Lea H Taylor Jr. Pro Se 34 Delafield Street New Brunswick, NJ 08901

United States. istrict Court District of ew Jersey

RcCEI ;EO

DCT 3 1 2 13 AT 8:30

WILIL: liAiA1;;, 'Tr. ~W,;.A:+,s"'fi~M ClERK

Lea H.Ta lor Jr. v State fNew Jerse eta!

Lea H. Taylor Jr.

Plaintiffs

vs.

State ofNew Jersey State ofNew Jersey Department of Children and amities State of New Jersey Division of Children's Syste of Care Jeffrey J. Guenzel Clarence Whitaker BettyM. Ng Lisa T. Hibner

Defendants

PARTES Plaintiff

Civil Action No .. ____ _

COMPLAINT

LeaH Taylor Jr. Jives at :;4 Delafield Street, New runswick, NJ 0890L

Defendants State of New Jersey is headquartered at Office oft e Governor 125 West Stjite Street, PO Box: 001 Trenton, NJ 08625 . State of New Jersey Department of Children and F ilies20 West State Street, 4th floor Trenton, NJ 08625-0729 State of New Jersey Division of Children's Syste of Care is located at 50 East State Street, 3r floor, Trenton, NJ 08625·0717 Jeffrey J. Guenzel. Deputy Commissioner, Dep ent of Children and Families, fanner Director of Children's Behavioral ServiceS Divisio now the Division of Children's System of Care and is located at 271 Flanders Netcong Rd, F ders, NJ 07836~9701 Clarence Whitaker Government Representative 2, ivision of Children's Sy'stem of Care and · be located at 50 East State Street, 3rd floor Trento , NJ 08625-0717 Betty M. Ng, Legal Specialist, Central Office, Divi ion of Children and Fami!ies20 West State Street, 4th floor Trenton, NJ 08625-0729 Lisa T. Hibner, Legal Specialist, Division of Chi! nand Families Administration 20 West State Street, 4th floor Trenton, NJ 08625-0729

1

l9Zl·Z9Z·£L6 ]8ZU8nE) d££:go £l 60 oeo .

JURISD!CITJONA ALLEGATIONS In this action the federal-questionjurisdiction exi Is under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the case arises u.nder 42 D.S.G. § 2000e. The matter in co troversy exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum of $75,000.

VE This action is brought in the ve ue under 28U.S.C.§ 1391 (b)

STATEMENT F THE CASE Lea H. Taylor Jr. (Piaintift) sues the State of New Jersey, State of New Jersey Division of Children and Families, JeffGuenzel, Clarence itaker, Betty M. Ng, and Lisa Hibner for Violation ofTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1 64 (Pub. L. 88-352) (Title VII), as amend appears in voh1me 42 of the United States Code, eginning at section :wo:Oe, negligence, conspiracy, breach of contract, and defamation of baracter ..

BAcKGROuND F THE CASE Discrimination against African Americans is perv sive in the Division of Children's System o Care. Plaintiff.Lea H. Taylor, Jr. MPA, Karen Wi liams, PhD, Iris L. Carter, MHS, CSW, Ilfu Richards Maragh, MP A, Selina Allen MHS, And e1). Lewis, Jellllae Sutter . .are all African Americans who have been demeaned, discredited, d discriminated against by the leadership · f this Division. These are all the African Americans in the division besides Shirley Searles who went to the Union and told them Plaintiff deserve to be fired, and who seems-to work for management, and Defendant Whital;.er.

[line Richards Maragb. MP A In July 2007 Iline Richards Ma:ragh returned from acation and was told by former Oirector Nadezhda Robinson that she was being reassignpd She was the training coordinator and she stripped of all of her dutie~. So from the month o July 20Q7until October 2007 Uine carne to work and sat at her desk. She was never reassigne All of bet duties were assigned to a Caucasian woman with no background in trairting. Finally in October 2007 the training duties were returued to nine. Since then Iline has been srespected on several occasions by former Deputy Director Brian Hancock and the former Di ector despite the fact she is also handicapp For instance, on March 19,2009 she was fmcil:>ly moved from her cubicle into a srna:ller cubicle. Jline had openly expressed her will tore ain in the cubicle she was in to be closer to her files. Remember Iline is handicapped. Yet sh was for<Jibly removed and her cubicle was given to a Caucasian male who is a Jevel26. Iline a level 29 and she supervises others asp of her respo11Sibility in running the training contra . She needed a cubicle at least w; large as e one she was in and needed to be close to her files. gainst her will, she was moved to a smalle cubicle in spite qf the fact that she could have bee moved to a bigger cubicle more appropriate for someone who supervises others. Thateubicle as given to a Caucasian female who does n t supervise anyone. So Iline, who runs the training ntract and supervises others, was placed in

dvs:go £ ~ 60 aeo

the smallest cubicle of the 3 to make room for C ucasians who are levels below her .and don t supervise anyone. This is an exan1ple of what th former Deputy Director spent his time do· g. His job responsibilities consisted partly of forcib moving a handicapped African Ameci.can woman ngafust her will. ·

Karen Williams. PhD In October 2007 former I)itector the Director Na ezhda Robinson told Karen Williams, ·ph)) he was no longer needed .. Karen was the only Afric . Americ<m in the Division with a PhD. Sh was summarily let go against her will and was gi en no alternative. There were llP violations r complaints against Karen. She had good job eval ations. The Director simply did not want Karen working in the Division. There is no busi ss reason for Karen to be gone. lt was because she is an Afri.c::an American female with PhD.

