• Federal agencies are responsible/mandated to investigate claims of disparate treatment and unlawful discrimination charges.  This is a conflict of interest because (a) the Agency is the Respondent (bias),  (b) sometimes by another federal agency is contracted (bias), (c) sometimes a third party contractor paid by the party in the complaint [federal agency].

• EEO Complaints that are not dismissed and ultimately transferred to a District Court.  This is a conflict of interest because District Court is a federal agency.

• The Federal Reserve Bank is NOT a government agency; it is a private corporation, which actually loans credit to the USA/Federal Government.  The national debt is owed to the Federal Reserve Bank.  This is corruption.

• The Better Business Bureau (BBB) is NOT a government agency; it is a private corporation, which solicits memberships to businesses and mediates complaints against businesses/members. This is a conflict of interest. How can a company remain objective if they are expected to mediate a complaint against one of their members?

Regardless of your political affiliation or opinion, the Occupation Movement is the perfect opportunity to express your concern about Conflicts of interest; Corruption; and Federal Agencies; e.g. EEOC and its UNFAIR Complaint Process.  If you have no particular complaints, but you want to support the Occupation Movements, there are many ways you can discreetly support the Movement.  We say DISCREETLY because we are aware of obvious conflicts of interest prevents a large number of people from openly supporting the Movement; especially if you are a government employee (federal, state, city, or county), government contractor, legislator, elected official, Judge, etc.

Professional Life Skills Mentors and Coaches, LLC (PSLM), our affiliate company’s blog, claims that Money is the root of all evil and advocates debt forgiveness and a moneyless society.  Debt forgiveness is definitely a realistic alternative to the illusion of financial reforms within a dysfunctional monetary system. One single legislative action can make debt forgiveness a reality. The Zietgeist Movement (TZM) has a similar position, which is why we emphatically endorse and support TZM.

An Owner’s Manual (for an automobile) is used to provide the owner with general information how to care for the vehicle.  On the other hand, an Instructional Manual (for an automobile) provides essential details to assemble, disassemble, repair, and conduct maintenance for optimal performance of the vehicle.

Similarly, different organizations offer handbooks for eeo complainants, which provide complainants with general information about the eeo complaint process and eeo compliance issues i.e. timeline and requirements to cooperate. These handbooks range from (a five page) general-free-basic informational document to a (100 pages) $500.00 EEOC Compliance information document (no specific details to assist complainants).  On the other hand, EEO Investigators’ Training Manual; Executive Summary provides specific details to grammatically structure the EEO charge (also provides general information about the eeo complaint process along with eeo compliance issues).

Regarding assistance to EEO complainants, both manuals are beneficial, but each manual serves a specific purpose.  If you are an EEO complainant, download the several copies of eeo complainants handbooks (Handbooks online – Virginia, Georgia, Ohio) to obtain general information. Regardless of whether an attorney has been retained, Complainants are encouraged to get a copy of the EEO Investigators’ Training Manual; Executive Summary to understand the specific details to correctly structure the EEO charge (to ensure your EEO claim will be accepted).

EEO claims that are not accepted (primarily due to grammatical structure of the claim) will likely be dismissed, which could jeopardized the entire EEO case.

Certified EEO Complaint Processor’s EEO Investigators’ Training Manual; Executive Summary “levels the playing field” because the information is designed for EEO counselors, investigators, consultants, and attorneys, but available to eeo complainants (pro se litigants).

Homeowners have 3 options:

(1) Hire a Realtor for $6000 (standard 3% for each Realtor involved in the transaction).

(2) Do not use a Realtor; perform all duties to sell your home (i.e. learn the process, advertise, arrange open house meetings, negotiate, and schedule closing).

(3) Do not use a Realtor; but utilize low cost support services for homeowners such as For Sale By Owner services (listing services and seller workshops).

Similarly, Complainants have 3 options:

(1) Hire an attorney (estimate $6000; retainer and expenses).

(2) Do not use an attorney; perform all duties to prosecute your EEO Charge (i.e. learn the EEO process, file EEO Charge, prepare documents, comply with time-line, validate probable cause, attend hearings, and negotiate settlement).

(3) Do not use an attorney; but utilize low cost support services designed for Complainants; provided by Certified EEO Complaint Processors.

Certified EEO Complaint Processors are professional EEO trainers and EEO investigators who offer Online Assessments to determine/establish probable cause and the EEO Investigators’ Training Manual; Executive Summary; which provide details, examples, and time-lines to empower the pro-se Complainant.

Our response to the prospective client’s inquiry was to inform her of the options and whether she felt confident to proceed to sell her home without a Realtor.  Ironically, just because a homeowner uses a Realtor to sell their home does not guarantee that the house will sell within six month, for the asking price.  Accordingly, we shared the fact that the success rate of homeowners, who used For Sale By Owner and not a Realtor was similar to homeowners who employed a Realtor.  Similarly, pro-se Complainants have a similar LOW success rate as Complainants who employ an attorney.

In closing, the Training Manual; Executive Summary is for you, if:

You are representing yourself.

You are not prepared to pay attorney fee for the duration of your case.

You want to be confident to file a discrimination complaint?

An interesting fact:  Certified EEO Complaint Processors are not attorneys and do not provide legal advice; consequently, many attorneys use our EEO training as well as our EEO Training Manual; Executive Summary as a guide to draft pleading for clients.

After numerous responses referencing last month’s blog “He who knows the rules (and plays by the rules); controls the game”, the bottom lines is knowledge and proficiency with the applicable rules Management Directive (MD) – 110; and Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) – 1614.   Both rules have been simplified and consolidated into the user-friendly EEO Counselors and Investigators Training Manual (Executive Summary is available to the public), produced by Certified EEO Complaint Processors.

There are many reasons and speculations why unlawful Discrimination and Harassment is still a problem in the USA.  However, we do know many cases are systematically dismissed because pro se litigants and attorneys are not aware of the rules and regulations that govern EEO Complaints.  The Executive Summary is a valuable resource manual designed to prepare pro se litigants to be successful in their discrimination charge.

The following list highlights a few cases, classified by month:

July 2011

Genesco/Journeys Settles EEOC Sexual Harassment And Retaliation Suit

June 2011

EEOC Sues Koch Foods for Sexual Harassment, National Origin and Race Discrimination

EEOC Sues Guardsmark For Co-Worker Harassment

EEOC Settles Sexual Harassment Suit With Dollar General for $50,000

EEOC Sues Tideland EMC For Disability Discrimination

EEOC Sues Moreland Auto Group For Retaliation

EEOC Obtains $600,000 Verdict Against AutoZone For Failure To Accommodate Disabled Employee

May 2011

Dunkin’ Donuts Franchise to Pay $290,000 to Settle EEOC Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

U.S. Security Associates to Pay $1.95 Million To Resolve EEOC Title VII Sexual Harassment Claim

State Contractor to Pay $55,000 To Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit

Chrysler To Pay $60,000 Under Decree Ending EEOC Retaliation Lawsuit

EEOC Sues BP One Stop Convenience Store For Disability Discrimination

April 2011

Dillard’s Sued By EEOC For Retaliation

EEOC Sues Milwaukee Medical Staffing Agency for Pregnancy Discrimination

EEOC Sues Sysco Oklahoma for Disability Bias

StoneRidge Health and Rehab Center to Pay $22,000 to Settle EEOC Retaliation Lawsuit

EEOC Combats Labor Trafficking, Severe Abuse and Discrimination in Lawsuits Filed

EEOC Files Its Largest Farm Worker Human Trafficking Suit Against Global Horizons, Farms

EEOC Sues Marine Services Company for Labor Trafficking, Discrimination

EEOC Sues Owner Of 42 McDonald’s Restaurants For Sexual Harassment And Retaliation

March 2011

Arkansas Baptist College Settles EEOC Retaliation Lawsuit

EEOC Sues Town Of Clarence And Fire Companies For Age Discrimination

EEOC Sues HD Dimension Corp. To Enforce Conciliation Agreement

South Basin Packing to Pay $80,000 To Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit

Texas-Based Fashion Accessory Company To Pay $95,000 To Settle EEOC Age Discrimination Suit

EEOC Obtains $451,000 Jury Verdict Against Boh Brothers Construction Co. For Male-On-male Sexual Harassment

The Country Inn at Berkeley Springs to Pay $85,000 to Settle EEOC Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

Channel 25 Settles EEOC Race And Sex Bias Suit

EEOC Sues Convergys Corporation For Religious Discrimination

Del Taco Owner Sued by EEOC for Sexual Harassment and Retaliation

February 2011

Salem Electric Company Sued By EEOC For Race Discrimination

Hussey Copper To Pay $85,000 To Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

EEOC Files Sex Discrimination Lawsuit Against Presrite Corporation

EEOC Sues Three South Carolina Companies For National Origin Discrimination

First Student To Pay $150,000 To Settle EEOC Sexual Harassment, Retaliation Suit

EEOC Sues Amtrak For Sex-Based Wage Discrimination And Retaliation

January 2011

Georgia Military College Sued by EEOC for Race Discrimination

Jury Returns Verdict in EEOC Bias Suit; Paul’s Big M to Pay $1,260,080 for Sex Harassment

Houston Businesses Settle EEOC Age Discrimination Suit

JW Marriott Sued by EEOC for Sexual Harassment

EEOC Sues State Contractor and Staffing Firm for Disability Discrimination

City Of Greensboro To Pay $91,000 To Settle EEOC Age Discrimination Lawsuit

Measurement Incorporated Pays $110,000 To Settle Religious Discrimination Lawsuit

Crye-Leike / Bankers Asset Management Sued by EEOC for Race Discrimination and Retaliation

The same concept of participation and proficiency applies to all facets in our civilized society.  Three examples, include: (1) people who want to be law-abiding citizens must be knowledgeable about their citizenship rights and responsibilities, (2) athletes who compete in various sporting venues must know and play according the rules to avoid a penalty, and (3) pro se litigants and attorneys in every legal proceeding must actively participate in Court Proceedings according to a specific set of rules.  Specific rules that regulate various Court Venues (Jurisdiction), include:

• County Court Rules for county jurisdiction;
• State Court Rules for State jurisdiction;
• Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP)  for Federal jurisdiction (Bankruptcy, Civil, and Criminal Cases);
• United States Court of Federal Claims (generally) for legal actions/claims against an United States Government Agency;
• Local Rules for specific Judges and/or Courts;
• Management Directive (MD) -110 for prohibiting employment discrimination for Federal employee and applicants; and
• Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) -1614 for all types of employment discrimination/harassment claims.

Since this blog is dedicated to EEO issues, the two RULES that federal employees will use; regarding discrimination is MD -110 and/or CFR -1614.  If you case goes before the Federal Court, then you will primarily need FRCP.

To simplify the process, Certified EEO Complaint Processors, now, offers the EEO Counselors and Investigators Training Manual; Executive Summary to assist the pro-se litigants to manage their discrimination case; they will know the rules which EEO Counselors and EEO Investigators are regulated.  The Executive Summary is a valuable resource designed to prepare pro se litigants to be successful in their employment discrimination complaint.

Certified EEO Complaint Processors have decided to release the Executive Summary of their EEO Counselors and Investigators Training Manual; an eight-hour EEO Professional Development Training Module. In addition to providing top quality professional development training, Certified EEO Complaint Processors are contracted as EEO investigators for both; corporations and private individuals.  After presenting to a group of EEO pro se litigants, in February 2011, seminar attendees labeled the EEO Counselors and Investigators Training Manual as the “competitor’s play book” and requested an Executive Summary, which the Certified EEO Complaint Processors consented.  Now, the Certified EEO Complaint Processors’ EEO Training Manual; Executive Summary available to the public.

While the EEO Counselors and Investigators Training Manual is over 300 pages and includes: examples, scenarios, applicable laws (i.e. Management Directive (MD) – 110; and Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) – 1614), court decisions, and references (retail value $250.00).  The Executive Summary is over 25 pages; simplified, user friendly, and highlights the most important information relative to each type of claim (discrimination, harassment, and retaliation). The Executive Summary is a valuable resource designed to prepare pro se litigants to be successful in their pursuit to justice (retail value $50.00).

According to EEOC:

If the employer requires all other applicants to undergo background checks before being offered a position, the employer may require members of religious or ethnic groups to undergo the same pre-employment investigations. Of course, as with its other employment practices, the employer may not subject only particular religious or ethnic groups, such as Muslims or Arabs, to heightened security checks. Some employers, such as defense contractors, may require a security clearance for certain jobs pursuant to a federal statute or Executive Order. Clearance determinations must generally be processed and made without regard to race, religion, or national origin. However, security clearance determinations for positions subject to national security requirements under a federal statute or an Executive Order are not generally subject to review under the equal employment opportunity statutes.

Ironically, security background checks reveal protected class information (i.e. race, age, religion, gender, national origin, disability, color, and whether the person subjected to the security background investigation was engaged in protected activities [i.e. filed discrimination complaint, participated in a discrimination investigation, opposed unlawful employment practices (boycott or picket), and/or served as a witness against an employer for unlawful practices]), which can be used against: (1) applicants, (2) candidates, and (3) employees. This is unlawful RETALIATION.  Based on our experience, U.S. Department of States is notorious for this type of Unethical Inappropriate conduct.

Disclosure of protected class information and protected activities makes this ‘common’ federal government practice Unethical-Ironic-Contradictory, which justifies unlawful retaliation.  Retaliation is retaliating against people (applicants or employees) because they filed a charge of discrimination or because they participated in an employment discrimination proceeding (such as an investigation or lawsuit).  According to EEOC, the law forbids retaliation when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.

