Update: February 7, 2007
I received an explanation of benefits letter dated January 21, 2007 from Delta Dental stating I am responsible for my expenses. I received a letter dated January 24, 2007 from the CobraServ National Service Center stating "the cancellation of your COBRA continuation coverage has been rescinded, with no lapse in coverage." It appears Delta Dental and Ceridian (COBRA) are not communicating with each other, and guess what, I am suffering from it.
Update: January 17, 2007
I received a very detailed professional response from Ceridian. It appears Ceridian performed their duties as outlined in their agreements. I have not received a response from Delta Dental.
Update: January 8, 2007
I called Delta Dental today. Delta Dental representative, Ms. Anna reports my account is now active. Ms. Anna reports my account is retroactive to September 1, 2006.
January 7, 2007
Dr. Robert E. Dennison
President & CEO
Delta Dental of Illinois
801 Ogden AvenueLisle, IL 60532
Mr. John Shade
President & CEO
Ceridian Benefits Services
3201 34th Street South
St. Petersburg, Florida 33711-3828
Re: Dental Insurance/Coverage
Dr. Dennison:
On or about December 1, 2006 my employer(s) Gateway Foundation, Inc. (Gateway) and WestCare Foundation, Inc. (WestCare) entered into an agreement for Cobra insurance with Ceridian Benefits Services (Ceridian). According to Ceridian employees, Ceridian submitted confirmation of my Cobra insurance documentation to Delta Dental of Illinois (Delta) on or about December 20, 2006 with a retroactive/effective date of December 1, 2006.
I attended a dental appointment at Sears Dental (Sears), Calumet City, Illinois, who is my network provider, on December 14, 2006. Because Sears reported I was not covered by my Cobra insurance, on December 14, 2006 I paid $173.00 for my initial dental service with Sears. After calling Ceridian about my premium and finding out it had not been paid on December 14, 2006, I personally sent and Ceridian received a payment of $47.58 for my premium.
As of today, January 7, 2007, my account with Delta is still inactive. As of today, January 7, 2007, I have not received the payments I rendered to Sears of $173.00 and Ceridian of $47.58. As of today, January 7, 2007, Delta has not been able to provide me with any information other than my account being inactive since November 30, 2006.
This is an account of what has happened to me.
On or about November 1, 2006 Gateway relinquished its contract with the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) at Sheridan Correctional Center (Sheridan). On or about November 1, 2006 WestCare engaged in contractual services with IDOC at Sheridan. I had and have Delta Dental of Illinois as my primary service with Gateway and WestCare, respectively. WestCare picked up the insurance responsibility for the employees of this Sheridan contract. I received Cobra insurance through Ceridian Benefits Services (Ceridian) as of December 1, 2006. Gateway and WestCare agreed upon payment for my insurance.
WestCare paid my insurance on or about December 18, 2006, which was retroactive to December 1, 2006. Ceridian entered this information into their computer system on or about December 20, 2006. I have called Ceridian and Delta everyday, except for the holidays of Christmas and New years, having no results to continue my dental services or to get a refund of the money I have spent for my contracted services. I have requested my calls documented by Ceridian and Delta. I have been informed by Ceridian and Delta that my calls have been documented.
When I found out my company had paid my premium on or about December 18, 2006 I verbally requested, on or about December 18, 2006, a refund from Ceridian for my payment of $47.58. I was informed by Ceridian employees my payment of $47.58 would be returned to me. After not receiving my refund by January 1, 2007 I called Ceridian again. Ceridian representatives informed me my payment of $47.58 was applied to my January 2007 payment. Ceridian representatives also informed me I would get a refund or receive credit from Sears for my payment of $173.00 when my insurance was confirmed by Delta. As of January 7, 2007, when calling Delta, Delta has not been able to provide me with any information other than my account being inactive since November 30, 2006.
On January 4, 2007 I talked to Account Specialist Rebecca who informed me I could not receive a refund for the premium I paid if I had not rendered a written request for it. I informed Rebecca no one from Ceridian informed me I had to submit anything in writing for this refund. On January 6, 2007, my last call, Ms. Ashley of Ceridian informed me Ceridian has updated my account three times, which is documented in the Ceridian system, sending the last update of January 5, 2006 to Delta’s “Eligibility Department.” Ms. Ashley also gave me two other departments, which Ceridian might have sent my eligibility requirements to in the Delta system. I have been asking this question of where my eligibility status was sent to in the Delta system since December 20, 2006. No one had the answer except Ms. Ashley. Ceridian’s Account Specialist Rebecca did not have this information for me when I requested it.
Therefore, Dr. Dennison and Mr. Shade I would appreciate an eligibility update immediately. I also request an immediate refund of $47.58 and a credit with my primary dental provider or refund of $173.00, to which I am entitled. I will post this letter on my websites. When I informed a Ceridian employee over the phone I would write and post this letter on my website, he laughed at me.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
cc: http://click.townhall.com/, http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
March 24, 2007
March 04, 2007
Covenant in Action: Youth Anthology Seeks Writers/Artists
Pam Osbey <osbeybooks@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
To: Covenant_in_Action@yahoogroups.com
From: "Pam Osbey" <osbeybooks@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 17:26:26 -0000
Subject: [Covenant_in_Action] Youth Anthology Seeks Writers/Artists
__._,_.___This is the last month I will be seeking entries for the youth focused
anthology, called "Speaking Me". Please pass on to any educators,
counselors, youth at schools or community centers. Currently we have
entries from Chicago, Virginia, New York and New Jersey. See the
details below. Thanks.
-- Pam Osbey, Publisher
Osbey Books
Speaking Me, Volume 1 will be a must have collection of thoughts of
young writers between the ages of 12 and 18. Speaking ME is now
accepting submissions for young poets, writers, and lyricists who are
willing and ready to spill their thoughts on pages for all to see. The
collection is about expressions, healing, and positive vibes that will
be creative and unique. The platform for this anthology is set the
stage for young voices to express themselves through spoken word,
lyricism and short stories that center around deeply reflective
expressions of their souls and spirits. This collection seeks young
writers who are unafraid of their pen and the stories that their pens
can tell others.
GUIDELINES:
POETRY: Please submit no more than 3 poems via electronical
submission, writing your FULL name, address, city, state and zip code
on each poem. If submitting via word, please type your name in the
upper right corner of the page, and type your poetry title and poem.
Submit all three poems in one electronical file in word format or rich
text files. SHORT STORIES: Please submit no more than two short
stories via electronical submission, writing your FULL name, address,
city, state and zip code on each poem. Submit a clean (edit-free short
story) no longer than 3,000 words via Word or Rich Text File format.
LYRICISM (rap-hip hop, songs, etcetera) can be submitted via
electronical submissions as well. Please submit no more than 2
originally written raps, hip hop lyrics, or songs in this category.
SPOKEN WORD : We will highlight six audio tracks of youth in this
publication. In order to take part of this, youth must send original
spoken word and or music via wav or mp3 audio files. Please make sure
to send that you own the copyright to the music. Any and all MUSIC
sales of the spoken word will be paid to the song writers on a
QUARTERLY basis, every four months, after the book is officially
released. The themes of the music must reflect the poetic themes of
identity, self love, self worth, coming of age, change, life as a
teen, etcetera.
ORIGINAL COVER ART : We are seeking graphic art for the book cover.
Submit jpeg files or send in hard copies of the artwork in Early
February - April 2007 for CONSIDERATION. Ensure you submit work that
you originally created yourself and own the legal copyrights to. Cover
artist will be listed in the credits for the book along with all the
writers who contributed to the anthology. Submit via jpeg or tiff
files only with resolution of at least 200 dots per inch.
THEMES: We are seeking coming of age stories, poems about life,
struggle to be independent youth, or have an identity, social,
political, familial, dedications, poems about words and other general
topics that will highlight the soul and the spirit of the writer in
question. Poems or stories about self esteem, worth, self-love,
strength, overcoming obstacles, and change are welcomed.
CERTIFICATION:
To ensure that all work being submitted is original work written,
please send the following quote with your submission: "This work is
original text written by me and I certify that I am the full owner of
such work." Make sure to WRITE YOUR FULL NAME, AGE AND SCHOOL on this
document and send via pdf or scanned and sent to speakingme@gmail.com .
You must be a school aged poet or writer between the AGES OF 10-18 to
submit. No adult submissions are allowed. Thank you!
NOTES:
Emailed submissions are open as of January 9 and end on February 8th.
Mailed submissions will begin on February 8, 2007 and end on May 1,
2007. Anticipated publication date is August 9, 2007.
All writers will be notified by June 1, 2007. This anthology is being
published by Osbey Books.
Osbey Books is headed up by Chicago native, Pam Osbey, a writer with
ten published titles to her credit. She is a literary educator with
the Poetry Center of Chicago and has done extensive work in youth
development programs, in communities across Chicago and other cities.
She is currently in residence at South Shore High School, Charles
Kozminski and Peck Elementary Schools. To find out more about Ms.
Osbey, email her at osbeybooks@sbcglobal.net 
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe.
__,_._,___
Fred L. Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
Social Policy Analyst
708-921-1395
March 02, 2007
[Covenant_in_Action] Genarlow Wilson
"David Nuckolls Sr." <dnuck1@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
To: Covenant_in_Action@yahoogroups.com
From: "David Nuckolls Sr." <dnuck1@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 16:57:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [Covenant_in_Action] Genarlow Wilson
Through selective enforcement they've managed to ruin a lot of lives, especially young black men......our boys are never allowed to be just boys, or have "youthful indiscretions"__._,_.___
dyesplace@aol.com wrote:David, thanks for clearing that up for me. I have not kept track and did not realize that another situation had occurred. I wonder why the law is only applicable to teens? Don't they learn that behavior from adults?
-----Original Message-----
From: dnuck1@sbcglobal.net
To: Covenant_in_Action@yahoogrou ps.com
Sent: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Covenant_in_Action] Genarlow Wilson
I thought it was the same guy too, but this is a different case They changed the law after the Brain Gumble story but they left out oral sex, so Genarlow is in jail for having oral sex, which is illegal for teenagers in Georgia.David
Iris Tucker <itucker3@yahoo.com> wrote:Hello,From what I can tell from googling the story of this young man, I believe he is still incarcerated as of end of february 2007. I believe and I may be wrong that the laws have been changed since his trial, but his sentence still stands.cordially,Iris
dyesplace@aol.com wrote:Is this the same case they did the movie about? If so, that young man was released after the sports show with Brian Gumble exposed the case to the national media. Did something else happen?
-----Original Message-----
From: itucker3@yahoo.com
To: Covenant_in_Action@yahoogrou ps.com
Sent: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 11:17 AM
Subject: [Covenant_in_Action] Genarlow Wilson
Less than two years ago, Genarlow Wilson was an African American scholar-athlete. He maintained a 3.2 GPA and had multiple offers for college football scholarships.
Today. Genarlow Wilson is twenty-three months into a ten-year prison term mandated by a Georgia law for the â€Å"crime†of consensual oral sex with a fellow high school student. A Georgia court convicted Genarlow Wilson of aggravated child molestation.
Join the NAACP in its campaign to Free Genarlow Wilson now! Sign the petition to free Genarlow. Contribute to the NAACP. Fund our fight to Free Genarlow and to maintain our 97 year vigil for justice nationally. If you live in Georgia, call or write a letter to your Georgia Congressperson. Urge your Congressperson to set a hearing date and to pass Senate Bill 37, which would allow the courts to apply common sense and free Genarlow Wilson. If you live outside of Georgia, contact the leaders of the Georgia Senate Judiciary Committee. Urge them to set a hearing date and pass Senate Bill 37.
Though Genarlow and the female student were only 2 years apart in age, the high school female student, who was 3 weeks from her 16th birthday, admitted to initiating the sexual act. Genarlow, however, was convicted and sentenced under a law meant to penalize adult child molesters. Unless justice is served, he will be forced to carry the label of â€Å"sexual predator†for an act engaged in by more than half of all American high school-aged boys.
There is a double standard at play in the sentencing of Genarlow Wilson. Around the same time that Genarlow was sentenced, a high school teacher was convicted of having sex with a student. The white female teacher was sentenced to just 90 days in the same Georgia courthouse that sentenced Genarlow to 10 years.
The NAACP has made a formal request to both Governor Sonny Perdue and Georgia Senate Judiciary Committee Chair, Preston Smith, to pass and sign Senate Bill 37 into law. Senate Bill 37 will allow trial judges to review and modify the sentences of individuals, like Genarlow, who have been harshly sentenced under the antiquated Georgia law.
Let it be known that you are outraged at the decision to throw away the life of this promising young man for reasons that defy logic, and demand restitution. Here are some talking points you can use in your letters or phone calls.
Sign the petition to free Genarlow now!
For more information about the campaign to Free Genarlow Wilson, please contact me at: 410-580-5762 or
jjackson@naacpnet.org.
Sincerely,
Dr. John Jackson
NAACP Chief Policy Officer
To make a tax-deductible donation to assist us with our work, click here.
David Nuckolls773-621-0524
David Nuckolls773-621-0524
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe.
__,_._,___
Fred L. Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
Social Policy Analyst
708-921-1395
March 01, 2007
Social Services - Centers for New Horizons: Civil Complaint - Wrongful Termination/Discharge
Update: December 29, 2006
THIS IS A PUBLIC RECORD, FILED ON DECEMBER 4, 2006
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
DARLENE BOUYER-NANCE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CENTERS FOR NEW HORIZONS, INC.
Defendants.
No. 06 C 4813
Honorable Robert W. Gettleman
Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys
JOINT INITIAL STATUS REPORT
Plaintiff Darlene Bouyer-Nance (“Bouyer-Nance) and defendant Centers for New Horizons, Inc. (“Centers”) hereby submit their joint status report in accordance with the order setting initial status report for cases assigned to Judge Gettleman.
A. This matter is set for status on December 6, 2006 at 9:00 am.
B. Bouyer-Nance is proceeding pro se in this matter. Centers is represented by Jeffrey I. Cummings and Tiffany Glanville of Miner, Barnhill and Galland, P.C., who are expected to try the case.
C. This Court has subject jurisdiction of plaintiff’s claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §2000-e2 & 5, 28 U.S.C. §1367, §1331, 1343 and 1981a (a)(1) and (b)(1), and it has jurisdiction of plaintiff’s claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12117.
D. Neither party has requested a jury trial.
E. (1) Plaintiff’s statement of the claims. A wrongful discharge/termination was carried out by defendant against plaintiff. Defendant claimed plaintiff was terminated for misconduct. Plaintiff was not required to report abuse of child in this instant matter. During the investigation of the supposed child abuse, plaintiff questioned the mother and child, determining no child abuse took place. The person reporting the child abuse did not report it to plaintiff until a week later. Mr. David W. Ott, Hearing Referee and Administrative Law Judge for the Illinois Department of Employment Security (“IDES”) determined during this investigation:
The claimant’s [plaintiff’s] [emphasis added] failure to report the mother to DCFS was not deliberate and willful…the employer was second guessing the claimant’s judgment based on what she actually saw and heard…She was in the best position to decide, based on her experience…There certainly was no evidence of physical abuse apart from the minor mark on the child’s face, which could have come from horseplay rather than from child abuse. The mark was so insignificant that the teacher [another Centers employee] [emphasis added] did not mention it for a week.
Centers appealed to IDES’s Board of Review (the “Board”). The Board reports: The record adequately sets forth the evidence so that no further evidentiary proceedings are deemed necessary…The claimant had never been warned about not reporting suspected instances of child abuse to DCFS…The employer’s assertion that the claimant told them that the mother told her that she “whipped him too hard” lacks credibility…Consequently, the record supports the Referee’s conclusion that the claimant, although she may have used poor judgment in not reporting the incident to DCFS, did not deliberately and willfully violate the employer’s policy…Accordingly, we conclude that the claimant was discharged for reasons other than misconduct connected with work and is not subject to disqualification….
(2) Defendant’s statement of its defense. Centers terminated plaintiff’s employment for the following legitimate, non-discriminatory reason. Plaintiff was employed as the program manager of one of Centers’ early-childhood learning centers. Because her job involved interaction with children in an educational setting, plaintiff was required to execute an “acknowledgment of mandated reporter status” which acknowledged her obligation to report the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services “whenever I have reasonable cause to believe that a child known to me in my professional or official capacity may be abused or neglected.” Centers discovered that plaintiff failed to report to DCFS an instance of suspected abuse or neglect and it terminated her employment for that reason. Plaintiff’s age, sex, and religious had nothing to do with this decision. Centers further denies that it retaliated against plaintiff in any fashion.
F. Plaintiff requests an award for punitive, compensatory and exemplary monetary damages in the amount of $80,000.00 from Centers for motive and intent of the wantonness and gross negligence of the egregious and outrageous acts of malice, reckless and callous indifference and conduct to the federally-protected rights of plaintiff, along with the pain and suffering, mental anguish, harassment, and intimidation of plaintiff in the work environment.
G. There are no parties who have not been served.
H. (1) Plaintiff’s statement of the principal legal issues. Disparate impact, disparate treatment, adverse employment action, which is wrongful termination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq. Farrell v. Butler University (7th Cir. 2005). Finding of genuine issue of material fact, disparate treatment, disparate impact, and adverse employment. Walker v. Abbott Laboraories (7th Cir. 2003). At-will employment contractual claim under §1981. Washington v. Illinois Department of Revenue (7th Cir. 2005). Discrimination in terms and conditions of employment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq. Discrimination in terms and conditions of employment and adverse employment action.
Maalik v. International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local 2 (7th Cir. 2006), and Whittaker v. Northern Illinois University, et al. (7th Cir. 2005). Hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and 42 U.S.C. §2000E, et seq. To establish a prima facie case for unlawful retaliation, plaintiff must prove three elements: (a) she engaged in statutorily-protected expression; (b) she suffered and adverse employment action; and (c) there was a causal link between the protected expression and the adverse action. Krause v. City of La Crosse, 246, F.3d 995, 1000 (7th Cir. 2001). A causal link between the protected expression and an adverse employment action may be established by showing that the protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the employer’s decision. Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287 (1977). “A motivating factor does not amount to a but-for factor or to the only factor, but is rather a factor that motivated the defendant’s actions.” Spiegla v. Hull, 371 F.3d 928, 942 (7th Cir. 2004).
Reverse discrimination and similarly-situated individuals under Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq. Ineichen v. Ameritech (7th Cir. 2005), this court reports reverse-discrimination claims arise where the decisionmakers are of the same sex or race as the alleged victim, see, e.g., Preston v. Wis. Health Fund, 397 F.3d 539 (7th Cir. 2005). The court explained the rationale for the heightened standard in Phelan v. City of Chicago, 347 F.3d 679, 684-85 (7th Cir. 2003), and Mills v. Health Care Service Corp., 171 F.3d 450, 455-57 (7th Cir. 1999).
Age and sex discrimination as plaintiff alleges Centers’ employees conspired and collaborated to discriminate against plaintiff. Plaintiff demonstrates through her allegations a violation of Title VII, as amended, for age and sex discrimination under the disparate-impact theory and disparate-treatment theory whether she proves discriminatory intent or not.
(2) Defendant’s statement of the principal legal issues. The principal legal issues in this case include: (a) whether or not Centers had a legitimate, non-discriminatory, non-retaliatory reason for terminating plaintiff’s employment; (b) whether Illinois law precludes plaintiff from making use of evidence in this case regarding the decision of and/or testimony by the administrative law judge in her unemployment compensation proceedings before IDES.
I. (1) Plaintiff’s statement of the principal factual issues. Plaintiff contends that there are disputed factual issues in this case that would deny summary judgment to the defendant. Plaintiff was wrongfully discharged/terminated from employment. Plaintiff is over 40 years old, which makes her eligible under ADEA. Plaintiff’s supervisor, Artiyah Buckner-Nash, purposely and willfully manufactured evidence against plaintiff to support her request that plaintiff be terminated/discharged from employment. Centers’ employees violated plaintiff’s civil rights pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended 1991 Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), as amended 1991 Act.
(2) Defendant’s statement of the principal factual issues. Centers contends that there are no disputed factual issues in this case that would preclude summary judgment in Centers’ favor on the remaining claims advanced by plaintiff.
J. Plaintiff is not sure of what motion(s) may be filed at this time, but plaintiff will file a motion for summary judgment in this case. Defendant intends to file a motion for a protective order and a motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims in this case.
K. Both parties have served written discovery, including requests for production of documents and interrogatories and the parties have agreed to exchange their written responses on December 11, 2006 or shortly thereafter. In addition, Centers noticed a deposition of Bouyer-Nance. However, Bouyer-Nance expressed the date must be changed, and the deposition has not been rescheduled thus far.
The parties propose the following discovery schedule: (2) written discovery responses shall be due by December 15, 2006; (3) depositions shall be completed by January 15, 2006; discovery cutoff shall be February 1, 2007; and (5) case dispositive motions shall be filed by March 1, 2007.
L. Plaintiff and Defendant will be ready for trial when and if a trial is necessary after their prospective summary judgment motions are resolved.
M. There have been no settlement discussions between the parties at this time. Plaintiff is open to settlement discussions and alternative dispute resolution.
N. The parties do not consent to trial before the Magistrate Judge.
Respectfully submitted,
Darlene Bouyer-Nance
Jeffery I. Cummings
Plaintiff has submitted to Centers a “Proposed Settlement Agreement, Mutual Release and Covenant Not to Sue”
Update: December 3, 2006
Initial Status Report filed with Attorney of Record for Centers for New Horizons. See Initial Status Report on http://clickforjusticeandequality2.blogspot.com/
Update: November 6, 2006
See http://clickforjusticeandequality2.blogspot.com/ to view the request for production of documents and interrogatories.
The motion for sanctions was denied. Judge Gettleman refused the plaintiff's request to address the court by telephone conference when she clearly requested it in time speaking to Courtroom Deputy George Schwemin stating she could not attend the court appearance because she was suffering from Sciatica and a possible Herniated Disk, which is a medical issue where she had to have a Catscan. Mr. Steve Gilman, Judge Gettleman's law clerk, states Judge Gettleman does not do telephone teleconferences. Judge Gettleman ruled on the motion for sanctions without the plaintiff being present.
Update: October 12, 2006
See http://clickforjusticeandequality2.blogspot.com/ to view the civil complaint and motion for sanctions
Update: September 23, 2006
The law firm of Miner, Barnhill & Galland has filed its appearance in the Matter of Darlene Bouyer-Nance v. Centers for New Horizons, Inc. with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 7th Circuit. Attorney Jeffrey I. Cummings appears to be lead counsel. Darlene has not received Centers' answer to her complaint as of this date.
Darlene is still looking for an attorney to represent her in this matter. C.L.I.C.K. Services is exploring and exhausting its resources looking for representation for Darlene. If there is an attorney out there willing to represent Darlene, please post in comment section. Thank you.
Update: September 7, 2006
Federal Complaint filed with the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, 7th Circuit in this matter. See it at my new website called: Resources to use for Federal and State Petitions to the Courts at http://clickforjusticeandequality2.blogspot.com/
Update: September 2, 2006
Darlene Bouyer-Nance is the claimant.
On or about August 30, 2006 the Board of Review for the Illinois Department of Employment Security issued its findings in this matter. The Board reported the following:
"The record discloses that the claimant was employed as Program Manager at one of the employer's childcard facilities. She was discharged on March 15, 2006 for failing to report a possible instance of child abuse to the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) after having been informed by a teacher at the childcare that the child had a small cut beneath one eye. The teacher had noticed the mark a week before informing the claimant of her observation.
The employer's assertion that the claimant told them that the mother told her that she "whipped him too hard" lacks credibility. Other than at the hearing, the employer made no claim that the mother had used this term. Moreover, the other supervisor who allegedly heard the claimant relate the mother's statement did not appear and testify at the hearing. In contrast, the claimant's denial at the hearing regarding the mother's purported statement is supported by her (the claimant's) earlier statement to the claims adjudicator and by the description of the incident made by the claimant in the grievance she filed against the employer on March 16, 2006, the day after her discharge. Consequently, the record supports the Referee's conclusion that the claimant, although she may have used poor judgment in not reporting the incident to DCFS, did not deliberately and wilfully violate the employer's policy.
