043012 EEOC & OCRC Complaint/Charge (GarretsonResolutionGroup)

1,176 views

Published on

043012 EEOC & OCRC Complaint/Charge (Garretson Resolution Group)

BRIEF and EXHIBITS can be downloaded at:

https://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a70628a5b6271a86f9f

Published in: News & Politics, Career
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,176
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
148
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

043012 EEOC & OCRC Complaint/Charge (GarretsonResolutionGroup)

  1. 1. The April 30, 2012 Cover Letter(s) and Brief ONLY of the EEOC/ORCComplaint/Charge are presently presented in this document.PLEASE NOTE THE UPDATED LINKS (Because UnitedStates of America President Barack Obama Had Scribd.com Shut Down) FORTHE January 10, 2010: “NOTIFICATION FOR TERMINATION - REQUEST FOR IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II – RESPONSE TO THE ATTACKS ON FLORIDA A&M UNIVERSITY REGARDING ALLEGED HAZING INCIDENT – REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL MILITARY INTERVENTION MAY BE NECESSARY.”CAN BE RETRIEVED/VIEWED IN THE “UPDATED” LINKDOCUMENT AT: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/022712-updated- links-for-obama-eviction-notice-011012finalPLEASE NOTE THE EEOC/OCRC COMPLAINT/CHARGEand EXHIBITS IS A LARGE DOCUMENT YOU CAN REVIEW andDOWNLOADED INFORMATION FROM THE FOLLOWING LINK: https://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/ v.aspx?v=8a70628a5b6271a86f9f
  2. 2. Number of Employees: 15+Discrimination Based On: (1) Race; (2) Age; (3) Retaliation; (4) Other – knowledge of engagement in protected activity(s); and (5) Systematic Discrimination - - - See United States Department of Labor/EEOC’s - Prohibited Employment Policies/Practices at EXHIBIT “LXXVI” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.Date of Hire: January 2011 [Note: Employed as contract employee]Date of Recent Discrimination: Latest: October 21, 2011 (Employment Terminated) October 21, 2011, therefore giving Newsome until approximately April 18, 2012 and/or approximately August 16, 2012 (i.e. in that this charge is covered by state or local anti- discrimination law), to file a Charge of DiscriminationDate of Recent Retaliation: Approximately February 3, 2011 – i.e. Filing of Malicious Lawsuit To Keep Information From Being Released To The PUBLIC2If Violations Are Found: EEOC/Ohio Civil Rights Commission/Ohio Department on Human Rights is to enforce the applicable statutes/laws and seek to eliminate discriminatory practices, Title VII violations/employment violations/civil rights violations made known to it. EEOC/Ohio Civil Rights Commission/Ohio Department on Human Rights shall prevent any person from engaging in unlawful discriminatory practices, provided that, before instituting formal hearing and/or authorized proceedings, it has attempted, by informal methods of conference, conciliation and persuasion, to induce compliance with this chapter. If necessary, 2 EEOC COMPLIANCE MANUAL at No. 3(a), Page 10: Standards Governing Application of the Opposition Clause: a. Manner of Opposition Must Be Reasonable The manner in which an individual protests perceived employment discrimination must be reasonable in order for the anti- retaliation provisions to apply. In applying a "reasonableness" standard, courts and the Commission balance the right of individuals to oppose employment discrimination and the publics interest in enforcement of the EEO laws against an employers need for a stable and productive work environment. Public criticism of alleged discrimination may be a reasonable form of opposition. Courts have protected an employees right to inform an employers customers about the employers alleged discrimination, as well as the right to engage in peaceful picketing to oppose allegedly discriminatory employment practices. - See, e.g., Sumner v. United States Postal Service, 899 F.2d 203 (2d Cir. 1990) (practices protected by opposition clause include writing letters to customers criticizing employers alleged discrimination). See EXHIBIT “LXXXV” – EEOC COMPLIANCE MANUAL attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Page 2 of 196
  3. 3. initiate a complaint and refer it to the attorney general with a recommendation to seek a temporary or permanent injunction or temporary restraining order. If this action is required to be taken, the attorney general shall apply, as expeditiously as possible after receipt of the complaint, to the court of common pleas of the county in which the unlawful discriminatory practice allegedly occurred for the appropriate injunction or order, and the court shall hear and determine the application as expeditiously as possible. (ORC 4112.05)The Garretson Firm Engages in matters that are of SOCIAL and ECONOMICALResolution Group, Inc. interest. Founded in 1998, the Garretson Resolution GroupSpecializes has a history as a (“GRG”) is a neutral provider of services to parties who are“Law Firm:” settling personal injury claims. Each year GRG resolve over 100,000 healthcare obligations for thousands of firms and companies across the country. GRG’s Resolution and Compliance Program includes: Healthcare Lien Resolution; Medicare Set-Aside (MSA); Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Consulting & Mandatory Insurer Reporting; and Complex Settlement Administration. See EXHIBIT “LXXIX” – Garretson/About Us attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.COPY MAILED TO: VIA PRIORITY MAIL: SIGNATURE TRACKING NO. 2306 1570 0001 0580 6978 U.S. Department of Labor ATTN: Secretary Hilda L. Solis Frances Perkins Building 200 Constitution Ave., NW Washington, DC 20210 VIA PRIORITY MAIL: SIGNATURE TRACKING NO. 2306 1570 0001 0580 7005 The United States White House ATTN: U.S. President Barack Obama 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500 VIA PRIORITY MAIL: SIGNATURE TRACKING NO. 2306 1570 0001 0580 6992 U.S. Department of Justice ATTN: Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 VIA EMAIL United States Congress Members (Senate and House of Representatives) Media/News Outlets Foreign Nations/Leaders/Media (Under Concealment) PUBLIC-AT-LARGE (Under Concealment) Page 3 of 196
  4. 4. COMES NOW Vogel Denise Newsome (“Newsome”), an African-American female, andfiles this her Official United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter“EEOC”) Complaint with the United States Secretary of Labor in care of and through the EEOC’sCincinnati Area Office of and against The Garretson Firm Resolution Group Inc. (“GRG”)3 and/or itsrepresentatives and Messina Staffing/Messina Management Staffing (“MStaffing”)4 and/or itsrepresentatives under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq.], 29C.F.R. § 1601.7, and any/all applicable statutes/laws under which the jurisdiction of the EEOC isapplicable. This instant Charge is also being filed with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission with theCincinnati Regional Director in care of and through its Cincinnati Regional Office of and againstThe Garretson Firm Resolution Group Inc. (“GRG”) and/or its representatives under 4112 andany/all applicable statutes/laws under which the jurisdiction of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission isapplicable. Newsome’s job performance was subjected to heightened scrutiny IMMEDIATELYAFTER she sought legal action of and against the President of the United States of America (BarackHussein Obama II) and GRG’s knowledge of her engagement in protected activities. The temporalproximity between Newsome’s submittal of legal action against United States of America PresidentBarack Hussein Obama II and of charges and the heightened scrutiny is enough to establish thecausal connection for purposes of proving a prima facie case of discriminatory and retaliatorypractices. This instant Charge will provide circumstantial evidence which will include the proximitybetween the protected activities and changes in GRG’s relationship with Newsome and the terms ofher employment. An investigation will yield how GRG began to closely monitor Newsome andcreate conditions (i.e. destroying Claimants’ documentation and attempts to FRAME Newsome for 3 The Garretson Firm Resolution Group Inc. in this Complaint will refer to it, its employees (not includingNewsome in that she is identified) and/or representatives. 4 Messina Staffing/Messina Management Staffing in this Complaint will refer to it, its employees (not includingNewsome in that she is identified) and/or representatives. Page 4 of 196
  5. 5. such criminal activities as well as employing younger whites for the purposes of discrimination,harassment, creation of a hostile environment, and retaliation to interfere with performance of jobduties, and measures taken to force Newsome to quit and/or out of the workplace) which led to herunlawful/illegal discharge and/or termination. Newsome believes said interference in which aninvestigation may yield a causal connection between her filing of legal action against United Statesof America President Barack Hussein Obama II, as well as Newsome’s engagement in prior EEOCCharges and Legal Lawsuits and/or engagement in protected activities – supporting prima faciecriteria. In support of this Complaint Newsome states the following: JURISDICTION Where the employee worked in both Ohio and Kentucky, the trial court ERRED in dismissing the state and federal discrimination claims on the basis of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Wilkerson v. Howell Contrs., Inc., 163 Ohio App. 3d 38, 836 N.E.2d 29, 2005 Ohio 4418 (2005).EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION: The jurisdiction of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)is invoked under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq.], 29C.F.R. § 1601.7 and the applicable statutes/laws granting said agency jurisdiction. Newsome,through this instant Charge, is requesting the administration and enforcement of Title VII. Theenforcement of Title VII rights begins with the filing of a charge of unlawful employmentdiscrimination; moreover, to determine whether Title VII will need to be enforced. Therefore,Newsome through this instant documentation is filing a Charge of unlawful employmentdiscrimination. The filing of this instant Charge of Discrimination is being submitted to the EEOC toprovide it with an opportunity to investigate and attempt a resolution of the controversy. Moreover,is also provided to determine whether or not Newsome is a victim of individual and/or systematic Page 5 of 196
  6. 6. discrimination pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1601.6. See EXHIBIT “I” – attached hereto andincorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Title 29: Labor PART 1601—PROCEDURAL REGULATIONS Subpart B—Procedure for the Prevention of Unlawful Employment Practices § 1601.6 Submission of information. (a) The Commission shall receive information concerning alleged violations of Title VII . . . from any person. Where the information discloses that a person is entitled to file a charge with the Commission, the appropriate office shall render assistance in the filing of a charge. Any person or organization may request the issuance of a Commissioner charge for an inquiry into individual or systematic5 discrimination. Such request, with any pertinent information, should be submitted to the nearest District, Field, Area, or Local office. This instant Charge of Discrimination has been timely filed pursuant to the guidelines and/orprocedures of the EEOC. To preserve Newsome’s rights, the most recent discriminatory act renderedNewsome by her employer(s), Garretson Resolution Group/The Garretson Firm Resolution GroupInc. (hereinafter, “GRG”) and/or Messina Staffing/Messina Management Systems (hereinafter,“MStaffing”) occurred on or about October 21, 2011, therefore giving Newsomeuntil approximately April 18, 2012 and/or approximately August 16,2012 (i.e. in that this charge is covered by state or local anti-discrimination law), to file a Charge of Discrimination – Seehttp://www.eeoc.gov/cincinnati/timeliness.html which provide the following information: A charge must be filed with EEOC within 180 days from the date of the alleged violation, in order to protect the charging party’s rights. 5 EMPHASIS ADDED. Page 6 of 196
  7. 7. This 180-day filing deadline may be extended to 300 days if the charge also is covered by a state or local anti-discrimination law… Cincinnati Area Office Information An individual has 300 days from the date of alleged harm to file a charge with this office against an employer with 15 or more employees for discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, religion, and/or disability in the State of Ohio. . . This is an action for damages based on unlawful employment discrimination practicescommitted by Garretson Resolution Group/The Garretson Firm Resolution Group Inc. and/orMessina Staffing/Messina Management Systems and jurisdiction of the United States EqualEmployment Opportunity Commission is invoked pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC §1343(a)(4); 28 USC § 2000e-5(f). This instant Complaint/Charge is a legal action in equityauthorized and instituted pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 USC § 2000e, et seq. and 42USC § 1981. It seeks declaratory relief pursuant to 28 USC § 2201, § 2202.OHIO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION: The jurisdiction of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission (“OCRC”) is invoked under theprovisions of Section 4112 of the Ohio Revised Code and the applicable statutes/laws granting saidagency jurisdiction regarding unlawful discriminatory practices. Newsome through this instantCharge is requesting the administration and enforcement of the applicable laws under Section 4112.The filing of this instant Charge is to initiate a preliminary investigation to determine whether it isprobable that an unlawful discriminatory practice has been and/or is being engaged in. The filing ofthis instant Charge is being submitted to the OCRC to determine if unlawful discriminatory practicesoccurred. Then if so, Newsome is requesting the OCRC “to initiate a complaint and refer it tothe Attorney General with a recommendation to seek a temporary or permanentinjunction or a temporary restraining order. If this action is taken, the Attorney Generalshall apply, as expeditiously as possible after receipt of the complaint, to the court of Page 7 of 196
  8. 8. common pleas of the county in which the unlawful discriminatory practice allegedlyoccurred for the appropriate injunction or order, and the court shall hear and determinethe application as expeditiously as possible” pursuant to Section 4112.05(3)(a)(iii). Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code (“ORC”) Section 4112.02(A)(I): It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice: (A) For an employer, because of the race, color, religion, sex, military status, national origin, disability, age, or ancestry of any person, to discharge without just cause, to refuse to hire, or otherwise to discriminate against that person with respect to hire, tenure, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, or any matter directly or indirectly related to employment. (I) For any person to discriminate in any manner against any other person because that person has opposed any unlawful discriminatory practice defined in this section or because that person has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing. . . The pendent jurisdiction of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission is invoked to addressviolations by Garretson Resolution Group/The Garretson Firm Resolution Group Inc. and/orMessina Staffing/Messina Management Systems of the Ohio Commission on Human Rights Act,Ohio Revised Codes and/or applicable statutes governing said matters, which Act’s/Statutes’purpose is to safeguard all individuals within the state from discrimination because of race,creed, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin in connection to employment. Toprotect their interest in personal dignity and freedom from humiliation. Page 8 of 196
  9. 9. Ohio Civil Rights Commission (“OCRC”) Sources Used: OCRC Complaint No. 9569 (Hatem matter) - See EXHIBIT “II” attached hereto andincorporated by reference. 19. In order to create a hostile work environment, the conduct must be “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.” Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993), quoting Meritor, supra at 67. The conduct must be unwelcome. Meritor, supra at 68. The victim must perceive the work environment to be hostile or abusive, and the work environment must be one that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive. Harris at 21-22. If the victim does not subjectively perceive the environment to be abusive, the conduct has not actually altered the conditions of the victim’s employment, and there is no Title VII violation. Id. Garretson Resolution Group/The Garretson Firm Resolution Group (hereinafter "GRG"encompasses its employees, representatives, etc.) created a HOSTILE work environment in whichemployees were allowed to engage in RACIST/CRIMINAL acts leveled against Vogel Denise Newsome("Newsome) and its conduct being SEVERE and/or PERVASIVE to alter the conditions of Newsomesemployment and create an ABUSIVE and CRIMINAL working environment. The hostile, abusive andcriminal conduct of GRG was UNWELCOMED! Newsome believing/perceiving GRGs workenvironment to be HOSTILE, ABUSIVE, RACIST, DISCRIMINATORY, CRIMINAL, etc. Newsomegoing as far as to report such unlawful/illegal employment practices both verbally and/or in writing asevidenced in EXHIBIT "III" October 12, 2011 (i.e. incorrectly dated November 12, 20116) “MeetingWith Sandy Sullivan/HR” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. 20. In examining the work environment from both subjective and objective viewpoints, the fact-finder must examine “all the circumstances”, including the employee’s psychological harm and other relevant factors, such as: . . .the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance. Id., at 23. Rabidue v. Osceola Refining Div., 42 FEP Cases 631 (6th Cir. 1986) (plaintiffs must show that a hostile work environment resulted 6 In this instant Complaint/Charge the correct date of October 12, 2011 will be used/noted throughout. Page 9 of 196
  10. 10. not from a single or isolated offensive incident, comment, or conduct, but from incidents, comments, or conduct that occurred with some frequency). “A hostile work environment is usually ‘characterized by multiple and varied combinations and frequencies of offensive exposures.’” Rose v. Figgie International, 56 FEP Cases 41, 44 (8th Cir. 1990). During Newsomes employment with GRG, GRG began bringing in a MAJORITY ofYOUNGER employees - i.e. some of which came in hitting the ground running with theirRACIST/DISCRIMINATORY Bulldog/Pit-Bull/Thuggish mentality with their sights set on Newsomebecause of her race. The FREQUENCY of the discriminatory conduct beginning almostIMMEDIATELY by excluding Newsome from "Training" being offered to majority white employeesand younger than Newsome. Exclusion of Newsome from "Training" sessions although REPEATEDLYinstructed to include her by Senior Project Manager Tina Mullen. The EXCLUSION of Newsome from"Training" sessions resulted in her being REPEATEDLY subjected to attacks by "white" employees insuch EXCLUSIONS from "Training" INTERFERED with Newsomes ability to perform her job dutiesand her not being made aware of any changes in processes needed for Newsome to perform job duties.Furthermore, resulting in Newsome being subjected to “HOSTILE” emails from co-worker(s) as a directand proximate result of such EXCLUSIOIN and DELIBERATE failure to advise Newsome of “Changes”in processes and/or procedures. See for instance EXHIBIT "IV" – September 29, 2011 email fromBrandy Jansen, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. SUPERVISOR HARASSMENT: 23. An employer is vicariously liable for a hostile work environment created by a supervisor with immediate or higher authority over the employee. Faragher, supra at 2275 (1998). If not tangible employment action is taken against the employee, then the employer may raise an affirmative defense to liability or damages.7 Ellerth, supra at 2270; Faragher, at 2293. INDIVIDUAL LIABILTY: Supervisors and managers may be held INDIVIDUALLY liable for unlawful discriminatory acts: Wallace v. Henderson, 138 F. Supp. 2d 980 (S.D. 2000) 7 In Ellerth, the Supreme Court described a tangible employment action as: . . . a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits. Id. at 2268. Page 10 of 196
  11. 11. Liability under RC § 4112.02 is NOT limited to employers: Vandiver v. Morgan Adhesive Co., 126 Ohio App. 3d 634, 710 N.E.2d 1219 (1998).Newsome believes the record evidence will support her GOOD-FAITH efforts to address concerns ofsuch bias with GRG’s Supervisors. Furthermore, that it appears that one of GRG’s Project Manager(Heather Custer) – i.e. which appeared to have been later DEMOTED to “Project Coordinator” –may have CONSPIRED and played a major role in the CRIMINAL acts and DISCRIMINATORYpractices leveled against Newsome for purposes of forcing her out of the workplace and/or seeingthat GRG TERMINATED her employment in RETALIATION to Newsome’s being promoted from“Data Entry/Claims Reviewer” to “PROJECT COORDINATOR.” RETALIATION: 32. In order to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under R.C. 4112.02(I), the Commission must prove the following elements: a. Complainant engaged in protected activity; b. Respondent knew of Complainant’s participation in the protected activity; c. Respondent engaged in retaliatory conduct; and d. a causal link exists between the protected activity and the adverse action. Hollins v. Atlantic Co., Inc., 80 FEP Cases 835 (6th Cir. 1999), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 76 FEP Cases 533 (N.D. Ohio 1997)(quotation marks omitted). Newsome believes that an investigation will yield that a “Prima Facie” case ofRETALIATION can be established: (1) Newsome engaged in protected activity(s); (2) GRG knew of Newsome’s participation in the protected activity(s) – See EXHIBIT “V” – Website information previously at www.vogeldenisenewsome.com attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein; (3) GRG engaged in RETALIATORY conduct – i.e. unlawfully/illegally terminating Newsome’s employment WITHOUT just cause and then going as Page 11 of 196
  12. 12. far as recent as February 3, 2012, to file a FRIVOLOUS/MALICIOUS Lawsuitagainst Newsome alleging what appeared to be “Copyright” Infringement tokeep Newsome from sharing information which is of “PUBLIC” Interest on herwebsite! – See EXHIBIT “VI” - Docket Sheet in The Garretson FirmResolution Group Inc. vs. Vogel Denise Newsome, Hamilton County (Ohio)Court of Common Pleas, Civil Action No. A1200831 attached hereto andincorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. IMPORTANT TONOTE: Since GRG’s filing of Lawsuit AGAINST Newsomethe Court has moved to “SEAL” information so thatPUBLIC/WORLD will not have access to information.Information which, as a matter of law, is now a matter ofPUBLIC RECORD! When considering a RETALIATION claim, adverse employment action required a materially adverse change in the terms and conditions of employment, and, in considering whether an employment action was materially adverse, a court could consider whether employment was terminated, whether the employee was demoted, received a decrease in wage or salary, a less distinguished title, a material loss of benefits, significantly diminished material responsibilities, or other indices that might be unique to a particular situation. Brock v. Eaton Corp., 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 5571, 2006 Ohio 5580 (2006). Employee’s claim that he was improperly discharged in retaliation for his complaints of discrimination failed under RC § 4112.02(I), as the employee only complained about discriminatory conduct by his coworkers, and he neither opposed any unlawful discriminatory practice by the employer, nor did he make a charge, testify, assist, or participate in an investigation, hearing or proceeding under RC ch. 4112: Osaze v. City of Strongsville, 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 983, 2006 Ohio 1089 (2006). While an employee showed that she engaged in protected activity by retaining counsel and complaining of discrimination by her employer, and the employer was aware of this protected activity before it fired the employee, the employee did not show a negative shift in the employer’s attitude toward the employee, after learning of the protected activity, so the employer did not demonstrate a case of retaliation. Hall v. Banc One Mgmt. Corp., 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 808, 2006 Ohio 913 (2006). Plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to withstand summary judgment on his retaliation claim. Plaintiff produced evidence to show that he engaged in protected activity by opposing defendant’s alleged discrimination and by filing a charge with the EEOC; the exercise of his civil rights was known by defendants; defendants took an adverse employment action against plaintiff; and a reasonable fact- finder could draw an inference of a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. Imwalle v. Reliance Med. Prods., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27882 (2005). In order to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under RC § 4112.02(I), an employee must prove the following elements (a) the employee engaged in protected activity; (b) the employer knew of the employee’s participation in the protected activity; (c) the employer engaged in retaliatory conduct; and (d) a causal link exists between the protected activity and the adverse action. Powers v. Pinkerton, Inc., 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 138 (8th Dist. 2001). Page 12 of 196
  13. 13. Female employee established the “causal link” between her discharge and the filing of her complaint for harassment and satisfied her burden of making prima facie showing of retaliation based solely on the fact that she was discharged less than one month after filing her claim: Dorricott v. Fairhill Ctr. for Aging, 2 F.Supp. 2d 982 (1998).Newsome engages in business transactions outside the State of Ohio.Therefore, when GRG brought the Lawsuit AGAINST Newsome for exercisingRights secured under the FIRST Amendment of the United States Constitutionand other laws governing said matters, it ERRED. Furthermore, GRG’sFebruary 3, 2012 Lawsuit AGAINST Newsome not only INFRINGED uponConstitutional Rights, Civil Rights, etc. but is subject to matters governingSTRATEGIC LAWSUITS AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION(“SLAPP”).The February 3, 2012, Lawsuit GRG filed AGAINST Newsome is considered aSLAPP Lawsuit. GRG’s SLAPP Complaint may allege “copyright”infringement to CAMOUFLAGE and/or MASK/SHIELD its crimes from thePUBIC/WORLD to keep it from learning of the ROLE United States PresidentBarack Obama and his Administration played in the UNLAWFUL/ILLEGALEmployment practices of Garretson Resolution Group as well as the RECENTattacks on Vogel Denise Newsome’s INTERNET SERVICES and the bringing ofMALICIOUS Prosecution action against Newsome to SILENCE her andtherefore, requiring that “MOTION TO VACATE ORDER GRANTINGMOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER and/or in theALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO DISMISS” (“MTVOGMFTRO”) be filed: HOW DO YOU KNOW IF YOU HAVE BEEN SLAPPed? SLAPPs all arise out of expressive activity which is directed to public concerns and protected by the First Amendment. Often, SLAPPs are “camouflaged” as ordinary civil lawsuits; among the most often used legal theories are the following: i) Defamation. Broadly defined, this is an alleged intentional false communication, which is either published in a written form (libel) or publicly spoken (slander), that injures one’s reputation. (Based upon the facts, evidence and legal conclusions stated in the “MTVOGMFTRO,” Vogel Denise Newsome has been IRREPARABLY injured/harmed and PREJUDICED by GRG’s MALICIOUS Complaint – i.e. which most likely may be CAMOUFLAGED under “Defamation” claims – which may be a claim made; however, not known since Newsome is NOT waiving protected rights and NOT submitting to the jurisdiction of the Hamilton County (Ohio) Court Page 13 of 196
  14. 14. of Common Pleas who LACK jurisdiction over business conducted in other States such as California where Newsome’s website was and/or States where the ANTI-SLAPP Laws are applicable. Therefore, Newsome is protected by the Anti-SLAPP Law(s) governing said matters.)ii) Malicious Prosecution or Abuse of Process. A “malicious prosecution” is a criminal or civil lawsuit which is begun with knowledge that the case lacks merit, and which is brought for a reason (such as, to harass or annoy) other than to seek a judicial determination of the claim. The use of the legal process to intimidate or to punish the person against whom the suit is brought is generally referred to as “abuse of process.” (Based upon the facts, evidence and legal conclusions stated in the “MTVOGMFTRO,” Vogel Denise Newsome has been IRREPARABLY injured/harmed and PREJUDICED by GRG’s MALICIOUS PROSECUTION Complaint which has been brought with KNOWLEDGE that the Lawsuit/Complaint LACKS MERIT, and has merely been brought in furtherance of GRG’s CRIMINAL STALKING, INTERNET STALKING, BULLYING, THREATS, HARASSMENT, INTIMIDATION practices, etc. toward Newsome – i.e. which most likely is CAMOUFLAGED through its bringing of a Lawsuit/Complaint against Newsome. Therefore, Newsome is protected by the Anti- SLAPP Law(s) governing said matters.)iii) Invasion of Privacy. This refers to the unlawful use or exploitation of one’s personality, the publicizing of one’s private affairs with which the public has no legitimate concern, or the wrongful intrusion into one’s private activities. (Based upon the facts, evidence and legal conclusions stated in the “MTVOGMFTRO,” Vogel Denise Newsome has been IRREPARABLY injured/harmed and PREJUDICED by GRG’s MALICIOUS Complaint – i.e. which may be CAMOUFLAGED under “Invasion of Privacy” claims – which may be a claim made; however, not known since Newsome is NOT waiving protected rights and NOT submitting to the jurisdiction of the Hamilton County (Ohio) Court of Common Pleas who LACK jurisdiction over business conducted in other States such as California where Newsome’s website was and/or States where the ANTI-SLAPP Laws are Page 14 of 196
  15. 15. applicable. Therefore, Newsome is protected by the Anti-SLAPP Law(s) governing said matters.)iv) Conspiracy. A conspiracy is an alleged agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal, unlawful, or wrongful act. (Based upon the facts, evidence and legal conclusions stated in the “MTVOGMFTRO,” Vogel Denise Newsome has been IRREPARABLY injured/harmed and PREJUDICED by GRG’s MALICIOUS Complaint in which it is a party to ONGOING CONSPIRACIES leveled against her to deprive her PROTECTED Rights secured under the FIRST Amendment and other laws governing said matters. Newsome is NOT waiving protected rights and NOT submitting to the jurisdiction of the Hamilton County (Ohio) Court of Common Pleas who LACK jurisdiction over business conducted in other States such as California where Newsome’s website was and/or States where the ANTI- SLAPP Laws are applicable. Therefore, Newsome is protected by the Anti-SLAPP Law(s) governing said matters.)  v) Interference With Contract or Economic Advantage. This is based on the alleged commission of an act with the intent to interfere with or cause a breach of a contract between two people, or hinder a business relationship which exists between those persons. (Based upon the facts, evidence and legal conclusions stated in the “MTVOGMFTRO,” Vogel Denise Newsome has been IRREPARABLY injured/harmed and PREJUDICED by GRG’s MALICIOUS Complaint brought for the commission of an act with the intent to INTERFERE with or cause BREACH OF CONTRACTS with OneWebHosting.com, Scribd.com, and other business relationships in which Newsome had formed and can be EVIDENCED in this instant pleading and the INTERFERENCE and BREACH OF CONTRACTS that have resulted as the direct and proximate result of GRG contacting business(es) that provide services to Newsome which allow her to use their FORUMS to share educational/ informative materials with the PUBLIC. Newsome is NOT waiving protected rights and NOT submitting to the jurisdiction of the Hamilton County (Ohio) Court of Common Pleas who LACK jurisdiction over business conducted in other States such as Page 15 of 196
  16. 16. California where Newsome’s website was and/or States where the ANTI-SLAPP Laws are applicable. Therefore, Newsome is protected by the Anti-SLAPP Law(s) governing said matters.)vi) Intentional or Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. This is based on an alleged commission of some outrageous act with the intent and knowledge that the act will result in severe mental or emotional anguish of another. (Based upon the facts, evidence and legal conclusions stated in the “MTVOGMFTRO,” Vogel Denise Newsome has been IRREPARABLY injured/harmed and PREJUDICED by GRG’s MALICIOUS Complaint – i.e. which may be CAMOUFLAGED under “Intentional or Negligent Infliction or Emotional Distress” claims – which may be a claim made; however, not known since Newsome is NOT waiving protected rights and NOT submitting to the jurisdiction of the Hamilton County (Ohio) Court of Common Pleas who LACK jurisdiction over business conducted in other States such as California where Newsome’s website was and/or States where the ANTI-SLAPP Laws are applicable. Therefore, Newsome is protected by the Anti-SLAPP Law(s) governing said matters.)vii) Injunction. The lawsuit seeks a temporary restraining order or an injunction against First Amendment activity. (Based upon the facts, evidence and legal conclusions stated in the “MTVOGMFTRO,” Vogel Denise Newsome has been IRREPARABLY injured/harmed and PREJUDICED by GRG’s MALICIOUS Complaint – i.e which most likely may be CAMOUFLAGED under a malicious “Complaint” and “Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Application for Preliminary Injunction Order” which may be claim(s) made; however, not known since Newsome is NOT waiving protected rights and NOT submitting to the jurisdiction of the Hamilton County (Ohio) Court of Common Pleas who LACK jurisdiction over business conducted in other States such as California where Newsome’s website was and/or States where the ANTI-SLAPP Laws are applicable. Therefore, Newsome is protected by the Anti-SLAPP Law(s) governing said matters.) Page 16 of 196
  17. 17. See EXHIBIT “LXXX” – CALIFORNIA ANTI-SLAPP: If You’ve Been Sued, How Do You Know If You’ve Been SLAPPed? Attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. See EXHIBIT “LXXXI” – ANTI-SLAPP Law In California attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. (4) A CAUSAL Link exists between the protected activity and the adverse action. Furthermore, an investigation will YIELD the ONGOING “STALKING/INTERNET STALKING” and “BULLYING/CYBER BULLYING” by GRG and its CONSPIRATORS/CO-CONSPIRATORS (i.e. such as United States of America President Barack Obama, etc.) attempting to deprive Newsome of protected rights; moreover, OBSTRUCTING Newsome’s right to inform the “PUBLIC” of GRG’s unlawful/illegal employment practices: Conspirator becomes the agent of the other conspirator (s), and any act done by one of the combination is regarded under the law as the act of both or all. In other words, what one does, if there is this combination, becomes the act of both or all of them, no matter which individual may have done it. This is true as to each member of the conspiracy, even those whose involvement was limited to a minor role in the unlawful transaction, and it makes no difference whether or not such individual shared in the profits of the actions. (Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Conspiracy § 9). TACIT AGREEMENT - Occurs when two or more persons pursue by their acts the same object by the same means. One person performing one part and the other another part, so that upon completion they have obtained the object pursued. Regardless whether each person knew of the details or what part each was to perform, the end results being they obtained the object pursued. Agreement is implied or inferred from actions or statements. See EXHIBIT “VII”- February 2, 2012 “ANSWER TO COMPLAINT SUBMITTED TO: OneWebHosting.com BY GARRETSON RESOLUTION GROUP NO RESPONSE TO THE ANSWER HAS BEEN RECEIVED” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. 36. The test for determining whether an employee was constructively discharged is whether the employer’s actions made working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person under the circumstances would have felt compelled to resign. Mauzy v. Kelly Services, Inc., (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 578, 1996 Ohio 265, 664 N.E. 2d 1272. GRG allowed and/or encouraged the unlawful/illegal practices leveled against Newsome byWhite employees which made working conditions so INTOLERABLE and UNACCEPTABLE thatNewsome reported her concerns to Supervisors and/or Human Resources. To no avail. Makingworking conditions INTOLERABLE and UNACCEPTABLE that a reasonable person under the Page 17 of 196
  18. 18. circumstances would have felt compelled to resign and/or quit. Newsome; however, believed that itwas her duty and obligation to report the unlawful/illegal discriminatory practices and did so. SeeEXHIBIT “III”- October 12, 2011 “Meeting With Sandy Sullivan/HR” attached hereto andincorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. 37. Whether the discriminatory conduct unreasonably interfered with Complainant’s work performance is one factor to be considered. The Commission, however, is not required to show the Complainant’s “tangible productivity . . . declined as a result of harassment.” Harris, 63 FEP Cases at 229 (Justice Ginsburg’s concurrence) quoting Davis v. Monsanto Chemical Co., 47 FEP Cases 1825, 1828 (6th Cir. 1988). Instead the Commission must demonstrate that a reasonable person subjected to the discriminatory conduct would find that the harassment so altered working conditions as to “ma[k]e it more difficult to do the job.” Id. Newsome believes that an investigation and record evidence will support GRG’sdiscriminatory conduct leveled against Newsome UNREASONABLY interfered with her workperformance and subjected to REPEAT attacks by YOUNGER White co-workers which werecondoned by Supervisors and Human Resources. The HARASSMENT, HOSTILE andDISCRIMINATORY conduct altered the working conditions as well as the working relations betweenNewsome and GRG for purposes of making working conditions MORE difficult and unbearable forher to perform job duties! 38. To support a retaliation claim, the Commission must show that the change in Complainant’s employment conditions was more disruptive than a mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities. Bowers v. Hamilton City Sch. Dist. Bd. Of Educ., 12th Dist. No. CA2001-07-160, 2002 Ohio 1343, citing Kocis, 97 F.3d at 886.GRG’s interference with Newsome’s employment conditions was so DISRUPTIVE – i.e.unlawful/illegal/criminal – than a mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities, thatsaid interference was so CRIMINAL in nature as to FRAME Newsome for the criminal conduct –i.e. TAMPERING with Claimants’ documents, OBSTRUCTING mail/deliveries, etc. – that suchpractices may be SHOCKING to a reasonable person that employees would go so far as to engage insuch CRIMINAL behavior based on RACIAL/DISCRIMINATORY motives. Page 18 of 196
  19. 19. FACTS OF THIS COMPLAINT Newsome believe it is important to note that the Title VII/Civil Rights/Employmentviolations, etc. addressed in this instant Charge may be as a direct and proximate result of theEEOC’s failure in the past to perform ministerial duties mandated bystatutes/laws. Moreover, as a direct and proximate result of said failure that she has repeatedlybeen subjected to such unlawful employment discrimination/practices, systematicdiscriminatory practices and criminal acts by The Garretson Firm ResolutionGroup Inc. (“GRG”). An investigation will yield that the very policies and practices that theEEOC acknowledges as discriminatory – i.e. contacting employers and notifying of employee’s pastparticipation and/or filing of EEOC Charge is the very practice that has been repeatedly allowed tobe used and transferred from one employer to another regarding Newsome. Moreover, the posting ofsuch protected activity on the INTERNET was deliberately done for purposes of depriving Newsomeequal employment opportunities, equal protection of the laws, due process of laws, life, liberties andthe pursuit of happiness, etc. All because Newsome exposed what is known for a long time to besystematic discrimination leveled against African-Americans and/or people of color who challengeemployers for discriminatory practices and the government’s handling of such claims. Aninvestigation into this instant Charge will support systematic discrimination and violation underTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act and other governing statutes/laws have been implemented to preventand/or preclude Newsome from obtaining gainful employment – i.e. equal employment opportunities. Page 19 of 196
  20. 20. I. VIOLATION OF STATUTE: “PERSON” pursuant to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission (OHCRC) see Ohio Revised Code (“ORC”) 41 ORC § 4112.01, “includes one or more individuals, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, receivers and other organized groups of persons. “Persons” also includes, but is not limited to, any owner, lessor, assignor, builder, manager, broker, salesperson, appraiser, agent, employee, lending institution, and the state and all political subdivisions, authorities, agencies, boards, and commissions of the state. “EMPLOYER” pursuant to Ohio Civil Rights Commission (OHCRC) see Ohio Revised Code (“ORC”) 41 ORC § 4112.01, “includes the state, any political subdivision of the state, any person employing for or more persons within the state, and any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer. “EMPLOYMENT AGENCY” includes any person regularly undertaking, with or without compensation, to procure opportunities to work or to procure, recruit, refer, or place employees. 41 ORC § 4112.01. Section 701(c) of Title VII defines the term "employment agency" as "any person regularly undertaking with or without compensation to procure employees for an employer or to procure for employees opportunities to work for an employer and includes an agent of such a person." For further guidance, see Policy Guidance: What constitutes an employment agency under Title VII, how should charges against employment agencies be investigated, and what remedies can be obtained for employment agency violations of the Act?, Compliance Manual (BNA) N:3935 (9/29/91). “EMPLOYEE” means an individual employed by any employer, 41 ORC § 4112.01. “INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR:” As remedial laws, civil rights statutes should be liberally construed. Under the economic realities test, persons denominated as independent contractors may be considered to be employees in order to meet the four employee minimum: Nehls v. Quad K. Advertising, 106 Ohio App. 3d 489, 666 N.E.2d 579 (1995). Employee’s co-worker and supervisor could be held liable for harassment in their INDIVIDUAL capacities: Griswold v. Fresenius USA, 964 F.Supp. 1166 (1997). Ohio Revised Code § 4112.99 permits individual liability for acts that violate Ohio’s employment discrimination law, despite the fact that the construction means that a broader class of individuals may be liable under state law than under federal law: Garraway v. Diversified Material Handling, 975 F.Supp. 1026 (1997). INDIVIDUAL employees may be held liable for violations of the Ohio antidiscrimination law: DeLoach v. American Red Cross, 967 F.Supp. 265 (N.D. 1997) Page 20 of 196
  21. 21. “UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES:” It shall be unlawful discriminatory practice: (A) For an employer, because of the race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, or ancestry of any person, to discharge WITHOUT just cause, to refuse to hire, or otherwise to discriminate against that person with respect to hire, tenure, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, or any matter directly or indirectly related to employment. 1. The Garretson Firm Resolution Group Inc. is an “Employer.” The Garretson FirmResolution Group Inc. (“GRG”), Newsome’s former employer, is a private sector employer whoemploys approximately 15 or more employees for at least 20 work weeks in the current or precedingcalendar year and is engaged in an activity affecting commerce. GRG is a corporation,incorporated by virtue of the laws of the State of Ohio, and licensed to do business in the Countyof Hamilton, State of Ohio. GRG maintains and administers records relevant to unlawfulemployment practices with said County and State of Ohio. GRG is an employer within meaningof the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC § 2000e(b), inthat GRG is engaged in an industry affecting commerce and employs at least fifteen (15)persons. GRG is an employer within meaning of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. GRG maybe served in this cause by serving its Human Resources Representative (and/or Sandy Sullivan)with this instant Complaint/Charge. 2. Messina Staffing is an “Employment Agency.” Messina Staffing (“MStaffing”), alsoNewsome’s former employer, is a private sector employer who employs approximately 15 or moreemployees for at least 20 work weeks in the current or preceding calendar year and is engaged in anactivity affecting commerce. MStaffing is a corporation, incorporated by virtue of the laws of theState of Ohio, and licensed to do business in the County of Hamilton, State of Ohio. MStaffingmaintains and administers records relevant to unlawful employment practices with said Countyand State of Ohio. MStaffing is an employer within meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC § 2000e(b), in that MStaffing is engaged in anindustry affecting commerce and employs at least fifteen (15) persons. MStaffing is an employerwithin meaning of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. MStaffing may be served in this cause byserving its President (and/or Vance Messina) with this instant Complaint/Charge. 3. Sandy Sullivan (Human Resources Manager/Representative) and Matthew Garretson(Founder and Chief Executive Officer) at GRG are people who act, directly, in the interest of theiremployer (GRG) to the employees of said employer. 4. Vince Messina and/or Justin Roehm at MStaffing are people who act, directly, in theinterest of their employer (MStaffing) to the employees of said employer.   5. Newsome worked for covered employer – Messina Staffing/Messina ManagementSystems. Newsome being assigned to work at Garretson Resolution Group/The Garretson FirmResolution Group in January 2011. Under State/Federal laws governing said matters, Newsomequalifying as an employee for BOTH MStaffing and GRG. 6. Newsome worked for covered employer – The Garretson Firm Resolution Group Inc.Newsome’s hire date being effective approximately January 2011. Newsome was employed as DataEntry/Claims Reviewer. See EXHIBIT “VIII” – “GRG Employee Directory” attached hereto and Page 21 of 196
  22. 22. incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. At the time of Newsome’s termination on orabout October 21, 2011, GRG had promoted Newsome to PROJECT COORDINATOR (SeeEXHIBIT “IX” – “GRG’s Claims Administration Organization Chart” attached hereto andincorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.). GRG still had a need for the job dutiesperformed by Newsome as Project Coordinator. 7. During Newsome’s employment at GRG she was subjected to systematicdiscriminatory practices based on GRG’s and MStaffing’s knowledge of her participation andengagement in protected activities. See United States Department of Labor/EEOC’s - ProhibitedEmployment Policies/Practices at EXHIBIT “LXXVI” attached hereto and incorporated byreference as if set forth in full herein. 8. During Newsome’s employment at GRG and/or MStaffing, she was subjected todiscriminatory treatment based on her race, age and engagement in protected activity(s). Newsomeis an African-American. Newsome is a female over the age of 45. Newsome participates inprotected activities. Therefore, a member of the protected group. See United States Department ofLabor/EEOC’s - Prohibited Employment Policies/Practices at EXHIBIT “LXXVI” attached heretoand incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. 9. During Newsome’s employment at GRG and/or MStaffing, she was subjected tounlawful discriminatory practices based on her race, age and engagement in protected activity(s).Newsome is an African-American. Newsome is a female over the age of 45. Newsome participatesin protected activities. Therefore, a member of the protected group. See United States Department ofLabor/EEOC’s - Prohibited Employment Policies/Practices at EXHIBIT “LXXVI” attached heretoand incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. 10. During Newsome’s employment at GRG and/or MStaffing, she was subjected toretaliatory treatment for reporting unlawful/illegal/criminal employment practices and/or forparticipating/engaging in protected activities. 11. GRG and/or MStaffing changed Newsome’s terms and conditions of employment,and terminated her employment, in retaliation for having engaged in activity protected by R.C. 4112.See EXHIBIT “LXXVII” - United States Department of Labor/EEOC -Facts About Retaliation attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. . . . There are three main terms that are used to describe retaliation. Retaliation occurs when an employer, employment agency, or labor organization takes an adverse action against a covered individual because he or she engaged in a protected activity. ADVERSE ACTION An adverse action is an action taken to try to keep someone from opposing a discriminatory practice, or from participating in an employment discrimination proceeding. . .  employment actions such as termination, refusal to hire, and denial of promotion,  other actions affecting employment such as threats, unjustified negative evaluations, unjustified negative references, or increased surveillance, and Page 22 of 196
  23. 23.  any other action such as an assault or unfounded civil or criminal charges that are likely to deter reasonable people from pursuing their rights. . . Even if the prior protected activity alleged wrongdoing by a different employer, retaliatory adverse actions are unlawful. For example, it is unlawful for a workers current employer to retaliate against him for pursuing an EEO charge against a former employer. . . COVERED INDIVIDUALS Covered individuals are people who have opposed unlawful practices, participated in proceedings, or requested accommodations related to employment discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, or disability. Individuals who have a close association with someone who has engaged in such protected activity also are covered individuals. For example, it is illegal to terminate an employee because his spouse participated in employment discrimination litigation. . . PROTECTED ACTIVITY PROTECTED ACTIVITY INCLUDES: Opposition to a practice believed to be unlawful discrimination Opposition is informing an employer that you believe that he/she is engaging in prohibited discrimination. Opposition is protected from retaliation as long as it is based on a reasonable, good-faith belief that the complained of practice violates anti-discrimination law; and the manner of the opposition is reasonable. Examples of protected opposition include:  Complaining to anyone about alleged discrimination against oneself or others; . . .  Picketing in opposition to discrimination; or  Refusing to obey an order reasonably believed to be discriminatory. Participation in an employment discrimination proceeding. Participation means taking part in an employment discrimination proceeding. Participation is protected activity even if the proceeding involved claims that ultimately were found to be invalid. Examples of participation include:  Filing a charge of employment discrimination;  Cooperating with an internal investigation of alleged discriminatory practices; or  Serving as a witness in an EEO investigation or litigation. 12. Newsome believes she was discriminated in employment on the basis of race, age,retaliation, and her participation in protected activity(s). Said discrimination is in violation of TitleVII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 29 CFR 1601 (.7, .6), fair employment practices, and/or theapplicable statutes/laws governing said matters. Page 23 of 196
  24. 24. II. PURPOSE OF TITLE VII: 13. Newsome believes an investigation into this instant Charge will support the facts,evidence and legal conclusions set forth herein as well as that obtained through an investigation.Federal case law generally applies to alleged violations of R.C. 4112. Columbus Civ. Serv. Comm. v.McGlone (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 569. Therefore, reliable, probative, and substantive evidence meansevidence sufficient to support a finding of unlawful retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Actof 1964. - OCRC Complaint No. 9496 (Glaser v. HLS Bonding matter) 14. This instant Charge has been filed seeking the EEOC’s/OCRC’s intervention/thatCOMMISSIONER Charge ISSUE; moreover: (a) for the prohibition of employmentdiscrimination; Czupih v. Card Pak Inc., 916 F.Supp. 687 (N.D.Ohio.E.Div.,1996) - Purpose of Title VII is to prohibit employer discrimination. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 701 et seq., as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq.(b) deter and protect Newsome from prejudicial and systematic discriminatory treatment renderedher while employed at GRG and/or MStaffing; (c) achieve employment equality by preventingdiscrimination and to make Newsome whole due to the unlawful employment practices/unlawfuldiscriminatory practices – i.e. it would NOT be in Newsome’s best interest, safe, beneficial, norhealthy to return her to the position she would have been entitled absent the unlawful discrimination;and (d) achieve equality and remove the long-standing racial barriers that in the past have beenknown to favor whites over African-Americans and/or people of color. Johnson v. University Surgical Group Associates of Cincinnati, 871 F.Supp. 979 (S.D.Ohio. W.Div., 1994) - Purpose of Title VII is to protect workers from certain kinds of prejudicial treatment on the job and not to federalize common-law torts. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 701 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq. Adler v. John Carroll University, 549 F.Supp. 652 (N.D.Ohio.E.Div., 1982) - Twin statutory purposes of Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 are to achieve employment equality by preventing discrimination and to make persons whole for injuries suffered due to unlawful employment discrimination; scope of relief is intended to restore victim of unlawful employment practices to position he would have been in were it not for unlawful discrimination. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 701 et seq. as amended 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq. Asad v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 328 F.Supp.2d 772 (N.D.Ohio.E.Div., 2004) -The purpose of Title VII, . . . is to achieve equality of employment opportunities and remove barriers that have operated in the past to favor an identifiable group of employees over other employees. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 701 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq. 15. Ohio’s Anti-Discrimination law prohibits such conduct as that under Title VII and isconstructed identically as Title VII; wherein Title VII is designed to address, expose and rid theworld of such evil acts as discrimination because of a person’s race, age, etc. Therefore, this instantCharge targets the discriminatory practices of GRG and/or MStaffing and will demonstrate hostility Page 24 of 196
  25. 25. and/or abuse towards Newsome was itself discriminatory and how GRG and/or MStaffing attemptedto cover-up such discriminatory/criminal employment violations – i.e. by waiting until Newsome leftthe offices of GRG for purposes of obtaining access to her property so that it can cover-up itscriminal and unlawful/illegal discriminatory practices. Then having MStaffing Justin Roehm’scontact Newsome and advise her of TERMINATION. – See EXHIBIT “X” – Transcribed“October 21, 2011 Voicemail Message From Messina Staffing’s Justin Roehm:” Hey Denise, Um this is Justin Roehm with Um Messina Staffing. Um I know we talked earlier today. Um yeah, Um I just wanted to let you know that Um Garretson and. . .you know. . .they called me and they decided that Um. . . they decided that today is going to be your last day and that Um they do not want to extend your contract. So Um dont Um go in Monday morning. Um I will get your stuff and Um you can come by sometime Monday afternoon and pick it up from our office. Um Ill look over. . . send me your resume. . .Ill look over your resume and if theres anything else that Um comes up that we can get you in for Um Well do what we can. Ill send you an email and everything. Um you know, if you want. . .Yeah, I mean, well just talk Monday. Um Ill probably be out of the office this weekend. Um Thanks. Bye.attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Shoemaker-Stephen v. Montgomery County Bd. of Comrs, 262 F.Supp.2d 866 (S.D.Ohio. W.Div., 2003) - Ohio anti-discrimination law prohibits same conduct as Title VII, and is generally construed in identical fashion to Title VII. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 703(a)(1), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)(1); Ohio R.C. § 4112.02(A). Eperesi v. Envirotest Systems Corp., 999 F.Supp. 1026 (N.D.Ohio.E.Div., 1998) - The state statute prohibiting discrimination based on race is interpreted under the same standards applied to Title VII. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 701 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq.; Ohio R.C. § 4112.02(A). Neff v. Civil Air Patrol, 916 F.Supp. 710 (S.D.Ohio.E.Div., 1996) - Title VII is designed to rid the world of work of the evil of discrimination because of individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 701 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq. Walk v. Rubbermaid Inc., 913 F.Supp. 1023 (N.D.Ohio.E.Div., 1994) - Purpose of Title VII is to create equality in workplace by targeting discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and thus employee must demonstrate that employers hostility or abuse was itself discriminatory. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 703(a)(1), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)(1). 16. Through this instant Charge, Newsome seeks the EEOC’s/OCRC’sintervention/that COMMISSIONER Charge ISSUE and request that it report violations found tothe proper authorities and file the applicable lawsuit(s) of and against The Garretson Firm ResolutionGroup Inc. and/or Messina Staffing/Messina Management Staffing seeking the applicable agencyand/or courts to impose the proper statutes/laws prohibiting such acts and governing injunctive reliefand/or applicable relief to correct the alleged unlawful employment practices addressed hereinbecause of Newsome’s race/age, engagement in protected activities, etc. and provide a remedy for Page 25 of 196
  26. 26. said violators and continuing efforts of the systematic discriminatory practices made known hereinand past discrimination. Watson v. Limbach Co., 333 F.Supp. 754 (S.D.Ohio.E.Div., 1971) - Civil Rights Act of 1964 gives courts jurisdiction to correct alleged unlawful employment practices because of race and color, and to provide a remedy for present and continuing efforts of past discrimination. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 701 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq.See United States Department of Labor/EEOC’s - Prohibited Employment Policies/Practices atEXHIBIT “LXXVI” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.III. PATTERN-OF-DISCRIMINATION: 17. The direct evidence contained in this instant Charge will support a conclusion thatchallenged employment actions of The Garretson Firm Resolution Group Inc. and/or MessinaStaffing/Messina Management Staffing was motivated at least in part by prejudice and systematicdiscrimination against Newsome who is a member of the protected group. Moreover, that saidprejudice and discrimination is based on GRG’s and/or MStaffing’s personal knowledge orobservation, that if true (when it is), reveals a fact without inference or presumption. Kline v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 128 F.3d 337 (C.A.6., 1997) - Direct evidence and circumstantial evidence paths for proving employment discrimination are mutually exclusive, and employee need only prove one or the other, not both; if employee can produce direct evidence of discrimination McDonnell Douglas burden shifting paradigm is of no consequence, and if employee attempts to prove its case using that paradigm, employee is not required to introduce direct evidence of discrimination. Johnson v. Kroger Co., 319 F.3d 858 (C.A.6.Ohio, 2003) - Direct evidence of discrimination does not require a factfinder in a Title VII action to draw any inferences in order to conclude that the challenged employment action was motivated at least in part by prejudice against members of the protected group. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 701 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq.See EXHIBIT “XI” – “October 26, 2011 – Email From Messina Staffing/Justin RoehmRequesting Newsome Destroy Documents Provided In Support of Email” You need to delete all of this stuff you attached to this email. It has some confidential info on Garretson that they don’t want non-employees having access to. It really needs to be deleted. I don’t want to see any legal ramifications come from this. Also, we can throw away some of your replaceable (plastic silverware, etc.) but that sweater of yours is fairly nice. I would really appreciate it if you could take just a small amount of time to pick it up. Page 26 of 196
  27. 27. attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. As a matter of theStatutes/Laws governing said matters, Newsome being an employee of BOTH MessinaStaffing/Messina Management Systems (“MStaffing”) and Garretson Resolution Group/TheGarretson Firm Resolution Group Inc. (“GRG”). The request by MStaffing’s Justin Roehm isUNLAWFUL/ILLEGAL/CRIMINAL in that it seeks to “OBSTRUCT” the administration of justice,“OBSTRUCT” Federal/State Investigation(s); and COVER-UP Criminal/Civil violations, etc. Conducting a Thorough Investigation8 Because discrimination often is subtle, and there rarely is a “smoking gun,” [Fn. 45 - See Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp., 85 F.3d 1074, 1081-82 (3rd Cir. 1996)(“It has become easier to coat various forms of discrimination with the appearance of propriety, or to ascribe some other less odious intention to what is in reality discriminatory behavior. In other words, while discriminatory conduct persists, violators have learned not to leave the proverbial ‘smoking gun’ behind.”); cf. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 801 (1973). . .] determining whether race played a role in the decisionmaking requires examination of all of the surrounding facts and circumstances. The presence or absence of any one piece of evidence often will not be determinative. Sources of information can include witness statements, including consideration of their credibility; documents; direct observation; and statistical evidence such as EEO-1 data, among others 18. GRG considered impermissible factors when it made the adverse employmentdecision to terminate Newsome’s employment. While GRG advised Newsome that her employmentwould be extended through December 2011, GRG knew and/or should have known that it wasproviding Newsome with false information and that it had KNOWLEDGE and INTENT tounlawfully/illegal BREACH employment contract with Newsome. In an effort to cover-up itsemployment violations, GRG waited until Newsome left its offices to have her notified of terminationin that it wanted an opportunity to go through her PERSONAL possessions and remove anyEVIDENCE it KNEW and/or should have known would be INCRIMINATING against GRG.(EMPHASIS ADDED) Such acts which were done with malicious intent to cover-up and obstructthe administration of justice should Newsome file charges with the proper authorities. In May, 2011,GRG’s advised Newsome of contract being extended through December 2011 [See EXHIBIT “XII”– “May 11, 2011 Email Regarding Contract Extension Through December 2011” attached heretoand incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. GRG again confirming again with aRepresentative of Messina Staffing/Messina Management Staffing (Justin Roehm) that contract wasbeing extended through December 2011 on or about October 21, 2011, will also prove to bePREMEDITATED and acts done with WILLFUL, MALICIOUS, CRIMINAL and WANTON intent.(EMPHASIS ADDED). See EXHIBIT “XIII” – “October 21, 2011 to Messina Staffing/JustinRoehm and Garretson Resolution Group/Sandy Sullivan” attached hereto and incorporated byreference as if set forth in full herein. Wexler v. Whites Fine Furniture, Inc., 317 F.3d 564 (C.A.6.Ohio, 2003) - Under mixed-motive analysis for reviewing employment discrimination claim, the plaintiff must produce direct evidence that the employer considered impermissible factors when it made the adverse employment decision at issue; once the plaintiff has shown that the unfavorable employment decision was made at least in part on a discriminatory basis, the burden shifts to the employer to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have taken the same 8 Taken from EEOC’s Compliance Manual Section 15: Race and Color Discrimination Page 27 of 196
  28. 28. adverse action even if impermissible factors had not entered into its decision.See EXHIBIT “X” – “October 21, 2011 Voicemail Message From Messina Staffing’s JustinRoehm” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. 19. The laws are clear that GRG and/or MStaffing cannot discriminate against Newsomebecause she has engaged in protected activities and/or their knowledge of her intent to engage inprotected activities – therefore, terminating employment to interfere with protected rights.GRG/MStaffing discriminated against Newsome based on its knowledge of her engagement inprotected activities. Moreover, GRG and/or MStaffing terminated Newsome’s employment for whatappears to be Causal Connection/Nexus with participation in protected activities, discriminatorypractices based on race and a pattern-of-discriminatory practices/systematic discriminatory practicesbased on: The United States Constitution as well as laws passed by the United States Congress will further support the need for the passing of House Report No. 92-238. Congress demonstrated its awareness that claimants might not be able to take advantage of the federal remedy without appointment of counsel. As explained in House Report No. 92-238: By including this provision in the bill, the committee emphasizes that the nature of . . .actions more often than not pits parties of unequal strength and resources against each other. The complainant, who is usually a member of the disadvantaged class, is opposed by an employer who . . . has at his disposal a vast of resources and legal talent. H.R. Rep. No. 238, 92nd Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1972 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2137, 2148. a) Knowledge of Newsome’s filing of past EEOC Charges and/or civil lawsuits brought by Newsome against other employers. Said knowledge motivated GRG to abruptly and unlawfully/illegally ABRUPTLY terminate Newsome’s employment and to go through her PERSONAL possessions for purposes of removing INCRIMINATING evidence (EMPHASIS ADDED). b) Investigation(s) will establish a Causal Connection between Messina Staffing/Messina Management Systems Jim Messina (i.e. the 2012 Campaign Manager for United States of America President Barack Hussein Obama II). See EXHIBIT “XIV” – “September 14, 2011 United States of America President Barack Obama’s Attack Website Article” information attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. c) GRG’s KNOWLEDGE of Newsome’s engagement in protected activities is further evidenced in the FRIVOLOUS/MALICIOUS lawsuit brought against Vogel Denise Newsome on or about February 3, 2012 in the Hamilton County Court (Ohio) of Common Pleas; Civil Action Page 28 of 196
  29. 29. No. A1200831. See EXHIBIT “VI” – Docket Sheet The Garretson Firm Resolution Group Inc. vs. Vogel Denise Newsome, Hamilton County (Ohio) Court of Common Pleas, Civil Action No. A1200831 attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.  GRG filing lawsuit AGAINST Newsome approximately ONE month AFTER Newsome’s January 10, 2012 filing entitled, “NOTIFICATION FOR TERMINATION - REQUEST FOR IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II – RESPONSE TO THE ATTACKS ON FLORIDA A&M UNIVERSITY REGARDING ALLEGED HAZING INCIDENT – REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL MILITARY INTERVENTION MAY BE NECESSARY.” See EXHIBIT “XV” – attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Record evidence will support that on or about January 27, 2012 and February 1, 2012, Newsome released Email regarding, “UPDATE - - NOTIFICATION FOR TERMINATION - REQUEST FOR IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II – RESPONSE TO THE ATTACKS ON FLORIDA A&M UNIVERSITY REGARDING ALLEGED HAZING INCIDENT – REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL MILITARY INTERVENTION MAY BE NECESSARY” See EXHIBIT “XVI” - attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. GRG filing lawsuit AGAINST Newsome coming approximately ONE week PRIOR to the February 10, 2012, DEADLINE in which Newsome requested United States of America President Barack Obama that his employment was being TERMINATED – i.e. President Barack Obama was FIRED. See EXHIBIT “XVII” – PINK SLIP served on United States of America President Barack Obama attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. “United States Postal Service PROOF OF MAILING Receipts” – EXHIBIT “XVIII” – GREEN CARD and USPS Receipts attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. IMPORTANT TO NOTE: AFTER Newsome’s advising the PUBLIC-AT-LARGE via email of CRIMINAL Practices (i.e. Mail Tampering, etc.) by United States Of America President Barack Obama, it appears that the Certified Mail GREEN Card had been destroyed; however, upon Newsome’s going PUBLIC, President Barack Obama had the Certified Mail Green Card TAPED back together and returned to Newsome. Had Newsome not gone PUBLIC in EXPOSING the White House’s/President Page 29 of 196
  30. 30. Barack Obama’s CRIMINAL conduct, she would not have received the GREEN Card back.See United States Department of Labor/EEOC’s - Prohibited Employment Policies/Practices atEXHIBIT “LXXVI” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. d) Investigation(s) will yield and reveal GRG’s KNOWLEDGE of Newsome’s legal actions sought against United States of America President Barack Hussein Obama II and the Obama Administration’s attempt to use it as a “FRONTING” Firm to file a Lawsuit AGAINST Newsome in efforts of obstructing Newsome’s DUTY to inform the PUBLIC on matters of PUBLIC Policy and/or matters of PUBLIC Furthermore, Newsomes unlawful/illegal termination affected a DUTY that inures to the BENEFIT of the PUBLIC-AT-LARGE and was done in RETALIATION for Newsome performing an IMPORTANT and SOCIALLY desirable act, exercising a statutory right, and refusing to engage and/or be a part of GRGs criminal/discriminatory practices. e) GRG’s KNOWLEDGE of Newsome’s and the PUBLIC’s interest in the TRUTH behind the September 11, 2001 World Trade Center Attacks (“911 Attacks”) and the posting of such concerns on Newsome’s website at www.vogeldenisenewsome.com. See EXHIBIT “V” attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Newsome going PUBLIC with her website about MAY 2011. f) MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY - INSIDER JOB: United States of America’s Government Attempts in COVER-UP of Role in the 911 Attacks and Payouts To Victims - - Investigation(s) will yield and reveal GRG being retained to handle the PAYOUTS to victims – i.e. such as those as the 911 Responder Victims: Q. and A.: The 9/11 Adjuster In recent weeks, rescue and cleanup workers who sued the city over health damages they attribute to environmental hazards at the former World Trade Center site have been receiving letters explaining how much compensation they would receive under a recent settlement of their claims. The Garretson Firm Resolution Group, with offices in Cincinnati and Charlotte, N.C., is administering the claims, which involve more than 10,000 plaintiffs. (Ninety-five percent of the plaintiffs must approve the settlement by Sept. 8 for it to take effect.) We talked with Matt Garretson, the company’s president and chief executive, about the ins and outs of 9/11 claims administration and calculating the individual settlement amounts. Following are our questions and his responses, edited for clarity and brevity. . . Q. Who pays your firm in this case? A. We’re being paid by the W.T.C. Captive Insurance Company (the city’s insurer). They agreed to pay up to $3.5 million of our expenses. Page 30 of 196
  31. 31. See EXHIBIT “XIX” – “Q. and A.: The 9/11 Adjuster” attachedhereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. . . .The WTC Captive was created with a $1 billion grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to insure the City of New York and its debris removal contractors because in the aftermath of 9/11 the City of New York was unable to procure an adequate amount of liability insurance coverage in the commercial insurance market for the World Trade Center site rescue, recovery and debris removal work. The settlement will cost the taxpayer-funded WTC Captive $625 million in cash at the required 95% plaintiff participation, with an additional $87.5 million paid if certain conditions are met. Plaintiffs attorneys are capping their fees at 25% of the settlement amount, resulting in savings to plaintiffs of over $50 million. Those savings, together with the additional funding of up to $50 to $55 million by the WTC Captive, the waiver of the workers compensation liens and credits, and the assumption by the WTC Captive of additional costs of allocating the settlement proceeds among the plaintiffs, increase the value of this amended settlement to plaintiffs by approximately $125 million as compared to the settlement first announced in March, making the total value of the settlement $712.5 million. . . . The WTC Captive was funded with just under $1 billion in federal funds provided through a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)—part of the $20 billion of such funds requested by the Administration and authorized by Congress to help New York City and its people recover and rebuild after 9/11. . .See EXHIBIT “XX” – “Press Release - WTC Plaintiffs to ReceiveApproximately $125 Million in Addition” attached hereto andincorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. . . .As you may know, each claim must be reviewed and approved by Matt Garretson, who is the Court-appointed "Allocation Neutral" and his team. Not surprisingly, Mr. Garretsons office has been inundated with hundreds of thousands of documents that must be reviewed as part of this process. You may already be aware that payment authority is being issued by the Garretson office in “waves” of several thousand plaintiffs at a time. . . .See EXHIBIT “XXI” – “Initial Payment Update” attached hereto andincorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Bernard “Bernie” Madoff [“Ponzi Scam”] matter. It appears thatGarretson Resolution Group/The Garretson Firm Resolution Group Inc.may have also been retained to handle PAYOUTS in this matter. SeeEXHIBIT “XXII” – “Bernard Madoff Ponzi Scheme” attached heretoand incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Page 31 of 196
  32. 32. g) GRG’s/MStaffing’s relationship and the Causal Connection/Nexus between these Respondents and United States of America President Barack Obama is ESTABLISHED in the “February 18, 2012 Chronological Chart of Events” at EXHIBIT “XXIII” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein; wherein the COMMON Denominator appears to be President Barack Obama’s Legal Counsel/Advisor Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz and can be “LINKED” to such ATTACKS on Newsome - Pertinent FACTS/EVIDENCE To Understand: i. Baker Donelson is OPPOSING Counsel in the Lawsuit Newsome vs. Entergy – See EXHIBIT “XXIV” – Docket Sheet attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST existed in this Lawsuit which neither Baker Donelson NOR the Court advised Newsome that the Judges/Justices assigned matters were those PURCHASED/OWNED by Baker Donelson and appear on Baker Donelson’s Listing of Judges – i.e. for instance Judges Morey Sear and G. Thomas Porteous assigned this lawsuit appear on Baker Donelson’s “List of Judges.” See EXHIBIT “XXV” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. As recent as December 2010, Judge G. Thomas Porteous was IMPEACHED and removed from the Federal Bench for taking BRIBES/KICKBACKS, etc. to “THROW LAWSUITS.” See EXHIBIT “XXVI” attached ii. Baker Donelson CONTROLS/RUNS the Courts – placing its employees, such as James C. Duff in position of DIRECTOR of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. See EXHIBIT “XXVII” – James C. Duff Info attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Baker Donelson seeing to it that it appears on JUDICIAL Nomination Panels responsible for nominating Judges/Justices to be appointed to the Judicial Bench. See EXHIBIT “XXVIII” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. iii. Baker Donelson is Legal Counsel/Advisor to J.P. Morgan Chase Bank – i.e. whose Client is Ponzi Scheme/Scam Guru Bernard “Bernie” Madoff. iv. Baker Donelson is Legal Counsel/Advisor to United States of America President Barack Obama – See EXHIBIT “XXIX” – “LANCE B. LEGGITT” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Page 32 of 196

×