March 5, 2014

Mr. P. Kevi.n Castel Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007 Re: Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment et al. (10 Civ. 9647) (PKC)(JCr) Dear Castel: On February 28, 2014, I , pro se litigant Marcus Isaiah Washmgton, submitted a letter to you pursuant to the Individual Practices of P. .Kevin Castel 2(A)(1) and 2(C), to inform you that by March 17, 2014,1 would be filmg an "Emergency Motion to Disqualify P. Kevin Castel and James C. Francis Pursuant to 28 U.S.C §§ 144 and 455, Or In the Alternative, Emergency Motion to Disqualify Michael P. Zweig, Christian Carbone and Loeb & Loeb L L P Due to Fraud Upon the Court. Request for Disciplinary and Monetary Sanctions. Oral Hearing Demanded." See Exhibit A. As you are aware, I believe that when you ignored both the Judicial Code of Conduct and the public policy goals of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to issue your highly erroneous July 20, 2011 Stay Order compelling this landmark human rights and employment discrimmation case mto arbitration, you intentionally deprived me of my rights under the color of law m violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242 and you failed to uphold your ethical duties as an impartial, federal judge. You were also made aware that I alleged that William Moms Endeavor Entertainment (formerly known as the William Moms Agency), Loeb & Loeb LLP, Michael P. Zweig and others were engaging in an unconscionable level of fraud and that 1 would be seeking disciplinary and monetary sanctions agamst William Moms, Loeb & Loeb LLP and others for engagmg m a pattern of highly unethical and criminal conduct - in a sinister effort to mamtam global white/"'Jewish" supremacy and the myth of white/"Jewish" superiority, or m the alternative, conspire to interfere with the human rights of African Americans, in violation of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, now codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1985. In this letter, 1 made two requests; 1 asked to be given permission to submit an additional 30 pages (50 pages in total) to my Emergency Motion to Disqualify and I asked for you to stay the arbitration, pendmg die Court's resolution of this matter. On March 3, 2014, you issued an Order, granting my request to submit the proposed Motion on March 17, 2014, however, you never acknowledged or granted my two requests. See Exhibit B. After I was erroneously being compelled into arbitration and was told by the Second Circuit that they did not have jurisdiction to decide any of the four appeals that were submitted, the ongmal arbitrator assigned to this case, David L. Gregory, issued three Intenm Decisions, and then a Partial Final Award on December 17, 2013, fmdmg that "William Moms Endeavor Entertainment LLC discrimmated agamst [me] in violation of pertinent federal, state and local law prohibitmg discrimination in employment on the basis of race" and awarded me monetary damages including back-pay, front-pay, compensatory & punitive damages, fees and costs, "as a pro se nonattorney prevailmg party on statutory claims in a case of considerable procedural and substantive complexity." See Exhibit C. For all intents and purposes, Gregory's decision was "fmal," even though 1 filed an Appeal on January 2, 2014 to have the award modified and address the issue of damages. On Januar>' 6, 2014, the Defendants filed a second Motion to Disqualify Gregory and despite the Review Standards of the AAA's ARC, the AAA granted Loeb & Loeb LLP's request without providmg a specific reason as to why Gregory was removed. Now, Loeb & Loeb LLP and the new, fraudulently appointed arbitrator - Timothy K. Lewis ~ are seeking to vacate all of Gregory's decisions although the AAA stated Gregory's decisions would not be vacated prior to Lewis' appointment and § 10 of the FAA makes it clear that only the federal court can vacate an Award and after an Award has been issued, only the federal court can disqualify an arbitrator. On March 4, 2013, Lewis issued his third procedural Order in favor of the Defendants in less than two weeks of being involved with the case, refusing my request to stay the arbitration, pending the S.D.N.Y.'s decision on my upcoming Motion. See Exhibit D. Attached is an e-mail correspondence between the AAA, Loeb & Loeb LLP and myself over the last two days. This e-mail shows that I contacted David L. Gregory and asked him to issue a

Mr. P. Kevin Castel March 5, 2014 Page 2 statement discussmg whether or not he meant for his December 17, 2013 Partial Final Award to be "final with respect to the issues adjudicated in the award," and if not, to please explain his October 16, 2013 Order, in which he abruptly "suspended" discovery and prevented an oral hearmg from takmg place - a violation of my constitutional rights - before issuing his "omnibus fmal decision," also known as the December 17, 2013 Partial Final Award." See Exhibit E . Loeb & Loeb LLP objected. The e-mail also shows that after I forwarded your Order to the AAA and asked again for the arbitration to be stayed, Loeb & Loeb LLP attorney Michael Bamett responded by makmg mtentional representations (e.g. "his email below is the latest m a series of false statements dating to the outset of this matter") and saying, " I f and when Claimant files his motion before Judge Castel, Respondent WME will, among other things, request a stay of further litigation in Federal Court in view of the ongoing proceedings in this arbitration." Based on Loeb & Loeb LLP's past pleadings and overall unethical behavior, this response strongly mdicates that they are going to attempt to continue violating Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, numerous rules under the New York Rules of Professional Conduct, New York Judiciary Law § 487 and other criminal statutes. Based on the facts and the prevailmg law, any federal judge who would consider ruling in favor of the Defendants on this pending Motion would be demonstrating just how corrupt and racist this Court is. Michael Bamett - an Associate at Loeb & Loeb LLP - first appeared in this case on September 13, 2013 - nearly three years after this litigation began. To my knowledge, Bamett has never submitted a Motion on William Morris' behalf On March 3, 2014, Bamett filed a Notice of Motion with the Soudiem District of New York. Due to his unfamiliarity with Zweig and Carbone's unethical and crunmal actions while appearing in the Southem District and Second Circuit, I ask that his Motion be denied or that only Zweig or Carbone - Partners at Loeb & Loeb LLP who have more than 28 years' experience practicing law combined - be allowed to respond to my pendmg Motion. I respectfully ask that you modify your Order, addressing both my old and new requests, so that the case before the American Arbitration Association can be stayed. 1 also ask that you order David L. Gregory to issue a statement regarding his mtentions in issuing the Partial Final Award by March 14, 2014 and m the interests of tmth and justice, 1 ask that 1 now be allowed to submit a Motion that's no more than 75 pages, due the new developments and complexity of issues this Motion seeks to have resolved. If not, I ask that since I've never had an oral hearing m this matter, that an expedited oral hearmg take place at the Southem District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007 on or before Friday, March 14, 2014. William Moms fought to have me to go to arbitration and now I have a fmal decision from the arbitrator, which can only be confirmed, modified and/or vacated by the federal court pursuant to §§ 9-11 of the FAA. The AAA did not have jurisdiction to remove Gregory. 1 can no longer continue playing these games against 6 attorneys and 3 paralegals. 1 have been unemployed for three years and am currently living off of $400/month, while these predominately all-white/"Jewish" companies are makmg millions of dollars from trying to maintain racism in America and throughout the world. My computer is on its last legs and 1 can't even afford mk. This case has been harmfully delayed for far too long and it's time for me to be able to move on with my life. William Morris is guilfy, or they are not. Either way, Michael P. Zweig and Christian Carbone are not fit to practice law and must be disbarred immediately and Loeb & Loeb LLP and William Morris Endeavor Entertainment must be heavily sanctioned for their highly unethical and criminal actions Your July 20, 2011 must be vacated and default judgment on all claims argued before David L. Gregory should be entered m my favor. Best,

Marcus I. Washington

Enclosure: cc: Mr. Michael P. Zweig of Loeb & Loeb LLP (delivered via U.S. postal service and e-mail)

Exhibit A

Case2:10-cv-09647-PKC-JCF

Document 33

Filed 02/28/14

Page 1 of 4

Febmary28,2014

Mr. P. Kevin Castel Southem District of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007 Re: Washington v. William Morris Dear Castel: I, pro se litigant Marcus Isaiah Washington, submit this letter pursuant to the Individual Practices of P. Kevin Castel 2(AX1) and 2(C). As you are aware by now, I believe that when you ignored both the Judicial Code of Conduct and the public policy goals of flie Civil Rights Act of 1964 to issue your highly erroneous July 20, 2011 Stay Order compelling this landmark human rights and employment discrimination case into arbitration, you intentionally deprived me of my rights under the color of law in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242 and you failed to uphold your ethical duties as an impartial, federal judge. I am now writing to inform you and the Southem District of New York that I will be filing an "Emergency Motion to Disqualify P. Kevin Castel and James C. Francis Pursuant to 28 U.S.C §§ 144 and 455, Or In the Alternative, Emergency Motion to Disqualify Michael P. Zweig, Christian Carbone and Loeb & Loeb L L P Due to Fraud Upon the Court. Request for Disciplinary and Monetary Sanctions. Oral Hearing Demanded" no later than March 17, 2014. Under very limited grounds, a party has 90 days to seek to modify and/or vacate an arbitrator's Award pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act. On December 17, 2013, arbitrator David L. Gregory' of the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") issued his Partial Final Award, fmding that WUliam Morris Endeavor Entertainment "discriminated agamst [me] in violation of pertinent federal, state, and local law prohibiting discrimination in employment on the basis of race" and awarded me substantial monetary damages, including back-pay,fi-ont-pay,compensatory & punitive damages and reasonable fees and costs as a "pro se non-attorney prevailing parfy on statutory claims in a case of considerable procedural and substantive complexity." Although Gregory's decision appears favorable, it doesn't change the fact that he intentionally "exceed[ed] his powers" by erroneously deciding the issue of arbitrability, as well as partially determining the merits of ray claims, without allowing discovery or an oral heanng to take place - a blatant violation of due process and equal protection under the law. On January 2, 2014,1 filed an appeal pursuant to AAA Rule 40 ia hopes of having the Award "modified," as well as to seek to have Gregory compel WOliam Morris to produce various financial documents so that I could calculate my monetary damages. Although the Review Standards of the AAA's Arbitration Review Council ("ARC") clearly states that "any party may make an objection to an arbitrates at any time in the arbitration, up to the issuance of the Award or other terminating order," the Defendants filed a second Motion to Disqualify Gregory containmg numerous misrepresentations on January 6, 2014 and on January 27, 2014, the AAA granted their motion without providing any specific reasons as to why Gregory was actually disqualified, (emphasis added). Despite my rep>eated objections that Gregory's removal was "procedurally impropei" and that piusuant to § 10 of the FAA, only the federal court could disqualify the arbitrator after an Award was issued, he was replaced anyway Arbitrator David L. Gregory has 31 years' experience as both an arbitrator for the American Arbitration Association and labor & employment law professor at St, John's University - the alma mater of P. Kevin Castel and wife.

Case2:10-cv-09647-PKC-JCF

Document 33

Filed 02/28/14

Page 2 of 4 Mr. P. Kevin Castel February 28, 2014 Page 2

on February 18, 2014 with former Republican appointed federal and appellate judge Timothy K. Lewis. A week into Lewis' appointment, he has already proven himself to be unfit to impartially decide this case due to his bias in favor of a predominately aU-White/"Jewish" Hollywood institution that has been found guilty of engaging in racial discrimination. He has refused to read any of the past pleadings filed by the parties before and after our February 25, 2014 conference call and although the AAA stated that Gregory's Awards would not be vacated, he entertained Michael P. Zweig's request to vacate Gregory's decisions although he doesn't have the authority to do so. Also, after being assigned to the case, he informed both parties of his plans to shift some of his responsibilities (e.g. "research") onto someone who is not employed by the AAA and should have absolutely no involvement in this case. Although 1 objected, my objection was immediately overridden. This is fiirther evidence of the «?yerall fraud that has occurred since the inception of this case andftartherdemonstrates why arbitration was never an appropriate forum to achieve the public policy goals of this nation's antidiscrimination and antitrust statutes. In order to finally correct this manifest injustice, all of these issues will be brought to the attrition of the Soutfiem District of New York in my upcoming motion. Given the complexity of the numerous complex issues that will be addressed, each of which warrants a detailed explanation, I submit that an additional" thirty pages (totaling no more thanfiftypages) are necessary and will assist this Court in making impartial and ethical decisions with regards to the remainder of this litigation. Being a victim of William Morris' discriminatory employment practices was tough enough, but making the decision to challenge institutionalized racism throughout Hollywood without counsel has practically ruined my life. The irreparable harm that I've suffered as a result of this fraud has jeopardized my ability to continue litigating this case against 6 attorneys and 3 paralegalsfromLoeb & Loeb LLP, Had Castel determined that the mandatory, pre-dispute arbitration agreements that I signed as a condition of employment were unconscionable as a matter of law and public policy, an impartial jury reflecting the rich diversity of New York City would have also reached a verdict by now. They would have not only agreed with Arbitrator Gregory's conclusion ftat I was discriminated agamst because of my race, but they would have also determined that William Morris has engaged, in a 116 year pattern and continuing practice of discrimmation against African Americans and whether employees in an predominately White/"Jewish" work environment are blatantly racist or not, they do harbor implicit racial biases and the company's employment practices, policies and procedures create a disparate impact against qualified African Amencans from being hired and/or promoted to Agent, or hired into their Agent Trainee program. If these statements were not true, I would not have been the only African American employed at any level of the New York office's Agent Trainee program (the "inexorable zero") when I began employment in September 2008 - the same year America made history by electing a mixed-race President into office. After learning about "Exhibit 31" and the conspiracy to conceal these underlying e-mails in Rowe. they would have also ruled in my favor on both of my civil conspiracy claims - conspiracy to maintain a race-based monopoly throughout decision-making positions in Hollywood and the market place of ideas and conspiracy to interfere with the humanrightsof African Americans, a violation of Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. As a result of engaging in criminal activity on behalf of William Morris, Loeb & Loeb LLP and attorneys Michael Zweig, Christian Carbdne and others have violated New York Judiciary Law § 487 and numerous rules under the New York Rules of Professional Conduct. This motion will seek disciplinary sanctions against Michael P. Zweig and Christian Carbone (e.g. disbarment) and will also seek monetary sanctions^ against William Morris, Loeb &

As a result of Michael P. Zweig, Christian Carbone, Loeb & Loeb LLP and William Morris' intentional misrepresentations, contumacious behavior, obstruction of justice and other discovery abuses, I filed an Emergency Motion to Compel and Request for Monetary Sanctions on September 30, 2013, Gregory refused to make a decision on the motion, then abruptly "suspend[ed]" discovery and cancelled the oral hearing. He did, however, award me damages to compensate me for fheir abusive litigation tactics, without ever saying the word

Case2:10-cv-09647-PKC-JCF

Document 33

Filed 02/28/14

Page 3 of 4 Mr. P. Kevin Castel February 28, 2014 Page 3

Loeb LLP, Michael P. Zweig, Christian Carbone and others in an amount no less than $250 million pursuant to the Court's inherent power. Due to the AAA's lack of jurisdiction to determine claims of attorney misconduct and violations of criminal law, I ask that an order be issued immediately staying any further arbitration until these matters are fully resolved by the Southem District of New York. And since it's the last day of Black History Month, I also ask that you refer this case to the attention of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and President of the United States Barack Obama. Best,

Marcus I. Washington

Enclosure: cc: Mr. Michael P. Zweig of Loeb & Loeb LLP (delivered via U.S. postal service and e-mail)

"sanctions." [Gregory, Partial Final Award, 12.] (".. regarding Respondent's bureaucratic elongation of readily ascertainable hiring data, for example, I am particularly amenable to appropriate recompense awarded for avoidable delays.") Since Gregory was prematurely removed from the case, there will be no way for him to clarify ambiguous and vague statements like this or determine an amount that effectively punishes and deters the Defendants and their counsel fi-om ever engaging in this type of bad faith conduct again. Either way, the Defendants and their counsel need to be ordered to pay this portion of my damages (no less than $50 nulUon) now, regardless of the outcome of the overall case.

Case 2:10-cv-09647-PKC-JCF

Document 33

Filed 02/28/14

Page 4 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW Y O R K Marcus Isaiah Washington

(List the name(s) of the plaintijf(s)/peHtioner(s).)

10

Civ.

9647

( PKC ) ( JCF

)

- against William Morris Endeavor Entertainment LLC (formerly known as the William Morris Agency), Jeff Meade and Sarah WiniarskI

AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE

(List the name(s) of the defendant(s)/respondent(s).) I, (print your name) Marcus Isaiah Washington ^ declare under penalty of perjury that I

served a copy of the attached (list the names of the documents you served): Letter to P. Kevin Castel notifying him of pending Em. Motion to Disqualify and Request for Sanctions due March 17, 2014 and request to extend page limitations pursuant to 2(A)(1) and 2(C) of P. Kevin Castel's Individual Practices. upon all other parties in this case by (state how you served the documents, for example, hand delivery, mail, overnight express) mail and e-mail to the

following persons (list the names and addresses of the people you served): Michael P. Zweig and Christian Carbone Of Loeb & Loeb LLP, 500 Park Avenue, New York, NY, 10154.

on (date you served the documentfs)) February 28, 2014 Dated

February 28. 2014

54 Boerum St., Apt. 6M Address Brooklyn, New York City, State 11206 Zip 646-504-6497 Telephone Number humanrights.areamust@gmail.com E-Mail Address

Rev. 01/2013

Exhibit B

Case2:10-cv-09647-PKC-JCF

Document 34

Filed 03/03/14

Page 1 of 1

USDS SONY DOCUMENT U N I T E D STATES D I S T R I C T COURT SOUTHERN D I S T R I C T OF N E W Y O R K — M A R C U S ISAIAH WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, -againstORDER W I L L I A M MORRIS E N D E A V O R ENTERTAINMENT, L L C , J E F F M E A D E , and S A R A H WINIARSKI, Defendants. X C A S T E L , District Judge: Within 14 days of this Order, plaintiff Washington may file the proposed motion outlined in his letter of February 28, 2014. Defendants shall respond within 14 days of filing of the motion and plaintiff may file a reply within 7 days of the receipt of the defendant's responsive papers. ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC^ X DATE FILED: 3 't>-/i

10 Civ. 9647 (PKC)(JCF)

SO O R D E R E D .

United States District Judge

Dated: New York, New York March 3, 2014

Exhibit C

AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION CASE 13 160 0 1 4 2 6 12

M a r c u s i . W a s h i n g t o n , p r o se C l a i m a n t

V.
W i l l i a m M o r r i s Endeavor E n t e r t a i n m e n t LLC, f o r m e r l y k n o w n as t h e W i l l i a m M o r r i s Agency, e t . a l . . R e s p o n d e n t

PARTIAL FINAL A W A R D

SUMMARY r4>A-V|<vl:tS+4^ I piND W i l l i a m M o r r i s Endeavor E n t e r t a i n m e n t LLC ( h e r e i n a f t e r

I FIND t h a t C l a i m a n t has s u f f e r e d m o n e y damages. I FIND, p u r s u a n t t o t h e A r b i t r a t i o n A g r e e m e n t , t h a t C l a i m a n t is e n t i t l e d t o r e a s o n a b l e fees and costs, as a p r o se n o n - a t t o r n e y p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y o n s t a t u t o r y claims in a case of c o n s i d e r a b l e p r o c e d u r a l a n d s u b s t a n t i v e

I W d e ^ ' ^ ^ M * ^ •^'t" ^ ^ ^ ^

PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW, FINDINGS OF F A a , AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

^-'^W^yov

doc "

u),*,fUA'j

C l a i m a n t w a s h i r e d by R e s p o n d e n t as an A g e n t Trainee in m i d - A u g u s t ,

w*v~U i^" ^ ^ H'^ ^^c^^uAf . . L, A^,.^^

2 0 0 8 . He b e g a n w o r k o n S e p t e m b e r 2, 2008. F o l l o w i n g l u n c h o n A p r i l 8, 2 0 1 0 in N e w Y o r k City w i t h M s . Carole Katz, t h e Los Angeles based head o f Respondent's H u m a n Resources., C l a i m a n t ceased w o r k b u t r e m a i n e d o n t h e

^9^ofvoe.«f iUsc^'^^'^M

I ^"''^ " ^ i 'payroll u n t i l m i d - A u g u s t 2 0 1 0 . In e a r l y 2 0 1 1 , C l a i m a n t unsuccessfully sued Respondents In t h e U n i t e d States District Court f o r t h e S o u t h e r n District o f N e w York, a n d unsuccessfully a p p e a l e d t o t h e Second Circuit. He has y e t t o m e e t w i t h any success w h a t s o e v e r in t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s ; t h e y have u n e q u i v o c a l l y r e p u d i a t e d all of Claimant's i n i t i a t i v e s t o a v o i d a r b i t r a t i o n a n d instead o b t a i n a j u r y t r i a l in f e d e r a l c o u r t . R e s p o n d e n t s m o v e d t o c o m p e l a r b i t r a t i o n in early February 2 0 1 1 . In m i d June, 2 0 1 2 , t h e Clerk of t h e C o u r t issued a N o n - J u r i s d i c t i o n Letter.

f^]ces ^' W I

\-\-sctA^ rxv^ac4<x

<^<,io^{~OAiyj .f

pc-ttuvi/^c

I a c c e p t e d t h e AAA a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a p p o i n t m e n t in late July, 2 0 1 2 t o serve as t h e A r b i t r a t o r in this m a t t e r . S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , in an A u g u s t 24, 2 0 1 2 c o n f e r e n c e call, t h e p a r t i e s u n e q u i v o c a l l y s t a t e d t h a t t h e y w e r e a m e n a b l e t o m e d e c i d i n g t h i s m a t t e r solely o n M o t i o n s a n d w i t h o u t t h e need f o r an o n - s i t e h e a r i n g . The AAA rules a l l o w f o r decision of e m p l o y m e n t disputes w i t h o u t a h e a r i n g a n d based solely o n t h e parties' submissions. Via t h e i r e x t e n s i v e M o t i o n \)*M f. e n t i r e t y , significant m o n e y damages (e.g., "I [ C l a i m a n t ] s h o u l d receive m o r e t h a n $125 million...") a n d a d d i t i o n a l r e m e d i e s a n d a t t o r n e y s ' fees a n d costs W^^^Jy^^^'^'^^ J^^^c'^ oo^fhUn^v^ V w ^ ^ J^, . (^e« ^ ^cUadt ^ ^ -H*:- ^'ive^^

papers, t h e p a r t i e s seek s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t , dismissal of t h e o p p o s i t i o n ' s c l a i m s - ^ ^ j ^ ^ , ^ ^

a c o n f e r e n c e call on July 3 0 , 2 0 1 3 , h o w e v e r . C l a i m a n t atbruQtl^y c h a n g e d aAdi^^sS \'^\Ao\cJ!vs^ «^ ^f'^^dj'f

co(v()c~j!>f(js m i n d a n d said h e w a n t e d a h e a r i n g . He t h e r e a f t e r p r o m p t l y " d e r n a n d e d t o depose Respondent's Chief Executive Officer A r i E m a n u e l a n d Respondent's p r i n c i p a l a t t o r n e y s , i n c l u d i n g M r . M i c h a e l Zweig, Esq. a n d his colleagues a t t h e

Loeb l a w f i r m . I d e n i e d t h o s e r e q u e s t § v ~ C o n c u r r e n t l y , discovery e f f o r w s ^ t o t h e genesis a n d h i s t o r y of "Exhibit A" aka "Exhibit 3 1 " w e r e n o t p r o d u c t i v e . T e l a b o r a t e c o n d i t i o n a l discovery calendar) I h a d set f o r t h in I n t e r i m Decision 3 oh- "l^'^'-f S e p t e m b e r 25, 2013 (I issued t w o p r i o M n t e r l m Decisions, d a t e d A p r i l 18 a n d July 12, 2013 respectively, i n c o r p o r a t e d h e r e i n by r e f e r e n c e , and several ]^ ^je^.j] Z6\i

p r o c e d u r a l orders.) was eclipsed by t h e r e a l i t y t h a t n o t h i n g n o t a l r e a d y ^f^^'^H^.ul^'^^xhaustively addressed in t h e parties' t h o u s a n d s o f pages of M o t i o n s w a s ( r e m o t e l y likely t o s u r f a c e — even if t h e a r b i t r a t i o n h e a r i n g was t o c o n t i n u e vvAjfu eA^^ pi/irfsje 0^ -ffl p^^t^ri^ V^c^rticx^ C-dZu>^e^ t r ^ e v c -fwL ^ ^ ^ ^ Jc>\e\^t*.\£e vjfv;*^ oo^eA p^i.x; la (I t ^ t
we-i^^

i n d e f i n i t e l y and t o t h u s t a k e on t h e m u l t i - d e c a d e d i m e n s i o n s of Charles Dickens' Jarndyce v. Jarndyce. Therefore, w i t h everything before me that I needed t o decide this matter, I set a d e a d l i n e f o r final submissions. I c o m p l e t e d r e c e i p t of same and closed t h e r e c o r d o n December,9, 2 0 1 3 . ^ e ^ ^ - ^ ^ l ' aitdjkd iP M^-22,901-?. ^s^'S^^'^'^^ ^ ' '

t h i r t y years as an A r b i t r a t o r o f t a b o r a n d E m p l o y m e n t Disputes,

-f^ct-j^fl^T iUv* g'

t h i s case presents t h e m o s t extensive M o t i o n p r a c t i c e t h a t I have cited therein. [Ar'l (A4e-;-v

encountered.cJ^fJ*^

have c a r e f u l l y read t h e parties' papers and t h e available r e l e v a n t a u t h o r i t i e s
I^CA^IC^^

C o n v e n t i o n a l S u m m a r y J u d g m e n t is a p p r o p r i a t e w h e n n o m a t e r i a l facts d i s p u t e and t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n is c o n d u c t e d in a l i g h t m o s t f a v o r a b l e t o t h e o p p o s i n g p a r t y . T h a t d y n a m i c s i g n i f i c a n t l y shifts, as a practical m a t t e r , w h e n is a cross M o t i o n f o r S u m m a r y J u d g m e n t and c o u n t e r c l a i m s . In t h i s
CMC

\affo<- fit^aJj-^^^^ ^jijf

w?uf-fv^ <^«>i^;ci(Mrbitration, u n d e r t h e r u b r i c of S u m m a r y J u d g m e n t , t h e p a r t i e s m o u n t e d a f u l l -f^* scale a r b i t r a t i o n by any m e a s u r e . i n c e p t i o n of e m p l o y m e n t , a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y o n July 1 , 2009, C l a i m a n t signed t h e M u t u a l A r b i t r a t i o n A g r e e m e n t , a g r e e i n g t o a r b i t r a t e , i n t e r alia, claims of u n l a w f u l race d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . The a g r e e m e n t s s w e e p b r o a d l y . In 2009 in 14 Penn Plaza v. Pvett. 129 S,.Ct. 4 5 6 (2009), t h e U n i t e d States S u p r e m e \a<id<re^4^'!> Court u p h e l d an a r b i t r a t i o n a g r e e m e n t b r o a d l y a n a l o g o u s t o t h o s e in t h i s 1 a r b i t r a t i o n . See, David L. Gregory, M a n d a t o r y Labor A r b i t r a t i o n o f S t a t u t o r y ^A/»lljR(^4^'9^ Claims and t h e Future of Fair E m p l o y m e n t . 19 Cornell Journal o f Law a n d Public \|e4 A c > ^ ^ V P o l i c y 4 2 9 — 4 5 8 ( 2 0 1 0 ) ( w i t h E. M c N a m a r a ) . U^^,^ s\l£\e^'^c C^XP^^ ^ p>-*i^^v,
[c^),^

| a > u /

^ -f^Yc^se^^ ^^e^*^

' ^ ' i o l l o w i n g t h e W i l l i a m M o r r i s Agency and Endeavor c o m b i n i n g t h e i r businesses.

dAs^c^^c^

I f i n d b o t h of t h e A r b i t r a t i o n A g r e e m e n t s in t h i s a r b i t r a t i o n t o be t h a t t h e y are u n c o n s c i o n a b l e in w h o l e or in p a r t . )
cl'r*X'^-

