| ||||||||
February 26, 2010
CSG Justice Center Announces New Deputy Director
Crain's Daily News prepared for Top Executives
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ABC7 eNews
|
Politics, Political News - POLITICO.com
Politics, Political News - POLITICO.com
The aftermath: Confusion, conflict with the Health Care bill.
The aftermath: Confusion, conflict with the Health Care bill.
Media Matters Daily Summary
| |||||||
February 25, 2010
GOP Slams Obama: 'We Can't Afford This'; Hillary Hits Greenspan
|
Obama: Bipartisan health deal may not be possible - Yahoo! News
Obama: Bipartisan health deal may not be possible - Yahoo! News
Obama: Bipartisan health deal may not be possible
Obama: Bipartisan health deal may not be possible
Crain's Daily News prepared for Top Executives
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ABC7 eNews
|
EEOC Chicago District Director John P. Rowe: Plea for justice and equality
February 25, 2010
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Mr. John P. Rowe, District Director
500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800
Chicago, Illinois 60661
CERTIFIED MAIL
Re: Charge #440-2007-04512 and Charge #440-2008-05507
Mr. Rowe:
I am Dr. Fred Nance Jr. I filed two claims of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Charge #440-2007-04512 on or about April 16, 2007 and Charge #440-2008-05507 on or about May 12, 2008. I received a right-to-sue letter from EEOC on or about September 23, 2009 in this matter. On December 14, 2009 I filed civil complaint #09 C 7733 in the United States District Court, for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. I named 17 Defendants in this civil complaint, that is, WestCare Foundation, Inc., the Illinois Department of Corrections, AFSCME Local 31, and some of their employees. In addition, I filed or submitted to EEOC a 16-page attachment to my April 16, 2007 EEOC Charge at the time of filing my claim, naming all Defendants, and describing in detail my claim of discrimination and retaliation. I gave EEOC plenty of information about the claim, specifically, the “principal” Respondents; WestCare, IDOC, and AFSCME. I argued “adamantly” about the respondents being named on the claim sheet to the initial interviewer for my claim, Mr. Percile Bryant, requesting he name all Defendants. Mr. Bryant told me he knew what he was doing.
Defendant AFSCME has filed a motion to dismiss stating, “…Plaintiff has attached two EEOC charges and right-to-sue letters to his Complaint. Both such charges, and the right-to-sue letters, name WestCare and IDOC, but not the AFSCME Defendants, as Respondents. Neither charge contains any reference to any of the AFSCME Defendants in the body of the charge….” Defendants AFSCME point to the authority ruling stating, “…Ordinarily, a party not named in an EEOC charge may not be sued under Title VII. Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1089 (7th Cir. 2008); Schnellbaecher v. Baskin Clothing Co., 887 F.2d 124, 126-7 (7th Cir. 1989)….”
I sent the following statement by email to Ms. Eileen Sotak, Ms. Patricia Jamarillo, Ms. Janel Smith, and Ms. Bustos; and posted it on my blog at http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/:
Ms. Sotak & Ms. Jaramillo:
On February 23, 2010 I visited EEOC's Chicago office to review my file(s). I sent you guys a copy of Defendant AFSCME's "Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion of AFSCME Defendants to Dismiss", which is attached again for your viewing.
In this "Reply Memorandum" it list Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1089 (7th Cir. 2008) as its primary legal authority to dismiss against AFSCME for the failure of EEOC to name them in Charge #440-2007-04512 and Charge #440-2008-05507.
On April 16, 2007, I submitted the document attached to this email with my initial Charge #440-2007-04512. This document is in my file. This document, which I informed Mr. Percile Bryant, was an attachment to Charge #440-2007-04512 and should have prompted Mr. Bryant to list WestCare Foundation, Inc., Illinois Department of Corrections, and AFSCME Council 31, AFL-CIO as Charged parties.
I informed Mr. Bryant that all 3 were defendants in Charge #440-2007-04512. Mr. Bryant told me not to worry about it, and that, he knew what he was doing.
EEOC and its employees should have working knowledge of current and previous legal authorities that effect a "Charging Party", and EEOC's staff should know current and previous legal authorities that effect their processes, such as Schnellbaecher v. Baskin Clothing Co., 887 F.2d 124, 126-7 (7th Cir. 1989), which states "...a party not named in an EEOC charge may not be sued under Title VII."
EEOC's charge sheet states "...Named is the Employer, Labor Organization, Employment Agency, Apprenticeship Committee, or State or Local Government Agency That I Believe Discriminated Against Me or Others. (If more than two, list under PARTICULARS below)" Mr. Bryant, or later Ms. Janel Smith, should have been alerted to this defect. What does an "investigator" do? They investigate.
EEOC and its employees, namely Mr. Bryant, should have listed AFSCME and the Illinois Department of Corrections along with WestCare Foundation, Inc. as Charged parties to my discrimination complaint. Ms. Janel Smith, as the investigator, had a duty also to include all parties "named" by me in this/these Charge(s). I will request the Court to amend my complaint adding and/or naming EEOC as a defendant for gross negligence.
You have been noticed. You have a duty to act, and respond.
Please respond.
Mr. Rowe, please respond.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred Nance Jr., Ph.D.
Human Services/Social Policy Analysis
cc: President Barack Obama
Posted to Whitehouse.gov
Mindy Weinstein, EEOC Acting Director Washington DC
http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Mr. John P. Rowe, District Director
500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800
Chicago, Illinois 60661
CERTIFIED MAIL
Re: Charge #440-2007-04512 and Charge #440-2008-05507
Mr. Rowe:
I am Dr. Fred Nance Jr. I filed two claims of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Charge #440-2007-04512 on or about April 16, 2007 and Charge #440-2008-05507 on or about May 12, 2008. I received a right-to-sue letter from EEOC on or about September 23, 2009 in this matter. On December 14, 2009 I filed civil complaint #09 C 7733 in the United States District Court, for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. I named 17 Defendants in this civil complaint, that is, WestCare Foundation, Inc., the Illinois Department of Corrections, AFSCME Local 31, and some of their employees. In addition, I filed or submitted to EEOC a 16-page attachment to my April 16, 2007 EEOC Charge at the time of filing my claim, naming all Defendants, and describing in detail my claim of discrimination and retaliation. I gave EEOC plenty of information about the claim, specifically, the “principal” Respondents; WestCare, IDOC, and AFSCME. I argued “adamantly” about the respondents being named on the claim sheet to the initial interviewer for my claim, Mr. Percile Bryant, requesting he name all Defendants. Mr. Bryant told me he knew what he was doing.
Defendant AFSCME has filed a motion to dismiss stating, “…Plaintiff has attached two EEOC charges and right-to-sue letters to his Complaint. Both such charges, and the right-to-sue letters, name WestCare and IDOC, but not the AFSCME Defendants, as Respondents. Neither charge contains any reference to any of the AFSCME Defendants in the body of the charge….” Defendants AFSCME point to the authority ruling stating, “…Ordinarily, a party not named in an EEOC charge may not be sued under Title VII. Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1089 (7th Cir. 2008); Schnellbaecher v. Baskin Clothing Co., 887 F.2d 124, 126-7 (7th Cir. 1989)….”
I sent the following statement by email to Ms. Eileen Sotak, Ms. Patricia Jamarillo, Ms. Janel Smith, and Ms. Bustos; and posted it on my blog at http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/:
Ms. Sotak & Ms. Jaramillo:
On February 23, 2010 I visited EEOC's Chicago office to review my file(s). I sent you guys a copy of Defendant AFSCME's "Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion of AFSCME Defendants to Dismiss", which is attached again for your viewing.
In this "Reply Memorandum" it list Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1089 (7th Cir. 2008) as its primary legal authority to dismiss against AFSCME for the failure of EEOC to name them in Charge #440-2007-04512 and Charge #440-2008-05507.
On April 16, 2007, I submitted the document attached to this email with my initial Charge #440-2007-04512. This document is in my file. This document, which I informed Mr. Percile Bryant, was an attachment to Charge #440-2007-04512 and should have prompted Mr. Bryant to list WestCare Foundation, Inc., Illinois Department of Corrections, and AFSCME Council 31, AFL-CIO as Charged parties.
I informed Mr. Bryant that all 3 were defendants in Charge #440-2007-04512. Mr. Bryant told me not to worry about it, and that, he knew what he was doing.
EEOC and its employees should have working knowledge of current and previous legal authorities that effect a "Charging Party", and EEOC's staff should know current and previous legal authorities that effect their processes, such as Schnellbaecher v. Baskin Clothing Co., 887 F.2d 124, 126-7 (7th Cir. 1989), which states "...a party not named in an EEOC charge may not be sued under Title VII."
EEOC's charge sheet states "...Named is the Employer, Labor Organization, Employment Agency, Apprenticeship Committee, or State or Local Government Agency That I Believe Discriminated Against Me or Others. (If more than two, list under PARTICULARS below)" Mr. Bryant, or later Ms. Janel Smith, should have been alerted to this defect. What does an "investigator" do? They investigate.
EEOC and its employees, namely Mr. Bryant, should have listed AFSCME and the Illinois Department of Corrections along with WestCare Foundation, Inc. as Charged parties to my discrimination complaint. Ms. Janel Smith, as the investigator, had a duty also to include all parties "named" by me in this/these Charge(s). I will request the Court to amend my complaint adding and/or naming EEOC as a defendant for gross negligence.
You have been noticed. You have a duty to act, and respond.
Please respond.
Mr. Rowe, please respond.
Respectfully submitted,
Fred Nance Jr., Ph.D.
Human Services/Social Policy Analysis
cc: President Barack Obama
Posted to Whitehouse.gov
Mindy Weinstein, EEOC Acting Director Washington DC
http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/