Accordingly, we conclude that the claimant was discharged for reasons other than misconduct connected with work and is not subject to disqualification under section 602A of the Act."
Centers violated Darlene's civil rights in that she suffered disparate treatment and disparate impact, discrimination in terms and conditions of employment and adverse employment action, a hostile work environment and retaliation, and treatment different than similarly situated individuals.
Update: August 29, 2006
Darlene intends to file her petition/complaint in federal court on or before September 29, 2006. She continues to await the decision of the Illinois Department of Human Rights. There is also a petition pending before the Illinois Department of Employment Security's Board of Review filed by the respondent, Centers for New Horizons (Centers). Center's is still trying to stop Darlene's unemployment benefits.
Update: July 27, 2006
On July 27, 2006 Darlene received a "Notice of Pending Appeal" from the State of Illinois, Department of Employment Security - Board of Review. Apparently, Centers for New Horizons has filed an appeal to the Board of Review on July 20, 2006, which is their right. I, Fred Nance Jr., will be calling the Board of Review to investigate this appeal to assure there are no inproprieties, biases and prejudices added to this matter. Centers' should not be allowed to add additional testimony or documentation in an appeal. An appeal should be based on the documentation and testimony previously given, as any appeal is conducted. Appeals do not allow "new" testitmony or documentation. A decision of an appeal should be determined upon what has been submitted previously in the matter.
Update: July 26, 2006
On July 25, 2006 Darlene received a letter from the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR), dated July 21, 2006, reporting in part, "...It is important for you to understand that the Department is taking no other action on your charge at this time, and there is no need for you to contact the Department of Human Rights."
I immediately called IDHR requesting to speak to a supervisor at 4:33 pm. I spoke to Ms. Turner who gave me information for contacting Mr. Denzel Laye, Supervisor of the Case Disposition Unit on July 26, 2006. I called Mr. Laye this morning. As we discussed this letter, Mr. Laye stated the letter we received pertains to the issues surrounding the 2nd charge of retaliation filed with the Equal Employment Opportunties Commission (EEOC). I informed Mr. Laye we did not know we had a second charge with EEOC. Mr. Laye stated he could not give us any information about the 2nd charge. Mr. Laye and I also discussed the signed notarized charge mailed to them for the 1st charge. Mr. Laye stated they did not have it. I informed him we sent it by certified mail on July 17, 2006. I researched the postal system's website. The IDHR notarized 1st charge signed by Darlene was delivered to IDHR on July 21, 2006.
I called Ms. Rossi, at approximately 10:00 am, who issued the right to sue letter on the 1st charge. I got her voice mail. I did not leave a message. I called the EEOC general phone number. The person who answered the call look up our charges. She informed me we had 2 charges. The first charge was filed on March 29, 2006, which included age, sex and religion. The second charge was filed on May 30, 2006, which included retaliation. I asked the person who answered the phone when were we going to be informed there was a second charge. I informed this person we thought all of these charges were combined into one charge. I asked for a disposition on the 2nd case because IDHR stated they were not investigating the 2nd charge because they had not received a disposition on the 2nd charge. The EEOC representative stated she could not access the disposition from her computer. I requested to speak to a supervisor.
I was connected to Ms. Monique Debusemann. I had to leave a message because no one answered the phone. This was about 10:30 am. I called Ms. Rossi again at 3:10 pm. She answered the phone. I informed her of my dilemma. Ms. Rossi informed me both cases were closed at the same time. Ms. Rossi said she would fax me a copy of the 2nd "Dismissal and Notice of Rights." I asked Ms. Rossi who would inform IDHR. Ms. Rossi informed me she did not know how IDHR is made aware of cases being closed. I will alert IDHR's supervisor of the Case Disposition Unit, Mr. Denzel Laye, of this revelation.
July 1, 2006
On July 1, 2006 Darlene received her "official" notice of right to sue from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC issued the following determination: "Based upon its investigation, the EEOC is unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes. This does not certify that the respondent is in compliance with the statutes. No finding is made as to any other issues that might be construed as having been raised by this charge." I have something else I want to do before we pursue our approaches toward a federal complaint. We accomplished our strategic objectives for the first leg of this fight. The future strategies and approaches toward our federal complaint are not available for public viewing at this time. Look for future postings toward this end.
June 26, 2006
United States Equal Employment Opportunities Commission
Chicago District Office
Ms. Monique Debusemann, Supervisor
500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800
Chicago, Illinois 60661
Re: Darlene D. Bouyer-Nance v. Centers for New Horizons
EEOC Number: 440-2006-02879
Ms. Debusemann:
I, Fred L Nance Jr., am the advocate for Darlene Nance in this matter. Darlene and I talked with Ms. Rossi, who is the investigator assigned to this case, on June 26, 2006 at 1:00 pm. We discussed this matter and Ms. Rossi has determined she will issue a right-to-sue response. We disagree with her decision and analysis.
Darlene and I discussed the recent ruling by the Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES) where Darlene was exonerated of misconduct, that is, deliberate and willful violation of a reasonable rule or policy. Centers reports they terminated Darlene for misconduct, not reporting a suspected child abuse case. Ms. Rossi suggests IDES uses different law than EEOC to determine an issue. Be that as it may. The question then becomes, “why did Centers terminate Darlene?” Darlene and I suggest the termination was based on retaliation, age, sex and/or religion. We also suggest since the onset of filing this charge and its investigation, the charges have not been examined appropriately.
Darlene and I reported in our original meeting with an investigator discrimination based on retaliation, age, sex and religion. We suggest if Darlene is not guilty of the employment action taken by Centers, then Darlene was terminated because:
Retaliation: Center’s Director of Early Childhood Education, Artiyah Buckner-Nash, terminated Darlene in response to Darlene writing disciplinary reports against her friends, which is retaliation. Center’s continued this retaliatory act at every stage of the grievance procedure, even though Darlene demonstrated at every stage of the grievance procedure the findings of IDES.
Age Discrimination: Darlene is over 40-years-old. Darlene was the Director at Edison L. Hoard, Centers for New Horizons. Darlene was replaced by a young lady under 40-years-old. She is in place now at Edison L. Hoard. Centers wanted to replace Darlene with someone younger.
Sex: Mr. Witherspoon, male Director for Centers, was retained while most of his staff was terminated because of child endangerment. This was not reported to DCFS as suggested Darlene report. Mr. Witherspoon was not terminated as Darlene for not reporting the child endangerment issue to DCFS. Ms.Rossi did not discuss this issue.
Religion: Darlene is a Christian, with Christian morals and values. Darlene was prevented from exercising her religious beliefs and was ordered to pick up the religious beliefs of Centers. Centers’ provides services to a mixed racial population. Centers’ is not a Christian organization as Ms. Rossi reported to Darlene and I. Center’s does not believe in and has instructed the staff not to teach the children anything about Easter or Christmas, the staff is ordered not to use the word God or Jesus Christ. Centers’ is an Afrocentric organization concentrating on “black” equality and pride as their website suggests. Darlene and I submitted a document to EEOC titled “Centers for New Horizons Daily Rituals. One of these rituals states, “Black Pledge: We are the First and the Last, THE ALPHA AND OMEGA, We pledge to think black, speak black, act black, pray black, buy black, love black, and live black. Darlene and I presented the religious issue to Ms. Rossi stating the use of the words “We are the First and the Last, THE ALPHA AND OMEGA” is a religious statement and religious in nature. Darlene and I suggested to Ms. Rossi when the use of religious wording is before “…we pledge to think black…” then religious discrimination takes place, along with Darlene being denied the right to practice her religion. Christianity does not purport the theories or the practices of Centers. Centers’ does practice religious rituals with this belief system and their statements within the document submitted to EEOC.
Similarly situated individual: Ms. Patricia Martin, Director of Anita Boswell Early Learning Center (Hyde Park location), was involved in a non-reporting child abuse case as suggested by Centers’ against Darlene in her termination. Ms. Martin did not report the child abuse issue at the Anita Boswell site. Ms. Martin was retained and transferred to the main office for about a month, then to the Algeld Garden site. In the same child abuse case the cook, Patricia Morsett, was terminated for child abuse. This child abuse case was reported by the teacher Ms. Robinson and child’s mother. Ms. Robinson was terminated for alerting the parent her child was being abused by the cook and for calling DCFS. The child’s name is xxxxxxx. This incident happened in early 2004. Artiyah Buckner-Nash was aware of this situation and terminated Ms. Robinson and Ms. Morsett. Artiyah Buckner-Nash transferred Ms. Martin to another site as mentioned above. Artiyah Buckner-Nash terminated Darlene. Ms. Martin and Darlene were and are similarly situated.
Therefore, I respectfully request EEOC review the file for the discrepancies noted above. Ms. Rossi’s investigation is flawed. The issues of similarly situated, sex, age, religion and retaliation were mentioned to the initial investigator and to you during the initial claim. Somewhere along the way we all lost focus of the charge. Darlene and I want to accept our part in this miscommunication of facts. As Darlene and I continued through this process of EEOC and with the Illinois Department of Employment Security, we discovered other material and information leading to confirmation of our original charge under Title VII.
In addition, Ms. Rossi totally discharges from thought our case, which may have a foundation based upon: Farrell v. Butler University (7th Cir. 2005) disparate treatment, disparate impact and adverse employment actions; Washington v. Illinois Department of Revenue (7th Cir. 2005) discrimination in terms and conditions of employment and adverse employment action; Maalik v. International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local 2 (7th Cir. 2006) and Whittaker v. Northern Illinois University et al. (7th Cir. 2005) hostile work environment and retaliation; and Ineichen v. Ameritech (7th Cir. 2005) similarly situated individuals. All of which fall under Title VII, ADEA, § 1331, § 1367, § 1981 and § 1983.
Please review. When I informed Ms. Rossi it appears EEOC leaves the consumer out in the cold with their case, she responded stating before EEOC was in place consumers had to go to court on their own behalf anyway. What does this mean? What does this have to do with the present outcome Ms. Rossi suggests? When I further addressed the issue of EEOC dismissing Darlene’s claim in this matter, Ms. Rossi stated as you did when Darlene and I met with you that EEOC has limited resources. What does this mean to the consumer? What does this mean toward the creation of EEOC?
What is your agency going to do with this case? It is obvious to me, the layperson, Darlene has a case under Title VII. Someone botched this investigation.
I talked to Ms. Debusemann informing her I would submit this writing by facsimile in response to Ms. Rossi’s evaluation and assessment of this claim.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
Darlene Bouyer-Nance, M.Ed.
cc: http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/ or C.L.I.C.K. for Justice and Equality
THIS IS A PUBLIC RECORD, FILED ON DECEMBER 4, 2006
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
DARLENE BOUYER-NANCE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CENTERS FOR NEW HORIZONS, INC.
Defendants.
No. 06 C 4813
Honorable Robert W. Gettleman
Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys
JOINT INITIAL STATUS REPORT
Plaintiff Darlene Bouyer-Nance (“Bouyer-Nance) and defendant Centers for New Horizons, Inc. (“Centers”) hereby submit their joint status report in accordance with the order setting initial status report for cases assigned to Judge Gettleman.
A. This matter is set for status on December 6, 2006 at 9:00 am.
B. Bouyer-Nance is proceeding pro se in this matter. Centers is represented by Jeffrey I. Cummings and Tiffany Glanville of Miner, Barnhill and Galland, P.C., who are expected to try the case.
C. This Court has subject jurisdiction of plaintiff’s claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §2000-e2 & 5, 28 U.S.C. §1367, §1331, 1343 and 1981a (a)(1) and (b)(1), and it has jurisdiction of plaintiff’s claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12117.
D. Neither party has requested a jury trial.
E. (1) Plaintiff’s statement of the claims. A wrongful discharge/termination was carried out by defendant against plaintiff. Defendant claimed plaintiff was terminated for misconduct. Plaintiff was not required to report abuse of child in this instant matter. During the investigation of the supposed child abuse, plaintiff questioned the mother and child, determining no child abuse took place. The person reporting the child abuse did not report it to plaintiff until a week later. Mr. David W. Ott, Hearing Referee and Administrative Law Judge for the Illinois Department of Employment Security (“IDES”) determined during this investigation:
The claimant’s [plaintiff’s] [emphasis added] failure to report the mother to DCFS was not deliberate and willful…the employer was second guessing the claimant’s judgment based on what she actually saw and heard…She was in the best position to decide, based on her experience…There certainly was no evidence of physical abuse apart from the minor mark on the child’s face, which could have come from horseplay rather than from child abuse. The mark was so insignificant that the teacher [another Centers employee] [emphasis added] did not mention it for a week.
Centers appealed to IDES’s Board of Review (the “Board”). The Board reports: The record adequately sets forth the evidence so that no further evidentiary proceedings are deemed necessary…The claimant had never been warned about not reporting suspected instances of child abuse to DCFS…The employer’s assertion that the claimant told them that the mother told her that she “whipped him too hard” lacks credibility…Consequently, the record supports the Referee’s conclusion that the claimant, although she may have used poor judgment in not reporting the incident to DCFS, did not deliberately and willfully violate the employer’s policy…Accordingly, we conclude that the claimant was discharged for reasons other than misconduct connected with work and is not subject to disqualification….
(2) Defendant’s statement of its defense. Centers terminated plaintiff’s employment for the following legitimate, non-discriminatory reason. Plaintiff was employed as the program manager of one of Centers’ early-childhood learning centers. Because her job involved interaction with children in an educational setting, plaintiff was required to execute an “acknowledgment of mandated reporter status” which acknowledged her obligation to report the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services “whenever I have reasonable cause to believe that a child known to me in my professional or official capacity may be abused or neglected.” Centers discovered that plaintiff failed to report to DCFS an instance of suspected abuse or neglect and it terminated her employment for that reason. Plaintiff’s age, sex, and religious had nothing to do with this decision. Centers further denies that it retaliated against plaintiff in any fashion.
F. Plaintiff requests an award for punitive, compensatory and exemplary monetary damages in the amount of $80,000.00 from Centers for motive and intent of the wantonness and gross negligence of the egregious and outrageous acts of malice, reckless and callous indifference and conduct to the federally-protected rights of plaintiff, along with the pain and suffering, mental anguish, harassment, and intimidation of plaintiff in the work environment.
G. There are no parties who have not been served.
H. (1) Plaintiff’s statement of the principal legal issues. Disparate impact, disparate treatment, adverse employment action, which is wrongful termination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq. Farrell v. Butler University (7th Cir. 2005). Finding of genuine issue of material fact, disparate treatment, disparate impact, and adverse employment. Walker v. Abbott Laboraories (7th Cir. 2003). At-will employment contractual claim under §1981. Washington v. Illinois Department of Revenue (7th Cir. 2005). Discrimination in terms and conditions of employment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq. Discrimination in terms and conditions of employment and adverse employment action.
Maalik v. International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local 2 (7th Cir. 2006), and Whittaker v. Northern Illinois University, et al. (7th Cir. 2005). Hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and 42 U.S.C. §2000E, et seq. To establish a prima facie case for unlawful retaliation, plaintiff must prove three elements: (a) she engaged in statutorily-protected expression; (b) she suffered and adverse employment action; and (c) there was a causal link between the protected expression and the adverse action. Krause v. City of La Crosse, 246, F.3d 995, 1000 (7th Cir. 2001). A causal link between the protected expression and an adverse employment action may be established by showing that the protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the employer’s decision. Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287 (1977). “A motivating factor does not amount to a but-for factor or to the only factor, but is rather a factor that motivated the defendant’s actions.” Spiegla v. Hull, 371 F.3d 928, 942 (7th Cir. 2004).
Reverse discrimination and similarly-situated individuals under Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq. Ineichen v. Ameritech (7th Cir. 2005), this court reports reverse-discrimination claims arise where the decisionmakers are of the same sex or race as the alleged victim, see, e.g., Preston v. Wis. Health Fund, 397 F.3d 539 (7th Cir. 2005). The court explained the rationale for the heightened standard in Phelan v. City of Chicago, 347 F.3d 679, 684-85 (7th Cir. 2003), and Mills v. Health Care Service Corp., 171 F.3d 450, 455-57 (7th Cir. 1999).
Age and sex discrimination as plaintiff alleges Centers’ employees conspired and collaborated to discriminate against plaintiff. Plaintiff demonstrates through her allegations a violation of Title VII, as amended, for age and sex discrimination under the disparate-impact theory and disparate-treatment theory whether she proves discriminatory intent or not.
(2) Defendant’s statement of the principal legal issues. The principal legal issues in this case include: (a) whether or not Centers had a legitimate, non-discriminatory, non-retaliatory reason for terminating plaintiff’s employment; (b) whether Illinois law precludes plaintiff from making use of evidence in this case regarding the decision of and/or testimony by the administrative law judge in her unemployment compensation proceedings before IDES.
I. (1) Plaintiff’s statement of the principal factual issues. Plaintiff contends that there are disputed factual issues in this case that would deny summary judgment to the defendant. Plaintiff was wrongfully discharged/terminated from employment. Plaintiff is over 40 years old, which makes her eligible under ADEA. Plaintiff’s supervisor, Artiyah Buckner-Nash, purposely and willfully manufactured evidence against plaintiff to support her request that plaintiff be terminated/discharged from employment. Centers’ employees violated plaintiff’s civil rights pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended 1991 Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), as amended 1991 Act.
(2) Defendant’s statement of the principal factual issues. Centers contends that there are no disputed factual issues in this case that would preclude summary judgment in Centers’ favor on the remaining claims advanced by plaintiff.
J. Plaintiff is not sure of what motion(s) may be filed at this time, but plaintiff will file a motion for summary judgment in this case. Defendant intends to file a motion for a protective order and a motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims in this case.
K. Both parties have served written discovery, including requests for production of documents and interrogatories and the parties have agreed to exchange their written responses on December 11, 2006 or shortly thereafter. In addition, Centers noticed a deposition of Bouyer-Nance. However, Bouyer-Nance expressed the date must be changed, and the deposition has not been rescheduled thus far.
The parties propose the following discovery schedule: (2) written discovery responses shall be due by December 15, 2006; (3) depositions shall be completed by January 15, 2006; discovery cutoff shall be February 1, 2007; and (5) case dispositive motions shall be filed by March 1, 2007.
L. Plaintiff and Defendant will be ready for trial when and if a trial is necessary after their prospective summary judgment motions are resolved.
M. There have been no settlement discussions between the parties at this time. Plaintiff is open to settlement discussions and alternative dispute resolution.
N. The parties do not consent to trial before the Magistrate Judge.
Respectfully submitted,
Darlene Bouyer-Nance
Jeffery I. Cummings
Plaintiff has submitted to Centers a “Proposed Settlement Agreement, Mutual Release and Covenant Not to Sue”
Update: December 3, 2006
Initial Status Report filed with Attorney of Record for Centers for New Horizons. See Initial Status Report on http://clickforjusticeandequality2.blogspot.com/
Update: November 6, 2006
See http://clickforjusticeandequality2.blogspot.com/ to view the request for production of documents and interrogatories.
The motion for sanctions was denied. Judge Gettleman refused the plaintiff's request to address the court by telephone conference when she clearly requested it in time speaking to Courtroom Deputy George Schwemin stating she could not attend the court appearance because she was suffering from Sciatica and a possible Herniated Disk, which is a medical issue where she had to have a Catscan. Mr. Steve Gilman, Judge Gettleman's law clerk, states Judge Gettleman does not do telephone teleconferences. Judge Gettleman ruled on the motion for sanctions without the plaintiff being present.
Update: October 12, 2006
See http://clickforjusticeandequality2.blogspot.com/ to view the civil complaint and motion for sanctions
Update: September 23, 2006
The law firm of Miner, Barnhill & Galland has filed its appearance in the Matter of Darlene Bouyer-Nance v. Centers for New Horizons, Inc. with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 7th Circuit. Attorney Jeffrey I. Cummings appears to be lead counsel. Darlene has not received Centers' answer to her complaint as of this date.
Darlene is still looking for an attorney to represent her in this matter. C.L.I.C.K. Services is exploring and exhausting its resources looking for representation for Darlene. If there is an attorney out there willing to represent Darlene, please post in comment section. Thank you.
Update: September 7, 2006
Federal Complaint filed with the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, 7th Circuit in this matter. See it at my new website called: Resources to use for Federal and State Petitions to the Courts at http://clickforjusticeandequality2.blogspot.com/
Update: September 2, 2006
Darlene Bouyer-Nance is the claimant.
On or about August 30, 2006 the Board of Review for the Illinois Department of Employment Security issued its findings in this matter. The Board reported the following:
"The record discloses that the claimant was employed as Program Manager at one of the employer's childcard facilities. She was discharged on March 15, 2006 for failing to report a possible instance of child abuse to the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) after having been informed by a teacher at the childcare that the child had a small cut beneath one eye. The teacher had noticed the mark a week before informing the claimant of her observation.
The employer's assertion that the claimant told them that the mother told her that she "whipped him too hard" lacks credibility. Other than at the hearing, the employer made no claim that the mother had used this term. Moreover, the other supervisor who allegedly heard the claimant relate the mother's statement did not appear and testify at the hearing. In contrast, the claimant's denial at the hearing regarding the mother's purported statement is supported by her (the claimant's) earlier statement to the claims adjudicator and by the description of the incident made by the claimant in the grievance she filed against the employer on March 16, 2006, the day after her discharge. Consequently, the record supports the Referee's conclusion that the claimant, although she may have used poor judgment in not reporting the incident to DCFS, did not deliberately and wilfully violate the employer's policy.
Accordingly, we conclude that the claimant was discharged for reasons other than misconduct connected with work and is not subject to disqualification under section 602A of the Act."
Centers violated Darlene's civil rights in that she suffered disparate treatment and disparate impact, discrimination in terms and conditions of employment and adverse employment action, a hostile work environment and retaliation, and treatment different than similarly situated individuals.
Update: August 29, 2006
Darlene intends to file her petition/complaint in federal court on or before September 29, 2006. She continues to await the decision of the Illinois Department of Human Rights. There is also a petition pending before the Illinois Department of Employment Security's Board of Review filed by the respondent, Centers for New Horizons (Centers). Center's is still trying to stop Darlene's unemployment benefits.
Update: July 27, 2006
On July 27, 2006 Darlene received a "Notice of Pending Appeal" from the State of Illinois, Department of Employment Security - Board of Review. Apparently, Centers for New Horizons has filed an appeal to the Board of Review on July 20, 2006, which is their right. I, Fred Nance Jr., will be calling the Board of Review to investigate this appeal to assure there are no inproprieties, biases and prejudices added to this matter. Centers' should not be allowed to add additional testimony or documentation in an appeal. An appeal should be based on the documentation and testimony previously given, as any appeal is conducted. Appeals do not allow "new" testitmony or documentation. A decision of an appeal should be determined upon what has been submitted previously in the matter.
Update: July 26, 2006
On July 25, 2006 Darlene received a letter from the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR), dated July 21, 2006, reporting in part, "...It is important for you to understand that the Department is taking no other action on your charge at this time, and there is no need for you to contact the Department of Human Rights."
I immediately called IDHR requesting to speak to a supervisor at 4:33 pm. I spoke to Ms. Turner who gave me information for contacting Mr. Denzel Laye, Supervisor of the Case Disposition Unit on July 26, 2006. I called Mr. Laye this morning. As we discussed this letter, Mr. Laye stated the letter we received pertains to the issues surrounding the 2nd charge of retaliation filed with the Equal Employment Opportunties Commission (EEOC). I informed Mr. Laye we did not know we had a second charge with EEOC. Mr. Laye stated he could not give us any information about the 2nd charge. Mr. Laye and I also discussed the signed notarized charge mailed to them for the 1st charge. Mr. Laye stated they did not have it. I informed him we sent it by certified mail on July 17, 2006. I researched the postal system's website. The IDHR notarized 1st charge signed by Darlene was delivered to IDHR on July 21, 2006.
