Miss Lucy Orta (Director EEOC LV-NV),
I would like to express my concern that the charge against Clark County, from which Mr. Escobar and I spoke about today, was a heavy concern to me in that he stated in his own words to me that, "What is in your file has been reviewed and will be recommended for closure because there is no merit to the Civil Act of 1964 as amended." I then stated also about retaliation during and after (Duping me to believe there is an inventory and using that adverse action against me without merit and not to follow their protocols as in their employee handbook which cover many of the laws that are enforced by the EEOC, to include other adverse actions as in discrimination during and after my short tenure, towards myself by Clark County and it's employees) my wrongful Termination, the EEOC cannot close this charge due to having many areas of concern that Mr. Rivera has submitted to the EEOC. To include a good question as in:
"Why was the so-call e-mail/letter in question from Clark County not in Mr. Rivera's employee file, which Mr. Rivera did submit by law under NRS, to Clark County and receive what is called a sterilized employee file, which means it did not include that e-mail/letter that is weighing very heavy on the decision to these charges? Also, why was Mr. Rivera not briefed and debriefed as a Clark County Local Government Employee regarding this so-call alleged misconduct. Taking this into consideration, even when the alleged misconduct by Mr. Rivera was not taken into immediate action for an immediate termination and/or counseled, evaluated and treated as any other Clark County employee via Labor Laws and EEOC enforceable laws as well, to include Clark County's own handbook rules and regulations of an employee?"
I kindly asked him about how or in what way specifically to let me know why he is recommending this on my charges which i have concrete facts, dates, witnesses-current/former employees and many other items as pictures and information pertinent and that shows malicious and adverse actions of violations of my protected civil rights under the law, the American Public Laws.
He could not give me a solid valid answer and contradicted himself many times and allowed me to know that his decision as the investigator on my charges against Clark County was heavily weighed by a rebuttal e-mail/letter that was sent by Clark County to the EEOC stating by Mr. Escobar reading the e-mail/letter a loud to me over the phone:
1. Unprofessional Conduct by Agent Rivera
2. In form of an e-mail/letter.
3. "Agent Rivera has been visiting our business about 4/5 times in the last 2 months, harassing our staff and other businesses located in this same area. Also came with wife, while on duty, waving his badge........"
Mr. Escobar was stating that he was concluding this phone call and repeating the quote in the first paragraph of this letter/e-mail.
It is very hard to believe that having all the facts and information that I have sent to your office by walking it in, sending it via e-mail (which you have told me that all information sent these ways would be added to the supposed file in question.
I have in the past year, because of this matter and charges as a victim of retaliation and discrimination, have endured three threats on my life by Clark County, Clark County employees and affiliates to Clark County via their employees (Dan Hoffman, Gerhard "Gary" Torgerson, Andrew "Drew" Renter and Steven Brooks of Councilman Barlow's Office via a government land line.
I do hope that I may have rectified any misunderstandings and my family most of all waits for a more positive result and answer as this fight for my rights that have been willfully broken by the sole laws that the EEOC enforces and have been proved by facts yet diminished by a rebuttal from the Defendants and the lack of actual investigation of the submitted information to the EEOC in this charge. (487-2009-00585)
To add, that the investigator Mr. Escobar said that my charges only consisted of Clark County acknowledging me as a 'N' (the n word), is ridiculous since I am Hispanic and also submitted information of I being told by Clark County not to speak Spanish, yet I did submit some information that directed hearing Dan Hoffman of Clark County Business License calling the Director of Clark County Business License a 'N' (the n word) with another Clark County employee on or about March 2009. (Article Pride and Prejudice by City Life, Dan Hoffman [Limo driver@MGM] stating "If it's the last thing I'll do, I'll get that nigger')
If the EEOC would like the names, letters and concerns of the people which this is a of an interest to as others that have file similar charges as mine.
This is a Public Concern in that Clark County has a history of flexing there muscles to scare, intimidate and compel others to be part of corruption and cover-ups so that their world of governing does not dissipate.
Semper FI
09/09/2010
[SOME OF THE AREAS WHERE ADVERSE ACTIONS TOOK PLACE BUT NOT LIMITED TO THESE ALONE
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (amended), ADA, ADEA.
Unlawful Employment Practices. SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703].
;it is illegal to discriminate in any aspect of employment, including:
• hiring and firing; [I was hired and fired within the means to collect]
• compensation, assignment, or classification of employees; [I was classified as the Mexican]
• transfer, promotion, layoff, or recall; [I was subject to a promotion to permanent status by supervisor in March 2009, then wrongfully terminated]
• job advertisements; [when wrongfully terminated, my position was posted that same week]
• recruitment;
• testing;
• use of company facilities;
• training and apprenticeship programs; [When hired, training was supposed to be by a supervisor and was trained by other unqualified Calrk County employees and one on probation as I was (Perryetta Lacy]
• fringe benefits;
• pay, retirement plans, and disability leave; or
• other terms and conditions of employment. [Was told and trained to follow suit with the other Clark County (unethical and criminal procedures]
Discriminatory practices under these laws also include:
• harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age; [I was harassed by Clark County employees because of my religious beliefs (bible thumper), race and national origin]
• retaliation against an individual for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in an investigation, or opposing discriminatory practices; [I opposed many discriminating practices and questioned them during and after my short tenure as a Clark County employee (removal of family picture, cropped and posted throughout Clark County physically and cyberly)]
• employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about the abilities, traits, or performance of individuals of a certain sex, race, age, religion, or ethnic group, or individuals with disabilities; and *NOTE:[Assumptions and abilities were questioned and not disclosed till charges were placed at the EEOC]
• denying employment opportunities to a person because of marriage to, or association with, an individual of a particular race, religion, national origin, or an individual with a disability. Title VII also prohibits discrimination because of participation in schools or places of worship associated with a particular racial, ethnic, or religious group.
*NOTE:[My wife Amber L. Rivera works as an educator at an Islamic Academy, my former Supervisor James Headen was displeased and had questions of the ethnicity of our Islamic friends and families at a gathering for our children's birthdays which he attended with his adopted daughter at “Pump It Up” in Las Vegas, NV on March 2009. He initiated questions on My wife regarding their garments and wearing the them in the USA, as well as there countries of birth.] [After my supervisor had known about my affiliation with persons of a particular race, religion, national origin and with a disability as I, I was treated differently and was on “need to know basis with my employment.”]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment