You are on page 1of 7

WAR ON CIVIL RIGHTS

The Democratic Tyranny In The USA


This Is a classic case demonstrating how We-
The-People are being sold-out by State
Agencies who have a constitutional duty to
guarantee due process, and the equal
protection of law, to U.S.A. Citizens.
Instead of carrying out their constitutional duty, they violate
the constitution, and they make deals with the employer, they
serve the private interests of the employer, and disregard
their mandatory duty to act in the PUBLIC INTEREST.

Instead of calling themselves a human rights agency.

This is what they should be called:

The Minnesota Department of [FALSE] Human Rights and [FAKE] Social Justice
Where The Law and It’s Policies are Only Executed Through A
Fraudulent Criminal Mind.

Read The Case Attached Herewith, and Discover how to beat them
at their own fraudulent practices, and how to prevail when they
conspire with the employer against you…

1
Minnesota Department of
HUMAN RIGHTS
[[[ DRAFTED COPY ]]]
March 16, 2011

REF: 56992
Joshua Israel
v.
Pierson Pizza, dba Domino’s

Joshua Israel
[ Address ]

Pierson Pizza
13993 Anderson Lakes Park
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
ATTN: Jeff Pierson,

The Department of Human Rights has reviewed the issues related to, and the information
provided in connection with the above-referenced charge.

Based upon that review, and under the authority granted by Minnesota Statute, §363A.28,
sub.6(h), the Commissioner has determined not to process this charge further. Under this
authority the Commissioner may determine which charges are processed and the order in which
charges are processed. The Commissioner may dismiss a charge if further use of the
Department’s resources is not warranted. THIS CHARGE HAS BEEN DISMISSED
PURSUANT TO THAT AUTHORITY. The basis for this decision is outlined on the enclosed
memorandum.

The Department will take no further action on this matter. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
§363A.33, sub 1(1), the Charging Party may bring a civil action against the Respondent in the
district court within 45 days of receipt of the dismissal of this case.

Sincerely’

Kevin M. Lindsey, Commissioner


Minnesota Department of Human Rights

Enclosure(s)

C: Edward E. Beckmann

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER


Sibley Square at Mears Park – 190 East 5th Street, Suite 700 – Saint Paul Minnesota 55101
Tel 651.296.5663 – TTY 651.296.1283 – TF 800.657.3704 Fax 651.296.9042 * www.humanrights.state.mn.us

2
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN RIGHTS
November 21, 2010
MDHR: Ref: 56992
Reprisal For Case #56365
Charging Party’s’ Joshua J. Israel
Demonstration of Pretext vs.
Pierson Pizza, dba Domino’s

PRETEXT FOR DISCRIMINATION

In rebuttal to Respondent’s ANSWER filed herewith, the Charging Party, Joshua J. Israel,
will demonstrate that Respondent, PIERSON PIZZA, dba Domino’s, has failed to meet its
burden of proof to rebut the presumption of reprisal, that Respondent did admit to taking
reprisals against Charging Party, and that Respondent did admit to using physical force for
disciplinary purposes; therefore, to demonstrate that these reasons offered by Respondent is
additional proof of reprisal that does demonstrate pretext, Charging Party states as follows:

1. On the 5th day of November, 2010, the Charging Party received the Answer of the
Respondent, forwarded from the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR).

2. After review of Respondent’s ANSWER, Charging Party discovered that no evidence is


produced to rebut the presumption of reprisal for protected activity; that no evidence of
disciplinary action was produced to sustain its legitimate business reasons; that no evidence
of any violation of employer work rules have been produced; and no job description or duty
assignments has been produced for notice and knowledge requirements.

3. In addition to the void of evidence, Charging Party discovered that no Affidavit from
Jennifer Lang is produced to dispute the assault and battery allegation of Charging Party;
and, no Affidavit from Anthony Bruce is produced to dispute the intimidation and coercion
allegation of Charging Party; therefore, the allegations of Charging Party are undisputed.

4. Moreover, legal counsel for the Respondent has answered the Charge with generalized
statements containing the beliefs and opinions and contentions of legal counsel, and the
Respondent has only agreed with counsel’s generalized statement. However, Respondent
has not articulated his own affidavit, from his own personal knowledge, as evidence for
consideration Radloff v. First American Natl. Bank, (MN App. 1991) 470 N.W.2d 154, 156-
157. As a result, the ANSWER of Respondent is a bare denial, void of evidentiary support,
which is insufficient to meet its burden of proof, or to rebut the prima facie case.

5. In it’s ANSWER, the Respondent declared that Charging Party did not establish a prima
facie case; therefore, to re-affirm the prima facie case of reprisal for protected activity (1)
the Charging party established that he engaged in statutorily protected activity with the
MDHR; that (2) Charging Party suffering an assault and battery from the three attempts
made by Jennifer Lang to wrestle documents from the hand grasp of Charging Party; and (3)
that there were only three days between the protected MDHR activity and the physical

3
assault upon Complainant by the Respondent Hoover v. Northwest Mortgage Banking, (MN
S. Ct. 2001) 632 N.W.2d 534, 548.

6. Furthermore, the Respondent additionally declared that a McDonnell Douglas v. Green


analysis of a prima facie case must be used, and that a heightened-pleading-standard must
be applied to determine that no prima facie case is brought forth. However, this 24 year old
McDonnell Douglas standard has been over-ruled, annulled, and re-determined by the U. S.
Supreme Court in Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, (S. Ct. 2002) 534 U.S. 506, 510-515. In
Swierkieicz, the Supreme mandated that a prima facie case is NOT required in a Charge of
discrimination; that the Charge must contain only a short and plain statement of a claim
showing that Charging Party is entitled to relief; and additionally, that if Charging Party can
produce direct evidence of discrimination, Charging Party may prevail without proving all
the elements of a prima facie case.

7. Therefore to produce direct evidence of reprisal for protected activity, the knowledge
element of reprisal is established by Respondent’s ANSWER submitted to the MDHR , on
date 7/2/2010; and the knowledge of Jeff Pierson is established when Jeff did discuss Case
#56365 with the Charging Party, on 7/8/2010, and the knowledge of Respondent is when
and where the Respondent did express his own displeasure with said MDHR activity.

8. Thereafter, direct evidence of adverse employment action is established by undisputed


allegations that does admit a physical attack upon Charging Party, and that does admit that
Jennifer Lang did try to wrestle documents from the hand grasp of Charging Party (CP-2).
Since Jennifer Lang failed to rebut the Charge with her own affidavit, the physical attack
upon Charging Party is now undisputed direct evidence of assault and battery, and as a
respondeat superior, the Respondent, Jeff Pierson, is vicariously liable for the actions of
Jennifer Lang; because, Jeff Pierson considered the assault and battery as employment
disciplinary action Oslin v. State, (MN App. 1996) 543 N.W.2d 408, 413.

9. Since Charging Party has alleged that Anthony Bruce was physically present, in the
manager’s office, so as to assist Jennifer Lang, Anthony Bruce admitted that he was an
intimidating and threatening presence during the assault and battery; and, since Anthony
Bruce has failed to rebut this Reprisal with his own affidavit, the allegation of using
coercion and intimidation to obtain a signature on a statement, disputed and alleged to be
false, is undisputed direct evidence of unlawful employment action. Therefore, as
respondeat superior, the Respondent, Jeff Pierson, is vicariously liable for the actions of
Anthony Bruce; because, Jeff Pierson considers the intimidation and coercion of Anthony
Bruce to be disciplinary action Oslin v. State, (MN App. 1996) 543 N.W.2d 408, 413.

10. Since Respondent failed to produce an employee handbook, detailing job assignments and
job descriptions, widely distribution to all its employees, before 7/23/10, then the
Respondent has failed to demonstrate that Charging Party had notice and knowledge of
employer expectations before Charging Party could be held culpable for not obeying them.
Since Charging Party had no notice or knowledge of what the Respondent’s new rules of
observation were, any ambiguity or uncertainty in notice and knowledge requirements is to
be strictly construed against the Respondent St. Louis I. M. & S. Railway Co. v. Blaylock,
(Ark. S. Ct. 1915) 175 S.W. 1170, 1175-1177. Therefore, undisputed direct evidence that no

4
legitimate disciplinary action can be taken against the Charging Party; because, Respondent
has no established rules, or job descriptions, for notice or knowledge requirements.

11. Consequently, direct evidence of reprisal for protected activity is now admitted and
undisputed direct evidence, because the implementation of job descriptions and performance
improvement plans were only initiated after Respondent became aware of MDHR protected
activity; and only after the Respondent did express his dislike for MDHR protected activity
Hoover v. Northwest Mortgage Banking, (MN S. Ct. 2001) 632 N.W.2d 534, 548.

12. Since Jeff Pierson is now asserting that disciplinary action was initiated against Charging
Party, direct evidence of disparate treatment is admitted; because, Jeff Pierson has attested in
it’s prior Answer (in Charge #56365 at p. 3, p. 4, p. 6) that every driver makes mistakes
during the rush hour, that no driver is immune from the possibility of making errors, and that
no driver, or the Charging Party, has been disciplined for making such errors. However, in
contradiction, and only after Jeff Pierson did express his dislike for MDHR protected
activity, Jeff Pierson has now admitted that disciplinary action is now taken against the
Charging Party for errors made during the rush of delivery orders. Consequently, this
sudden change in policy is direct evidence of disparate treatment initiated only after MDHR
activity began, and this clear admission of disparate treatment is now binding upon the
Respondent, and his attorney, and this admitted fact is now conclusive evidence of reprisal
for protected MDHR activity, under Minn. Stat. 363A.15 Johnson v. Canadian Pacific Ltd.,
(MN App. 1994) 522 N.W.2d 386, 389-392.

13. Further direct evidence of reprisal is produced by the events of August 7, 2010, at the
approximate time of 5:20 P.M., when Charging Party was performing pizza delivery, in the
course of employment, and when Charging Party suffered a vehicular breakdown while
delivering a customer pizza order (CP-3).

14. After said pizza delivery was transferred to another driver, the Respondent abandoned the
Charging Party, and compelled Charging Party to pay for his own $70 vehicle tow (CP-4).
After Charging Party did advise Jeff Pierson of the $1108.00 delivery travel expense that did
occur in the course of employment (CP-4), Jeff Pierson refused to reimburse Charging Party
in accordance with the following Fair Labor Standard Act:

Minn. Stat. 177.24(4)(4) Unreimbursed Expenses deducted. No deductions,


direct or indirect may be made for the items listed below which when subtracted
from wages would reduce the wages below the minimum wage. (4) travel
expenses in the course of employment ***.

15. Thereafter, Jeff Pierson falsely reported to Minnesota Unemployment that Charging Party
has quit employment because Charging Party no longer has a working vehicle; however, the
fact that Jeff Pierson has determined Charging Party to be unfit for his other job duties (in
Answer to Charge #56365, p. 4), and the fact that Charging Party’s vehicular breakdown is
the result of Respondent’s refusal to reimburse Charging Party for delivery travel expenses,
the Charging Party is a victim of a constructive terminated from employment, in violation of
the following Fair Labor Standards:

5
Minn. Stat. 177.24(4)(5) Expenses Reimbursement. An employer, at the
termination of employment, must reimburse the full amount deducted , directly or
indirectly, for any of the items listed in Subdivision 4. [M.F.L.S.A. 177.24(4)]
(4) travel expenses in the course of employment, ***.

16. As a result, direct evidence of reprisal and discrimination is demonstrated herewith because
the Respondent must pay Charging Party the Federal Minimum Wage “free and clear” of
obligations to the employer. Therefore, the Respondent violated the Federal Minimum
Wage by refusing to reimburse said travel expense, and when subtracting said travel
expenses from the wages paid (Answer to Charge #56365, p. 5), these travel expenses have
reduced Charging Party’s wages to that which is far below the Federal Minimum Wage
Luiken v. Domino’s Pizza, (U. S. Dist. MN 2009) 654 F. Supp.2d 973, 977-979; Supplement
Memorandum, June 21, 2010 Discussion.

17. In addition, direct evidence of reprisal and constructive discharge is demonstrated, herewith,
because the Respondent falsely claimed that Charging Party quit employment. Since Jeff
Pierson has constructed a termination from employment, without an expense reimbursement
for travel expenses, in the course of employment, direct evidence of disparate treatment and
reprisal is conclusive Luiken v. Domino’s Pizza, (U. S. Dist. MN 2009) 654 F. Supp.2d 973,
977-979; Supplemental Memorandum, June 21, 2010, Discussion.

18. To meet its burden of proof the Respondent did submit an unsworn generalized statement of
a past occurrence that is drafted by his attorney, which contain attorney opinions, beliefs,
conclusions, and allegations; however, none of these statements are sworn-to or verified by
Jennifer Lang or Anthony Bruce; and, none of these statements are from personal
knowledge of Jeff Pierson, or his attorney. Therefore, Charging Party moves for Summary
Judgment of this matter; because, an after the fact generalized statement, prepared by an
attorney, who was not part of the res gestoe, is inadmissible hearsay evidence Vicksburg &
M. R. Co. v. Obrien, (S. Ct. 1886) 119 U.S. 99, 105; and, a narration of a past occurrence, by
the attorney, who has no personal knowledge of the incident is incompetent evidence that
cannot oppose a motion for summary judgment City of Duluth v. St. Louis County, (Minn.
App. 1988) 431 N.W.2d 135, 137.

19. Wherefore, since the demand to dismiss this Charge is inadmissible hearsay evidence and a
bare denial without evidence to support it; since pretext is demonstrated by a clear
admission that an assault and battery was committed for disciplinary purposes; and by the
failure of Respondent to introduce evidence of a legitimate non-discriminatory reason to
justify the use of physical force for disciplinary purposes; causing $25,000 in damages; and,
since the legitimate reasons offered for disciplinary action is an admission of disparate
treatment initiated only against the Charging Party; the proper weight to be afforded to this
prima facie case, and to the ongoing inference of discrimination, properly drawn from a
presumption of discrimination does conclude that Charging Party is the victim of reprisal
and retaliation for protected MDHR activity, and Charging Party moves for summary
judgment, as a matter of law, because, there are no material issues left for adjudication
before an administrative law judge.

By: _____________________________
Joshua J. Israel / Charging Party

6
WEBSITE, ONLINE EMAIL STATEMENT

To: Intake Unit, Minnesota Department of Human Rights, Lucy Gains Johnson.

From: Joshua J. Israel, Charging Party.

Via: Email To: Lucy.Johnson-Gains@state.mn.us

Re: 7/24/2010 – New Retaliation For MDHR Case #56365

After filing a Rebuttal demonstrating PRETEXT for demonstration in MDHR Case #56365 on date
7/21/2010, and when reporting to work at this same Employer (Pierson Pizza), on date 7/24/2010, Asst.
Mgr. Jennifer Lang did assault and batter this Charging Party, with her (3) three attempts to wrestle a
document from the hand-grasp of this Charging Party. Both Jennifer Lang and Anthony Bruce were
trying to obtain this Charging Party's' signature on their (unofficial) Domino's Driver Job Description and
on a Performance Improvement Plan (documents are in my possession); however, since these self serving
documents made Charging Party responsible for any and all mistakes made by the Food Handler, and
since Jennifer Lang's and Anthony Bruce's version of events were FALSE, Charging Party attempted to
write his version of events on the documents before signing said documents. At this instant, Jennifer
Lang attacked Charging Party, three times, and tried to wrestle the document from the hand of Charging
Party. Jennifer Lang stated that Charging Party is not allowed to write anything on her statement or
documents. Prior to filing Charge #56365, neither Jennifer Lang nor Anthony Bruce provided any
training or instruction to Charging Party for any of his Job Duties; however, 3 days after demonstrating
PRETEXT in Case #56365, a sudden rush to initiate job descriptions and performance plans are
implemented to place all blame and responsibility upon Charging Party for any and all errors or mistakes
that the food handler could make, and said job description does coerce the driver to violate the FOOD
CODE of Minnesota. These job descriptions violate the FOOD CODE because the employer does not
provide drivers with a clean outer garment, hair nets, beard net covers, and with designated areas for
cleaning hands and nails, or eating, and smoking cigarettes. Therefore, the use physical force upon
Charging Party to enforce job descriptions and performance plans, immediately after filing a Rebuttal
demonstrating PRETEXT in Case#56365 was served and filed with MDHR, is reprisal and retaliation for
protected activity under the MDHR Act.

Emailed To MDHR By: _____________________________________


Joshua J. Israel /Charging Party
7/24/2010