I called Ms. Rossi, at approximately 10:00 am, who issued the right to sue letter on the 1st charge. I got her voice mail. I did not leave a message. I called the EEOC general phone number. The person who answered the call look up our charges. She informed me we had 2 charges. The first charge was filed on March 29, 2006, which included age, sex and religion. The second charge was filed on May 30, 2006, which included retaliation. I asked the person who answered the phone when were we going to be informed there was a second charge. I informed this person we thought all of these charges were combined into one charge. I asked for a disposition on the 2nd case because IDHR stated they were not investigating the 2nd charge because they had not received a disposition on the 2nd charge. The EEOC representative stated she could not access the disposition from her computer. I requested to speak to a supervisor.
I was connected to Ms. Monique Debusemann. I had to leave a message because no one answered the phone. This was about 10:30 am. I called Ms. Rossi again at 3:10 pm. She answered the phone. I informed her of my dilemma. Ms. Rossi informed me both cases were closed at the same time. Ms. Rossi said she would fax me a copy of the 2nd "Dismissal and Notice of Rights." I asked Ms. Rossi who would inform IDHR. Ms. Rossi informed me she did not know how IDHR is made aware of cases being closed. I will alert IDHR's supervisor of the Case Disposition Unit, Mr. Denzel Laye, of this revelation.
July 1, 2006
On July 1, 2006 Darlene received her "official" notice of right to sue from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC issued the following determination: "Based upon its investigation, the EEOC is unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes. This does not certify that the respondent is in compliance with the statutes. No finding is made as to any other issues that might be construed as having been raised by this charge." I have something else I want to do before we pursue our approaches toward a federal complaint. We accomplished our strategic objectives for the first leg of this fight. The future strategies and approaches toward our federal complaint are not available for public viewing at this time. Look for future postings toward this end.
June 26, 2006
United States Equal Employment Opportunities Commission
Chicago District Office
Ms. Monique Debusemann, Supervisor
500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800
Chicago, Illinois 60661
Re: Darlene D. Bouyer-Nance v. Centers for New Horizons
EEOC Number: 440-2006-02879
Ms. Debusemann:
I, Fred L Nance Jr., am the advocate for Darlene Nance in this matter. Darlene and I talked with Ms. Rossi, who is the investigator assigned to this case, on June 26, 2006 at 1:00 pm. We discussed this matter and Ms. Rossi has determined she will issue a right-to-sue response. We disagree with her decision and analysis.
Darlene and I discussed the recent ruling by the Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES) where Darlene was exonerated of misconduct, that is, deliberate and willful violation of a reasonable rule or policy. Centers reports they terminated Darlene for misconduct, not reporting a suspected child abuse case. Ms. Rossi suggests IDES uses different law than EEOC to determine an issue. Be that as it may. The question then becomes, “why did Centers terminate Darlene?” Darlene and I suggest the termination was based on retaliation, age, sex and/or religion. We also suggest since the onset of filing this charge and its investigation, the charges have not been examined appropriately.
Darlene and I reported in our original meeting with an investigator discrimination based on retaliation, age, sex and religion. We suggest if Darlene is not guilty of the employment action taken by Centers, then Darlene was terminated because:
Retaliation: Center’s Director of Early Childhood Education, Artiyah Buckner-Nash, terminated Darlene in response to Darlene writing disciplinary reports against her friends, which is retaliation. Center’s continued this retaliatory act at every stage of the grievance procedure, even though Darlene demonstrated at every stage of the grievance procedure the findings of IDES.
Age Discrimination: Darlene is over 40-years-old. Darlene was the Director at Edison L. Hoard, Centers for New Horizons. Darlene was replaced by a young lady under 40-years-old. She is in place now at Edison L. Hoard. Centers wanted to replace Darlene with someone younger.
Sex: Mr. Witherspoon, male Director for Centers, was retained while most of his staff was terminated because of child endangerment. This was not reported to DCFS as suggested Darlene report. Mr. Witherspoon was not terminated as Darlene for not reporting the child endangerment issue to DCFS. Ms.Rossi did not discuss this issue.
Religion: Darlene is a Christian, with Christian morals and values. Darlene was prevented from exercising her religious beliefs and was ordered to pick up the religious beliefs of Centers. Centers’ provides services to a mixed racial population. Centers’ is not a Christian organization as Ms. Rossi reported to Darlene and I. Center’s does not believe in and has instructed the staff not to teach the children anything about Easter or Christmas, the staff is ordered not to use the word God or Jesus Christ. Centers’ is an Afrocentric organization concentrating on “black” equality and pride as their website suggests. Darlene and I submitted a document to EEOC titled “Centers for New Horizons Daily Rituals. One of these rituals states, “Black Pledge: We are the First and the Last, THE ALPHA AND OMEGA, We pledge to think black, speak black, act black, pray black, buy black, love black, and live black. Darlene and I presented the religious issue to Ms. Rossi stating the use of the words “We are the First and the Last, THE ALPHA AND OMEGA” is a religious statement and religious in nature. Darlene and I suggested to Ms. Rossi when the use of religious wording is before “…we pledge to think black…” then religious discrimination takes place, along with Darlene being denied the right to practice her religion. Christianity does not purport the theories or the practices of Centers. Centers’ does practice religious rituals with this belief system and their statements within the document submitted to EEOC.
Similarly situated individual: Ms. Patricia Martin, Director of Anita Boswell Early Learning Center (Hyde Park location), was involved in a non-reporting child abuse case as suggested by Centers’ against Darlene in her termination. Ms. Martin did not report the child abuse issue at the Anita Boswell site. Ms. Martin was retained and transferred to the main office for about a month, then to the Algeld Garden site. In the same child abuse case the cook, Patricia Morsett, was terminated for child abuse. This child abuse case was reported by the teacher Ms. Robinson and child’s mother. Ms. Robinson was terminated for alerting the parent her child was being abused by the cook and for calling DCFS. The child’s name is xxxxxxx. This incident happened in early 2004. Artiyah Buckner-Nash was aware of this situation and terminated Ms. Robinson and Ms. Morsett. Artiyah Buckner-Nash transferred Ms. Martin to another site as mentioned above. Artiyah Buckner-Nash terminated Darlene. Ms. Martin and Darlene were and are similarly situated.
Therefore, I respectfully request EEOC review the file for the discrepancies noted above. Ms. Rossi’s investigation is flawed. The issues of similarly situated, sex, age, religion and retaliation were mentioned to the initial investigator and to you during the initial claim. Somewhere along the way we all lost focus of the charge. Darlene and I want to accept our part in this miscommunication of facts. As Darlene and I continued through this process of EEOC and with the Illinois Department of Employment Security, we discovered other material and information leading to confirmation of our original charge under Title VII.
In addition, Ms. Rossi totally discharges from thought our case, which may have a foundation based upon: Farrell v. Butler University (7th Cir. 2005) disparate treatment, disparate impact and adverse employment actions; Washington v. Illinois Department of Revenue (7th Cir. 2005) discrimination in terms and conditions of employment and adverse employment action; Maalik v. International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local 2 (7th Cir. 2006) and Whittaker v. Northern Illinois University et al. (7th Cir. 2005) hostile work environment and retaliation; and Ineichen v. Ameritech (7th Cir. 2005) similarly situated individuals. All of which fall under Title VII, ADEA, § 1331, § 1367, § 1981 and § 1983.
Please review. When I informed Ms. Rossi it appears EEOC leaves the consumer out in the cold with their case, she responded stating before EEOC was in place consumers had to go to court on their own behalf anyway. What does this mean? What does this have to do with the present outcome Ms. Rossi suggests? When I further addressed the issue of EEOC dismissing Darlene’s claim in this matter, Ms. Rossi stated as you did when Darlene and I met with you that EEOC has limited resources. What does this mean to the consumer? What does this mean toward the creation of EEOC?
What is your agency going to do with this case? It is obvious to me, the layperson, Darlene has a case under Title VII. Someone botched this investigation.
I talked to Ms. Debusemann informing her I would submit this writing by facsimile in response to Ms. Rossi’s evaluation and assessment of this claim.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
Darlene Bouyer-Nance, M.Ed.
cc: http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/ or C.L.I.C.K. for Justice and Equality
Military - United States Marine Corps/Dept.of the Navy: A Black History Tale
Update: February 14, 2007
I received an email from a fellow Marine, who is "white" and not African American. He reports information on how I can get "new and material evidence" from the United States Marine Corps.
My fellow Marine reports, "Dear Fred: Like you, I enlisted in the Marine Corps in March 1968 but I did not go on Active Duty until June 28, 1968. I vividly remember when Dr. Martin Luther King was killed. Fred, there are many ways that you can locate "new physical evidence" so that you can PROVE your case. You can begin by obtaining your USMC Military Records which should list your specific boot camp Platoon Number (my platoon was Platoon 1035 at MCRD San Diego). After verifying your Platoon number, you can request a Unit Roster which contains the names of other Marines in your outfit. By locating witnesses, you can verify the actions of the white drill instructor.
The following letter is being sent to the Department of the Navy/Marine Corps.
February 14, 2007
Department of the Navy
Mr. Robert D. Zsalman, Acting Executive Director
Board for Correction of Naval Records
2 Navy Annex, Room 2432
Washington, DC 20370-5100
Re: CRS Docket No. 6626-06
Mr. Zsalman:
I respectfully request to appeal your decision in this matter. Could you please direct me or send me the appropriate papers for filing an appeal? In addition, I request the following information from the Department of the Navy/Marine Corps.
Please send me my United States Military Records, along with my boot camp platoon number at MCRD San Diego.
Thank you.
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
cc:
http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
Update: February 5, 2007
I finally received a response from the Department of the Navy. They denied my petition for recharacterization of my discharge citing my "...frequent involvement with military authorities." The Department of the Navy skated around my charge of racism stating "...In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your contention that the disciplinary actions taken against you were caused by racism." They did not report any findings about the Sgt. stating "we finally killed that nigger" talking about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
What is wrong with people? How do you think I was going to act when you have one of their "finest" call Dr. King a nigger, especially, on the day he was assassinated by a white man; telling all the African Americans in the unit "we finally killed that nigger." I wanted out of the Marine Corps the moment that white man made the statement he did about Dr. King. I was prepared to do whatever was necessary to get discharged. I did not hurt anyone. I did not conform to anything they wanted after this incident.
The Department of the Navy cites my use of an unauthorized liberty card. Yes, I had an authorized liberty card because the Marine Corps told me I could not go home to my family for 3 months during one of their disciplinary inquisitions. My family lived off base. Yes, I disobeyed lawful orders because I was not going to obey people who perpetrated crimes against "liberty and respect" and against humanity. The Department of the Navy cites my being out of uniform. The uniform did not stand for much after the Sgt. called Dr. King a nigger. The Sgt. was wearing the uniform.
I should have been discharged with the same characterization as I had before I joined such a racist organization. The characterization I have been discharge under stigmatizes me for life. The Department of the Navy reports "...Although your record does not contain the separation documents, it appears that your commanding officer recommended that you be separated with an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness." This three-member panel uses a word like "appears" to draw a conclusion. What nonsense. The message to African Americans is we can call you nigger anytime we want too and you better not say anything about it.
If this entity did their investigation properly, they could have sought the Sgt. who was our drill instructor in April of 1968. That should not have been hard since we only had one Sgt. in charge. This Sgt. had other charges brought against him. The Department of the Navy reports I have no "physical" evidence. How is one to have physical evidence, when one is involved in a Marine Corps boot camp in 1968? There was no one to complain to in April of 1968. Many of the "white" drill instructors in the Marine Corps were racist. Mr. Robert D. Zsalman, Acting Executive Director, issued this decision suggesting if I come up with any "new" physical evidence, I should re-apply. These people are too funny.
Someone from the Department of the Navy has been monitoring this website and my Townhall website since I filed my petition, but more frequently in the last 2 weeks. The Department of the Navy had already decided what the outcome of this investigation was going to be.
Anyone volunteering for the Department of the Navy or the Marine Corps better be careful about where they put their future. Racism still flourishes in the Department of the Navy. This is the warning I send: African Americans do not volunteer or join the United States Navy or Marine Corps. Racism will raise its ugly face, and there will be no recourse only reprisals if you stand up and say stop.
They may have people watching them now. There was no one watching in 1968, especially when Dr. King was assassinated. I am not a racist. I report on racism. It does not take an authority to report on racism. All you have to do is be black.
December 15, 2006
Department of the Navy
Board for Correction of Naval Records
2 Navy Annex, Room 2432
Washington, DC 20370-5100
Re: Docket Number 6626-06
Dear Sir or Madam:
On or about July 14, 2006 I submitted DD Form 293 requesting a discharge change. I received notice from the NDRB my paperwork was received on July 25, 2006. I have yet to receive any follow-up from the Department of the Navy to my request. Therefore, this is a follow-up to my request.
As part of my request for a discharge change, I submitted the following and now want to reiterate my beginning paragraph toward this request to the Department of the Navy: On or about March 4, 1968 I entered the United States Marine Corps (USMC). I am African-American. I volunteered to serve in the USMC for 4 years. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated on April 4, 1968. My white drill instructor, who was a Sergeant, told all the African American military personnel who were in my unit to get on the street. All the African American’s came out of their barracks.
The white drill instructor told us the “smoking lamp” is lit. This means we could smoke cigarettes if we were smokers. The white drill instructor stated, “Dr. Martin Luther King was killed today. We finally got that nigger. Now put those damn cigarettes out and get your asses back into those barracks.” This statement was outrageous and changed the course of my life and many others who thought they wanted to serve their country and be part of the United States Marine Corps.
With this said, I believe my request should be examined and scrutinized as soon as possible. This should not be a hard decision. My USMC experience impacted the rest of my life. My experience in the Marine Corps demonstrated how this country looked at African Americans in 60s, 70s, and the present. Everything that happened in my military life after this statement was part and partial of this statement made by one of your “finest.” I am requesting this Board act expeditiously to my appeal.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
cc: http://click.townhall.com/
http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
I received an email from a fellow Marine, who is "white" and not African American. He reports information on how I can get "new and material evidence" from the United States Marine Corps.
My fellow Marine reports, "Dear Fred: Like you, I enlisted in the Marine Corps in March 1968 but I did not go on Active Duty until June 28, 1968. I vividly remember when Dr. Martin Luther King was killed. Fred, there are many ways that you can locate "new physical evidence" so that you can PROVE your case. You can begin by obtaining your USMC Military Records which should list your specific boot camp Platoon Number (my platoon was Platoon 1035 at MCRD San Diego). After verifying your Platoon number, you can request a Unit Roster which contains the names of other Marines in your outfit. By locating witnesses, you can verify the actions of the white drill instructor.
The following letter is being sent to the Department of the Navy/Marine Corps.
February 14, 2007
Department of the Navy
Mr. Robert D. Zsalman, Acting Executive Director
Board for Correction of Naval Records
2 Navy Annex, Room 2432
Washington, DC 20370-5100
Re: CRS Docket No. 6626-06
Mr. Zsalman:
I respectfully request to appeal your decision in this matter. Could you please direct me or send me the appropriate papers for filing an appeal? In addition, I request the following information from the Department of the Navy/Marine Corps.
Please send me my United States Military Records, along with my boot camp platoon number at MCRD San Diego.
Thank you.
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
cc:
http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
Update: February 5, 2007
I finally received a response from the Department of the Navy. They denied my petition for recharacterization of my discharge citing my "...frequent involvement with military authorities." The Department of the Navy skated around my charge of racism stating "...In its review of your application the Board carefully weighed all potentially mitigating factors, such as your contention that the disciplinary actions taken against you were caused by racism." They did not report any findings about the Sgt. stating "we finally killed that nigger" talking about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
What is wrong with people? How do you think I was going to act when you have one of their "finest" call Dr. King a nigger, especially, on the day he was assassinated by a white man; telling all the African Americans in the unit "we finally killed that nigger." I wanted out of the Marine Corps the moment that white man made the statement he did about Dr. King. I was prepared to do whatever was necessary to get discharged. I did not hurt anyone. I did not conform to anything they wanted after this incident.
The Department of the Navy cites my use of an unauthorized liberty card. Yes, I had an authorized liberty card because the Marine Corps told me I could not go home to my family for 3 months during one of their disciplinary inquisitions. My family lived off base. Yes, I disobeyed lawful orders because I was not going to obey people who perpetrated crimes against "liberty and respect" and against humanity. The Department of the Navy cites my being out of uniform. The uniform did not stand for much after the Sgt. called Dr. King a nigger. The Sgt. was wearing the uniform.
I should have been discharged with the same characterization as I had before I joined such a racist organization. The characterization I have been discharge under stigmatizes me for life. The Department of the Navy reports "...Although your record does not contain the separation documents, it appears that your commanding officer recommended that you be separated with an undesirable discharge by reason of unfitness." This three-member panel uses a word like "appears" to draw a conclusion. What nonsense. The message to African Americans is we can call you nigger anytime we want too and you better not say anything about it.
If this entity did their investigation properly, they could have sought the Sgt. who was our drill instructor in April of 1968. That should not have been hard since we only had one Sgt. in charge. This Sgt. had other charges brought against him. The Department of the Navy reports I have no "physical" evidence. How is one to have physical evidence, when one is involved in a Marine Corps boot camp in 1968? There was no one to complain to in April of 1968. Many of the "white" drill instructors in the Marine Corps were racist. Mr. Robert D. Zsalman, Acting Executive Director, issued this decision suggesting if I come up with any "new" physical evidence, I should re-apply. These people are too funny.
Someone from the Department of the Navy has been monitoring this website and my Townhall website since I filed my petition, but more frequently in the last 2 weeks. The Department of the Navy had already decided what the outcome of this investigation was going to be.
Anyone volunteering for the Department of the Navy or the Marine Corps better be careful about where they put their future. Racism still flourishes in the Department of the Navy. This is the warning I send: African Americans do not volunteer or join the United States Navy or Marine Corps. Racism will raise its ugly face, and there will be no recourse only reprisals if you stand up and say stop.
They may have people watching them now. There was no one watching in 1968, especially when Dr. King was assassinated. I am not a racist. I report on racism. It does not take an authority to report on racism. All you have to do is be black.
December 15, 2006
Department of the Navy
Board for Correction of Naval Records
2 Navy Annex, Room 2432
Washington, DC 20370-5100
Re: Docket Number 6626-06
Dear Sir or Madam:
On or about July 14, 2006 I submitted DD Form 293 requesting a discharge change. I received notice from the NDRB my paperwork was received on July 25, 2006. I have yet to receive any follow-up from the Department of the Navy to my request. Therefore, this is a follow-up to my request.
As part of my request for a discharge change, I submitted the following and now want to reiterate my beginning paragraph toward this request to the Department of the Navy: On or about March 4, 1968 I entered the United States Marine Corps (USMC). I am African-American. I volunteered to serve in the USMC for 4 years. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated on April 4, 1968. My white drill instructor, who was a Sergeant, told all the African American military personnel who were in my unit to get on the street. All the African American’s came out of their barracks.
The white drill instructor told us the “smoking lamp” is lit. This means we could smoke cigarettes if we were smokers. The white drill instructor stated, “Dr. Martin Luther King was killed today. We finally got that nigger. Now put those damn cigarettes out and get your asses back into those barracks.” This statement was outrageous and changed the course of my life and many others who thought they wanted to serve their country and be part of the United States Marine Corps.
With this said, I believe my request should be examined and scrutinized as soon as possible. This should not be a hard decision. My USMC experience impacted the rest of my life. My experience in the Marine Corps demonstrated how this country looked at African Americans in 60s, 70s, and the present. Everything that happened in my military life after this statement was part and partial of this statement made by one of your “finest.” I am requesting this Board act expeditiously to my appeal.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
cc: http://click.townhall.com/
http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
Money and Insurance - Western Union & Metropolitan Life Insurance Company: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission & Disability Claim
January 15, 2007
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
St. Louis District Office, Robert A. Young Federal Building
1222 Spruce Street, Room 8.100
St. Louis, Missouri 63103
Re: MetLife Disability and Western Union are discriminating against Carolyn Nance because of my disability.
I, Carolyn Nance, respectfully request the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to file a charge against and investigate, in my behalf, Western Union and MetLife Insurance/Disability for discrimination based on Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).
My disability is having a colostomy bag. A Colostomy is a surgical formation of an artificial anus by connecting the colon to an opening in the abdominal wall. A Colostomy Bag is a container kept constantly in position to receive feces discharged through the opening created by a colostomy. An uncontrolled GI system is medically known as “incontinence.” Incontinence is described as an “inability of the body to control the evacuative functions” (Merriam Webster’s Medical Desk Dictionary, 1996).
In May of 2005 Carolyn went out on sick leave for approximately 5 weeks under doctor’s care. In June of 2005, due to pressure from Western Union’s Human Resource Department and possible termination, Carolyn went back to work against her doctor’s orders. Subsequently, Carolyn became sick again in August of 2005 and went on sick leave again. Carolyn was threatened with termination again by Western Union for being off sick. In December of 2005 Carolyn had a Hysterectomy. Western Union terminated Carolyn’s employment on or about December 15, 2005. Carolyn was reinstated on or about March 22, 2006 with the assistance of Ms. Earline Jones, President of Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 6377.
Upon coming back to work on or about June 6, 2006, Carolyn has engaged in numerous conversations with Western Union staff about her disability and their lack of accommodations for it. After many discussions with Western Union staff and medical complications, on or about November 27, 2006 Carolyn went on sickness disability leave of absence. This is confirmed by a letter I received from Western Union dated December 20, 2006. Presently, Western Union is attempting to terminate Carolyn’s employment again because of her disability. Western Union claims Carolyn has been absent too many times, even though they are aware it is because of their lack of providing appropriate accommodations, which would not be a financial strain to the company because the worksite where Carolyn’s employed is currently under construction.
In a letter dated December 28, 2006 MetLife Insurance Company reports Carolyn’s claim for Short-Term Disability benefits has been denied. Carolyn has provided the necessary information/documentation requested by MetLife to suggest she is disabled due to her medical condition. Carolyn’s doctor has released and answered the appropriate questions on the MetLife Disability Claim Supplemental Attending Physician Statement issued.
Therefore, it is our belief Western Union and MetLife Insurance/Disability have discriminated against Carolyn due to my disability pursuant to ADA, which prohibits private employers, state and local governments, employment agencies and labor unions from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in job application procedures, hiring, firing, advancement, compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.
Western Union has discriminated against Carolyn because they do not have accommodations for employees with a disability, such as hers, at her current worksite. This is why Carolyn had to go on Sick Leave from Western Union. Her worksite has refused to accommodate her with the appropriate bathroom accommodations for employees with a colostomy bag.
MetLife Disability has discriminated against Carolyn because of their refusal to pay compensation due for her disability. The letter written to MetLife Disability dated January 15, 2007 describes the alleged discrimination by both Western Union and MetLife. This letter may at times speak of me, Carolyn Nance, in the 3rd person. This is because this letter is typed and written as a joint effort by my father, Fred L Nance Jr., and me.
MetLife Case Manager Ms. Coughlin’s letter states, “…Your plan states that Disabled or Disability means that, due to Sickness or as a direct result of accidental injury….” The ADA provides that an employer may not discriminate against "a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability." 42 U.S.C. § 12112; see also Moore v. Payless Shoe Source, Inc. , 139 F.3d 1210, 1212 (8th Cir. 1998); Dush v. Appleton Elec. Co. , 124 F.3d 957, 961 (8th Cir. 1997). A "qualified individual with a disability" is a person "with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires." 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8); see also Dush , 124 F.3d at 961.” Carolyn can perform her assigned duties with appropriate bathroom accommodations for one who has and wears a colostomy bag.
