America Is the Target; Israel Is the Front Line _ Andy Blumenthal _ The Blogs...
09/28/12 EEOC Response & Exhibits
1. RESPONSE TO AUGUST 29, 2012
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
LETTER FROM WILMA L. JAVEY - -
REITERATION TO BE NOTIFIED OF ANY/ALL
CONFLICT-OF INTERESTS1
Submitted September 28, 2012
SUBMITTED TO: VIA U.S. PRIORITY MAIL – RECEIPT NO. 0311 2550 0003 1737 3108
United States Department of Labor
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
ATTN: U.S. Secretary of Labor – Hilda L. Solis
Frances Perkins Building
200 Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20210
VIA U.S. PRIORITY MAIL – RECEIPT NO. 0311 0240 0001 0055 0473
Ohio Civil Rights Commission (“OCRC”)
Central Office
ATTN: G. Michael Payton, Esq. (Executive Director)
30 East Broad Street, 5th Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215
EEOC COMPLAINT(S): Charge No. 473-2012-00832 (The Garretson Firm Resolution Group, Inc.)
Charge No. 473-2012-00837 (Messina Staffing/Messina Management Systems)
1
Newsome relied upon legal resources (i.e. such as PREVIOUS EEOC DECISIONS, PREVIOUS OHIO CIVIL RIGHTS
COMMISSION DECISIONS, EEOC Compliance Manual, United States Code Annotated, Supreme Court of the United States decisions,
United States District Court(s) – Ohio decisions, etc.) in the preparation of this Response. Boldface, underline, italics, HIGHLIGHTS,
caps/small caps added for emphasis.
Page 1 of 9
2. Complainant/Employee: Vogel Denise Newsome (“Newsome”)
Post Office Box 14731
Cincinnati, Ohio 45250
Phone: (513) 680-2922
Respondent(s)/ The Garretson Firm Resolution Group, Inc.
Employer(s): Attn: Sandy Sullivan (Human Resources Representative)
Attn: Matthew Garretson (Founder/Chief Executive Officer)
7775 Cooper Road
Phone: (513) 575-7167 or (513) 794-0400/(888) 556-7526
County: Hamilton County, Ohio
**Ohio Office Having 50+ employees
Messina Staffing/Messina Management Systems
Attn: Vince Messina (President)
11811 Mason-Montgomery Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45249
(513) 774-9187
COMES NOW Complainant Vogel Denise Newsome (“Newsome) and submits this her “RESPONSE TO
THE AUGUST 29, 2012 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION LETTER FROM WILMA
L. JAVEY - - REITERATION To Be NOTIFIED Of ANY/ALL CONFLICT-OF-INTERESTS”
(“RT082912EEOCLetter”) in regards to the above referenced Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(“EEOC”) Complaints and the
“OFFICIAL COMPLAINT/CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION FILED OF AND AGAINST
THE GARRETSON FIRM RESOLUTION GROUP INC. AND/OR MESSINA
STAFFING/MESSINA MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS WITH UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF LABOR - UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION –
CINCINNATI AREA OFFICE and OHIO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION – CENTRAL OFFICE;
AND REQUEST FOR COMMISSIONER CHARGE TO BE ISSUED SUBMITTED FOR FILING
ON APRIL 30, 2012” (hereinafter “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination”)
in these actions.
Attached please find a copy of the EEOC’s letter dated August 29, 2012, from Wilma L. Javey (Director –
Cincinnati, Ohio Area Office) at EXHIBIT “A” attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
In accordance with the statutes and laws governing said matters, this instant “RT082912EEOCLetter” is
submitted to support Newsome’s TIMELY response as well as for purposes of PRESERVING issues raised in the
“Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” and those in her subsequent filings/responses.
Secretary Hilda Solis, as you know, Newsome DEMANDED “to be advised of the „STATUS‟ of the
MANDATORY Deferral of this instant Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Complaint/Charge to the
Page 2 of 9
3. Ohio Civil Rights Commission pursuant to 29 § 1601.13 and other statutes/laws governing said matters. For
instance 29 § 1604.8 addresses how matters are to be handled that involves claims falling within the jurisdiction of
the EEOC and the Ohio Civil Rights Commission” and provided a link of the referenced Statute (29 § 1604.8)
should there be any questions at: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/29-cfr-16048-
processingcompltateagency-highlighted; however, to date, you have DELIBRATELY with MALICIOUS intent
FAILED to DEFER the Complaint(s) to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. As a matter of FEDERAL
Statutes/Laws, Secretary Solis, you are MANDATORILY required to refer/defer Newsome’s Complaints/Charges:
Charge No. 473-2012-00832 (The Garretson Firm Resolution Group, Inc.)