To support complainants against this Unethical-Ironic-Contradictory conduct, Certified EEO Complaint Processors will release the Executive Summary of their EEO Counselors and Investigators Training Manual, which reveals important information relative to each type of claim (discrimination, harassment, and retaliation).

The right to self-representation has been protected by statute since the beginnings of The United States. President Washington proposed that parties may plead and manage their own causes personally or by the assistance of counsel in all the courts of The United States.  While the authority of self representation predates the ratification of The United States Constitution, every State has constitutional provisions allowing self-representation in state courts.  Accordingly, every State and Federal court system provides limited-basic information to pro se litigants.

According to 1996 report on pro se by University of Maryland Law School, 57% of pro se litigants said they could not afford a lawyer, 18% said they did not wish to spend the money to hire a lawyer, 21% said they believed that their case was simple and therefore they did not need an attorney.

Also, ABA Legal Needs Study shows that 45% of pro se litigants believe that “Lawyers are more concerned with their own self promotion than their client’s best interest.” Defendants who choose to appear pro se may do so because they believe they may gain tactical advantages against the prosecutor, such as obtaining sympathy from the jury, the opportunity to personally address the jury and witnesses. The study also documented how pro se litigant appearances may also delay the trial proceedings and enhance the possibility of a mistrial and a subsequent appeal.

As a result of the increasing number of pro se litigants, networks of pro se litigants from different venues (Federal Court, State Court, EEOC Administrative Court, etc.) share information to assist each other in their pursuit to justice  [example: Pa. Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities].   Certified EEO Complaint Processors are proud to take the lead in offering EEO pro se litigants a wide variety of resources (i.e. online  assessments, training workshops, consultation [no legal advice], and plans to offer a detailed guide to assist EEO pro se complainant prepare a grammatically correct “statement of claims”; to prevent systematic dismissal.

Generally, we explain: it is morally and socially wrong to discriminate, but LEGAL in some situations.  The exceptions include: employment, educational services, housing, and federally funded programs. Coincidentally, many social clubs, community organizations and businesses discriminate regularly, consciously and unconsciously.

Keep in mind: it is not necessary to hire an attorney for discrimination cases, especially during the initial pre-complaint phase of your discrimination claim. Certified EEO Complaint Processors specialize in discrimination laws and have completed specialized training, which many attorneys have not completed. We highly recommend using the online assessment provided by the Certified EEO Complaint Processors, also provide competent EEO Consultation and paralegal services. Remember that Certified EEO Complaint Processors also provide paralegal services for Complainants who are prepared to file civil actions in the Federal Court System.

One good example of institutional ageism and racism is a recent lawsuit: an injured claimant filed a lawsuit against Mattress Firm and Zurich North America (NA), the insurance carrier and claims adjuster for Mattress Firm.  During the trial the injured claimant (a pro se litigant) proved that Mattress Firm and Zurich discriminated against her because of her age (over 60) and her race (African American).  The injured claimant also proved retaliation; when she complained about discrimination, Zurich retaliated against her by denying her claim, before completing the claim investigation.  Despite the overwhelming evidence, the Judge dismissed the discrimination claim and the retaliation claim because it is LEGAL to discriminate in some venues.

Lilly retired after 19 years working for Goodyear in Gadsden, Alabama. She filed a complaint with the EEOC, alleging that men in her plant doing similar work were paid 15 to 40 percent more.  The records backed her up. Lilly proved that she was being paid $6,000 less than men doing the same work, including those who were the lowest paid in their job duties. Ultimately, both the EEOC and a jury ruled in her favor. Lilly was awarded $360,000 in back pay.  Lilly was quoted, “She knew unfairness when she saw it and was willing to do something about it because it was the right thing to do, plain and simple.”  At the end of the 10 year EEO complaint, Lilly stated, “Goodyear will never have to pay me what it cheated me out of. In fact, I will never see a cent from my case.”

The purpose of this article is to prove two points: 1) the length of some EEO Cases and 2) the legal fees that could be incurred during the EEO Complaint Process.  As these points are made, keep in mind a) it is not necessary to hire an attorney, b) legal fees in an EEO case can be exuberant, and c) if you chose not to hire an attorney you must be resourceful.  Despite the many unprepared pro se litigants who are not successful in Federal Court, prepared pro se litigants are SUCCESSFUL; because they are resourceful.  One example of being resourceful is using the online assessments provided by the Certified EEO Complaint Processors, and/or the EEO Consultation and paralegal services.