Determining whether an individual has a qualifying disability requires an individualized analysis of the claimed impairment, including factors such as the nature and severity, probable duration, and expected long-term impact of the impairment. See 29 C.F.R. §
1630.2(j)(2); Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 483 (1999); Heisler v.
Metro. Council, 339 F.3d 622, 627 (8th Cir. 2003). Major life activities under the ADA are basic activities that the average person can perform with little or no difficulty, including "caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i).
The "ability to perform cognitive functions on the level of an average person" constitutes a major life activity. Brown v. Lester E. Cox Med. Ctrs., 286 F.3d 1040, 1045 (8th Cir. 2002). See also Amir v. St. Louis Univ., 184 F.3d 1017, 1027 (8th Cir. 1999). Carolyn has a mental disability, which is well documented with Western Union and is exacerbated by this issue. Accordingly, thinking and concentrating qualify as "major life activities" under the ADA. See Shaver v. Indep. Stave Co., 350 F.3d 716, 720-21 (8th Cir. 2003), citing Brown, 286 F.3d at 1044-45. See also Head v. Glacier Northwest Inc., 413 F.3d 1053, 1061 (9th Cir. 2005); Fiscus v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 385 F.3d 378, 383 (3d Cir. 2004), citing Taylor v. Phoenixville Sch. Dist., 184 F.3d 296, 307 (3d Cir. 1999); Nawrot v. CPC Int'l, 277 F.3d 896, 907 (7th Cir. 2002).
Where the employee requests accommodation, the employer must engage in an "informal, interactive process" with the employee to identify the limitations caused by the disability and the potential reasonable accommodations to overcome those limitations. Fjellestad v. Pizza Hut of Am., Inc., 188 F.3d 944, 951 (8th Cir. 1999), quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). An employer hinders this process when: the employer knows about the employee's disability; the employee requests accommodations or assistance; the employer does not in good faith assist the employee in seeking accommodations; and the employee could have been reasonably accommodated but for the employer's lack of good faith. Kratzer v. Rockwell Collins, Inc., 398 F.3d 1040, 1045 (8th Cir. 2005), citing Ballard v. Rubin, 284 F.3d 957, 960 (8th Cir. 2002).
Under the ADA, punitive damages are available to employees who suffer intentional discrimination by an employer who acts with malice or reckless disregard of a federally protected right. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(1); Ollie v. Titan Tire Corp., 336 F.3d 680, 688 (8th Cir. 2003). In Kolstad v. American Dental Association, the Supreme Court clarified that "'malice or 'reckless indifference' pertains to the employer's knowledge that it may be acting in violation of federal law, not its awareness that it is engaging in discrimination." 527 U.S. 526, 535 (1999). The ADA notes examples of reasonable accommodations, including restructuring of a job and providing part-time or modified work schedules, see 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9)(B), which in addition are “…reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices….”
Respectfully submitted,
Carolyn Nance
Supporting documentation: A-1 through A-23
January 15, 2007
MetLife Disability
Barbara Coughlin, Disability Case Manager
P.O. Box 14592
Lexington, KY, 40511-4592
Re: Carolyn Nance, Employee ID# 168948
Policyholder: First Data Corp – Claim #350611278079
Ms. Coughlin:
Pursuant to your letter dated December 28, 2006 (A-13), I, Carolyn Nance, am appealing your decision in this matter. The Disability Claim Supplemental Attending Physician Statement (herein called “Statement”) will be reference as stated here. In the “Statement” it reports, “…You may appeal this decision by sending a written request for appeal to MetLife Disability…within 180 days from the date of this letter. I have engaged the services of my father, Fred L Nance Jr., who is an advocate for the socially disenfranchised and disadvantaged. My father will post this letter and any additional information on his websites at: http://click.townhall.com/ and http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/. My consent for advocacy work with my father will accompany this letter (A-1). My father has constructed this letter for me.
Carolyn has written a letter to Mr. Tom Lysinger, Vice President of Customer Service & Quality. Mr. Lysinger has written Carolyn back on September 12, 2006 stating, “Carolyn: I received your note regarding restrooms. I am very concerned. I would like for Paula Hearn to meet with you to ensure you have what you need. Is that OK? Regards, Tom” (A-23).
The “Statement” letter (A-14) reports “…We have reviewed your entire claim, including the following information that was submitted: Attending Physician Statement dated December 12, 2006 signed by Robert Byrne, MD. Your physician did not indicate that you were disabled as of November 27, 2006…The document that was submitted did state that you had a colostomy bag and uncontrolled GI system, but did not provide any information such as current restriction or limitations preventing you from performing your job as a Customer Service Representative. Therefore your claim has been denied.” I disagree.
The “Statement” reports under the Psychological Functions section, which is checked off by Dr. Byrne, “Class 5 – Patient has significant loss of psychological, physiological, personal and social adjustment (severe limitations).” Also under Psychological Functions “What stress factors or problems with interpersonal skills have affected patient’s ability to perform the duties of his or her job? Dr. Byrne states caring for colostomy bag.
Under “Patient’s ability to lift/carry” sections (e)(f)(g) Dr. Byrne has given the following answers: (e) In your opinion, why is patient unable to perform job duties? (Dr. Byrne’s answer) Due to colostomy bag & uncontrolled GI system; (f) Patient can work a total of “0” hours per day (Dr. Byrne’s answer); and (g) Do you expect improvement in any area? (Dr. Byrne’s answer) Yes. (If so please comment and give dates/timeframes.) Unknown pt has colostomy bag (A-14).
Colostomy is a surgical formation of an artificial anus by connecting the colon to an opening in the abdominal wall. A Colostomy Bag is a container kept constantly in position to receive feces discharged through the opening created by a colostomy. An uncontrolled GI system is medically known as “incontinence.” Incontinence is described as an “inability of the body to control the evacuative functions” (Merriam Webster’s Medical Desk Dictionary, 1996).
Under the prognosis section, it states “Have you advised patient to return to work?” Dr. Byrne’s answer is no. This section asks “If not, please explain.” Dr. Byrne states not enough assurance for restroom. This section also asks “Any work/activity restrictions applicable (please be specific):” Dr. Byrne’s answer is “she needs access to bathroom, handicapped (A-14).
Dr. Byrne has appropriately provided MetLife Disability with information on Carolyn’s current restrictions and limitations.
In addition, Carolyn Nance reports her worksite at Western Union does not have accommodations for employees with disabilities, such as described here. The bathroom area of Carolyn’s worksite does not accommodate a person with a colostomy bag where a person can comfortably empty the bag while using the toilet. In Carolyn’s case, which is uncontrollable, the following takes place: When her body is depositing feces from the colostomy into the colostomy bag, some of the feces are being deposited into her clothes. By this being uncontrollable, Carolyn is unable to know or determine when her body is about to deposit the feces.
Carolyn has been complaining about her condition to her supervisors and managers about this issue since her return to work on June 6, 2006. Carolyn was discriminated against and terminated from her employment with Western Union on December 15, 2005 because of her disability before she became hospitalized leading to the colostomy procedure and bag. At the time, Western Union claimed the termination was due to Carolyn’s attendance. Carolyn’s lack of attendance was due to her disability, which is well documented with Western Union (A-3).
In a letter dated March 22, 2006, which states it was revised on April 3, 2006, Ms. Earline Jones, President of Communications Workers of America (CWA), facilitated an agreement with Western Union Financial Services, Inc. The parties agreed to the following: (1) Ms. Nance shall be reinstated as a Customer Service Representative; (2) Ms. Nance will be paid her regular wage rate from December 13, 2005 up to and including December 30, 2005; (3) Per notification from the union, Ms. Nance was hospitalized on December 31, 2005, and may have become disabled on that date. For the purposes of this agreement only, the company will consider Ms. Nance as continually disabled beginning December 31, 2005 up to the date of this agreement. The company will retroactively apply the sickness disability provisions of the Plan for Employee’s Pensions, Disability Benefits and Death Benefits. Ms. Nance will be paid sickness disability benefits, in accordance with the plan’s provisions, for four (4) weeks as full pay and nine (9) weeks of half pay; (4) Ms. Nance will contact The Hartford, and open a claim of sickness disability and provide the necessary documentation to support her continued absence from work; (5) Ms. Nance seniority will be considered unbroken; (6) Ms. Nance will have her Attendance Termination letter revised to a repeat Fair and Final, 3-day in-house suspension; (7) Ms. Nance Medical Coverage under COBRA will be paid by the company. Ms. Nance will be reinstated in company plan benefits effective the first of the month following the receipt of her benefit enrollment forms; and (8) The Union will withdraw the grievance L3-06-06. This settlement is being made on a no-precedent, no-prejudice basis by both parties, with neither party surrendering or conceding any rights relative to any similar situations that may arise in the future (A-4).
Western Union knew or reasonably knew Carolyn had a disability (A-3 eq seq). Western Union knew or reasonably knew the concerns of Carolyn’s disability. MetLife Disability knew or reasonably should have known what Carolyn’s disability entailed because they are in contact with Western Union about this matter, insisting Carolyn jump through these illegal hoops attempting to discourage, causing mental anguish, which violates ADA. Carolyn has requested from Western Union a reasonable accommodation, which allows for a handicapped equipped bathroom. Western Union has no accommodations for the handicapped using the bathroom at Carolyn’s work location.
Therefore, it is our belief Western Union and MetLife Disability is using a “heightened standard” to evaluate Carolyn’s disability. It is also our belief EEOC has cause to charge, investigate and declare Western Union and MetLife are in violation of ADA and has discriminatory practices in the workplace, violating ADA. Western Union made no meaningful effort to resolve the accommodation for Carolyn. Western Union and MetLife may also be retaliating against Carolyn.
Respectfully submitted,
Carolyn Nance
Fred Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
cc:
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
http://click.townhall.com/
http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
Ms. Barbara Coughlin, MetLife Disability Case Manager
Ms. Jocelyn Coates, Western Union Human Resource Manager
Ms. Diana Burnson, Western Union Financial Services, Inc.’s Manager of Human Resources
Ms. Earline Jones, President Local 6377 CWA, AFL-CIO
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
St. Louis District Office, Robert A. Young Federal Building
1222 Spruce Street, Room 8.100
St. Louis, Missouri 63103
Re: MetLife Disability and Western Union are discriminating against Carolyn Nance because of my disability.
I, Carolyn Nance, respectfully request the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to file a charge against and investigate, in my behalf, Western Union and MetLife Insurance/Disability for discrimination based on Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).
My disability is having a colostomy bag. A Colostomy is a surgical formation of an artificial anus by connecting the colon to an opening in the abdominal wall. A Colostomy Bag is a container kept constantly in position to receive feces discharged through the opening created by a colostomy. An uncontrolled GI system is medically known as “incontinence.” Incontinence is described as an “inability of the body to control the evacuative functions” (Merriam Webster’s Medical Desk Dictionary, 1996).
In May of 2005 Carolyn went out on sick leave for approximately 5 weeks under doctor’s care. In June of 2005, due to pressure from Western Union’s Human Resource Department and possible termination, Carolyn went back to work against her doctor’s orders. Subsequently, Carolyn became sick again in August of 2005 and went on sick leave again. Carolyn was threatened with termination again by Western Union for being off sick. In December of 2005 Carolyn had a Hysterectomy. Western Union terminated Carolyn’s employment on or about December 15, 2005. Carolyn was reinstated on or about March 22, 2006 with the assistance of Ms. Earline Jones, President of Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 6377.
Upon coming back to work on or about June 6, 2006, Carolyn has engaged in numerous conversations with Western Union staff about her disability and their lack of accommodations for it. After many discussions with Western Union staff and medical complications, on or about November 27, 2006 Carolyn went on sickness disability leave of absence. This is confirmed by a letter I received from Western Union dated December 20, 2006. Presently, Western Union is attempting to terminate Carolyn’s employment again because of her disability. Western Union claims Carolyn has been absent too many times, even though they are aware it is because of their lack of providing appropriate accommodations, which would not be a financial strain to the company because the worksite where Carolyn’s employed is currently under construction.
In a letter dated December 28, 2006 MetLife Insurance Company reports Carolyn’s claim for Short-Term Disability benefits has been denied. Carolyn has provided the necessary information/documentation requested by MetLife to suggest she is disabled due to her medical condition. Carolyn’s doctor has released and answered the appropriate questions on the MetLife Disability Claim Supplemental Attending Physician Statement issued.
Therefore, it is our belief Western Union and MetLife Insurance/Disability have discriminated against Carolyn due to my disability pursuant to ADA, which prohibits private employers, state and local governments, employment agencies and labor unions from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in job application procedures, hiring, firing, advancement, compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.
Western Union has discriminated against Carolyn because they do not have accommodations for employees with a disability, such as hers, at her current worksite. This is why Carolyn had to go on Sick Leave from Western Union. Her worksite has refused to accommodate her with the appropriate bathroom accommodations for employees with a colostomy bag.
MetLife Disability has discriminated against Carolyn because of their refusal to pay compensation due for her disability. The letter written to MetLife Disability dated January 15, 2007 describes the alleged discrimination by both Western Union and MetLife. This letter may at times speak of me, Carolyn Nance, in the 3rd person. This is because this letter is typed and written as a joint effort by my father, Fred L Nance Jr., and me.
MetLife Case Manager Ms. Coughlin’s letter states, “…Your plan states that Disabled or Disability means that, due to Sickness or as a direct result of accidental injury….” The ADA provides that an employer may not discriminate against "a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability." 42 U.S.C. § 12112; see also Moore v. Payless Shoe Source, Inc. , 139 F.3d 1210, 1212 (8th Cir. 1998); Dush v. Appleton Elec. Co. , 124 F.3d 957, 961 (8th Cir. 1997). A "qualified individual with a disability" is a person "with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires." 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8); see also Dush , 124 F.3d at 961.” Carolyn can perform her assigned duties with appropriate bathroom accommodations for one who has and wears a colostomy bag.
Determining whether an individual has a qualifying disability requires an individualized analysis of the claimed impairment, including factors such as the nature and severity, probable duration, and expected long-term impact of the impairment. See 29 C.F.R. §
1630.2(j)(2); Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 483 (1999); Heisler v.
Metro. Council, 339 F.3d 622, 627 (8th Cir. 2003). Major life activities under the ADA are basic activities that the average person can perform with little or no difficulty, including "caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i).
The "ability to perform cognitive functions on the level of an average person" constitutes a major life activity. Brown v. Lester E. Cox Med. Ctrs., 286 F.3d 1040, 1045 (8th Cir. 2002). See also Amir v. St. Louis Univ., 184 F.3d 1017, 1027 (8th Cir. 1999). Carolyn has a mental disability, which is well documented with Western Union and is exacerbated by this issue. Accordingly, thinking and concentrating qualify as "major life activities" under the ADA. See Shaver v. Indep. Stave Co., 350 F.3d 716, 720-21 (8th Cir. 2003), citing Brown, 286 F.3d at 1044-45. See also Head v. Glacier Northwest Inc., 413 F.3d 1053, 1061 (9th Cir. 2005); Fiscus v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 385 F.3d 378, 383 (3d Cir. 2004), citing Taylor v. Phoenixville Sch. Dist., 184 F.3d 296, 307 (3d Cir. 1999); Nawrot v. CPC Int'l, 277 F.3d 896, 907 (7th Cir. 2002).
Where the employee requests accommodation, the employer must engage in an "informal, interactive process" with the employee to identify the limitations caused by the disability and the potential reasonable accommodations to overcome those limitations. Fjellestad v. Pizza Hut of Am., Inc., 188 F.3d 944, 951 (8th Cir. 1999), quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). An employer hinders this process when: the employer knows about the employee's disability; the employee requests accommodations or assistance; the employer does not in good faith assist the employee in seeking accommodations; and the employee could have been reasonably accommodated but for the employer's lack of good faith. Kratzer v. Rockwell Collins, Inc., 398 F.3d 1040, 1045 (8th Cir. 2005), citing Ballard v. Rubin, 284 F.3d 957, 960 (8th Cir. 2002).
Under the ADA, punitive damages are available to employees who suffer intentional discrimination by an employer who acts with malice or reckless disregard of a federally protected right. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(1); Ollie v. Titan Tire Corp., 336 F.3d 680, 688 (8th Cir. 2003). In Kolstad v. American Dental Association, the Supreme Court clarified that "'malice or 'reckless indifference' pertains to the employer's knowledge that it may be acting in violation of federal law, not its awareness that it is engaging in discrimination." 527 U.S. 526, 535 (1999). The ADA notes examples of reasonable accommodations, including restructuring of a job and providing part-time or modified work schedules, see 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9)(B), which in addition are “…reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices….”
Respectfully submitted,
Carolyn Nance
Supporting documentation: A-1 through A-23
January 15, 2007
MetLife Disability
Barbara Coughlin, Disability Case Manager
P.O. Box 14592
Lexington, KY, 40511-4592
Re: Carolyn Nance, Employee ID# 168948
Policyholder: First Data Corp – Claim #350611278079
Ms. Coughlin:
Pursuant to your letter dated December 28, 2006 (A-13), I, Carolyn Nance, am appealing your decision in this matter. The Disability Claim Supplemental Attending Physician Statement (herein called “Statement”) will be reference as stated here. In the “Statement” it reports, “…You may appeal this decision by sending a written request for appeal to MetLife Disability…within 180 days from the date of this letter. I have engaged the services of my father, Fred L Nance Jr., who is an advocate for the socially disenfranchised and disadvantaged. My father will post this letter and any additional information on his websites at: http://click.townhall.com/ and http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/. My consent for advocacy work with my father will accompany this letter (A-1). My father has constructed this letter for me.
Carolyn has written a letter to Mr. Tom Lysinger, Vice President of Customer Service & Quality. Mr. Lysinger has written Carolyn back on September 12, 2006 stating, “Carolyn: I received your note regarding restrooms. I am very concerned. I would like for Paula Hearn to meet with you to ensure you have what you need. Is that OK? Regards, Tom” (A-23).
The “Statement” letter (A-14) reports “…We have reviewed your entire claim, including the following information that was submitted: Attending Physician Statement dated December 12, 2006 signed by Robert Byrne, MD. Your physician did not indicate that you were disabled as of November 27, 2006…The document that was submitted did state that you had a colostomy bag and uncontrolled GI system, but did not provide any information such as current restriction or limitations preventing you from performing your job as a Customer Service Representative. Therefore your claim has been denied.” I disagree.
The “Statement” reports under the Psychological Functions section, which is checked off by Dr. Byrne, “Class 5 – Patient has significant loss of psychological, physiological, personal and social adjustment (severe limitations).” Also under Psychological Functions “What stress factors or problems with interpersonal skills have affected patient’s ability to perform the duties of his or her job? Dr. Byrne states caring for colostomy bag.
Under “Patient’s ability to lift/carry” sections (e)(f)(g) Dr. Byrne has given the following answers: (e) In your opinion, why is patient unable to perform job duties? (Dr. Byrne’s answer) Due to colostomy bag & uncontrolled GI system; (f) Patient can work a total of “0” hours per day (Dr. Byrne’s answer); and (g) Do you expect improvement in any area? (Dr. Byrne’s answer) Yes. (If so please comment and give dates/timeframes.) Unknown pt has colostomy bag (A-14).
Colostomy is a surgical formation of an artificial anus by connecting the colon to an opening in the abdominal wall. A Colostomy Bag is a container kept constantly in position to receive feces discharged through the opening created by a colostomy. An uncontrolled GI system is medically known as “incontinence.” Incontinence is described as an “inability of the body to control the evacuative functions” (Merriam Webster’s Medical Desk Dictionary, 1996).
Under the prognosis section, it states “Have you advised patient to return to work?” Dr. Byrne’s answer is no. This section asks “If not, please explain.” Dr. Byrne states not enough assurance for restroom. This section also asks “Any work/activity restrictions applicable (please be specific):” Dr. Byrne’s answer is “she needs access to bathroom, handicapped (A-14).
Dr. Byrne has appropriately provided MetLife Disability with information on Carolyn’s current restrictions and limitations.
In addition, Carolyn Nance reports her worksite at Western Union does not have accommodations for employees with disabilities, such as described here. The bathroom area of Carolyn’s worksite does not accommodate a person with a colostomy bag where a person can comfortably empty the bag while using the toilet. In Carolyn’s case, which is uncontrollable, the following takes place: When her body is depositing feces from the colostomy into the colostomy bag, some of the feces are being deposited into her clothes. By this being uncontrollable, Carolyn is unable to know or determine when her body is about to deposit the feces.
Carolyn has been complaining about her condition to her supervisors and managers about this issue since her return to work on June 6, 2006. Carolyn was discriminated against and terminated from her employment with Western Union on December 15, 2005 because of her disability before she became hospitalized leading to the colostomy procedure and bag. At the time, Western Union claimed the termination was due to Carolyn’s attendance. Carolyn’s lack of attendance was due to her disability, which is well documented with Western Union (A-3).
In a letter dated March 22, 2006, which states it was revised on April 3, 2006, Ms. Earline Jones, President of Communications Workers of America (CWA), facilitated an agreement with Western Union Financial Services, Inc. The parties agreed to the following: (1) Ms. Nance shall be reinstated as a Customer Service Representative; (2) Ms. Nance will be paid her regular wage rate from December 13, 2005 up to and including December 30, 2005; (3) Per notification from the union, Ms. Nance was hospitalized on December 31, 2005, and may have become disabled on that date. For the purposes of this agreement only, the company will consider Ms. Nance as continually disabled beginning December 31, 2005 up to the date of this agreement. The company will retroactively apply the sickness disability provisions of the Plan for Employee’s Pensions, Disability Benefits and Death Benefits. Ms. Nance will be paid sickness disability benefits, in accordance with the plan’s provisions, for four (4) weeks as full pay and nine (9) weeks of half pay; (4) Ms. Nance will contact The Hartford, and open a claim of sickness disability and provide the necessary documentation to support her continued absence from work; (5) Ms. Nance seniority will be considered unbroken; (6) Ms. Nance will have her Attendance Termination letter revised to a repeat Fair and Final, 3-day in-house suspension; (7) Ms. Nance Medical Coverage under COBRA will be paid by the company. Ms. Nance will be reinstated in company plan benefits effective the first of the month following the receipt of her benefit enrollment forms; and (8) The Union will withdraw the grievance L3-06-06. This settlement is being made on a no-precedent, no-prejudice basis by both parties, with neither party surrendering or conceding any rights relative to any similar situations that may arise in the future (A-4).
Western Union knew or reasonably knew Carolyn had a disability (A-3 eq seq). Western Union knew or reasonably knew the concerns of Carolyn’s disability. MetLife Disability knew or reasonably should have known what Carolyn’s disability entailed because they are in contact with Western Union about this matter, insisting Carolyn jump through these illegal hoops attempting to discourage, causing mental anguish, which violates ADA. Carolyn has requested from Western Union a reasonable accommodation, which allows for a handicapped equipped bathroom. Western Union has no accommodations for the handicapped using the bathroom at Carolyn’s work location.
Therefore, it is our belief Western Union and MetLife Disability is using a “heightened standard” to evaluate Carolyn’s disability. It is also our belief EEOC has cause to charge, investigate and declare Western Union and MetLife are in violation of ADA and has discriminatory practices in the workplace, violating ADA. Western Union made no meaningful effort to resolve the accommodation for Carolyn. Western Union and MetLife may also be retaliating against Carolyn.
Respectfully submitted,
Carolyn Nance
Fred Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS
cc:
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
http://click.townhall.com/
http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
Ms. Barbara Coughlin, MetLife Disability Case Manager
Ms. Jocelyn Coates, Western Union Human Resource Manager
Ms. Diana Burnson, Western Union Financial Services, Inc.’s Manager of Human Resources
Ms. Earline Jones, President Local 6377 CWA, AFL-CIO