Charge No. 473-2012-00837 (Messina Staffing/Messina Management Systems)
to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. In further support of this instant “RT082912EEOCLetter” the following
FACTS remain UNDISPUTED and, therefore, sustains that yours and the EEOC’s actions are ARBITRARY
and/or CAPRICIOUS Newsome states:
a) That the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission HAS Jurisdiction over Newsome’s
Charge/Complaint and that it has been TIMELY FILED.
b) That DEFERRAL of Newsome’s Charges/Complaints to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission
because it involves claim(s) of AGE DISCRIMINATION, etc.; therefore, deferral is
MANDATORY and NOT a discretionary act to be determined by neither you NOR the
EEOC. Nevertheless, the EEOC has WITH MALICIOUS intent FAILED to defer
Newsome’s Charge/Complaint to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission which has cause
Newsome IRREPABLE injury/harm and deprived her rights secured/guaranteed under the
Civil Rights Act, United States Constitution and other statutes/laws governing said matters.
Moreover, depriving Newsome EQUAL protection of the laws, EQUAL privileges and
immunities under the laws and DUE PROCESS of laws.
c) Secretary Solis, while you are DELIBERATELY and with MALICIOUS intent attempting
to get Newsome to file a Civil Action in Federal Court in regards to her Complaints/Charges,
said Court(s) LACK jurisdiction act as stated in Newsome’s June 21, 2012 pleading entitled,
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT REQUESTS: MANDATORY
DEFERRAL TO THE OHIO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION PURSUANT TO
29 CFR §1601.13/1604.8 AND OTHER GOVERNING STATUTES/LAWS,
MANDATORY COMMISSIONER CHARGE TO ISSUE PURSUANT TO 29
CFR § 1601.6 AND OTHER GOVERNING STATUTES/LAWS, AND
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSION OF LAW REQUESTED
PURSUANT TO OHIO REVISED CODE § 2315.19/FEDERAL RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE RULE 52 AND OTHER GOVERNING
STATUTES/LAWS – COURT’S LACK OF JURISDICTION FOR FAILURE
TO DEFER; REITERATION OF OBJECTIONS AND REITERATION FOR
REQUESTS TO BE ADVISED OF ALL “CONFLICT-OF-INTERESTS”
(“RT06-14-12EEOCLetter”)
Page 3 of 9
4. A copy of which may also be obtained from the Internet at:
http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/062112-response-to-eeoc-061412-letter
Secretary Solis, according to the United States Postal Service records, supporting delivery:
http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/062112-usps-proof-of-mailing-receipt-hilda-solis-g-
michael-payton
Wherein Newsome incorporates by reference the same defenses set forth in her June 21,
2012 pleading and previous filings.
Morris v. Kaiser Engineers, Inc., 471 N.E.2d 471 (Ohio,1984) – State filing is a
mandatory prerequisite to Age Discrimination in Employment Act action. Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, § 14, 29 U.S.C.A. § 633.
Piecuch v. Gulf & Western Mfg. Co., 626 F.Supp. 65 (N.D.Ohio.E.Div.,1985) -
District court lacked jurisdiction over age discrimination action, where plaintiff
had not filed his charge with Ohio Civil Rights Commission. Age Discrimination
in Employment Act of 1967, § 14(b), 29 U.S.C.A. § 633(b).
Furthermore see the following case law:
Ruth Dunn vs. Medina General Hospital, 917 F.Supp. 1185 (N.D. Ohio 1996) -
[3] Ohio is deferral state within meaning of statute mandating that in deferral
states, i.e. states where established agencies are empowered to remedy age
discrimination in employment, person may not bring suit in federal court under
ADEA unless person has commenced proceeding with appropriate state agency.
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, § 14(b), 29 USCA § 633(b). . . .
[3] The Supreme Court has held that 29 U.S.C. § 633(b) mandates that
in states where established agencies are empowered to remedy age discrimination
in employment (deferral states), a person may not bring a suit in federal court
under the ADEA unless she has commenced a proceeding with the appropriate
state agency. Oscar Mayer and Co. v. Evans, 441 U.S. 750, 99 S.Ct. 2066, 60
L.Ed.2d 609 (1979) (emphasis added). . . .Ohio is a deferral state within the
meaning of § 14(b) of the ADEA. Brownlow v. Edgcomb Metals Co., 573 F.Supp.
679, 683 (N.D.Ohio 1983).
EXHIBIT “B” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.
d) Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) Rule 11, Newsome is PROHIBITED
from bring a Lawsuit in which it is KNOWN to her as well as the EEOC and parties involved
that the Court(s) LACK Jurisdiction. Furthermore, Newsome as a matter of the FRCP is
MANDATORILY required to MITIGATE damages and the filing of a Lawsuit in which you
(Secretary Solis) and the EEOC is FULLY aware of CANNOT be filed for LACK of
Jurisdiction because of your DELIBERATE and MALICIOUS FAILURE to defer/refer the
Complaints/Charges regarding this instant matter to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission.
e) UNDISPUTED are the statutes/laws governing said matters supporting that the EEOC is
MANDATORILY required to defer Newsome’s Complaints/Charges to the Ohio Civil
Rights Commission for COST-EFFICIENT purposes and handling. However, Secretary
Solis, you and the EEOC have FAILED to comply and are in violation of the Administrative
Procedure Act and other statutes/laws governing said issues. The Ohio Federal Court(s) are
clear on the MANDATORY requirements of DEFERRAL/REFERRAL. See for instance the
following case(s):
Page 4 of 9
5. Alsup vs. International Union of Bricklayers, 679 F.Supp. 716 (N.D. Ohio 1987) -
[11] In “deferral states” such as Ohio, where the EEOC defers to the state
agency established to investigate charges of discrimination, an EEOC charge
must be filed within 300 days after the alleged unlawful act. Civil Rights Act of
1964, § 706(e), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e–5(f)(1).
[12] When a charge of discrimination is submitted to both the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission and state agency in a “deferral state,” the
EEOC will not formally file its charge of discrimination until after the state
agency has terminated its proceedings or 60 days have elapsed since filing of state
administrative charge, whichever occurs earlier; therefore, state administrative
charge of discrimination must generally be filed within 240 days of the alleged
unlawful practice in order to preserve claimant's right to file a Title VII lawsuit in
federal court. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(e), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §
2000e–5(f)(1).
See EXHIBIT “C” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full
herein. In the May 9, 2012 correspondence from the Ohio Civil Rights Commission’s
Sandra R. Aukeman, it ERRONOUSLY stated that Newsome’s Complaint/Charge was
UNTIMELY filed in that it applied the 180-DAY/SIX MONTHS statute of limitations,
stating,
"The Ohio Civil Rights Act, Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4112, requires
that a charge of discrimination be filed within six months of the date of harm and
therefore the charge is deemed untimely for us to pursue.
Your letter to us indicates both the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and the
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission received identical
documentation. Charges may be filed with the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission within 300 days from the date of harm and therefore could
be considered timely filed with them.
Our agency, the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, is the state admiinistrative
law enforcement agency that administers the Ohio Civiil Rights Act, Ohio Revised
Code Chapter 4112 and we are responsible for investigating charges of RACE,
color, sex, national origin, military status, disability, AGE and religion
discrimination in the areas of employment . . ."
See EXHIBIT “D” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full
herein. The Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in Oscar Mayer & Co. vs. Joseph
Evans, 99 S.Ct. 2066 (1979) is clear that:
[2] Though the Age Discrimination in Employment Act makes resort to
administrative remedies mandatory in states with agencies empowered to
remedy age discrimination in employment, a person aggrieved by alleged age
discrimination is not required by the ADEA to commence the state proceedings
within the time limit specified by state law. Age Discrimination in Employment
Act of 1967, §§ 7(c), 14(b), 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 626(c), 633(b). . .
[1][2] We hold that that § 14(b) mandates that a grievant not bring suit
in federal court under § 7(c) of the ADEA until he has first resorted to
appropriate state administrative proceedings. We also hold, however, that the
grievant is not required by § 14(b) to commence the state proceedings within
time limits specified by state law. In light of these holdings, it is not necessary to
address the question of the circumstances, if any, in which failure to comply with
§ 14(b) may be excused.
[12] Even though the 120-day . . .statute of limitations on age discrimination
claims had run, complainant could comply with the mandatory requirement of
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act that he first resort to state
Page 5 of 9
6. administrative remedies by filing a signed complaint with the . . . State Civil
Rights Commission. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, § 14(b), 29
U.S.C.A. § 633(b). . . .
[12] We therefore hold that respondent may yet comply with the
requirements of § 14(b) by simply filing a signed complaint with the . . . State
Civil Rights Commission. That Commission must be given an opportunity to
entertain respondent's grievance before his federal litigation can continue. . . .
Section 14(b) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 81
Stat. 601, 607, 29 U.S.C. § 633(b), explicitly states that "no suit may be brought"
under the Act until the individual has resorted to the appropriate state remedies. .
. this means that his suit should not have been brought and should now be
dismissed.
EXHIBIT “D” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.
Even the SIXTH Circuit Court of Appeals has decided said issue to support that the Ohio
Civil Rights Commission ERRED in its failure to retain jurisdiction over Newsome’s
“Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” alleging 180-day statute had expired with
KNOWLEDGE and/or should have known that it was subject to the 240-day statute of
limitations.
Rasimas v. Michigan Dept. of Mental Health, 714 F.2d 614 (6th Cir. 1983) -
United States Supreme Court decision interpreting statutory Title VII filing
requirement to preclude charges being filed with Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission in deferral states until 60 days after state fair
employment agency has received notice of allegations may not be applied
retroactively, and therefore instant action, where plaintiff initiated complaint with
EEOC and state civil rights commission 244 days after he was terminated, was
timely filed. Civil Rights Act of 1964, §§ 701 et seq., 706(b), as amended, 42
U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e et seq., 2000e-5(c).
Nevertheless, here are approximately FIVE (5) MONTHS later and Secretary Solis, you and
the EEOC have FAILED to defer/refer Newsome’s Complaint/Charges to the Ohio Civil
Rights Commission.
f) It is UNDISPUTED that United States of America President Barack Obama is also an
Attorney (i.e. licensed to practice law – in fact CONSTITUTIONAL Law as he likes to
share) and has KNOWLEDGE that Newsome’s arguments are SOUND in statutes/laws
governing said issues.
g) It is UNDISPUTED that G. Michael Payton (Executive Director of the Ohio Civil Rights
Commission) is also an attorney. Therefore, it is NOT clear why Secretary Solis, President
Barack Obama, and Mr. Payton have not resolved the issues presented to get the
Complaints/Charges filed with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission.
h) Secretary Solis, you DO NOT dispute the ERROR by the Ohio Civil Rights Commission;
however, you have FAILED to defer/refer this matter to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission
although there is EVIDENCE that the EEOC has KNOWLEDGE of the MANDATORY
“Deferral/Referral” requirements. See For instance Pitts vs. Dayton Power & Light Co.:
Arthur Pitts vs. Dayton Power & Light Co., 748 F.Supp. 527 (1989) - [1]
Terminated employee met requirements for bringing of action under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) when the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission referred the employee's charge to the Ohio Civil Rights
Commission (OCRC) to meet the referral requirements of the ADEA, and the
employee commenced the action under the ADEA more than 60 days after
Page 6 of 9
7. proceedings were commenced with the OCRC. Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967, §§ 14, 14(b), 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 633, 633(b). . . .
Section 633(b) of Title 29 of the United States Code provides in
pertinent part:
In the case of an alleged unlawful practice occurring in a State
which has a law prohibiting discrimination in employment
because of age and establishing or authorizing a State authority
to grant or seek relief from such discriminatory practice, no suit
may be brought under Section 626 of this title before the
expiration of sixty days after proceedings have been
commenced under the State law, unless such proceedings have
been earlier terminated....
the EEOC referred Plaintiff's EEOC charge to the OCRC in order to meet the
referral requirements of § 14 of the ADEA (Doc. # 14, Exh. A) . . .
See EXHIBIT “F” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.
i) Secretary Solis you and the EEOC neither DISPUTE that said issue(s) was raised and
preserved through Newsome June 8, 2012 filing entitled,
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL AND NOTICE OF
RIGHTS, NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
VIOLATIONS, REQUEST FOR EEOC‟S “WRITTEN” DETERMINATION
– FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW, REQUEST FOR
“WRITTEN” TITLE VII INTERPRETATION/OPINION, REQUEST FOR
DEFERRAL TO THE OHIO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, REQUEST
FOR STATUS OF COMMISSION CHARGE TO ISSUE; OBJECTIONS TO
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION‟S MAY 31, 2012
DISMISSAL AND NOTICE OF RIGHTS; RESPONSE TO OHIO CIVIL
RIGHTS COMMISSION‟S LETTER DATED MAY 9, 2012 REGARDING
“YOUR INQUIRY REGARDING POTENTIAL CHARGE OF
DISCRIMINATION;” and 2ND REQUEST TO BE ADVISED OF ALL
“CONFLICT-OF-INTERESTS” (hereinafter “RFROD&NOR. . .”)
A copy which may also be obtained from the Internet:
http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/060812-eeoc-response-final-13269482
Newsome TIMELY, PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY preserved this issue and set forth
demand and RIGHTS to have this instant EEOC Complaint/Charge deferred to the Ohio
Civil Rights Commission through her “RFROD&NOR. . .” See at Pages/Paragraphs: 7/¶ 8,
8/¶ 13, 11/¶ 24, 15/¶33, 18/¶42, 20/¶49 and Pages 29-30 IV.
REQUEST FOR DEFFERAL TO THE OHIO CIVIL RIGHTS
COMMISSION:
http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/060812-eeoc-response-final-13269482
https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a70678e5d5f70afac9c
j) Newsome hereby DEMANDS that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s
Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis (i.e. NOT the Little “Want-To-BeChiefs” as Wilma L.
Javey) advise her in “WRITING” as to whether or not the instant Complaint/Charge brought
against Respondents (The Garretson Firm Resolution Group Inc. and Messina
Page 7 of 9
8. Staffing/Messina Management Systems) has been DEFERRED to the Ohio Civil Rights
Commission as MANDATORILY required by STATUTES/LAWS.
Secretary Solis you and the EEOC have a MANDATORY duty/obligation to MITIGATE
costs in the handling of Newsome’s Complaints/Charges. Have you and the EEOC
done so? NO! Instead, Secretary Solis, you insist on SUBJECTING Newsome to
further INJURY/HARM!
k) In REITERATING Newsome’s DEMAND at Page 7 and Paragraph 7 of “RT06-14-
12EEOCLetter,” Newsome DEMANDS to be advised of the:
“STATUS” of the MANDATORY issuance of COMMISSIONER CHARGE
of this instant Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Complaint/Charge
pursuant to 29 CFR § 1601.6 and other statutes/laws governing said matters.
Newsome’s Complaint/Charge and the issues brought through
pleadings/documents provided clearly support the issuance of COMMISSIONER
Charge. In support of the Equal Employment Commission's KNOWLEDGE that
Newsome’s Complaint/Charge and request set forth therein for the issuance of
COMMISSIONER CHARGE, information may be obtained at the following
links:
http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/commissioner-charge-systematic-task-
force-reporteeoc-highlighted
l) Secretary Solis it is UNDISPUTED that in accordance with the EEOC Guidelines governing
said matters that Newsome is ENTITLED to IMMEDIATE payment of Back Wages of
approximately $29,400 and does NOT have to wait until the completion of this matter;
moreover, yours, the EEOC and President Barack Obama’s efforts to wait until she has
EXHAUSTED her UNEMPLOYMENT Benefits!
m) UNDISPUTED is the fact that the record evidence supports/sustains “INDIVIDUAL” and
“SYSTEMATIC” DISCRIMINATORY practices leveled AGAINST Vogel Denise
Newsome and, therefore, warranting COMMISSIONER CHARGE to issue pursuant to 29
CFR § 1601.6 and other statutes/laws governing said matters . Please advise
Newsome whether or not the COMMISSIONER CHARGE that is also MANDATORILY
required to issue has been implemented. See also “RFROD&NOR. . .” Page 38 at Section
VII (REQUEST OF STATUS OF COMMISSIONER CHARGE TO ISSUE) as well as
Pages 4 – 6 at Section I.
EEOC Document: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/commissioner-
charge-systematic-task-force-reporteeoc-highlighted
WHEREFORE, PREMISES considered, Newsome is DEMANDING that Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis
provide her with a “WRITTEN RESPONSE” by TUESDAY, October 16, 2012, to this instant submittal and
advises that she does NOT waive any rights to have this matter DEFERRED to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission
and DEMANDS that the COMMISSIONER CHARGE issue in this matter.
Page 8 of 9