A few years ago i wrote and updated a involving what i considered as the possible dishonest acts between my former employerS) [interactive college of technology, elmer smith, and thomas blair] and federal agencies such as eeoc, osha, wage & hour and the doe. The purpose of the report was to demonstrate how eeoc and other federal agencies accepted the employer’s reasoning for its adverse actions without any documented proof of what was being expressed, ignored undeviating racial discrimination between alleged like circumstances of theft involving a negro and white male studentS); and, how eeoc [the protector of civil rights] altered information and forged my name onto an official eeoc form 5 intended for the detriment of my claim and for the advantage of the employer with full impunity from criminal misconduct. Now enters the northern district of georgia who have previously manipulated facts or rules of discovery/evidence within this case, and who will now decide ict’s summary judgment motion based on the following rebuttal: this legal action involves allegations of racial discrimination in pay, retaliatory demotion, and retaliatory discharge from employment against interactive college of technology Ict) and its agents elmer smith Campus president) and thomas blair V.P. Dean of college); as well as racial discrimination under like circumstances involving alleged bad acts Theft) by an african-american and a caucasian maleS) federal college work study Cws) students working under plaintiff’s directions, and given as two of three reasons for robertson’s demotion Poor managerial decisions within a ninety-day period) from his managerial position. Carl robertson went to interactive college of technology as a student from 2006 through 2007 where he acquired a hvac-r certification.
In january 2008, plaintiff was hired as a full-time maintenance technician by william spyers; and, by october 2008 elmer smith had promoted robertson to a maintenance co/manager’s position along with william spyers who held the position of maintenance supervisor for several years before being placed into a co/manager’s position along with robertson. On the day of plaintiff’s promotion to the co/manager’s position he was instructed by elmer smith that he Robertson) would be responsible for all administrative and personnel decisions as a means of relieving stress from william spyers whose duties were drastically reduced. While employed with ict from january 2008 through december 2012, carl robertson never received any type of oral or written warnings that were placed within his personnel files/records for any failures to accept responsibilities, confrontational attitude with supervisors or employees, harassment of full-time maintenance employees, and/or disregarding workplace rules; and, robertson’s appraisals demonstrates that he had very satisfactory work performances and received raises based on his work performance.
However, in july 2012, robertson did received a one week suspension for insubordination Placed within his personnel file) which he rebutted as no more than a means for defendantS) to make it appear that he was incapable of doing his job properly. The routine scheduling practices of the maintenance department, established by william spyers over several years in completing extraordinary tasks was suddenly altered by thomas blair; even though blair and smith had assigned over forty (40) extraordinary tasks to be completed for an upcoming counsel on occupational education Coe) inspection. Thomas blair and elmer smith both knew and understood, that plaintiff and william spyers Spanning a four year period) would on many occasions work together on weekends when necessary to complete certain assignments as a means to avoid overtime. When thomas blair changed that particular routine practice he knew that william spyers Now deceased) was no longer around to help robertson as a means to avoid overtime and/or the changing of maintenance employees work schedules. Plaintiff have accused defendantS) of extending that one week suspension for insubordination into two weeks without pay For research of robertson’s racial discrimination complaint which never occurred) after filing an internal complaint based on ict’s Eeo) policies in relationship to compensation discrimination and other possible forms of racial animus. Ict’s legitimate non-discriminatory/non-retaliatory explanation for its reasons to pay lower wages to robertson based on william spyers seniority, plaintiff’s suspension for insubordination, demotion for poor managerial decisions, and eventual termination for not calling his direct supervisor are all based on pretext to cover-up defendantS) alleged racial and retaliatory acts against plaintiff. Carl robertson was discharged from employment on december 26, 2012, for not calling his direct supervisor thomas blair although plaintiff called each day absent; and, robertson was never informed by anyone within the maintenance department or ict’s administration that his job was in jeopardy, and/or he needed to call thomas blair.
Further, plaintiff did not receive the required appraisal for a demotion with a salary decrease which should have informed him of ict’s expectations after his demotion. Plaintiff accuses elmer smith and eventually thomas blair of harboring racism, as well as bias attitudes towards robertson when compared to william spyers Caucasian male), when compared to b. C. Caucasian female), when compared to l. N. Caucasian female), when compared to j. M. Caucasian male), when compared to d. F. Guamanian male), when compared to v. R. Hispanic male), when compared to c. T.-r. African-american female), and when compared to kenneth hamm Caucasian male). Since elmer smith, as the final decision maker never made any attempt to investigate the alleged racism or wrongdoings complained about against thomas blair and/or himself. Blair’s individual racist, bias, and retaliatory attitude concerning robertson’s demotion and discharge from employment is imputed to elmer smith under § 1981 and the “cat’s paw theory of liability;” as well as racial discrimination under like circumstances involving an african-american and caucasian students working under plaintiff’s directions. “although ethical codes require judges to disclose facts bearing upon their impartiality, they don't always do so. They sit on cases in which they have undisclosed relationships with parties, their attorneys, or have interests in the outcome, and do so deliberately because they wish to advantage either one side over another or sometimes themselves. They exercise their wide discretion in that side's favor. That's the side for whom deadlines are flexible and for whom procedural standards and evidentiary rules don't apply. A common thread running through judicial misconduct cases is litigation misconduct by the favored side. Meanwhile, the other side struggles to meet inflexible deadlines, and has its worthy motions denied. In extreme cases, a judicial process predicated on standards of conduct, elementary legal principles, rules of evidence, simply ceases to exist.” without merit: the empty promise of judicial discipline, elena ruth sassower; massachusetts school of law, “the long term view”, volume 4, number i, (1997). Elena ruth sassower co-founder and coordinator, center for judicial accountability, inc.
EEOC Unnecessary Criminal Activity, You Be the Judge. On December 26, 2012, I was discharged from employment approximately four (4) hours after signing EEOC Form 5 with EEOC Atlanta District Office (Investigator, Larry Satterwhite). [The charge alleged racial discrimination in pay disparity and retaliatory demotion, and was based on the fact that during the month of July 2012; I had filed a complaint of pay disparity with the institution [Interactive College of Technology] who I was working for, and against the Campus President and Dean of College. I followed the procedures as written within their company policy, and submitted the complaint to the Human Resources Department].
Thirteen (13) days earlier (December 13, 2012); I was demoted from my managerial position of four years, for some bad managerial decisions within a ninety (90) day period, starting in September 2012. The decision for my demotion was made by Thomas Blair (Dean of College), and approved of by Elmer Smith (Owner/Campus President). Reasons for Demotion: (a.) September 2012, an African-American Male student is accused of stealing $1,000.00 and some checks without any substantial proof that the young man stole anything. The Caucasian Employees who counted the money were never considered suspect in the theft. The money and checks were supposedly left on one of the employee's desk inside a purse, inside a bag, inside a money bag. None of the Caucasian employees or manager were reprimanded for this incident, and neither did the employees who counted the money follow protocol as required in immediately depositing the money and checks with the school's Banking Institution. The African-American student was removed from the Work Study Program, expelled from school, and informed to not return to the school's premises at all. Since the student worked under my directions, I was demoted for this incident. The employer claimed that students were unauthorized to work within that location, but I provided documentary evidence to EEOC demonstrating that the employer's explanation was totally untrue, and the rule used was not implemented until after the theft incident.
(b.) A Caucasian Male student is accused of theft with proof of stealing two (2) $1,000.00 laptop computers. The incident is caught on the surveillance equipment, and it was I who studied and examined the recording. The student claimed that he had cleaned up in the office area where the laptops were stolen from, and the only reason for his re-entering the office later that day was to find his personal key for home. After re-examination of the recording the students story was completely fabricated. Several individuals observed the theft at my request for verification purposes, and some also observed as I did; that earlier during that day the only other person who entered that office was the Dean of College. Snap shots of the incident was taken, and left for the Dean requesting a meeting between he and I, before speaking with the student, because "the students story does not jive." The Dean ignored the request for a meeting, met with the student, allowed the student to return to work (I had suspended the student until further notice), and on the very next day (December 13, 2012) I was demoted from my managerial position of four years, because the student worked under my directions. The Caucasian Male student was not removed from the Work Study Program due to the theft, was not expelled from school, and was allowed to return (1) of the $1,000.00 laptops that was stolen.
Where is the justification for these type actions? Why was the African-American student treated so unfairly, and why was the Caucasian Male student made justified? Why was the African-American manager demoted, and why was nothing done to the Caucasian manager concerning the theft of $1,000.00 and checks stolen from within her department that was counted and left unsecured by her employee(s). Why did the Dean of College ignore a request for a meeting concerning the stolen laptops? Does this appear to be a set-up for the demotion of the African-American manager who had filed a complaint of racial discrimination a few months earlier? The only person (besides the accused student) who entered the room where the laptops were stolen from was the Dean of College. Why would EEOC (Investigator, Larry Satterwhite who typed the initial charge) try to dismiss my charge based on termination from employment? Why would EEOC claim that there was no violations within my charge of the Title VII Statute that they enforce? Why after arguing the dismissal based on employment discharge, would EEOC forge my name onto a newly typed EEOC Form 5, and add information to that form affirming that I consented to and authorized that information, when I had not? How many others has this happened to? What person within their right mind will commit an unnecessary criminal act on behalf of another, and not receive some form of compensation for that act? Why would the government agencies with the authority to investigate public corruption (forgery and false altering of a document is a crime) choose to ignore the matter, or pass the buck elsewhere? You be the Judge!