- j ^ ^ \i\^r^y^ c o n v e n t i o n a l , g a r d e n v a r i e t y , a n d n o n p r o b l e m a t i g T N h e r e is n o c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e /&p0-|^(y •p|/t2A I f ' ! " -

if

rtc4)

M«w Avoiot^/v

THE "N" W O R D M E M O EXHIBIT A N D THE CLAIMANT ^rt^i^zJ^n V ^"^^ C l a i m a n t asserts t h a t t h e r e w e r e h u n d r e d s of despicable, scurrilous uses o f t h e o d i o u s " N - w o r d " a n d o t h e r racist p e j o r a t i v e s by d e c i s i o n m a k e r agents o f ^ ' ^ ( R e s p o n d e n t s . C l a i m a n t a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t he w a s n e v e r called a "N" t o his face by a n y o n e a t R e s p o n d e n t . The r o u g h l y t w e n t y pages r e f e r r e d t o as Exhibit 3 1 , and/or as Exhibit A, ^'^^'^juijv ^^'^^ ' •'6^^'' *o 3S Exhibit A h e r e i n a f t e r f o r consistency's sake, is

[^^pm'PO'^^d t o be a long list o f n a m e d persons c o r r e l a t e d t o t h e n u m b e r o f t i m e s
ctY^ t h e n a m e d p e r s o n had any i n v o l v e m e n t as e i t h e r a t a r g e t or c o m m u n i c a t o r of a ( t * " ^ ^ ^ ^ such vile language. s\)(. f»o^j N<?W^ ^ ^ I C l a i m a n t has asserted f r o m t h e i n c e p t i o n t h a t , f o r m o r e t h a n a d e c a d e , o d i o u s " N - w o r d " has b e e n used by s u p e r i o r agents o f R e s p o n d e n t t e r m s "miraculous") m o r e t h a n a decade ago, t h e " N - w o r d " list w a s M r , L e o n a r d Rowe, by A f f i d a v i t , a f f i r m s : "I Ma«f>^^ l^^,^^*^ ^^\^-\ Af-c-^ ^"[33^ "^^^jT'^^^e^ ^wjj A ^ ^ ^ -f^ u>^fc^^

1 / r e g a r d i n g e m p l o y e e s o f color. By p u r e f o r t u i t o u s c i r c u m s t a n c e ( w h i c h C l a i m a n t

z T l ' i H ' - i ^

fi^fNj/^L-W of i n a d v e r t e n t l y seen on t h e desk of SNR [ S o n n e n s c h e i n , N a t h , a n d R o s e n t h a l ] e^'U*<j2^ a t t o r n e y R a y m o n d Heslin. '^^^^ - ^ f ^ ^ ^ ^ p e r s o n a l l y saw [ t h e ] E x h i b i t . . . in its e n t i r e t y . It c o n t a i n e d all pages i n c l u d i n g 1 a n d 17....At t h a t t i m e , i t c o n t a i n e d t h e w o r d 'nigger' 3 4 9 t i m e s . " R e s p o n d e n t , t o t h e c o n t r a r y , r e m a i n s a d a m a n t r e g a r d i n g its i n a u t h e n t i c i t y , i r r e l e v a n c e , a n d i n a d m i s s i b i l i t y . R e s p o n d e n t c o n t i n u e s u n e q u i v o c a l denials.

e^dcW^c^ i=!fio)4r [^^s^y^-j-*^ '^•-^ Kirf A - ^ - x i U -f^ ^ b^<^^,ct|p^^jj^^ Ui« ^^^U'^'tVf2ooY-

In response t o Claimant's p e r s i s t e n t assertion t h a t Respondents a n d t h e i r l a w y e r s have in t h e i r possession t h e i n f a m o u s "nigger" e m a i l s , t h u s i n v o l v i n g m o r e t h a n a d o z e n lawyers a n d t h r e e l a w f i r m s suppressing e v i d e n c e — R e s p o n d e n t r e i t e r a t e s : "This is u t t e r nonsense." (Respondents' Response a t pages 2-3, f o o t n o t e 2, t o I n t e r i m Decision 1) "Claimant's p e r s i s t e n t c o n t e n t i o n t h a t Rowe's e x p e r t and Rowe's counsel p r o d u c e d t o W M A (and Its counsel Loeb & Loeb) w h a t C l a i m a n t n o w refers t o as 'nigger' emails, a n d t h e n concealed such d o c u m e n t s f o r t w o years, Is c a l u m n y . It is, d e m o n s t r a b l y , a n o u t r i g h t a n d k n o w i n g lie. N o t a single such e m a i l w a s ever p r o d u c e d , or is e v e n k n o w n ever t o h a v e e x i s t e d . " (Respondents' Reply a t page 5 t o I n t e r i m Decision 1)

4

hc^raf z&A,.^ U.\.r^ V^e)'^ /y«4'

oHv^^

C l a i m a n t s i t u a t e s his I n d i v i d u a l experience a t R e s p o n d e n t against t h e c>(^*j.,J^ U -fW. 7,\^^Ubr\,^ ^ot-^^fUce)

b r o a d e r b a c k d r o p o f Exhibit A and t h e m a c r o b a c k d r o p o f his i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y c r i t i q u e of d e e p l y e m b e d d e d racism. /•^O'

Some o f Claimant's e x t e n s i v e M o t i o n papers r e f l e c t s o p h i s t i c a t e d ^ -fv^-f. M-jo«'4j e^-fin,o^^t-rsci^ <>>^c^l t^-+i6(vis^.^

^/t>^o\eO '{v sociological j u r i s p r u d e n c e g r o u n d e d in s o m e of t h e l e a d i n g scholarship o f t h e / c r i t i c a l race t h e o r i s t s . Cs* '^CM

\r parts of Claimant's M o t i o n papers are c o u n t e r p r o d u c t i v e a n t i j y ^ ^ . ^ '^^jg^TSBmitic r a n t . As Respondent c o r r e c t l y p o i n t s o u t , s o m e o f t h e d e f a m a t i o n w a s N U O - joleo^e
(X.tx>r^^ir£.u^ p^r^^o'^ (\/\'jc^rr^ou'^

p a r t i c u l a r l y m e a n s p i r i t e d , d e l i b e r a t e l y d i s t r i b u t e d t o m e m b e r s o f t h e Bar a n d v>Y-ft*T>pc x^e^ d^^'2-o\-2~-^^
- ^ ^ J CC^C

<rtcL[>'U-iiTi^t accusing Respondent's l a w y e r s of " p a r t i c i p a t i n g in a 'conspiracy t o m a i n t a i n w h i t e s u p r e m a c y t h r o u g h o u t America.'" (Respondent's Final Position '-^ S t a t e m e n t , N o v e m b e r 20, 2013 a t 14.) Such p o i n t l e s s v i t u p e r a t i o n grossly d e b i l i t a t e s t h e efficacy of Claimant's s u b s t a n t i v e a r g u m e n t s . C l a i m a n t cites, i n t e r alia, t h e i n f l u e n t i a l legal scholarship o f H a r v a r d Law '

^osli^

^ \ ^ ^ < ^ c ^ -

A-H ^^'^^^^^ '/~Xco^ a^st^W, U ^tf^c^c^ ^ | o f fxi

[Kft^e

^wi-h

vx. u p s « + « W I S^l^cdT

School Professor Randall K e n n e d y (see Claimant's January 3 1 , 2013 M o t i o n , P^Se 8 8 , f o o t n o t e s 243-246, u l t i m a t e l y c u l m i n a t i n g in Professor Kennedy's 2002). d e f i n i t i v e b o o k "Nigger: The Strange Career of a T r o u b l e s o m e W o r d " ( P a n t h e o n , \

ff-t/uv,<.4 vA-AJ ^'p^';:5The "N w o r d " persists. Isaiah T h o m a s , a college all-star at I n d i a n a W"^ U n i v e r s i t y a n d a p r o f e s s i o n a l all-star and m u l t i p l e w o r l d c h a m p i o n w i t h t h e -fe (^\^ - f W f -HH,

D e t r o i t Pistons, candidly a d m i t t e d w h i l e an executive w i t h t h e N e w York Knicks, ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ' ^ ^ ^ t h e r e is a d o u b l e s t a n d a r d vis a vis a u t h e n t i c Black usage of t h e N - w o r d a n d t h e Examples a b o u n d . (See discussion of same in m y I n t e r i m Decision, i n c l u d i n g t h e W e ^'"^ °^ Spike Lee, "Bamboozled," 2000, a f i l m a c c e n t u a t i n g t h e i n e x o r a b i l i t y ^ cii\ua ^ ^ Uyja\^c^\^ ^ feUpfcc?"

i ^ e f « 4 rt.Q.o- a w k w a r d m i s a p p r o p r i a t e d usage of t h e N - w o r d by m e m b e r s of any o t h e r race.

^sr^oU^^jV-^f
c^nyj fwi

stereotype, w i t h t h e e m p h a s i s o n t h e t a r g e t s of racism hyper -exaggerating "^'^ Stereotypes in o r d e r t o c o u n t e r a n d freeze t h e m e t a s t a s i z e d racism as t e p i d ; Dr.
Henry Louis (Skip) Gates, "The Signifying M o n k e y : A T h e o r y of A f r i c a n Literary Criticism" ( 1 9 8 8 First Edition a n d p o s t ) . C l a i m a n t has s i t u a t e d h i m s e l f in a p a r a d o x i c a l p r e d i c a m e n t . He asserts civil rights m o v e m e n t is r e p l e t e w i t h n o b l e e x a m p l e s o f courageous leaders w h o s o u g h t , and u l t i m a t e l y a c h i e v e d , social change t h r o u g h legal process. See, f o r e x a m p l e , t h e Rev. Dr. M a r t i n L u t h e r King, ^^^^Jfeff-' "^"^ '^'^ tfj^ i_; v/^k
(JON^H

^«4o» tws.iJ UM-h"^ ^^t^-^Ll^^'^^ ^^^l^^j.^ ctM '-f Wc f^u pwce^w^

t h a t he is using t h e legal process as an i n s t r u m e n t f o r social j u s t i c e . The m o d e r n ^

Jr. a n d his e l o q u e n t "Letter f r o m a

'^c:;*^! 0^4-5 le/^
^od

B i r m i n g h a m Jail." Likewise, see t h e m a g n i f i c e n t w o r k o f T h u r g o o d M a r s h a l l a n d
uf]\a\je. ^^1^

^f'^V^^^thd^

Pid*f"*vrfjls m e n t o r at t h e H o w a r d Law School, Vice Dean Charles H a m i l t o n H o u s t o n .
ej\e e a c h o f t h e s e g e n t l e m e n p u r s u e d aggressive m u l t i f a c e t e d i n i t i a t i v e s , I a m

not a w a r e of a single instance w h e r e i n t h e y d e l i b e r a t e l y engaged in libel per se.
aJ^oc^^r^

oUt{t*^

M o s t recently, t h e life of M r . Nelson M a n d e l a , a lawyer, e l o q u e n t l y e x e m p l i f i e s r e v o l u t i o n a r y h u m a n rights a activismjA /ithout '•evolutionary ctivism^ i t h o u t c o u n t e r p r o d u c t i v e ad h ho om miin ne em m ^^^^'

c t > v

(xui-)?)

'

I

.j-nl

In t h i s case b e f o r e me at t h i s A r b i t r a t i o n , t h e parties' assessments of

Uc;, ef fv.Qi^^'^^''''^ ^ d r a m a t i c a l l y vary. Some o f m y o r i g i n a l q u e s t i o n s a b o u t Exhibit A " ( c * ^ - i I (Ml^|^'"3in o p e n . W h o a u t h o r e d i t ? . W h a t was t h e c o n t e x t ? Of\t^s o]UrI -f<^ /\,f "^^X^
^ ^ t i ^ ^ - ^ li^^

'^S^'^^f"^ ^ ^ 4 ^ ^ " ^ ^ ^ ' l j ^ ^ ^ j ^ ^ i^j^n-eof\L. u,V,o u J i p 'i -sw 'io
O^-H<^J

' asked t h e parties t o e n d e a v o r t o p r o v i d e t h e f u l l n a m e , t i t l e , a n d dates A. I asked t h e parties t o f u r t h e r i d e n t i f y all n a m e d persons w i t h i n Exhibit A w h o persons n a m e d in w h o l e or in p a r t in Exhibit A w h o w e r e i n v o l v e d in t h e r e c r u i t m e n t , h i r i n g , o r i e n t a t i o n , t r a i n i n g , supervision, discipline, severance. and/or cessation of t h e e m p l o y m e n t of Claimant. t-fl^ijW^f J

acc^pj^-l'k'K'^f e m p l o y m e n t f o r each a n d every person n a m e d in w h o l e or in p a r t in Exhibit £{<^h25 are p r e s e n t l y e m p l o y e d by Respondents. I asked t h e p a r t i e s t o i d e n t i f y any such ^os^

ii

C l a i m a n t , n o t Respondent, d i d m o s t of this t e d i o u s w o r k in a g o o d f a i t h ^ . j e * ^ ^ | ^ ^ e f f o r t t o a n s w e r m y questions. A l t h o u g h Respondent is t h e p r e s u m p t i v e ft>v,t)< ( <jCiAfC-\u^ i>^cM>^fn J - ^ , ^ ^ ' ^ -• vJ.v/Wi+f cia-odLc f K r I l^^^o^ clu'mj pN^'^ a^-\^
sl^ce.-^

d'^Woj c u s t o d i a n o f t h e e m a i l and o t h e r c o m m u n i c a t i o n archival records. Respondent's •j- bi*/<. v^Jo^y^^l e f f o r t s i n t h a t regard w e r e r e l a t i v e l y d e s u l t o r y , c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e r e s o l u t e t e n a c i t y o f Claimant. A l t h o u g h t h e "N" W o r d M e m o Exhibit A w a s a d m i t t e d i n t o evidence, i t is -D-'cl-*^^ 4 c ^ f - ^ la ^-j ^Sov-lil^^/T

pcof le c\tu^ed ^ ^'"^'^ '31\j sh^d rtJ^\^ Af^l

s o m e t h i n g less t h a n a s m o k i n g g u n — b u t i t is n o t necessarily n o t h i n g . H ^ i ^ ' ^ The o r i g i n a l a u t h o r s h i p , a n d , t h u s , t h e significance o f Exhibit A r e n i a i n s

\% \jc^ u n c e r t a i n , s t a n d i n g alone^=l[jjt, fast f o r w a r d i n g t h e b e t t e r p a r t o f t w o decades (f |Z^t1 f r o m t h e t i m e M r . Rowe first s^AyExhiblt A t o t h e present, ^ l e s a l i e n t fact is h i r e d at t h e b o o t camp t r a i n e e e n t r y revel, i n c l u d i n g Claimant, b u t m a v also get ^ ' ' ^ " 3 " Y w i t h o u t e x c e p t i o n a n d Irt s h o r t o r d e r . Claimant's s t a t e m ^ t h a t

l'v|€/i/>t Dfoji'o especially c o m p e l l i n g a b o u t Respondent's w o r k p l a c e - African^^Xmericans get

u-e-t^Wi/v f v c Ofp«'4"i*H7 Jl^^^'^ [r^^^^.

f^o^s' o f f^ici^x

c^!^^^^^^

were

m o r e African American AgJnts employed at William Morris i r ^ 9 6 3

j ^ ^ f ; ( ^ ( o n e ) t h a n t h e r e w e r e w h e n I b e g a n ^ m p l o y m e n t in S e p t e m b e r 2008)" is n o t rebutted.

"pM-TcvW^I .i^fli^

ZDOO j-fe

tAf^\u-f^

CWee»^ lay-. Employers, i n c l u d i n g R e s p o n d e n t , are e n t i t l e d t o h i r e , reta/n, a n d ^^^^^ c ^ ^ - f i j i n d u s t r y a p p a r e n t l y rely o n t h e high a t t r i t i o n r a t e a m o n g n e w e m p l o y e e s as a ^'^^^tiL^'^^ s o r t o f b o o t c a m p r i t e of passage. Fair e n o u g h . M o s t e m p l o y e e s c o m e a b o a r d l|v «r +v2^ 21 <H(X^d\^ ctc^U w i t h t h e i r eyes w i d e o p e n , k n o w i n g t h a t u p w a r d s o f n i n e t y p e r c e n t o f t h e n e w r e c r u i t s w o n ' t m a k e i t , b u t each o n e resolved t o be a m o n g t h e survivors. A g a i n , fair enough. j h e r e v o l v i n g d o o r , or, p e r h a p s m o r e accurately, t h e i n s u r m o u n t a b l e o\-^^ Ay^\'*">^^
Z^^AAO.

\^ d au\\L

p r o m o t e w h o m t h e y w i s h ™ p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e y d o so l a w f u l l y . ^ p l o y e r s in t h e ' ^7X^1

i^f^ fiig^'Y

glass ceiling e n c o u n t e r e d by Claimant e f f e c t i v e l y , a n d u n l a w f u l l y , o p e r a t e s as an -^wai'^^f^^^ exclusive gate keeper. C l a i m a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e r e are v i r t u a l l y n o A f r i c a n d^f

( " W ^ V A Z . /
|^ ^ , ) ^dt. ho p«H*-!->

is

A m e r i c a n s s u r v i v i n g Respondent's n e w hire b o o t c a m p , "....there c o n t i n u e s t o be zero A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n Agents or C o o r d i n a t o r s office..." e m p l o y e d In t h e N e w Y o r k ^ (Claimant's S e p t e m b e r 30, 2013 Emergency M o t i o n at page 9,

c L - t a ^ f o o t n o t e 9; e m p h a s i s in o r i g i n a l ) A ^ ^ + T v ^ / « «
^ ^\:,0'0^

R e s p o n d e n t disagrees, b u t does n o t p r o v i d e a specific list by n a m e , t i t l e , d a t e of hire or e q u i v a l e n t p a r t i c u l a r s . Instead, R e s p o n d e n t cites C l a i m a n t as saying " t h a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 20 A f r i c a n A m e r i c a n s w e r e h i r e d and/or p r o m o t e d ^° agent." R e s p o n d e n t Final P o s i t i o r v S t a t e m e n t at page 9 ) . C l a i m a n t does n o t sue because 20 m a y have been h i r e d i ' T a t l i i ^ h e sues because he w a s f i r e d a n d t h a t n o A f r i c a n A m e r i c a n s u r v i v e d t o b e c o m e an A g e t ^ I f i n d Respondent's p r e s e n t a t i o n of such d a t a i n s u f f i c i e n t t o r e b u t . R e s p o n d e n t is t h e c u s t o d i a n of t h e r e c o r d , in business f o r m o r e t h a n a century. It s e e n ^ a s i m p l e m a t t e r f o r OJ>^^
^^\r>^

^<>y>'V^
M^H^kiy X ^ s ^ h i ^ od1?K p /i )^4«t f hyA^ ) ^ ^
ji^e»

-^'1'

M^a^

)

\ j J 2 < ^ I lio^rt^Respondent t o list by n a m e a n d p a r t i c u l a r s each perspTn h i r e d a t t h e e n t r y level, i n c l u d i n g C l a i m a n t since, say, 2007. The n u m b e r o f ^ e r s o n s of color h i r e d , ^ ^ o t e d , a n d f i ^ d w o u l d thi/s be f o r t h r i g h t J < ^ r e s e n t e d . I f i n d Claimant d i d

A V ^ | < * C &\*A^y
^ ^ ^ ^ <^(>.oA ^ J^^^ci^-

^iO&t

l o ^ ^ u X ^ R e v i e w a r t i c l e on

m e t i c u l o u s v*orkori4hTs score t h a n d i d Respondent. C l a i m a n t i n t o his p r e s e n t a t i o n t h e H a r v a r d Law of "zero" in t h e w o r k p l a c e . I f i n d i t i n t e r n a l l y

w e n t f u r t h e r , a n d read a n d IncftrpSfated

d i s c o r d a n t l H a t l ^ s p o n d e n t can \y list m o r e t h a n t w e n t y instances of Want's v a r i o u s delinquencies, especially t h o s e c o n s i d e r e d issues of ( n o n ) lie. rvwie "iov^eM^iof p u n c t u a l i t y , b u t s e e m i n g l y c a n n o t list t h e n u m b e r a n d race of persons h i r e d , p r o m o t e d , f i r e d 2 0 0 7 - p r e s e n t (dr, at least f o r t h e 2 0 0 8 - 2 0 1 0 t i m e p e r i o d ) as T1-IJ- c^ec^i trainees. isii*(Jvj , „ ^'^^ s<^i^<^^^^y^J^ -^-Y*^ l^^-^HTif, '"^^^"-^ C l a i m a n t satisfies Uje p r i m a facie t e s t , wi' impressive q u a l i f i c a t i o n s ^

^^fflA ^ o , « . Case. of ('•c.'^ ^r^v!^'

( U n i v e r s i t y of M i a m i ^ c ^ l e r a t e d g r a d u a t i o n and a master's ^ e g f « e i j y ^ g e 2 3 ) s o m e i n i t i a l ^ « € c e s s e s in t h e i n d u s t r y b e f o r e w o r k i n g f o r R e s p o n d e n t He

a c k n o w l e d g e s he w a s n o t t h e p e r f e c t e m p l o y e e , w i t h a f e w lateness Incidents In c o m i n g t o w o r k a n d perhaps a m i s m a t c h b e t w e e n his q u a l i f i c a t i o n s a n d t h e e n t r y level p o s i t i o n f o r w h i c h he w a s h i r e d . C l a i m a n t , and every e n t r y level n e w (jJicSlt^K e m p l o y e e , starts w i t h s o m e t i m e in t h e m a i l r o o m ; t h e p r o b l e m , h o w e v e r . Is colleagues c o m p l i m e n t a r y of his w o r k (e.g.. M e l o d y Carter). Co/ioU^.-fKij. K e*ivi»^^,t>i4j'*that, f o r C l a i m a n t , it w a s e f f e c t i v e l y a o n e w a y t i c k e t . Claimant cites several

Ok:-

^-j-f/ynv-^. iMie-? ^ i ^ i ^^^"^i^^^^ ^ i^«5^vgf^7

^l^^'^x 'than t w e n t y
•^pe^t^fa\«4('f-'«M VPjJj^^^D p-v/vNoVd

]?^P';;J ""f I n d e e d , w h i l e R e s p o n d e n t s u b s e q u e n t l y asserts t h a t t h e r e w e r e m o r e n e g a t i v e c o m m e n t s r e g a r d i n g C l a i m a n t , s i g n i f i c a n t l y m o r e t h a n any o n e else in his t r a i n e e class, s o m e o f Respondent's o w n d o c u m e n t s are facially i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h Respondent's emphasis o n Claimant's "negative a t t i t u d e . " e.g., M r . J o n a t h a n L o m m a described C l a i m a n t as :"'very nice.'" (Respondent c o m p l i m e n t w a s n o t i n c l u d e d in M r . Meade's N o v e m b e r 2, 2012 A f f i d a v i t . R e s p o n d e n t concludes t h a t Claimant's j o b p e r f o r m a n c e w a s m e d i o c r e a t best, a n d r e p e a t e d l y emphasizes t h a t he w a s n o t p u n c t u a l — p r o b l e m s best s o l v e d i n , or f a i l i n g t h a t , at least c o n f i n e d t o , t h e m a i l r o o m . One of t h e m o s t p e r n i c i o u s stereotypes—chronic lateness—against African Americans was bureaucratically p r i o r i t i z e d by R e s p o n d e n t w i t h a p p a r e n t l y no awareness of its t r a g i c i r o n y . Claimant's a d m i t t e d naTvete b o t h c o m p l i c a t e d a n d c l a r i f i e d s o m e m a t t e r s . R e s p o n d e n t asserts t h a t C l a i m a n t w a s n o t t e r m i n a t e d , d e s p i t e m o r e t h a n t w e n t y n e g a t i v e r e v i e w s f r o m across t h e s p e c t r u m of f e l l o w t r a i n e e s , a n d s u p e r v i s i o n ; r a t h e r , he v o l u n t a r i l y t o o k a v e r y l u c r a t i v e b u y o u t r e l a t i v e t o his l o w s e n i o r i t y — f i v e m o n t h s of f u l l pay and b e n e f i t s a f t e r o n l y n i n e t e e n m o n t h s of e m p l o y m e n t . The m i r r o r image of such facial g e n e r o s i t y m a y have been t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e Great Recession n e g a t i n g any g e n u i n e l y v o l u n t a r y choice b y C l a i m a n t . I d o n o t f i n d t h e v o l u n t a r y q u i t assertion by R e s p o n d e n t t o be t h e o n l y lens t h r o u g h w h i c h t o e v a l u a t e Claimant's decision in 2 0 1 0 . I f i n d i t m o r e

'

^^°^f^'i

'ry/Haaj^fj'
^ftlfftf^, /^S^^^2ifJi

•VjjN^ C.ow~d(c ^7 ii^. '[U/y

l i k e l y t h a t p a t e r n a l i s t i c s o f t racism i d e n t i f i e d C l a i m a n t as p o t e n t i a l l y p r o b l e m a t i c u p o n his f i r s t o u t r e a c h t o H u m a n Resources. A n y o n e of t h e

Ij^O^-

'M^-/?^].
o.

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t w e n t y i n c i d e n t s c i t e d a n d r e l i e d o n Respondent as evidence o f TXl+^ ["^eax^se. Claimant's s u b s t a n d a r d w o r k w o u l d , t h e o r e t i c a l l y , be g r o u n d s f o r t e r m i n a t i o n . Yet, t h a t d i d n o t occur c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s w i t h t h e alleged i n c i d e n t . Rather, t h e y ( influence after-the-fact. Meanwhile, when not relegated t o the mail r o o m , C l a i m a n t w a s s e n t o n e r r a n d s t o buy f u r n i t u r e a n d o f f i c e supplies. Rather t h a n R e s p o n d e n t p r o v i d i n g , or C l a i m a n t receiving, any supervisory m e n t o r i n g of any j^j^ ^fCo^ J^^!^^"^ l^'-jU-f^^e/c^ -

kc^pMi^ I ' t ^ a r e s u b s e q u e n t l y r e l i e d o n by Respondent f o r m a x i m u m c u m u l a t i v e adverse

^^cltP^
Qc^Wo^

I
f^^Itf

.... ^s^^r^M-^a^^

f^-h^^^

-pio l-.'f^

c^<^C^

^

.

^1 ^ ^ ^ ^ j

significance, s o m e supervisors c o m p l a i n e d a b o u t C l a i m a n t w i t h i n less t h a n o n e h o u r of his b e i n g o n t h e j o b . &< f^e^t*

B e f o r e his A p r i l 8, 2010 lunch w i t h M s . Katz, Claimant's days p r o b a b l y w e r e already n u m b e r e d — h e just didn't k n o w t h a t yet. piyi^ac^rt£> M^y.'fv^l*, {(^d Ifv^^ J l U j w i f '^^^'^j^'T^ v^c^fjc,

It is a close q u e s t i o n , b u t I f i n d R e s p o n d e n t d i d n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y r e b u t Claimant's p r i m a facie case w i t h l e g i t i m a t e n o n d i s c r i m i n a t o r y reasons, n e u t r a l l y

' ^ ' ^ ^ ^ nt4t>] a n d i m p a r t i a l l y a p p l i e d , f o r t e r m i n a t i n g Claimant's e m p l o y m e n t . ^ ' ^^Vj^ ^ • ^ ^'/x>i^oM ' ' ^^^^ Claimant d i d n o t v o l u n t a r i l y q u i t . If he had d o n e so, i t w o u l d

have been r e l a t i v e l y easy f o r R e s p o n d e n t t o have i m m e d i a t e l y e n d e a v o r e d t o r e t u r n C l a i m a n t t o w o r k . I n s t e a d , R e s p o n d e n t s w e e t e n e d Claimant's d e p a r t u r e w h i l e a d a m a n t l y p r e c l u d i n g any possible r e t u r n by C l a i m a n t . I f i n d t h a t Claimant p r o v e s by a p r e p o n d e r a n c e of t h e evidence t h a t he w a s u n l a w f u l l y d i s c r i m i n a t e d against because of his race. W i t h i n a f e w days of r e c e i p t of m y I n t e r i m Decision 1 , C l a i m a n t expressly states in his e m a i l w r i t i n g t o M r . M i c h a e l Zweig, Esq. t h a t "I [ C l a i m a n t ] refuse t o c o m m u n i c a t e any f u r t h e r w i t h h i m [ M r . Christian A. Carbone, Esq., a l a w y e r colleague o f M r . Z w e i g a t Loeb & Loeb, t h e l a w f i r m r e p r e s e n t i n g R e s p o n d e n t s ] "...."Based o n Christian's a r r o g a n t and d e f i a n t response t o m y r e q u e s t t o 'meet a n d confer,' c o u p l e d w i t h t h e f a c t t h a t he w a s n o t I n v o l v e d in R o w e a n d clearly knows nothing about what actually occurred in electronic discovery." j f ^ t - h ^ct^I/^[^^o^tWierfcf^j^ ^ ^ ' ^ l i 'IL, *f ^ \ j f?VU5^\ .rU^|v| """^ ''^^^ j v\ (Respondents' Reply t o I n t e r i m Decision 1 , Exhibit 2) , ^e^^^^^^^^^^ vAa3

J

^•^'"JJ^
,

A 1i^Tv. sff^i^^'^^^H^I^'^^Nl t o o k A r b i t r a l n o t i c e of t h e s t u n n i n g advances in e-discovery r e t r i e v a l 1 \ i 5 l j (K U ^ ^ o r e n s i ^ a n d I a n t i c i p a t e d c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y d r a m a t i c cost r e d u c t i o n s . Reliable oA^f-^aLoc«W \d w e r e n o t f o r t h c o m i n g , w i t h t h e parties b l a m i n g one a n o t h e r f o r l\oc)f t f | < c h ' ^ l o c k l n g W f f e c t i v e discovery. R e s p o n d e n t w a s c o n f r o n t e d w i t h 329 i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s . The first g e n e r a t i o n of IT specialists circa 1998 w e r e n o l o n g e r cil \ f.^wa ^4* f^'?'^!D ^ e m p l o y e d , s l o w i n g t h e process. C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e r e w a s n o t h i n g m o r e t o likely c o m e f o r w a r d f r o m h u n d r e d s o f t h o u s a n d s of emails b e y o n d a grossly d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e huge b i l l . (Respondent O c t o b e r 1 1 , 2013 l e t t e r ) . A l t h o u g h C l a i m a n t suggested t h a t his e x p e r t m a y charge o n l y a f r a c t i o n lof t h e p r e v a i l i n g rates, t h e logistics of each party's IT e m a i l e x p e r t s i m u l t a n e o u s l y b e i n g in t h e s a m e r o o m , t o say n o t h i n g of Claimant and Respondent's a t t o r n e y s b e i n g in t h a t same r o o m , w a s t h e recipe f o r a v i r t u a l g u a r a n t e e of a quick g r i d l o c k e d fiasco.

-(tv^^ ^
' PCMJ^

fv^OO J'KJP- (/O-A 'PfeA^ns l-L-f J The possible t e s t i m o n y of M r . R a y m o n d Heslin, Esq. s e e m e d essential in
^'^'•'^'"B

t h e c h a i n of c u s t o d y a n d c o n t r o l r e g a r d i n g Exhibit A. C l a i m a n t , , 'H'^-S l^i^ T^l^^jz* ' r . J ^ ^ 3 ^ . ^

h o w e v e r , d e c i d e d he w o u l d r a t h e r depose Respondent's CEO a n d lawyers. T h a t fw<fn» '^^'iS 't^^vrJi. "jWc ISp^/^-^J^ ^ .S^M^tA' \j^s -fv^^ oo w a s a classic non-Starter, designed t o k e e p t h i s m a t t e r g o i n g n o w h e r e ' " d e f i n i t e l y . Claimant's d e p o s i t i o n "strategy" is analogous t o M a r b u r v v . M a d i s o n . 1 Cranch (5 U.S. 137. 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). It necessarily m e e t s w i t h a s i m i l a r r e s u l t . It is a sensationalistic in t e r r o r e m tactic designed t o i n d u c e chaos . a m o n g t h e o p p o s i n g side. Just as M a r b u r y w a s c o m p e l l e d t o p r o c e e d acl^\^(^/^ i n c r e m e n t a l l y a n d t h u s c o u l d n o t s i m p l y w a l k i n t o t h e S u p r e m e Court a n d be

I!^£ltX

(UJj^^^. ( ^ "t^j" I ^ t* T"^'^ a^^-^^I c/^'>t** ^^^"^"^ ^^'^^1^^^' o^y^<C\. pWAvjrV^

\^>^<i4€d

^'"^^^ instance, d e p o s i n g Respondent's CEO in t h e f i r s t instance flies ^w^^*-^V^

i n t h e f a c e o f e s t a b l i s h e d p r o c e d u r e . I g r a n t e d in p a r t R e s p o n d e n t s ' A u g u s t 20, 2 0 1 3 Letter M o t i o n in Response t o Claimant's A u g u s t 7, 2013 S u b m i s s i o n .

« ^ t^s A t t o r n e y s Zweig, Carbone, and Gavaris, and W M E Co-CEO Ari E m a n u e l shall n o t \\e/^^Qr^ bo^ p/^^ c o n s i d e r a t i o n s m i l i t a t i n g against such p o t e n t i a l d e p o s i t i o n s . T h r o u g h o u t t h i s persons o f c r i m i n a l c o n d u c t . To r e q u i r e a n y o f t h e s e Loeb a t t o r n e y s o r M r . C o n s t i t u t i o n a l S'^ A m e n d m e n t r i g h t against s e l f - i n c r i m i n a t i o n in t h e f « ^^Jf^ receipt o f t h e wry N\parties' f i n a l papers on

be d e p o s e d a n d shall n o t be called t o t e s t i f y by C l a i m a n t . T h e r e are a d d i t i o n a l - ^ ^ ^ ^ Dt-^. \S^^'Z e ' l t i r e m a t t e r . C l a i m a n t has v o c i f e r o u s l y a n d r e p e a t e d l y accused each o f t h e s e 4v«> ^ ^ o ^ > c ^ m a n u e l t o p r o v i d e t e s t i m o n y in t h i s civil a r b i t r a t i o n w o u l d p o t e n t i a l l y v i o l a t e e^k^tfa e>^^. e v e n t t h a t C l a i m a n t f o l l o w s t h r o u g h o n his p e r s i s t e n t t h r e a t of seeking c r i m i n a l

J-j^oveA-V- p r o s e c u t i o n . J l i f ^ H ^ - l A L . /r"^
<{o A^o^'2M^OJ

Ergo, u p o n

completing my

" D e c e m b e r 9, 2 0 1 3 , 1 d e c l a r e d t h e r e c o r d closed. V ye^^€d \it e^A 1^ a d d i t i o n t o m y FINDINGS set f o r t h in s u m m a r y o n page o n e a b o v e ,

oT^jJ^

^^T^^^5

r v D f r c o l . <ju^ a\3^ ' ^^'^D t h a t any "lien" practice i n v o l v i n g e i t h e r p a r t y o r t h e i r agents is ^IcJ^d contrary t o the good faith and confidentiality expectations of this arbitration. tvvcaAi ^V^^ ^"1^^^ Hs{<*kxii 1^4^^ m ^^Tfi^ J W t | W - £ a c h p a r t y is b o u n d by t h e i r w r i t t e n p r o m i s e "to k e e p t h e a w a r d c o n f i d e n t i a l ^ - f l t r T t y i ^ E ! " ^ ... e x e c u t e all d o c u m e n t s necessary t o m a i n t a i n such c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . " In his c\cix> e ^ ^ ^ ^ ' o r t h c o m i n g M o t i o n f o r reasonable fees and costs as t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y , K « c ^ i a«^s^f C l a i m a n t shall set f o r t h a n d t h o r o u g h l y e x p l a i n his i n v o l v e m e n t , if any, in any n/vnti^e^ S^c^ "lien" practice a n d shall f u r t h e r s h o w cause as t o w h y any and all m o n e y r^c4 ^/^cci^damages, fees, a n d costs a w a r d e d C l a i m a n t s h o u l d n o t be e s c r o w e d by n o t a n d is n o t i n v o l v e d in lien practice r e g a r d i n g any p e r s o n w h a t s o e v e r , o r business, c o r p o r a t i o n , l a w f i r m , or t h e AAA, i n v o l v e d , i d e n t i f i e d , o r n a m e d in '^^^^-esc^^ \T,

Respondent's a t t o r n e y s u n t i l t h e r e is s u f f i c i e n t a f f i r m a t i v e p r o o f C l a i m a n t w a s ^ ^ / ^ ^ ,

any f a s h i o n w h a t s o e v e r in t h i s a r b i t r a t i o n . G o i n g f o r w a r d f r o m t h e d a t e o f t h i s Partial Final A w a r d , o f f e n s i v e lien practice b y e i t h e r p a r t y or a n y o f t h e i r agents, i d e n t i f y i n g , i n v o l v i n g , or n a m i n g a n y p e r s o n , business, c o r p o r a t i o n , l a w f i r m , o r t h e AAA w h a t s o e v e r , h^^f^ <?b«u^ is p e r m a n e n t l y e n j o i n e d .

I FIND i n s u f f i c i e n t nexus b e t w e e n any i n d i v i d u a l person n a m e d as a m o n g H o v e n ( W i n i a r s k I ) , a n d t h e y are dismissed f r o m t h i s m a t t e r . I FIND t h a t t h e a r b i t r a t i o n a g r e e m e n t s are n o t u n c o n s c i o n a b l e . J P l ^ ^ ^^^^ I — \<^<^W^^ ^ sep^a^ K^^C- C,^^ '^^'^'^c^

JeA>"^ijEMi'iV'i(|l3Respondents, i n c l u d i n g , b u t n o t necessarily l i m i t e d t o , Jeffrey M e a d e a n d Sarah o^Y\p )«-tfvA >-/co^^k|A.<zAf' siAc^i^\rs^^ sffiic ff - i * -^e^ ftii(cx>

^ ^ ^ ^ j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e p o l i t i c a l q u e s t i o n d o c t r i n e Political q u e s t i o n s o f

r e l a t e d Issues. N e i t h e r does any c o u r t o r a r b i t r a t o r .

m a g n i t u d e alleged b y C l a i m a n t can be r e s o l v e d o n l y b y t h e legislative a n d Sullivan, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (13^^ E d i t i o n 1997) a t 4 5 - 4 6 "...political

6<^fcvy pkjllo, e x e c u t i v e e l e c t e d branches o f g o v e r n m e n t . See, Gerald G u n t h e r a n d K a t h l e e n \ccn^ q u e s t i o n s are i n a p p r o p r i a t e f o r j u d i c i a l r e s o l u t i o n a n d are t h e r e f o r e W^YNt i ^ r ^ n o n l u s t i c i a b l e " N ^ " < ^ ^ / i " \^ < > N d C ^ ^ W M ^ I i*' asslf-^Uuch

\^^^\iicti. <^^^<z Cdik} "^1^"^^*^''"^ c u ^ v^v

o f Claimant's t h e o r y o f his case invokes his desire t o achieve t h e

^^^'"T ^ e r a d i c a t i o n o f w h a t he alleges is a W h i t e S u p r e m a c i s t Jewish r e g i m e a n d t h e

^^^^^Pj]'^'^^ c o r r e s p o n d i n g s t r u c t u r a l redesign o f t h e p o l i t i c a l , e c o n o m i c a n d social o r d e r o f ^-^^-^ t h e U n i t e d States, e^.ciy'cu^ c<yvhoue (-oe/i^a^t'iA ^^cK^riS ^n-ocJ^ / '^-"S^if^^'JT

H"^ ' M ^ J ^ " ! ^
cLsmt>i»^ ^ '^,^V<i^b^K)0 J -KtV ^^ncyipv^lc
COVJW

The a n t i t r u s t l a w e l e m e n t s o f Claimant's case are l i k e w i s e n o t j u s t i c i a b l e

in t h i s a r b i t r a t i o n . They are t o o closely i n t e r w o v e n w i t h t h e p o l i t i c a l q u e s t i o n d o c t r i n e a n d w i t h Claimant's r e p e a t e d r e i t e r a t i o n s o f Respondent's a n d Respondent's a t t o r n e y s alleged c r i m i n a l c o n d u c t t o be addressed in t h i s

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ i t r a t i o n . I ORDER t h a t Claimant's p o l i t i c a l q u e s t i o n a n d a n t i t r u s t claims a r e dismissed f r o m t h i s a r b i t r a t i o n . Ac^>\-^''^^^ '^^^'{^ dic<U •f^^^'^^^-

Iv<x\hcul'^"L MfoAs V a\\irj clt\ f

I FIND t h a t C l a i m a n t l i b e l e d R e s p o n d e n t

a n d Respondent's a t t o r n e y s . Z w e i g a n d Carbone engaged

^l ^|^J |2t |^\^'3''^3"t states t h a t he raised claims o|^4e/wl,j(.d loj f r a u d " v i o l a t i n g , i n t e r alia, RICO.

" c r i m i n a l c o n d u c t o n W i l l i a m M o r r i s ' b e h a l f ...conspiracy, c o l l u s i o n , a n d I a w a r d t h e $1,000 counterclaim of

cua xl^v (<?( ^^j^ oo^()'^^

R e s p o n d e n t . This $1,000 shall be s u b t r a c t e d f r o m t h e m o n e y d a m a g e s a w a r d e d Jt6 C l a i m a n t . Rather t h a n c l u t t e r t h i s Partial Final A w a r d w i t h a l i t a n y o f l i b e l , I <^^'^

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ d i r e c t Respondent's l a w y e r s t o p r o v i d e a list o f case c i t a t i o n s c o r r o b o r a t i n g

Claimant's u n p r o t e c t e d speech as l i b e l o u s / d e f a m a t o r y t o t h e AAA t o f o r w a r d t o Claimant and copied t o me. H a v i n g f o u n d t h a t p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y Claimant w a s d i s c r i m i n a t e d against o n t h e basis o f his race, and h a v i n g f o u n d t h a t Respondent's w o r k place Is n o t v i a b l e f o r Claimant's r e t u r n t o w o r k : U>tfe^UVedcf Aojz4^ Sc^v.20ois^'^hrojr A>'^«( O>^<^\'co^ ^ 1 ^'^^ ' ORDER back p a y f o r C l a i m a n t f r o m t h e A u g u s t 2 0 1 0 d a t e h e w a s ^(Zo//| \ / V i Lci/Hv) f\/\p^]S-, \/^lO^\'\jC shall be at liis

r e m o v e d f r o m Respondent's p a y r o l l a n d his b u y - o u t at f u l l pay ceased t h r o u g h t h e d a t e o f t h i s PARTIAL FINAL AWARD. This a m o u n t o f back pay o r i e i n o l h i r e r a t e o f $400 per w e e k . I ORDER t h r e e years o f f r o n t p a y g o i n g f o r w a r d f r o m t h e d a t e o f t h i s PARTIAL FINAL A W A R D . This a m o u n t o f f r o n t p a y shall bo calculated a n d a w a r d e d a t t h e r a t e o f $75,000 p o r a n n u m (see pages 16-17 a n d f o o t n o t e 2 5 ,

. ^ ^ j ^ ^ ^ ^ l ^ l a i m a n t ' s M o t i o n f o r Clarification of Second I n t e r i m Decision) -fcoWvV s(rnl[o^[J sifc^M v ^ v ^ oj^d^^ j ' ORDER C l a i m a n t t o f i l e his d e t a i l e d (by d a t e , hour, a n d w o r k d e s c r i p t i o n ) M o t i o n f o r reasonable fees a n d costs o n o r b e f o r e January 3 1 , 2 0 1 4 . I ORDER C l a i m a n t also t o set f o r t h t h e a m o u n t a n d t y p e (e.g. c o m p e n s a t o r y r a t i o n a l e f o r same. As s t a t e d a b o v e regarding Respondent's and/or

\/vii,f^i|'^evjPunitive) o f damages he claims b e y o n d actual back p a y a n d f r o n t pay, a n d his bureaucratic ^ ^ ^ ( ( ^ ^ J/VMcTlor^ 'r'k>^l-»(»-f<5( ^^)'^'^) Q| iTj*^ , rvi^^^^V ^v\^<r^ ^Jj^^^ e l o n g a t i o n o f r e a d i l y ascertainable h i r i n g d a t a , f o r e x a m p l e , I a m p a r t i c u l a r l y a m e n a b l e t o a p p r o p r i a t e r e c o m p e n s e a w a r d e d f o r a v o i d a b l e delays a n d I d i r e c t ^ ' V ' ^ t p o t i o n . If C l a i m a n t needs m o r e t i m e b e y o n d January 3 1 , 2014, d u e t o t h e h o l y days/national

" t K ^ 'Wf'<A(|jtlalmant's a t t e n t i o n especially t o address such instances i n his f o r t h c o m i n g ' ^ ^ ' ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ h r i s t m a s . N e w Year, a n d Rev. Dr. M a r t i n Luther King, Jr.

r-Zosjr^S
'

*^°''^3y*' C l a i m a n t m a y r e q u e s t s a m e o f m e v i a AAA a n d a n y such reasonable ^ o ^ ^ J j ^ ^ r e q u e s t shall b e l i b e r a l l y g r a n t e d . Respondent shall have 3 0 days f o l l o w i n g Respondent's r e c e i p t f r o m t h e AAA o f Claimant's M o t i o n s t o r e s p o n d t o same, a n d C l a i m a n t shall have 30 days t h e r e a f t e r t o f i l e a f i n a l reply.

A j ^ < V o ^ i ' < v \

((.^'ffve relief {-fo^idVAt^

rzoCv^

'V*<i'-io«M

12

All filings shall be s u b m i t t e d t o AAA f o r f o r w a r d i n g t o m e a n d t o t h e opposing party.

So O r d e r e d ,

David L. Gregory

I, D a v i d L. Gregory, a f f i r m t h a t , o n t h i s 1 7 t h Day of D e c e m b e r , 2 0 1 3 , I have e x e c u t e d t h i s d o c u m e n t as m y Partial Final A w a r d in t h i s m a t t e r .

David L. Gregory

Partial final award

13

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful