Mr. Lo-Chin requested that Plaintiff attend the settlement conference with him. The purpose ot the request was 10 ave aniultiet investigator present to witnoce what was being discussed to resolve the charges. Mr. Paul Salvator, Attorney, of the law firm of Proskauer &Rose, and four other attomeys were present at the meeting. Hespondent at the tine was presented by Proskauer Rose LLP. The total number of charges filed for the period 2000/2001 was 250. Of this figures 231 (92.4%) were resolved and 19 (7.6%) were unresolved. EEOC's Integrated Mission System Report (hereinafter, “IM6") will reveal how tho charges were resolved. A faw manths after the charges were resolved. Mr. Lo —Chin told Plaintiff that he asked Mr. Salvator to have respondent donate $5,000 to Clyde's Steele Drum. Plaintiff believes the donation was made. Mr. Lo-Chin dafinitaly created a conflict of interest. Mr. Lo-Chin; including the agency are forever tainted when it comes investigating and/or mediating any cases against employers represented by Proskauer Rose LLP 28. The EEOC's Priority Charge Handling Procedures (hereinafter, “PCHP") implemented on June 13, 1995, classifies charges into three categories such as the following: Category A — Enforcement Plan/Potential Cause; Category 6 — Charges Requiring Additional Information; and Category C — Charges suitable for Dismissal. Charges placed in this category may be dismissed after the intake processing is completed provided an office has sufficient evidence; that it is not likely further investigation will result in a cause finding. Once a charge under the PCHP receives a designation of A, B, or C the designation may not be changed according to the testimony given by Mrs. Gail Cober, Director of the EEOC Detroit Field Office, in aovertime decision made by arbitrator on August 16, 2007. 29. The PCHP is a good idea turn on its head because management officials are using it to dismiss thousands ot cases without following polices and procedures established by the agency. No charaes should be dismissed without charging parties receiving determination interviews. The PCHP failed to rescind Volume | of the Agency's Compliance Manuel, Section 27 Pre-Determination Interviews (hereinafter, “PDI's). A PDI must be held with respondent in “cause” casce and charging partios in “no cause” cases; when sufficient evidence supports a proposed determination. The purpose of a PDI is to give both respondents and charging parties an opportunity to provide additional evidence in the case. 30. Defendant Yourke on numerous times has designated charges in the “C” category filed by African-American Charging Parties. In addition, she has personally closed numerous charges filed by African-American Charging Parties without giving them pre-determination interviews Lefure their vases were dismissed. She also has failed on numerous times to contact and interview their witnesses. Defendant Grossman also has classified charges in the “C” category filed by African-American Charging Parties. Defendant Grossman has told Plaintiff that he should not show his idontification to recpondont or their representative while conducting on-site investigations because they might be reluctant to cooperate, EEOC has a procedure in place to deal with uncooperative respondents and/or representatives which is located in Title 29 G. F. H. § 16U7.16(a) called subpoena aut iority. ne nan ae RAAT the | anal Unit af FEAR RIVIO nanddintad training an10 12 13 15 as W 1s 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of Outten & Golden, LLP. One of the guest speakers was a White female attorney from the law fini of Proskauer RUseLLP. The ollie: speaker was a (Blach) female, whu was af former Intem Clerk for the Federal Court for the District of New York. Both speakers advocated not filing a race (Black) complaints to the attendees. In addition, the (Black) female, further stated that it was uselessness to file race (Diack) complaints because the monetary relief awarded by the courts are very small. Plaintiff could not believe what he as hearing. This type of training has planted bad seeds within the communities were African-Americana live, that it io ueeclooonces and a wacto of timo to come to the EEOC NYDO and file a charge of discrimination based on race (Black). If they do come its reasonable to assume that that 90% of their charges will be put in the “C” category and diomiceod, Trial Attorney, Judy Keenan, White fomale, has undermined charges filed an the base of race (Black) by African-Americans. The EEOC NYDO created a chilling affect in the communities were African-Americans are living. There are approximately 2.7 million African-Amarieans living in the communities surrounding the City of New York. 32, _Leslies Silverman, White female, served as Vice Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) until September 2008. She began her tenure with the EEOC in 2002. As a member of the EEOC, she oversaw the development and approval of enforcement policies, authorized litigation, and issued Commissioner's charges of discrimination. In addition she initiated and lead the EEOC's| Systemic Task Force and the Agency's Mediation Program in partnership with the American Bar Association (NBA). In 2007, Commissioner Lestie Silverman, came to the EEOC NYDO and a spoke about race discrimination and stated that the only real issue with race discrimination was light skinned Blacks discriminating against dark skinned Blacks. However, she falled to provide any arevdulal evidenue lo support her position.10 a2 13 15 16 1e as 20 a1 22 23 24 25 33. Leslie Silverman has used her influence as Vice Chairman/Commissioner to sabotage cases fled against respondents. For an example, in the case involving @ charge filed by Charging Party, Roy Tarpley, Jr. (Black) male, against the National Basketball Association (NBA) and Dallas Mavericks for violation of the Americans with Disablililes Act of 1990 (ADA). Plaintiff was assigned te aforementioned charge for investigation 34, Proskauer & Rose one of the top law firms in the country represented the NBA Dallas Mavericks in the Noy Tarpley, Ur. case. General Counsel, Howard Ganz, for| the NBA called and threatened Plaintiff during the pre-determination phase of the investigation, that if he made a “reasonable cause” finding against the NBA; then they would have Chairman, Naomi C. Earp-Campbell, brought up before Congress and beaten up for the same. Plaintiff gave Mr. Ganz an opportunity to provide additional evidence in the case, but he had nothing to submit. Plaintiff told Mr. Ganz that he didn't ‘care about his threats hecausa the facts and evidence supported a “reasonable cause.” and that no matter what he threatened it wouldn't change. 35. After the fix was in place, Commissioner Silverman called Defendant Royd and told to undermine the conciliation. She told her to find something wrong with the case. Defendant Boyd told Plainti about the call; including the nature of the call. Defendant Boyd had Trial Attorney, Michael O’Brien call Mr. Ganz and ask for a new position statement because the first one was not credible. Mr. Ganz had no intention to provide a second position statement because he knew the fix had already been put in place to undermine the conciliation. Plaintitt called Attorney, Haul Salvator of Proskauer Rose LLP to see if he could talk to Mr. Ganz above resoling the case. Plaintiff and Mr. Salvator had worked successfully together in the pass settling cases. Mr. Salvator retumed Plaintitrs call a few days later with bad news. Plaintiff was tuld that Mr. Ganzun 12 1s 1s. 17 1s 20 21 23 24 not interested in a successful conciliation because his clients wanted to make an example of charging party. Thus conciliation had failed. Defendant Lewis tried to negotiate with Mr. Ganz, but his efforts were unsuccessful. The case was taken away from Plaintiff and given to Chairman, Naomi ©. Carp-Campbell, for her Administrative Assistant to conciliate, but it failed. Charging Party, Roy Tarpley, Jr. was given a Notice of Right to Sue and his attomey filed a lawsuit. The EEOC NYDO no intention of filing a lawsuit after conciliation failed. After the conciliation failed and the right to sue was issued. Former Vice Chairman/Commissioner, Leslie Silverman joins the law firm of Proskauer Rose LLP as a partner in Washington, D.C. the EEOC NYDO will show that charges filed by African-Americans and other minorities ac. The Agency's Integrated Mission System Neport (hereinafter, “IMS"), for have been dismissed by managers, supervisors, and investigators without following cotablished poliocs and proocdurco, The IMS will chow that oacec havo boon dicmiccod without managers, supervisors, and investigators doing the following: (i) failure to investigate, interview witnesses, and request documents; (i) failure to give charging partice pro dotormination intorviowe, failure to toll charging partioe about the A, B, &C classification system; long delays in contacting charging parties after cases have been assigned for investigation and failure to tell charging parties that their case has been traneforred to another office; and (ii) transferring casos where a “reasonable cause” finding has been made to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ARD), and held there six months or longer until conciliation has failed. best cases it plans to litigate. The cheery picking is very small regarding lawsuits file for 37. Plaintiff is aware that the Legal Unit far EEOC NYDO cherry picks the African-American charging parties. For example, in the charge filed by Allison Schief |. White famala, against Morgan Stanley with the FFOC NYNO in November19 u 12 13 cry as 16 7 18 19 20 an ze 23 24 1998, she could not provide the names of enough females for a class-action charge. Mr rick Disband, former General Counsel, for the EEOC told Plaintiff, that he talked to charging party's attomey, Mr. Wayne Outten about the case; and that he didn't understand way the EEOC NYDO was pursing the Morgan Stanley class-action litigation beoause the evidence was never there to oubstantiate gender discrimination. Nevertheless, in order to get enough females for a class, Ms. Kam S. Wong, Senior Trial Attorney, at the EEOC NYDO made two trips to Paris France to find female omployeas to become part of the clase. If charging party had besn a (Black) fomalo, tho same amount of effort would have not been put in her case. It is impossible to calculate the actual number of working hours that investigators and other staff members spent on the case for six years. Morgan Stanley had agreed to pay $54 million two years early. In order to save the EEOC from embarrassment, Deputy General Counsel, James Lee, had to creep into town unannounced and accept the $54 million to resolve the case. 38. On or a 2006/2007, Chairman, Naomi C. Earp-Campbell came and addressed a full staff meeting. During her presentation she stated that there had been a lot complaints about the treatment of Black charging parties and lack of investigations regarding their complaints. She further stated that many of the employees were sick about how they and Black charging parties were being treated. In addition, she contronted Detendant Lewis wnen ne brought up the lawsult against Morgan Stanley. Mrs, Campbell stated that the Morgan Stanley lawsuit did very little for Black people. 39. In 2009, Acting Chairman, Stuart J. Ishimaru came to the EEOC NYDO Ww talk abuul race Uisuriininalion. He stated Lie didi hriow how race (Black) discrimination could be enforced in the future. Defendant Lewis agreed. This occurred after the presentation for Asian Officers of the Port Authority Police. Defendant Ishimaru couldn't romombor whon the Civil Righte Act of 1064 wae onaoted. Ho ctated it wac 5010 an 12 13 14 1s 16 17 ie ay 20 aa ae 23 24 zs yeals ayy, Defendant Ishimaru missed ie dale by 5 years. Inv adultion, he told employees if they were having problems to call or write to him and he would respond. Plaintiff took him up on his offer; however, he never received any help to resolve his problens. 40. One of America's deep and darkest secrets is employment discrimination in the workplace. Individuals all across the country are complaining about employment discrimination in Wie workplace. They are guing lo EEO office and filiny charges like ducks flying south for the winter. An analysis of all of the statues enforced by EEOC. (Title VII, ADA, ADEA and EPA) for FY 1997 to FY 2009, shows the Agency received approximately 1,060,255 charges fur 4 period of thirteen (13) years, OF these figures il issued 683,803 (64.1%) “no reasonable cause” findings and 68,028 (6.4%) “reasonable cause” findings. Let's break these figures down and just look at FY 2009, EEOC. revelved 93,277 charges. OF these figures EEOG issued 52,360 (69.9%) “i101 reasonable cause” findings and 3,904 (4.5%) “reasonable cause” findings. EEOC would like to make charging parties believe, that it has accomplished something for FY 2009, by receiving $294.2 tuillion in miunelay relief fur aggrieved individuals. A reasonable person with any kind of common sense can see; by looking at this statistical evidence that EEOC is failing in its mission to eradicate employment discrimination in the workplace. 41, In 2007, Defendant Lewis at a full staff meeting stated that Blacks are always angry and because of their angry; their cases should be dismissed. Plaintiff sluuurup in furl of all the employees and ubjevted the statements, Plaintiff stated that all individuals regardless of ethnicity and/or gender whose employment status has been affected pursuant to Title VII §§ 703(a) and 704(a) have a reason to get angry.10 it 12 13 aa as 16 7 as as 42. In 2006 or 2007, Defendant Boyd and other members of management at the ELOO NYDO were giving Ilersey Dar Candy wrapped with CLOG wrappers to investigators who dismissed the most cases. Statistics of the number of cases were kept on a butcher block bulletin board in the front of the 4" floor so all investigators could coo how many cacoe wore being diemiccod. During a etaff mooting in 2008, Investigator, Patrick Sanford, White male, stated that he and other investigators were dismissing cases based solely on statistics. Plaintiff objected by stating that cases can't ha diemisser jist on statistins alone without lanking at other evidence ta support the dismissal. Defendant Boyd was present as well as Elizabeth Cadel, Enforcement Manger, and Kenneth Chu, Deputy District Director. 43. Onor about October 21, 2005, Plaintiff processed a charae (Charae No. 160-2006-00361) filed by Charging Party, Martha Nyakim Gathouth, a (Black) female, from Ethiopia. The charge was filed against Tavern on the Green (hereinatter, “TOG), a landmark restaurant located in Manhattan at Central Park West and West 67th Street, New York, NY. At the time of charging party's hiring as a hostess on September 21, 20U3, TOG employed approximately 525 employees. TOG was required to tle EEO-1 Reports which it failed to do for a period of four to five years. This is a recordkeeping violation pursuant to Title 29 § 1602 Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements under Title Vil and ADA. 44. Charging Party, Gatkouth’s charge was a mail in addressed to Plaintiff. Charging Party's attomey sent the charge to Plaintiff because she knew based on his profossionalicm that hor cliont would receive a quality investigation. Plaintiff worked with her before on cases that she was involved in, but never personally met her face to face until she came to the office during an interview with charging party. The attorney was also very aware of the EEOC NYDO being reluctant in taking charges based on race20 a 22 13 14 a5 16 a7 18 as 20 au 23 24 as (Black) filed by African-American charging parties. Therefore, in the initial charge, she only alleged sex and retaliation for her client, 45. Plaintiff called Charging Party, Gatkouth and scheduled an interview for the purpose of collecting more information regarding her charge of discrimination. Charging Party stated that TOG’s formor Director of Operations, Mr. Leon Dragy, White male, frequently engaged in serve and pervasive harassment of her on the basis of her race, Black , and sex, female. She asserted the sexual and racial harassment included, buit not limited to, the following unwelcome conduct: frequent sexual comments as wanting to “fuck black pussy” and wanting to know whether “black pussy” was “smooth” on the “inside;* frequent demands that she “touch” and “suck” his “penis” and engage in sexual acts with him; and repeated sexual touching such as the grabbing of her buttock, breast, and grabbing her between the legs, Charging Party further asserted that Mr. Drogy on numerous occasions has called her a “tucking nigger,” “bitch,” and “cunt.” He also repeatedly called Hispanic employees “spics,” “fucking immigrant,” “ignorant immigrant,” and ridiculing their Spanish accents. Plaintiff asked charging party did she have any wittiess to corroborate her story; anu she yave hin the of Ada Mejia, Hispanic, female, who began working at TOG since 1990 as a coat checker. 46. Defendant Grossman accused Plaintiff of coaching charging party what to say. A few days later, he called Ms. Mojia and requested that she come to the office for an interview. During the interview she corroborated everything that Charging Party, Gatkouth had alleged about the sexual harassment she was receiving from Mr. Drogy. Plaintiff called charging party's attorney; and told her the charge needed ta he amended to add race (Black) based on the information that he received from the witness. The attorney agreed with his assessment and race (Black) was added to the charge and it was amended. The charge was assigned to Plaintiff for investigation.aw aL 12 as 14 as ab 7 18 20 aL 23 24 Defendant Qrusstian tld Plesiatl immediate supervisur, Mrs. Wilkes to have him call Ms. Mejia for a follow-up interview. She gave the same testimony. Defendant Grossman accused him of telling her what to say. Plaintiff realizing that Defendant Grossman was Uyiny lv sabulaye the vase asked several of his White co-workers did she ever accuse them to telling charging parties and witnesses what to say and their response was no. 47. In April 2007, Defendant Graziano, on three different occasions sent a Presentation Mernorardum (PM) for Charging Party, Gatkouth (Charge No. 160-2006- 00361) with race excluded for Plaintiff to review. Defendant Graziano submitted the PM for a fourth time and race and color (Black) and National Origin (Hispanic) was included in he PM, luwever, retaliativn was excluded will no explanation given to as why. Plaintiff discovered TOG had failed to file EEO-1 Reports for several years. All employers with 100 or more employee are required to file EEO -1 Reports. If an employer does not file such a report, il has engaged in @ recordkeeping violation pursuant to Title 29 § 1602, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements under Title VIl and ADA. 48, Plaintiff drafted an Investigative Plan (IP) and Request fur infurmations (RFI), and submitted them to his supervisor for approval. TOG's attorneys refused to to let him come on the facility and conduct an on-site investigation. As a GS-12 Investigation, one of his major job duties is tv vunduct Uirsile inivestiyativiis during which the respondent's facilities are inspected, witnesses are interviewed, and personnel and other records are examined and copied. Title 29 C.F.R. § 1601.16 gives the Commission the authority to have access ty the production evidence, ineludiny the testimony of witness. The Legal Unit failed to enforce the procedures. 49. Plaintiff made a “reasonable “cause” finding for Charging Parties Ergin Haymeti (Charge No. S20-2000-010900), William Hamilton10 a. 12 13 a4 45 1s a7 18 a 20 au 23 24 25 (Charge No 520-2008-01091C), and Mouhsine Benkyane (Charge No. 520-2008- 026710) all White males. Plaintiff was also assigned a charge filed by Charge Party, Noble Jordon, (Black) female, who was employed by TOG. Ms. Jordan on numerous occasions was callled a “nigger” by Leon Drogy, Director of Operations. Plaintif did not have the opportunity to make a “reasonable cause" finding in Me. Jordon’s case (Charge No.520-2008-01814C) because it was taken away from him 50. On April 11, 2008, Ms. Kam S. Wong, Senior Trial Attomey, told Plaintiff that the Legal Unit had anproved the Letter of Determination (LOD) and Conciliation Letter for charging parties Hymeti, Hamilton, and Benkyane. She instructed him to issue the aforementioned documents to the relevant parties, but here was nothing about Charging Party, Noble Jordon. 51. Defendant Grossman and Sirkin told Plaintiff to low-balll charging parties Hymeti, Hamilton, and Benkyane to see if they would accept sum ot $40,000.00 to $50,000.00 and put their demands in a letter. Defendants Grossman and Sirkin also told Plaintiff to tell charging parties that it was not necessary for them to obtain an atlomey. This Is a violation uf due process which is guaranteed by Constitution, On September 24, 2007, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against Tavern on the Green. 52. Shortly after Defendant Lewis signed the Letters of Determinations and they were sent to TOG, Plaintiff began the conciliation process for the male on male sexual harassment that affected charging parties Hymeti, Williams, and Benkyane. Plaintiff met with Mr. Michael Desiderio, President/CEO. Mr. Desidero told him that his campany had already agraed ta pay $2.2 million to settle the case; and that if, the EEOC is seeking more money for the other charging parties and/or claimants; then they better take it from the $2.2 million, He further stated that his company was not going to pay any more money. Thus, conciliation had failed.10 an 12 13 14 1s a a7 18 a9 20 23 24 25 53. On March 2, 2008, Charging Party, Francis Butters’ (Charge No. 520- 2008 04606) and tho othore cacee which Plaintiff had made “reasonable cause” findings| were taken of his by Defendant Yourke while he was on sick leave. She transferred the cases to the Agency's Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Plaintiff was given no reason as ta why the casas were taken away from him 54. On dune 2, 2008, the EEOC NYDO issued a press release announcing the settlement of a harassment and retaliation lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against Tavem on the Green, a landmark restaurant for $2.2 million and significant remedial relief. The settlement of $2.2 million was nothing to get excited about because in 2007, TOG made $38 million or more from 500,000 visitors eating in its dining rooms. TOG filed bankruptcy and left town and re-located in another city. 55. The Legal Unit identified approximately sixty-five (65) individuals as charging parties and/or claimants. Charging Pany, Gatkouth recelved $630,000.00 which included attorney's fees. There only two (2) other African-Americans who received monetary relief. The rest of the money was given to White and Hispanics. Several employees asked Plaintiff why there were 90 many White and Hiopanico claimants getting more money than African-Americans; when the case was about race (Black), sexual harassment and retaliation. On May 7, 2009, Plaintiff sent an email to Kam S. Wong, Senior Trial Attomey, requesting the list of all individuals who received settlements from $2.2 million clamant fund by gender, national origin, and amount received. Ms. Wong at first made excuses as why she could not give him the information, but she latter changed her mind and told him: that Margaret A. Mallov. Trial Attormey, would sent him the list. He received the list and it support what he was told, Charging Party, Nobel Jordon (Black) female, was not on the list.12 13 1 as 16 a7 18 ay 20 21 23 24 56. Charging Party, Noble Jordan leamed about the settlement by reading a nowe papor. Me, Jordan eallod Plaintiff and ackod wae eho included in the eottlement; and he told her no. Defendant Grossman and others in the Legal Unit told him that she was not credible. Ms. Jordon had to negotiate with respondent on her own to get $5,000.00 to settle hor case. She was also still employed at the time. However, someone in the Legal Unit make sure that a Hispanic male, received $1 1,629.23 for being called a “spic’ on time. This individual had been barred from coming to the office hecatise ha was filing too many charges. Mr. .lorcon was frequently called a “nigger.” The threshold question that a reasonable person must ask is what criteria did, the Legal Unit use determine if a person called a “spic" should get more money than a person called a “nigger.” 57. On February 28, 2008, Ann Judith Yancey, White female, called the EEOC NYDO about filing a charge against Atrium Staffing Services because it was discriminating against African-Americans, by coding their applications based on their race (Black). Ms. Yancey was the Payroll Manager. Investigator, Jeanette Wooten, Wnite temale, received tne call, Dut sne did not process the charge. Instead, sne went her a EEO Form #5 Charge of Discrimination to complete with no instructions. Ms. Wooten received no disciplinary action for not performing her job duty. 58, On April 21, 2006, Plaintiff provesseu a charye filed Ly Claiyiny Party, William Keck, White male, against Atrium Staffing Services. As a former office manager, he discovered that his employer was coding applicants/associates based on race (Black); and that African-American applicants were being placed in lower paying jobs despite their qualifications. Mr. Keck also identified Ms. Yancey as a potential complainant. Plaintiff as assigned the case based on his experience; plus he served as10 a qa 13 14 15 ae 7 18 20 21 23 24 25 team leader. Plaintiff picked Investigators, Jean Mulligan, White female, and Sean Oliviora, White male, to be team members. Plaintiff with tho aecietanco of hic toam developed an Investigative Plan (IP) and drafted a subpoena. Defendant Graziano, Trill Attomey, was also assigned to the case. On April 28, 2008, Defendant Lewis signed the subpoena. On the same day at approximately 2°19 PM, the investigative taam carved the charge and subpoena on respondent's representatives. However, they were not able to examine and/or copy any records because respondent had not obtained an attorney at the time. Also, on April 28. 2008. the investigative team submitted a memorandum describing in detail what had occurred 59. On May 7, 2008, the investigative team and management officials have a strategy meeting to discuss the evidence already collected regarding the Atrium Staffing] Services case. Plaintiff and team members described in detail the evidence and what would be the best approach to get more evidence because while waiting tor respondent to respond to the subpoena. 60. On May 7, 2008, Defendant Graziano sent an email to Nancy Boyd, Willian Lai anid Plaintiff, Rivardy Jones, telling Wen thal, he hes just got off the phone: with the attorneys representing Atrium Staffing Services. Defendant Graziano indicated that on-site was scheduled for May 15, 2008, to review 1 month of records; which the attornoyo admit thoro aro cortain commento made on the documents; and that the attorney assured him, the comments deleted or altered without being known. Defendant Graziano indicated that he agreed with the plan subject to approval by the Plaintiff and members of tha investigative team. The aforementioned managers and members of the investigative had no prior knowledge of his plan. Thus, he was not given approval. 61. On May 8, 2008, the investigative team sent a email to management which clarified the overall future strategy regarding the investigation of Atrium Staffing.information witn eignt Atrican-Amencans records snowing, the codes, job placement and EEO information (including marital status, race and birthdates). The records also support that individuals were being sent to lower pay jobs despite their education and/or experience. During the meeting Defendant Graziano failed to tell them that he had circumventive the subpoena signed by Defendant Lewie on April 28, 2008. Dofondant Graziano had no authority to circumvent the subpoena and sign a side-bar agreement. The agreement that he signed sabotaged and undermined the investigation. Defendant Boyd in an email on May 6, 2006, told Plaintiff me case looks great. 62. On May 12, 2008, Plaintiff called Attomey, Jeffrey S. Ettenger, who was one of the attomeys record representing Atrium Staffing Services. Plaintiff made the call because he wanted to get a list of the counselors; including their phone numbers. Mr. Ettenger stated according the agreement signed Nefendant Graziano, he didn't have to provide any information. Plaintiff requested that a copy of the agreement be fax to him. After Plaintiff received the agreement, he showed it to investigators, Jean Mulligan, and Sean Oliveira. Plaintiff also showed the ayreement ty Deferuarit Sirkinl, bul her response was that it didn't matter what Defendant Graziano had done. This is when Plaintiff and his team members realized that a fix had been created to sabotage the case. Detendant Graziano threaten to file a complaint against Plaintiff for being insubordinate. Defendant Graziano has no supervisory authority. The threat was made to cover his own buttocks because Plaintiff had discovered the agreement which sabotaged the investigation. 62. On May 15, 2008, an on-site meeting was held at the office of Attomey, Alan Koral, rather than at respondent's headquarters where Plaintiff and Oliveira could10 a qa 13 4 1s 1s 7 qe ay 20 an 23 24 Inspect the facility, interview employees and witnesses and other personnel, copy and copy and oxamino rocorde. Dofendant G: no had changed tho location of the meeting without giving prior notice to Plaintiff and Oliveira. The meeting was scheduled for 11:00 AM. Defendant Graziano had already arrived an hour early and was inside meating with respondent's attorneys. He was making sure that the deal he fixed stayed in place. He accused his co-workers of being late for the meeting, The meeting lasted for approximately three hours. Defendant Graziano stayed for about fifteen (15) minutes and left claiming that he needed ta take sameone to the airpart The fix was alraady in place to sabotage the investigation. There was no need for him to stay for the entire meeting. 64. While Plaintiff and Oliveira were examining records the comment count from a letter “M" or “L" in alphabet for African-Americans went from 9 to 43. Charging Party, Yancey had already provided information on 8 African-Americans which showed they were coded based on their race (Black). Respondent's attorneys were having the information sent by computer from it's headquarter to the meeting site. The witness had Told Plaintiff and Oliveira that respondent's co-owner was lying when she stated that they can't delete anything from comments without a record on the page. Plaintiff let one of the attomeys open his mouth; and put his foot in it when he suggested that they look ala sample Guimpuler base dale fur Pulu Ralph Lauren, The evidence showed that ‘twenty (20) African-Americans were coded based on race (Black). Plaintiff just smiled and told respondent's attomey that he had been involved in a case filed against Polo Ralph Lauren. 65. During a break in the meeting, Plaintiff called Charging Party, Yancey to see how she as doing and to give her an update what was taking place. She told him ‘that respondent was using fifty (50) employees to remove diceriminatory codos from the20 an a2 3 14 as te 7 qe 20 21 23 24 25 from the computer screens and data while the were in the meeting. When the meeting began after the broak, Plaintiff acked Me. Erin Bronetein, Chiof Financial Officor, to delete a comment and she did. Plaintiff told respondent's attomeys they were deleting information from the computers while they were in the meeting. He also told the attameys he is going to request the agenry tn anfnire the sihpaena. Respondent submitted its position statement dated June 9, 2008, for EEOC (Charge No. 520-2008- 0275) for Charging Party, William Keck, denying his allegations. The EECO NYDO transferred Yancev's case and Keck’s case to the Newark Area Office. On September 30, 2008, the cases were closed as no cause, Defendants Boyd and Wilkes left the agency in a hurry before the cases were dismissed 66. Defendant Graziano has engaged in the subrogating other cases. Plaintif was assigned to investigate about 178 members of a class of females working Tor Adelphi University. Ihe union have given him 5 years of records showing that females with similar effort, experience and responsibility were being paid less than males, Plaintiff made a “reasonable cause" finding. Respondent offered $450,000.00 to iesulve Ue Gase. Plairiliff told the class members about the setiement offer and retuseq| to accept the offer. This was an equal pay case and according to Plaintiff the settlement should have been over 1.5 million. Defendant Graziano took over the case and reduced the class to SO members and settled the case for $450,000.00. There is iu tellinny tow many cases he has sabotaged. 67. _ Jeffery Kehl, attorney for New Rochelle City School District definitely wanted Plaintiff of hie cliont’e back. During tho on cite inveotigation he discovered from interviewing employees that respondent allowed hangman's knots attached to a (Brown! toy money for 7 years to be displayed on a bulletin board in the supervisors office for for employees and children tn sea Tha majority of the students who attend the echool19 Bet a2 13a 14 1s 16 wv 18 is 20 an 22 23 24 25 are Africa-Americans and Hispanics, Plaintiff believed this created a hostile work environment for students as well as employees. Plaintiff took pictures of the hangman's knots as part of his on-site investigation. Kenneth Chu, former Deputy District Director, and Defendant Borry told Plaintiff that Dofendant Lewio did not care about the safety of those children. Thus, he was not concemed about the hostile work environment created by the hangman's knots. On May 12, 2008, Plaintiff discussed the agreement with other investigators (Sean Oliviera and Joan Mulligan) that Defendant Graziano cignod in reference to the Atrium Staffing Case. 68. On May 20, 2008, Plaintiff filed a grievance against management and legal unit. Plaintiff hand delivered the grievance to the relevant parties. Plaintiff asserted the following: (i) that he was he was receiving unfair treatment by members of management and legal unit; (ii) verbal abuse by Defendant Graziano witness by Investigator. Roxanne Zyomund: (iil) traated in a candescending manner hy management during meetings and talked around in favor of junior investigators; (iv) false accusations made against by his supervisor; and (v) the unfair treatment has caused a hostile work environment. Plaintiff did not allege in his orievance that he was being treated differently because of his race (Black). 69. On May 20, 2008, Plaintiff requested a hardship transfer to Dallas or Houston, TX. Plaintiff did not get the hardship transfer. 68. On May 21, 2008, Plaintiff amended his grievance and added retaliation in violation of articles 22.00 §§ 2201 and 22.03 of the CBA. 69. On June 18, 2008, Plaintiff hand delivered the amended grievance to management and legal unit. 6Y. Un June 26, 2008, Vetendant Wilkes retaliates against Plaintiff by telling him that Defendant Boyd is investigating him for complaints made by representatives ofbecause Plaintitt discovered that Detendant Graziano had sabotaged the investigation 71. On July 23, 2008, Plaintiff met with Defendant Berry about the wrong information sent to EEOC Charlotte Office and Phoenix Office about a hardship transfer Defendant Berry who was the Union President at the time for Local No. 3555 offer Plaintiff a quid pro quo that if ho droppod hio grievanec, and Defendant Lewis would assists in getting him a hardship transfer. This in itself is a violation of Title VII. 72. On July 31, 2008, Plaintiff met with Defendant Lewis about his assignment| to Vetendant’s Yourke’s unit, Plaintitt told him that he will have problems working with because the way she treats African-American employees and charging parties, Plaintiff was aware how she treated African-Americans compared to Whites by talking to co- workers. She was personally classifying all the charges assigned to employees in her unit and putting charges filed by African-Americans in the “C* category and diemiccing the charges when sufficient evidence indicated that discrimination had occurred Defendant Lewis told Plaintiff that he would not put him under her supervision and help hin gel @ hardship Uansfer. Instead, he placed him under her supervision and tailed to get him a hardship transfer. 71. After Plaintiff fled the grievance Defendant Wilkes passed a quid pro quo to him that if he drnnnad hic ariavanre anainet mananamant lanal init and Nafancdant10 un 12 4s a4 1s 7 ae 20 2. 22 23 24 25 72. On August 4, 2008 and August 8, 2008, while visiting the EEOC. Greensboro Local Office, NC, Plaintiff mat with Office Niractor, .Ins| Rasenherg, White male, to discuss a possible transfer. Mr. Rosenberg told when he was having trouble in the District Director at the Newark Area Office, that Defendant Lewis helped him get a transfer. Mr. Rosenberg also told Plaintiff that he had position available: and needed his experience because he had new investigators. Mr. Rosenberg told to him that Defendant Lewis only have to call Mr. Rubin Daniels, District Director of EEOC Charlotte District Office, to get him transferred. 73. On August 11, 2008 when Plaintiff returned to office, he emailed Vetendant Lewis requesting a hardship transters to the Greensboro Office or Tampa Office, Plaintiff told Defendant Lewis what Mr. Rosenberg about calling Mr. Daniels. Defendant Lewis refused to make the call stating that Mr. Daniels should call him first. Defendant Lewis field Investigator, Smananthla Canary, Black female, two times to get a transfer. In Plaintiffs USERA complaint, Defendant Lewis stated to Ms. Canary the following. Plaintiff has field an EEO complaint against him and the office because he's a ‘Army Veteran and he was exposed to combat in Iraq during the war, he should apply ful a job with FFA were they have a lot of veterans. Ms. Canary told Plaintiff what Defendant Lewis had said about him. After the statement was made the harassment became worst. Plaintiff was denied a pay increace twice, placed on a Porformancc Improvement Plan (PIP) and suspended pending removal. 74. On September 14, 2008, Defendant Lewis came to Plaintiff's office. Plaintiff told him about the problems he was having with Defendant Yourke. Plaintiff again asked for his help in getting a hardship transfer and to call Mr. Daniels. Defendant! Lewis stated the he had to call his first. Defendant Lewis did not remove him from under Defendant Yourke's supervision and he failed to call Mr. Daniels. Defendant Rerry190 ani 12 4s 14 as 7 qe 20 an 22 23 24 25 passed Plaintiff a quid pro quo that if he withdrew his grievance that Defendant Lewis would support his hardship transfer. Plaintiff became fnistrated with the situation withdrew his grievance because the Union Local #3555 refused to represent him. 73. On September 23, 2008, the Office of Field Program (OFP) under the supervision of Defendant Inezo disapproved the transfer. 74. On November 17, 2008, Defendant Ricardo Cuevas finally gave the information that Plaintiff had been missing. Mr. Cuevas told Plaintiff that Defendant Yourke told him quote, “that no matter how much education and/or experience a Black person has they are not qualified for anything.” Defendant Yourke by making these statements acted outside of her sworn duty as a tederal officer. 75. On November 17, 2008, Plaintiff sent her an email, asserting that “he was being subjected to a hostile work environment based on race (Black) and called her @ tavist and 4 bigul.” Plaintiff called her a "begot” face to face. Plaintitt also sent a copy of the email to Defendant Lewis, A former White employee, who worked with Defendant! Yourke and Defendant Boyd in the Systemic Unit at the EEOC Headquarter, told Plaintiff that Yourke was a racist and a bigot. In a charge (Charge Nu. 100-2003- 023336) filed by Charging Party, Cecil Hollins, Black male, Defendant Yourke made a list of 80 questions to disqualify the charge. She let Investigator, Jeanette Wooten, White female dismiss a large clase action charged filed by fomaloe mainly minority against Local Union 731 and DeFoe Construction Company. 76. On November 17, 2008, Defendant Berry, Union President for Local No. 3555 refused to give Plaintiff uninn representatinn regarding his grievance. Plaintiff had to designate Brenda Hester AFGE Local 3614 to be his representative. On December 2, 2008, she sent an email to Defendant Berry, stating that, he has a duty to represent all bargaining unit employees. Ms. Hester also forwarded2, 2009, Plaintiff, via representative, contact ed the Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO), to initiate the counseling on his first EEO complaint. On January 14, 2009, he initiated his second EEO complaint. 78. On September 9, 2009, Defendant Yourke put him on a Notice of Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) in an effort to deny him a with-in-grade increase. 79. On December 19, 2008, Defendant Yourke issued Plaintiff a Performance Deficiency Memorandum. Plaintiff was charged with not following instructions. accusing him ot not following instructions. 80. Defendant Yourke told a (Black) who came the office to file a charae that she was out to get ride of Plaintiff. 81. On March 20, 2009, Defendant Yourke sent an email to Plaintiff requesting that he meet with her to discuss the December 12, 2008, memorandum from her entitled, “Notice of Performance Deficiencies.” On March 23, 2008, in an email to Plaintiff, Defendant Yourke Indicated It was not ner Intention that the content of the meeting will lead to disciplinary action. On December 19, 2009, she indicated the Plaintiff must show immediate significant improvement to avoid being placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). Therefore, he was entitled to union representation Nefandant Ioann Riggs to Defendant Vourke that he wae not entitled to union representation. Plaintiff was denied union representation. 82. On September 24, 2009, Plaintiff and Investigator, Michel Huber, White10 11 12 as 1s 17 1s 14 20 a 22 23 24 25 male, held a Fact Finding Conference for Charging Party, Anthony Williams, Black male, (Charae No. 520-2008-03649). filed against Brooklyn Bureau Community Services, Defendant Yourke claims that she received a complaint from respondent how the conference was being conducted. She requested that Mr. Huber and Plaintiff respond in writing about what had occurred at the conference. Mr. Huber drafted a response and submitted to Plaintiff to review and they both agreed to the facts. Plaintiff told Detendant Yourke that his version of what took place was the same as Mr. Huber. Defendant Yourke held a meeting with Mr. Huber and he believed there might be some disciplinary action taken against. Mr. Huber requested union representation. Donna Wacott, President, of Local Union #3555 represented him at the meeting 83. On March 29, 2010, Defendant Lewis issued a Plaintiff a Decision on Notice of Proposed Removal. Plaintiff was on administrative leave at the time. On April 1, 2010 84. On April 24, 2010, filed a grievance by email to Defendant Berrien requesting immediate arbitration. On April 28, 2010 Bender Hester sent an email indicated that cho wac not available to help Plaintiff that the time. The email was setil lu the following: Regina Andrew; Levi Morrow; Gabrielle Martin; Donna Walcott; Joann Riggs; and Lisa Williams. Plaintiff did not receive any representation from the union regarding his terminatinn COUNTI (Disparate Treatment Pursuant to Title VIl) 85. Plaintiff incorporates by refaranaa each and every allagations contained in paragraphs 1 through 84 as though set forth herein 86. Plaintiff was a qualified investigator capable of performing the major duties|20 an 12 14 15 7 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 of position description. Plaintiff was a strong advocate of protecting the civil rights of charging parties regardless of their ethnicity or gender. 87. Plaintiff was subjected to adverse actions by Defendants. 88. Similarly situated individuals out side of his protected class were treated more favorably. 89. Defendants willfully, intentionally and unlawfully discriminated against plaintiff on the bases of race in violation of Title VII. 90. Defendants’ actions were done with malice or with reckless indifference to Plainun’s federally protected rignts. COUNT I (Race Discrimination/Retaliation Pursuant to Title VIl & 42 U.S.C. § 1981) 91. Plaintiff inmeuipurates by 1eference eact and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 84 as though set forth herein. 92. In complaining about the discriminatory act, Plaintiff engaged on protected| activity undor Titlo VII. 93. A causal link exists between the Plaintiff's protected activity and Defendants’ adverse actions. 94. Defendants willfully, intentionally and unlawfully diceriminated againot Plaintif in violation of Title Vil 95. _ In treating Plaintiff less favorably than similarly situated individuals outside of Plaintiff's protected class andlor in retaliation against Plaintiff in ralation to his complaints about discrimination, Defendants violated 42 U. S.C. § 1981. 96. Defendants’ actions were done with malice or with reckless indifference to Plaintiff's federally protected rights.10 un 12 14 1s a7 1s 19 20 a1 22 23 24 25 COUNT II 42 U.S.C. § 1983 97. Plaintiff repeats and alleges paragraphs 1-84 by reference as through fully set forth herein 98. 42 U. S.C. § 1983 reads in part, that every person who, under the color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District ot Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subject, any citizen of the United States or other person with the jurisdiction therefore to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, sult In equity, or other proper proceedings or redress. 99. Upon information and belief about the remarks that Defendant Yourke made “that no matter how much education and/or experience a Black person has they are not qualified or anything.” Plaintiff inmediately confronted ner and reported the incident to Defendant Lewis. There was no disciplinary taken against because she ig employed by the EEOC NYDO as an Enforcement Manager COUNT IV (42 U.S.C, § Retaliation) 100. Plaintiff repeats and alleges paragraphs 1-84 by reference as though fully sat forth herain 101. 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (2) in part provides that if two or more persons in any Conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court or from testing ta any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such a party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, the party so injured or10 Fr a2 14 1s a7 18 20 au 22 23 24 25 deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation against any or more of the conspirators 102. Went Defendant Yourke told a black charging party, who filed a made false allegations Plaintiff, and that she was going to use the information in order to discharge him she was in violation of 42 U.S.C. §. COUNT V (Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 791) 103. Plaintiff repeats and alleges paragraphs 1-84 by reference as though fully set forth herein, 104, 42 U.S.G. § /81 reads that no covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability such individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge employees employment vuimpensation, job Waining, and other terms, conditions and privileges ot employment. 105. Defendant Lewis knew that Plaintiff had made several requests for a hardchip; and all he had to do was place a call to Mr. Ruben Daniels. Inoleau, uf tetkiniy} a call to assist in Plaintiff getting a hardship transfer, he told another employee about Plaintiff's perceived disability. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff pray for the following againct Dofondanto. A Declaration that the Defendant have violated Plaintif’s rights under the Rehabilitation Act; Declaration that the Nefendants have violate Title VII; Declaration that the Defendants have violated 42 U.S.C § 1981; Declaration that the Defendants have violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983; moo. Declaration that the Defendants have violated 42 U.S.C. § 198520 a 12 14 15 a7 1s 20 21 22 23 24 25 F. Issue and order awarding Plaintiff back pay, pre-judgment interest, fringe benefits. and any other appropriate relief necessary ta make Plaintiff whale and compensate him for the civil rights violations described above; G. Award Plaintiff front pay, fringe benefits, and other compensation; H. Award Plaintiff reinstatement and approve request for hardship transfer: |. Award Plaintiff punitive damages. J. Award Plaintiff attomey's fees and cost of this action; and K. Award Plaintiff such other legal and equitable relief as this Court deems just and proper. RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT | EU tis /™" day of Vecember, 200g,