Interactive College of Technology Reviews
A few years ago i wrote and updated a involving what i considered as the possible dishonest acts between my former employerS) [interactive college of technology, elmer smith, and thomas blair] and federal agencies such as eeoc, osha, wage & hour and the doe. The purpose of the report was to demonstrate how eeoc and other federal agencies accepted the employer’s reasoning for its adverse actions without any documented proof of what was being expressed, ignored undeviating racial discrimination between alleged like circumstances of theft involving a negro and white male studentS); and, how eeoc [the protector of civil rights] altered information and forged my name onto an official eeoc form 5 intended for the detriment of my claim and for the advantage of the employer with full impunity from criminal misconduct. Now enters the northern district of georgia who have previously manipulated facts or rules of discovery/evidence within this case, and who will now decide ict’s summary judgment motion based on the following rebuttal: this legal action involves allegations of racial discrimination in pay, retaliatory demotion, and retaliatory discharge from employment against interactive college of technology Ict) and its agents elmer smith Campus president) and thomas blair V.P. Dean of college); as well as racial discrimination under like circumstances involving alleged bad acts Theft) by an african-american and a caucasian maleS) federal college work study Cws) students working under plaintiff’s directions, and given as two of three reasons for robertson’s demotion Poor managerial decisions within a ninety-day period) from his managerial position. Carl robertson went to interactive college of technology as a student from 2006 through 2007 where he acquired a hvac-r certification.
In january 2008, plaintiff was hired as a full-time maintenance technician by william spyers; and, by october 2008 elmer smith had promoted robertson to a maintenance co/manager’s position along with william spyers who held the position of maintenance supervisor for several years before being placed into a co/manager’s position along with robertson. On the day of plaintiff’s promotion to the co/manager’s position he was instructed by elmer smith that he Robertson) would be responsible for all administrative and personnel decisions as a means of relieving stress from william spyers whose duties were drastically reduced. While employed with ict from january 2008 through december 2012, carl robertson never received any type of oral or written warnings that were placed within his personnel files/records for any failures to accept responsibilities, confrontational attitude with supervisors or employees, harassment of full-time maintenance employees, and/or disregarding workplace rules; and, robertson’s appraisals demonstrates that he had very satisfactory work performances and received raises based on his work performance.
However, in july 2012, robertson did received a one week suspension for insubordination Placed within his personnel file) which he rebutted as no more than a means for defendantS) to make it appear that he was incapable of doing his job properly. The routine scheduling practices of the maintenance department, established by william spyers over several years in completing extraordinary tasks was suddenly altered by thomas blair; even though blair and smith had assigned over forty (40) extraordinary tasks to be completed for an upcoming counsel on occupational education Coe) inspection. Thomas blair and elmer smith both knew and understood, that plaintiff and william spyers Spanning a four year period) would on many occasions work together on weekends when necessary to complete certain assignments as a means to avoid overtime. When thomas blair changed that particular routine practice he knew that william spyers Now deceased) was no longer around to help robertson as a means to avoid overtime and/or the changing of maintenance employees work schedules. Plaintiff have accused defendantS) of extending that one week suspension for insubordination into two weeks without pay For research of robertson’s racial discrimination complaint which never occurred) after filing an internal complaint based on ict’s Eeo) policies in relationship to compensation discrimination and other possible forms of racial animus. Ict’s legitimate non-discriminatory/non-retaliatory explanation for its reasons to pay lower wages to robertson based on william spyers seniority, plaintiff’s suspension for insubordination, demotion for poor managerial decisions, and eventual termination for not calling his direct supervisor are all based on pretext to cover-up defendantS) alleged racial and retaliatory acts against plaintiff. Carl robertson was discharged from employment on december 26, 2012, for not calling his direct supervisor thomas blair although plaintiff called each day absent; and, robertson was never informed by anyone within the maintenance department or ict’s administration that his job was in jeopardy, and/or he needed to call thomas blair.
Further, plaintiff did not receive the required appraisal for a demotion with a salary decrease which should have informed him of ict’s expectations after his demotion. Plaintiff accuses elmer smith and eventually thomas blair of harboring racism, as well as bias attitudes towards robertson when compared to william spyers Caucasian male), when compared to b. C. Caucasian female), when compared to l. N. Caucasian female), when compared to j. M. Caucasian male), when compared to d. F. Guamanian male), when compared to v. R. Hispanic male), when compared to c. T.-r. African-american female), and when compared to kenneth hamm Caucasian male). Since elmer smith, as the final decision maker never made any attempt to investigate the alleged racism or wrongdoings complained about against thomas blair and/or himself. Blair’s individual racist, bias, and retaliatory attitude concerning robertson’s demotion and discharge from employment is imputed to elmer smith under § 1981 and the “cat’s paw theory of liability;” as well as racial discrimination under like circumstances involving an african-american and caucasian students working under plaintiff’s directions. “although ethical codes require judges to disclose facts bearing upon their impartiality, they don't always do so. They sit on cases in which they have undisclosed relationships with parties, their attorneys, or have interests in the outcome, and do so deliberately because they wish to advantage either one side over another or sometimes themselves. They exercise their wide discretion in that side's favor. That's the side for whom deadlines are flexible and for whom procedural standards and evidentiary rules don't apply. A common thread running through judicial misconduct cases is litigation misconduct by the favored side. Meanwhile, the other side struggles to meet inflexible deadlines, and has its worthy motions denied. In extreme cases, a judicial process predicated on standards of conduct, elementary legal principles, rules of evidence, simply ceases to exist.” without merit: the empty promise of judicial discipline, elena ruth sassower; massachusetts school of law, “the long term view”, volume 4, number i, (1997). Elena ruth sassower co-founder and coordinator, center for judicial accountability, inc.
EEOC Unnecessary Criminal Activity, You Be the Judge. On December 26, 2012, I was discharged from employment approximately four (4) hours after signing EEOC Form 5 with EEOC Atlanta District Office (Investigator, Larry Satterwhite). [The charge alleged racial discrimination in pay disparity and retaliatory demotion, and was based on the fact that during the month of July 2012; I had filed a complaint of pay disparity with the institution [Interactive College of Technology] who I was working for, and against the Campus President and Dean of College. I followed the procedures as written within their company policy, and submitted the complaint to the Human Resources Department].
Thirteen (13) days earlier (December 13, 2012); I was demoted from my managerial position of four years, for some bad managerial decisions within a ninety (90) day period, starting in September 2012. The decision for my demotion was made by Thomas Blair (Dean of College), and approved of by Elmer Smith (Owner/Campus President). Reasons for Demotion: (a.) September 2012, an African-American Male student is accused of stealing $1,000.00 and some checks without any substantial proof that the young man stole anything. The Caucasian Employees who counted the money were never considered suspect in the theft. The money and checks were supposedly left on one of the employee's desk inside a purse, inside a bag, inside a money bag. None of the Caucasian employees or manager were reprimanded for this incident, and neither did the employees who counted the money follow protocol as required in immediately depositing the money and checks with the school's Banking Institution. The African-American student was removed from the Work Study Program, expelled from school, and informed to not return to the school's premises at all. Since the student worked under my directions, I was demoted for this incident. The employer claimed that students were unauthorized to work within that location, but I provided documentary evidence to EEOC demonstrating that the employer's explanation was totally untrue, and the rule used was not implemented until after the theft incident.
(b.) A Caucasian Male student is accused of theft with proof of stealing two (2) $1,000.00 laptop computers. The incident is caught on the surveillance equipment, and it was I who studied and examined the recording. The student claimed that he had cleaned up in the office area where the laptops were stolen from, and the only reason for his re-entering the office later that day was to find his personal key for home. After re-examination of the recording the students story was completely fabricated. Several individuals observed the theft at my request for verification purposes, and some also observed as I did; that earlier during that day the only other person who entered that office was the Dean of College. Snap shots of the incident was taken, and left for the Dean requesting a meeting between he and I, before speaking with the student, because "the students story does not jive." The Dean ignored the request for a meeting, met with the student, allowed the student to return to work (I had suspended the student until further notice), and on the very next day (December 13, 2012) I was demoted from my managerial position of four years, because the student worked under my directions. The Caucasian Male student was not removed from the Work Study Program due to the theft, was not expelled from school, and was allowed to return (1) of the $1,000.00 laptops that was stolen.
Where is the justification for these type actions? Why was the African-American student treated so unfairly, and why was the Caucasian Male student made justified? Why was the African-American manager demoted, and why was nothing done to the Caucasian manager concerning the theft of $1,000.00 and checks stolen from within her department that was counted and left unsecured by her employee(s). Why did the Dean of College ignore a request for a meeting concerning the stolen laptops? Does this appear to be a set-up for the demotion of the African-American manager who had filed a complaint of racial discrimination a few months earlier? The only person (besides the accused student) who entered the room where the laptops were stolen from was the Dean of College. Why would EEOC (Investigator, Larry Satterwhite who typed the initial charge) try to dismiss my charge based on termination from employment? Why would EEOC claim that there was no violations within my charge of the Title VII Statute that they enforce? Why after arguing the dismissal based on employment discharge, would EEOC forge my name onto a newly typed EEOC Form 5, and add information to that form affirming that I consented to and authorized that information, when I had not? How many others has this happened to? What person within their right mind will commit an unnecessary criminal act on behalf of another, and not receive some form of compensation for that act? Why would the government agencies with the authority to investigate public corruption (forgery and false altering of a document is a crime) choose to ignore the matter, or pass the buck elsewhere? You be the Judge!