Iris L. Carter. MHS. CSW Iris L. Carter has a Master's Degree and was subj ct to discrimination, etc. and it is detailed· her complaint against the State ofNew Jersey, et l and can be found on Pacer with Civil Ac:ti n NP. 09-6124. Yet even after the filing ofber co plaint Iris has continued to be discrirnimite against and it is possibly because of her sujte whi h can be considered retaliation.

Jn January 2012 Iris was asked to write the busin s ·ru]es hospital placement of youth With mental health issues. This is an area she knows a eat deal about. She is· the co.ordinator for IRTS (Intensive Residential Treatment Services) d interfaces with hospitals over the placement of children with mental health issues. . o she was ideal for this ass\gnment and wro e an excellent report When the report was complet · Defendant Guenzel gave the written credi to Edna Pornrink who is not African American.

In August 2012 an event was planned with the su · ect matter of hospital and youth with ment health issues. Iris again was the perfect person to ordinate this event and lead it. Yet the lea was given to Kim Maloney and Jen Bak, both are aucasian and have no mental health or hospital experience. In an email sated August 23, 012 Defendant Guenzel wrote, "I am appointing Kim and Ken as the point people to pu I t)Jis to15ether for me in a clear way."

When the Division moved from the 4t1t floor to th 3rd floor at their current address on August 6, 20 l3, Iris L. Carter although she is a level29 and as worked for the State 22 years was given clerical cribicle too small to hold ali of her files. S e was informed that Selena and Jennae had went to Alan Vietze to remedy this. because they b Iieved that Iris .should have a supervisor siz d. cubicle. He did nothing. Iris advocated for herself d was denied. She sits in a clerical sized cubicle that is too small for her needs.

Selena Allen, Jennae Suiter. Andrea Lewis In July 2010 Selena Allen, Jennae Sutter and Andr Le.wis were told by Defendant Guenz:el who was the Director of the Division at the time, ey were all being demoted to their previous service titles. Ali three are African American and e demotion would have been devastating financially and emotionally. They had all been in eir titles for years and doing the work to th satisfaction of their ~uperv:isor. Yet they were not ermanent in their title and that is general!)•

3

j9ZU9n(l dvs:go 8L 60 oao

the responsibility of the supervisor, who was AI Vietze to make sure they wet¢ pemtanent and he did nothing to help them. lnstead Alan Vietz . ~dvocated for Jen Bok and Kim Maloney, ~oth Caucasians, although neither worked in their .tit! s as long as either Selepa, Jennae or ,Andre Jen Bok had just returned from maternity 1eave. Jen Bok arid Kim Maloney were promoted because they are Caucasian, Selena, Jennae and drea V{here scheduled for demotion beca se they are African American. Selena and Jenn&e s cured the assismnce of a Union Representa ·~e on the recommendi!tion ofids Carter and succes fully attained permanent status. Andrea Le s is still not penbanent and her supervisor, Alan V etze is not doing anything to help her. She s still battling on her ov..'n .for permanent status for ·job she has been doing· for years.

AlanVietze Alan Vietzc is a Caucasian and is not a Defend t and yet he has failed to !ldvocate for any o the Aftican Americans he supervises when they wer being challenged. ,He failed to help Selena Jennae and Andrea although he supervises all3 them. He has instead advocated for Caucasians only. He advocated for Jcn Bok and · im Maloney, both Caucasian, so "they coul be placed permanently in supervisory titles while S ena, Jennae and Andrea were scheduled to , e demoted and he never came to their aid. Jen Bo had no supervisor experience and .had just returned from maternity leave and yet ,she was pr J;r][)ted to a le~l 29 along with Kim Malon y and made permanent. He has never advocated fo any of the African Americans he has supervises. lnslead he advocates only for Caucas· s.

Plaintiff Plaintiff was hired by the former Deputy Dir~ Brian Hancock to be the MIS Lead in the of di!ta base administration. Plaintiff has a Maste 's ))egtee in Public Administration and is a level29, In August 2008 Plaintiff was informed· ·t Rob Capizzano would. be. his boss. Rob Capizzano has a High School Diploma and a lo' r civil service leveL When Plaintiff.inform the former Director, Nadezhda Robinson and for er Deputy Director Brian HancoCk ofhls qualifications and civil. service level, this idea w . resciiided. When Plaintiff querif:ld Rob Capizzano about the system, Rob Capizzano cou1 not explain to hitn how the system operate,. When Plaintiff commented to the former Deputy irector that he was hired to be the lead, the· former Deputy Director simply stated he changed · s mind. So Rob Capizzano, a CaucaSian with a high school diploma who was at the ti.nie s vera! civil serv1ce levels below Plaintiffwh bas a Master's Degree, and who refused or was u ble to explain the system to Plaintiff, sat in a supervisor sized cubicle courtesy ofthe Deputy D rector. The former Director Nadezhda Robinson and the former Deputy Director Brian cock ensured :that Rob Capizzano was promoted and made permanent at a Supervisor lev J 29 although he has only a high school diploma. Rob Capizzano is Caucasian. Plaintiff African American.

When Defendant Jeff Guenzel came along in Octo er, 20 lQ he immediately took notice of the size of the cubicle Plaintiff was in. He also comm nted on it during the Christmas party in December, 2010 when Plaintiff was in discussion ith Defendant Whitaker. Plaintiff felt it od that he should be singled out by a new Director ba ed on the size ofbis cubicle without any oth r consideration.

Mont;~Js later Defend!\llt Guenzel abruptly refused t allow Plaintiff to speak for hi.s service line, This rs unheard of. This service line was assigned o Plaintiff and it was his job to manage it..

Z9Z~-Z9Z-SL6 jBZUBnE) dgt;:so £~ 60 oeo

Yet Defendant Guenzel assigned a Caucasian wo an to speak for Plaintiff's service line. lt' a.s because Plaintiff is African American and was b · g disrespected by being replaced by a Caucasian woman to speak for his service line.

. . In October of20 12 Defendants Guenzel and Whi er, who was Plaintiff's supervisor at the time, announced to Plaintiff in a meeting that he as being reassigned to Facilities Managem. (filing, copy room, mailroom and purchasing co. uter products). Plaintiff has a Master's Degree and was being.reasstgned to do copying a d filing. Plaintiffasked.duringthemeeting that he be represented by union representation (e king Federal Weingarten Rights). 1'hat wa roundly dismissed by Defendants/ Plaintiff was g · en less than 7 days before he was reassign . involuntarily. In this meeting a fed.eralla:w, "Fed raJ. Weingarten Rights" was violated and th CWA (Communications Workers .of America) co ct that governed· the _procedures for reassr ·s of Plaintiff was a[so violated. l)efendants Guenz and Whitaker committed a lawless act and 't was simply because Plaintiff was an African Arne ican male.

Plaintiff was unable to get union assistance bee a e Shirley Searles went t(}the union and told them that Plaintiff did not do anything and .<l,eserv d to be reassigned. Shirley S~les had actually months ·befog: run to head the Union and ost and she knew Union management Sbirley Searles is also Mrican American and ~o it as strange that she would denigrate Plainti with these baseless claims and yet she did. It as if e was working for Defendants Guenzel d Whitaker to assure a smooth reassignment ofl'lai 'ffwithout urrion representation.

So :Plaintiff, involuntarily was reassigned to Facili · es Management (filing, copy room, mailroo and purchasing computer products). Defendant G enzel thus at that time reassigned .the only African American male, who was no.t a manager, o t of the division,

Both Shirley Searles and Defendant Whitaker are 'can Americans and yet they both were instrumental in the involuntary reassign of Plainti to Facilities Management. W'b.en Plaintiff was involuntarily reassigned there were no more A ican American male non-management employees in the Division.

Plaintiff bad never received any negative perform ce reviews. Plaintiff filed a grievance. V.'ben the grievance was heard on October 12, 201 , it was ch!llred by Defendant Lisa Hibner. Defendant Hibner erroneously applied the CW A co tract for temporary assignment. This was wrong because any reassignment has to be done on e basis of seniority and Plaintiffhad seniority of many oihers in the division in his title. o Defendant Hibner vialated the CWA contract she was using.

An Appeai oftbe decision by Defendant Hibner we t nowhere. Plaintiff's invqluntary reassign was finaL

In November, 2012 Plaintiff:fi!ed a complaint with e U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). They never conducted an iti.v stigation. Plaintiff received his right to sue August 19, 2013.

5

ctgs:go s ~ 60 oeo g·d

Cou tl Violation of Title VU of the Civil Rights Acto 1964 (Pub. L. 88-352) (Title VII), as amended, appears in volume 42 of the United tates Code, beginning at section 2000e.

I. Civil Rights.-ln al! action brought by a c laining party under ,·et:tlon 706 or 717 .o the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S. C. 20 Oe-5) against a respondent who engaged in unlawfiil intentiontil discrimination (nota emp/pymentpactlce that is rmlawful beca se ·of its disparate impact) prohibited under s ctlon703, 704, or 717 of the Act (41 U.S.C. 2000e-2 or 2000e-3), and provided that th complaining party canna/ recover under section !977 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S. C. 1981), the complaining party may reco er compensatory and punitive damages . .. i addition to any·relief authorized by seNion 706(g) of the Civil Rights Act of I 964, fro the respondent. Landgraf v. USI Film Prods. (92-757), 511 U.S. 244 (1994)

2. Discrimination is a crime against the h

3. Discrimination in this cOlmtry was explain very eloquently by the esteemed Supreme Court. Justice Thurgood Marshall in the B e case.

4. 0u1' Nation was founded on the principle I al "all Men are created equal." Yet candor requires acknowledgment th41 the· Frame" of our Constitution, ~o forge the !3. Colonia. into one Nation, openly compromised ihis rtnciple of equalitywith iis antithesis: slavery. The consequ~nces of this compron ise are. well known and have aptly been call d our promise are well known t171d have apt · been called aur "American Ditemma. "Still, it is well to recount how recent the time has an, if it has yet come, when the pr01ni~e of our principles has flowered tnt.o the actualz of equal oppoNuntty for all regardless of race or color. UNIVERSITY OF CALIF RNIA REGENTS v. BAKKE 438 U.S. 265 (1978)

5. Congress enacted Title Vll for people like laintiff who has been wronged by the Division of Children's System of Care st.dc y because of his race.

6. When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was pas d, it was e\•ident that enforcement would prove difficult and that the Nation would h ve to tely in part upon private /itigalian ali means of securing broad compliance with t e law. 2 A 'lYtle 11 suit is thus private in for only. When a plaintiff brings an action und that Title, he cannot recover damages. Ifh obtains an injunction, he dnes so not for hi· self alone but also as a 'private aUorney general,' vindicating a policy that Congress considered of the highest priority. Jlf succe~rsjid plaintiffi were rowlnely forced t bear their own attorneys' fees, few aggrieved parties would be in a position to dvance the public interest by Invoking the

c:sc:~-c:sc:-t:L6 dgt;:go u 60 aeo

injunctive powers of the federal courts. Congress therefore enacted the provisionfor counsel foes-not simply to penalize llriga tswho delib.et~l~ly adv~~e argumen~ the) know to be untenable but, more broadly, tc encourage mdmduals uywed by racml discriminati01i to seek judicial relid under Title II. 4 Anne P. NEWMAN et al., Petitioners v. PIGGIE PARK ENTERPRISES INC. et al.390 U.S. 400 (88 S.Ct. 964, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263)

7. Title VII ojthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 esi'flblishes methods of securing relleffol' individuals complaining of discrimilration n employment. An individual may bring cou t action to enforce his rights underTitle Vll'pnly after he has filed a timely charge with t~e Equal Employment Opportunity Commissi n (EEOC). Erlene CROSSLIN et vir. v. The MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY. 400 U.S •. 1004 (91 S.Ct. 562,27 L.Ed.2d 618)

8. Diserimina.tion is pervasive in the Defencla t Division of Children's System of Care.

9. It is part of Defendant Department of Chik ten .!llld Familie~.

10 .. In the Division of Children's System of Ca e where Plaintiff worked there is no AfriCllll American level 29 who is a supervi~or.

1 I.. The only level29 supervisor's in the Divlsi n,of Children's Syste1,11 of Care where Plaintiff worked are Caucasians.

12. Iris Carter trained Jennat~ Suiter, and Selen Allen when they .came to the division Md i would make sense to make her supervisor < ver them and Andrea Lewis.

13. That has never even been cortsidered becau~e Iris Carter who has a lvi;lster's Degree is African American and the only people wor!hY to be supervisors in the Divisioi). of Children's System of Care are Caucasians.

14. Alan Vietze is Iris Carter'ssupervisor apd e only advocates for Caucasians.

15. In the Division of Children's System of Ca: e where Plaintiffworked every African American, outside ofmanagement and sup ort and Shirley Searles, ·has endured some discriminatory action.

16. Jennae Suiter, Selena Allen, Md Andrea u wis were summarily due to be demoted to their previou.s title simply because they are African American. ·

17. At the same time Caucasian like Jen Bok w re promoted to level29 and were perillilllen .

18. Iris Carter is an African American and has had her work plagiarized by a Caucasian witl the support of management.

7

dgt;:go u 60 oao

!9. These statistics are important for showing the pervasive nature of discrimination in the Division.

20. This Court has recognized that 11statistical analyses have saved and will continue to serve an important role as one indirect in~ 'cator of racial discrimination. .. , "Mavor bf Philadelnhia v. Educational Euualitv Le urue. 415 U.S. 605 620 94 S.Ct. 1323 13 3 39 L.Ed.2d 630 (1974\

21. W~ have repeatedly app1:oved the use of st tis tical proof where It reachedproportions comparable to those in this ease, to establi h a prima facie case of racial discriminatio injw:y selection cases, see, e. g., Turner v, Fouche, 396 U.S. 346. 90 S.Ci. 532.24 L.Ed.2d 567; Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S 475 74 S.Ct .. 667 98 LEd 866· Norris. v. Alabama, 294 US. 587 55 S:Ct. 579 79 LIEd. JfJ74 INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS PJ!titioner v. UNLTED STATES et al. T.I.M.E.-D.C. INC. Petitionet", v. UNITED STATES et al.431 U.S. 324 (97 S.Ct. 1843, 52 L;Ed.2d 396)

22. This. defines the very real discriminatory e vironment the PlaintiffwR$ subjected to.

23. "In this regard it ts noteworthy that Title V 1 prohibits discrflnlnatory employment practices, not an abstractpolicy of discrim nation. The mere fact that an ager{eved private plaintiff is a member of an identifia~Je class ofperson.s of the same mce or national origin is insuf!ici£nt to establish h s standing1o litigate on their be!wlfall possible claims of discrimination against a !common employer." !d., at) 59, n. 15, I 02 S.Ct., ·at2372, n. 15.Svlvia COOPER eta. Petitioners v FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND. 467 U.S. 867 ri ~4 S.CI. 2794 81 L.Ed.2d 718)

24. Piaintiffnever received any negative performance r.eviews in his title ..

25. Yet a Caucasian woman was .assigned to sp ak for his service line.

26. It is a fact that Caucasians are treated diftetp1tly in the division, and recelve all the opportunities as supervisors.

27. Plaintiff was hired in the Division to bead tabase manager for which he was eminently qualified.

28. Plaintiff was passed over for a Caucasian R b Capizzano who is n Caucasian with a higl school diploma Who knows absolutely nothir-g about database management.

29. Rob Capizzano has a supervisor's level29, s permanent and is sitting in a supervisor's cubicle and be only has a high school dip lor a,

30. He could not explain to Plaintiffbow the da abase worh and so it is hnpossible for him to provide support or the hardware or softw re environment of the Diyjsion.

G9G ~ -;;gz:-£L6

31. Yet Caucasian Rob Capizzano with a high school diploma is permanent at a superviso level 29 and sits in a supervisor cubicle.

32. Rob Capizzano has only a high school dip oma, does not have the skills to do database management, and Plaintiff has a Master's pegree and was hired !o facilitate the -developing a computer system which has re necessary functionality to streamline war and increase efficiency, evaluating variou functions ofthe division, acting as project lead. This' was because ofPlaintiff' s edue~ ion and social service administration background.

33. Plaintiff was involuntarily and illegally re ssigned because he is African American anc Rob Capizzano stays and is rewarded becarse he is Caucasian.

34. "[l]t :;hall not be an unlawfol employment practice for an employer to apply different standards of compensation, or different te ~m. conditions, or privileges of employment pursuant to a bona fide seniority . .. syste 1, ••• provided that such dijferei1ces are not the resu/1 of an intenti.on to discriminate b cause of race, . , . "PROCTER & GAMB E MANUFACTU~G COMPANYv. Dennis F£SHER 449 U.S. IllS (101 S.Ct. 92 66 L.Ed.2d 845)

35."Plailitiffhas a Master's Degree and his serrice line was being spoken for by a Caucasim woman who had no experience in his servi e line arid knew nothing about it.

36. This reassignment by Defendants Guenzel fmd Whitaker was based on racism and nothing more.

37. Plaintiff with a Master's Degree was reassigned to F:iCilities Management (filing, copying, and mailroorn) by Defendants Gu 07..el and Whitaker.

38. The ultimate burden ofpersouuiing the ll"ier of/a t that the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaitz.tijfregardin[J the particular emF oymenlaecision "remains aJ.alf times with the plaintiff," ibid., and il! th.e final tma/ysis the trier if fact "must decide which party''s explanan·on oft .e employer's motivation it believes." United States Postal Service Bpard <i[Gove!'nors v. Aikens, 460 U.S .. rzl 716, 103 S.Ct., a!l 482.

39. Svlvia COOPER. el nl. Petitioners v. FEDER. LR._ESERVE RA.NKOFRfCHMOND. 467 U •. 867 (104 S.Ct. 2794, 81 L.Ed.2d 718) .

40. The Plaintiff through the unlawful way in\ hich he was re~ssigned and the statistics of discrimination inrhe division has more thru proven that the Defendants are guilty because the Division ofCl:rildren's System fCare is part of the state and so are all the defendants v,"ho could have done somethinB about this illegal reassign.

41. The reassignment should have been based c n seniority and so Plaintiff should have had the rigllt to choose because he had seniority over others in his title.

42. S~nce.th_e Government proved t~at the com;'(my engage~ in a post-Act pattern of. drscnmmalory employment policies, retroa live senlonty may be awarded as rehef(or post-Act. dis(:l'iminatees even if the senioril) system agreement makes no provision for such rellef Franks v. Bowman Transportatwn Co., 424 U.S. 747, 778-779, 96S.Ct. 125,

9

dL£:so £~ 60 oeo

... ····--------~-~--~---

1'2'11, 47 l.Ed.2d 444. Pp. 347'348. INTI RNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS Petitioner v. UNITED TATES etaT. T.I.M.E.,D.C. INC PetHioner v. UN1TED STATES et al. 4 1 U.S. 324 (97 S.Ct. 1843 52 L.Ed.2d 3%

43. Part of the resolution of .this case is that th Plaintiff must be returned to his former tit! and position back in the Division of Child en's System of Clire.

44. Plaintiff was reassigned involuntarily and !legally by Defendants Guenzel and Whitak r and it was completely a racist action.

45. Still, it is well to recount how recent tht; ti e has been, if it has yet come, when the promise of ourprinciples has flowered int£ the actuality J:Jf e9ual opporl!{11ity for all regardless of race or color. UNIVERSIT, OF CALIFORNIA REGENTS v. l:IA~ili' 438 u.s. 265 (1978)

46. Those principles are absent in. the Division pf Children's System of Care.

47. This entire experience of the Plaintiff is bm ed on nothing but discrirnination.

48. Discriminati()n is pervasive in the Division of Children's .System iif Cai'e.

49. The Division is part of the Departrr}ent ofC~dren and Families and nothing has ever been done at a Department level.

so; This is not the first time the Division was s ed for discrimination and )'et it continues ar <I thrives.

51 .. It follows that one .who succeeds in obtainin ri an injunction under that Title ;;hould ordinarily recover an attorney's fee unless s oecial circumstances wo;~ldrendet such em award Wljust. Because no such clrcumslanc s are present here, 5 the District Court on remr;cnd should include rea.ronable coimsel/ees as part ojthe casts /o be. assessed again t the respondents. As so modified. the judgme t of the Court of Appeals Is Affirmed. Anne P. NEWMAN et al. Petitioners v.J'rG·GI 8 PARK ENTERPRISES INC. et al. 39( u:s. 4oo css s,ct. 964, 19- L.Ed.2d 12631

Wberefore the unlawful acts of the Defendants sl ow discrimiltation that is a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Plaintiff detnant s an Injunction restoring bim back to his previous position and title in the Division of Chil reo's System of Cl!l'e together with attorney fees and costs of court.

Count Negligen e

dL8-90 U 60 oeo

1. Co.nducr that fulls helow the standards of (!.havior established by law .for tho pro/er:titr of others against unreasonable risk of har -n. c1 person has acted negligently ifl!~t or .shv: has dep<~rtedfrom the i;(mducle.~p•~tad o, «reasonably pruden(person acling undel' similar circumstances.

2. In order to establish negligence as a Ca:us of Action under the law of TORTS, a plainfl If mustprove that the deftndat;l had a duty t the plaintiff, the defondant breache.d that d 1ty by failing to conform to the required stan~ r;rd of conduct, the deftndant's negligent conduct was the cause of the harm to the p aintiff, and theplalntifj'was, iflfact, harme< or damaged httn://le!"al-dictionarv.thcfr edictionarv.cllm/ne!l'lil!ence

3. Negligence .is the most serious of Torts or ;vrongs.

4. 'Negligr:nce' is a word of broad signij/canc~ and may not readily be defined with accuracy. Courts usually refrain from atte zpts comprehensively to state its mea11ing. While liability arises· when one suffers injuy as the result of any breach of duty owed h m by another chargeable with knowledge of I e probable result of his conduct, actionable negligence is. often deeined-i:md We need nc pause to co!JSider whether rightly incl!ide other elements. Some courts call wil/ful mi. co!'fduct evincing intention or wil/ingmss to cause injury to anothergr.oss negligence.1 olin v. Chicago, etc., Railway Co., 108 Wis. 333, 84 N. W: 446, 81 Am. St. Rep. 91 I, an cases cited And·sfe Peoria Bridge Associarimz v, Loomis, 20 IlL 235, 251, 71 m. Dec. 263.; Chicago, R. !. & P. Ry. Co. v; Hamler, 215111. 525, 74 N. E 705, l L. R.,. (ii. 8.) 674, 106 Am. St. Rep. 187, 3 Amz. Cas. 42, and cases cited .Mercer v. Co (lin, 117 lnd 450, 20 N. E. 132, 3 L. R. A. 221, IO An. St. Rep. 76. JA:MiSONet.al. v ENCARNACrON. 281 U.S. 635 (50S.Ct. 440, 74 L.Ed. J082l . . '

5. It is the legal duty of due care.

6. The willfil.l misconduct of Defendants tow(lJ ds Plaintiff certainly amounts to gross negligence.

7. Negligence is the breacli of a legal duty to u ·e due care. lfthis duty is not performed an one to whom it is II owed is harmed thereby, the negligence becomes actionable~ Furls v Huberg, 134, Ind. 269.33 N.E. 1028

8. AI! of the Defendant hod a legal duty of due pare towards Plaintiff as an employee ofthe Division a:nd the State of New Jersey.

9. The Plaintiff was a union member and cover xl by the CWA contract which governed the relationship and actions between w1ion mem er and Defendants.

IO, The Defendants had a legal duty of due care owards Plaintiff with regards to him as an employee and a union member.

ll

dg8:so 8 ~ 60 oao

11. "As/lui majority opinion concedes •.. , H. h~sandThigpen, a'! well as the other case relied upon bp the majority . .. , are all cO es when: lht purporledgovernm~nt neglige ca was ptemitied I>Olely on claims of negligen hiring and/or supervision. The Rame was tr e in UnitedStates v. SJu!arer, 473 U.S. 52, I SS.CI. 3039, .87 L.Ed.2d 38 (1985). Such claims are essentially grounded in the doc ine of respondeat superior. In these cases, he government's liability arises, if at all, only because of the employment relationship. Jft 1e

assai/am were not a federal employee, the e would be no independent basis fora suit against the governtf1ent. lt .is in this sitrwlf n that an allegation of government neglige e can legitimately be seen as an effort to 'clr mvent' the§ 2680(h) bar; it is just this situation where government liability is pas ible pnly because of ihe fol'luity that the (lssailant happens to receive federal paych cks-that § 2680(h) was designed to preclude. See Shearer, 473 U.S., at 54-57, 05 S. Ct., a/ 3041-3043; Hughes v. Sullivan, 514 r~Supp. 667, at 668, 669-70 D.C.Va.J 80; Panella V. United States, 2}6 F.2d 622, 624 (2 Cir.l954). Michael N~ SHERIDA et ux. Petitioners v. UNITED STATES.487 U.S. 392 108 S.Ct. 2449 1 1 L.Ed.2d 352

12. It is .irreconcilable that Defendants Guenze , Whitaker and Hibner would perform what amounts to negligent supervision in reassi ing Plaintiff who was performing satisfactorily in his existing position.

13. J?laintiffperformed his job and never had a cg11tive performance review,

14. Defendants had a duty to protect Plaintiff i his title and position.

15. There was no reason to reassign Plaintiff el ewhere against his Will when he had done nothing to deserve such treatment.

16. Defendants had a duty to ensure that as ion a Plaintiff did a sa:tisfactory job he should expect no job action.

17, The decision to reassign Plaintiff to Faci!iti s Management (fili!)g, copying, mailroom and purchasing computer products) violate the very essence of the d1.1ty of due care.

18. Plaintiff never requested to be reassigned.

19. Plaintiff was reassigned involuntarily and a ainst his will.

20. The Defendants violated their duty of due c e by involuntarily reassigning Plaintiffwh never received a negative. performance revie and was reassigned because he is African American.

21. One must use due care in the performance o any duty, legal or moral, which he undertakes. Thus, one who assists a drunke man must not only do .so care}Ully, but must also use due care not to leave him in a posit 11 ofp~ril. Black v N.Y .. N.H. & H.R.R.Co., 193 Mass.448, 79 N.E. 797.

dgs:go 8~ 50 aao

22. The standHl'd of negligence is the reasona le tilan concept.

23. What would a reasonable man expect?

24. Plaintiff bas a Master's Degree and it qua 'fied for the title and the job assignment.

25. Plaintiff performed his job at a high level d was a succ~s.

26. Would a reasonable man expect to be reas igned and downgraded based on this?

27. The answer is no.

28. To s<zy, as the Fourth Circuit did, that a c/ im .arises out of'negligence, 'rather than 'misrepresentation,' when the loss suffered by the injured party is caused by the breach of a 'specific duty' owed by the Government t him, i.e., the duty louse due care in obtaining and communicating information !_Pon which that party rnay reasonably be expected io rely in the conduct of his econ mic affairs, iS onlyto state the traditional a d commonly understood legal definition oft tort of'negligent misrepresentation,' as is clearly, if not conclus<.'ve/y, shown by the a horifies set forth in the margin,.!!_and whici there is every reason to believe Congress h din mind when it placed the word 'misrepresentation' before the word 'dec.eit in§ 2680{h). UNITED STATES Petition r v. Stanle S. NEUSTADT et ux. 366 U.S. 696 81 S.Ct.1294 6 L.Ed.2d 614 ·

29. The Defendants has a legal duty of due car and they Violated that duty of due care.

30. They downgtaded his career path and thus egatively impacted him financially.

31. :befendant are ali guilty of negligence.

Wherefore the blatant negligence of Defendants bows disregard for federal law and tile CW A contract and downgraded tile Plaintiff's reer path, this has limited the :fmancial opportunities of Plaintiff and we will set that los at $50,000 which is the least he had forecast in the future and to that we apply a pu tive damage level of 6 times the amount o $300,000 for a totai of $350,000 which includes ·r al and punitive damages plus costs of court and fees.

Co1,1nt Conspiracy- Violation f 42 U.s; c. § 1985

1. "If two or more persons in any State or Terr ory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, [firs for the purpose of depriving, either direct/ or indirectly, any person or class of persons if the equal protection of the laws, or of equal priJ•ileges and immunities under the Ia vs; or [second] for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted auth rifles ofany State or Territory ji·om giving

13

dgs:so £~ 50 oao

w securing to all pr;rsons within such Stati or Territory the equal protection of the l ... in any case af.consptrcrcy set forth In t is section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in rther4nce of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is iiljured in his persoi1 o property, or depriyed ofhavin~ and exercising any-right or privilege of a citize of the United States, lhe party $0 injured o deprived may have an action for the recov ry of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more ofth conspirators.,.

2. 42 u.s.c. § 1985.

3. AU the Defendants were involved ina con iracy against_ Plaintiff.

4. The reassign ofPlaintiffwas unlawful and gainsthis will.

5. The gist oftlze crime of conspiracy as dejin d by the statute is the agreement or confederation of the conspirators to comm one or more )mlawfol acts where 'one or more of such pwties do any act to effie/ th object of the conspiracy'. The ov.ert act, without proof of which a charge of conspir cy cannot be submitted to the jury, maybe that of only a single one ofthe conspirato~ and need not be itself a crime: Bannon and Mulkeyv. United States, IJ6 US. 464, 468 469, 15 S.Ct. 467, 469, 39 L.Ed 494; Jopl/ Mercantile Co. v. r.Jnited States, 236 US 5 1, 535, 536, 35 S.Ct. 291, 292, 293, 59 L.E . 705; Uni/edSJates v. Rabinowich, 238 US. 78; 86,35 S.Ct. 682, 684,. 59L.Ed 1211; Pierce v. United States, 252 US. 239, 244, 0 S.Ct: 205, 207, 64 L.Ed. 542. But it is unimportant, for present purposes, whether we regard the overt act as a part ofthe cri e which the statute defines and makes punis ble, see Hyde v. United States, 225 U.S. 3 4 357 359, 32 S.Ct. 793, 798, 799, 56 LEd 1. 14, Ann.Cas.I914A, 614, or as something apart .from it, either tin indispensable mode of corroborating the e;>.istence of the conspiracy or a device for affording a lo. poenitentiae, see United States v. Britton, 108 U.S. 193, 2S.Ct. 526, 27 L.Ed. 701; ld 108 U.S. 199, 204, 2{)5, 2 S.Ct. 531, 534, 2 L.Ed 698; Dealyv. United States, 152 U.S. 539J 543; 547, 14 S.Ct. 680, 68JJ 683, 38 /.,.Ed 545; Bannon and Mulkey v. United S tes, supra, 156 U.S. 469, 15 S. Ct. 469, 39 LEd. 494; Hyde v. Shine, 199 US, 62, 76, 5 S.Ct. 760, 761, 50 L.Ed. 90; Hyde v. Unit d States, supra, 225 U.S 388, 32 5:Ct. 810,5 L.Ed 1114, Ann.Cas.1914A, 6i4; Joplin Metcanti{e Co. v, United States, supra B VERM v. D TED STATES. WAINER v. UNITED STATES. 317 U.S. 49 63 S.Ct. 99 87 L.Ed. 23

6. The overt act was the reassign of the Plainti unlawfully and without his consent.

7. Defendants Guenzel and Whitaker were dir ctly responsible for the reassignment

8. It was their idea and they implemented it.

9. Defendants Hibner and Ng confirmed the awful act during the grievance process.

10. Defendant Department of Children and Faro lies had to· be aware of this process and did nothing.

. ·-··-----~· r--------

11. Defendant Division of Children's System pf Care is under and integrai in Defendant Department of Children and Families.

12. The State employs them all and is res pons ble for their actions.

13. A. civil conspiracy is a combination oftwo or more persons-acting in eoncer.t to comrni an unlawjiil act, or to commit a lawfUl act ~unlawful means a principal element of which ·is to inflict a wrong against or injur upon anqther, together wiih an act that results in damage. Morgan v. Union Cty. " d Q[Chosen Freeholders, 268 N.J. SupeY. 337, 364 (App. Div. 1993), cert{f denied, 35 N.J. 468 (1994). Civil conspiracy was discussed in Jones v. City of Chicago, 856 IF.2d 985, 99:2 (7th Cir. 1988}, in which the cm<rlsaid, "[i]t is enough [for liability] if. ou understand the gen.eml objectives of the scheme, accept them, and agre?, .either ex_!' icit/y or implicil/y, to do yourpan to for the them. "BANCO POPULAR NORTH AN ERICA v. GM'DI 360 N.J.Suner. 414,8 3 A.2d809

14. The unlaWful act of reassigning Plaintiff vi lated the seniority §ystem in the state.

15. All the Defendants are responsible and it w s simply because Plaintiff is African Ameri.<:an.

16. There is no other reason besides discrimlna ·on because there is no reasonable cause. for his reassign.

17. Whoever directly commits any act constitul:i'flg an offinse defined in ail_y law of the Unit d States, or .aids, abets, counsels, commands, nduces, or procures its commission, is a principal.' 18 U.S. C. 550, 18 U,S,C.A, §55 .PINKERTON et al. v. UNITED STATES. 32 U.S. 640 (66 S.Ct. 1180,90 L.Ed. 1489)

18. That inak:es all of the Defendants principals ~this conspiracy.

19. They all directly or indirectly contributed to. he Plaintiffl;lcing unlawfully reassigned ag<tinst his will. · ·

20. Moreover, it is not material thai overt acts c ~rged in the conspiracy counts were also charged and proved as substantive offenses. As stated in Sneed v. United States, supra, 298 F. at page 913, 'If the overt act be the oJ. 'ei!Se which was the object of the conspirac~ and is also punished, there is not a double p !f2iShment of it.' The agreement to do an unlawfol act is even then distinct from the de 'ng of the act._!_ PINKERTON eta!. v. UNITED STATES. 328 U.S. 640 (66 S.Ct. 1$0 90 L.Ed.1489)

2i. The <:rime of conspiracy against the Plaintiff's an unlawful and overt act of the Defendants, and it is proven.

Wherefore the conspiral!y of Defendants shows u lawful intentions and acts and downgraded the Plaintiff's career path, this has li[llited the financial opportunities of

15

··----- ·-!------

Plaintiff and we will set tbat loss at $50,0~0 wh chis the least he had forecast in the futn e and to tbnt we apply a punitive damage level o 6 times the am~mnt or S30n,Oo0 for a tot I of $350,000 which include~ real and punitive d mages plus costs of court and fees.

Cou 4 Breach of ontracl

I. Section 301 pfthe Labor Management Rei !ions Act, 1947, !51 Stat. 156; 29 U.S. C. 18 · provides for suirs in the district courts for iolation ojc.ollecfive-barga/ningcontracts between labor organizations and employer withqut regard to the .amount in <;ontrover 8 This provision reflects the interest of Co ess in promoting "a htgher degree of responsibility upon the parties to such agr ements., .. 1' S.Rep.No.J05, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., 17 (1947), The strong policyfavorin judicial enforcement of collective-bargaini 1g contracts was stlfficiently poweiful to susta ·n thejurisdiCtion of the district cour.ts over enforc~nent suits even though the condud nvofvedwas arguably or would amount to n unfair labor practice within the jurisdictio .of the National Labor Relations Board. Sm h v. Evening News Assn., 371 U.S.l95, 83 S, /, 267, 9 L.Ed.2d 246 (1962); Atldnson v. Sinclair llfg. Co., 370 US. 238, 82 S.Ct. 13 8, 8 L.JJ:d2d 462 (1962); Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of A erica v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 US. 95, 82 S.Ct. 571, 1 L.Ed.2d 593 (1962); Charles wdB0;r; Go. v. Courtney, 368 U.S. 502, 82 S,Ct. 519, 7 L.Ed,2r:l483 (1962). Section SO contemplates suits by and against individual employees as well as between un ons and employers; and contrary to earlier indications§ 301 suits encompass those see· ·ng/o villdic_ate "uniquely personal" right,• of employees such as wages, hours, overtim pay, and Wrongfitl discharge. Smith v. Evening News Assn, supra, 371 U.S .. atl9 -2fJO, 83 S.Cr., at 269,270; Petitioners' preseiJ/ suit against rhe employer was for w ongful discharge and is the kind of case Congress provide<! for in§ 301.

2. Collecti'le-bargaini?lg contracts, how¢ver, g nerally contain procedures for the settlement of disputes through mutual discus ion and arbitration. The!{e provisions are among those which are to be enforced under § 301. Furthermore, Congress h'aS specifie in§ 203{d), 61 Stat . .154; 29 U.S. C. 173(d), at "(/)ina/ atijustme:nt by a method agreed upon by the parties is declared to be the de able m_ethod for settlement of grievance disputes . ... "This congressional policy "ca be effictuated o11ly if the means chosen by the parties for settlement of their differences under a coli eclive bargaining agreement is givenfollplay. "Steelworkersv. American g. Co., 363 U.S. !564, 566, 80S.C/. 1343, 1346, 4 L.Ed.2d 1403, 1404 (1960). Courts e not to usurpthosefonctionswhich collective-bargaining contracts h!rve proper "entrusted to the arbitration frlbunal. "Jd., at 569, 80S. Ct., at 1347, 4 L.Ed2d at 1405. ~1ey should not undertake to review the merits of arbitration awards but should deft to the tribunal chose1l by the parties finally to settle their disputes. Otherwise "plenary r view by a court of the merits would make meaningless the provisions that the arbitrato ~decision isjinal, for in reality it would almost never be final." Steelworkers v. Enter rise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 599, 80 S.O. !358, 1362, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424, 14 9 (1960). Charles A. IDNES, etc., eta!.,

dov:so 8> 60 oeo

Petitioners v. ANCHOR MOTOR FRE GHT lNC. eta!. 424 US. 554 (96 S.Ct .. 1048, 47 L.Ed.2d 231)

3. The collective bargaining agreement betwt en ihe Plaintiff and Defendants ls the CWA contract.

4. Under§ 301 a suit for violation of the coil clive bargainingcontrqct in either aftdera or state t;ourt is governed by ftderallaw ~ oca/174, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen ant! Helpers of America v. ~ucas FlourCo .• 369 U.S. 95, 102-104, 82 S.Ct. 57!, 576, 7 L.Ed.2d 593; Textile Wor ers Union of America v. Lincobz Mills, 353 US. 448, 77S.CI. 912, I LEd.2d972

5. Samuel M. ATKINSON et al. Petitioner v. SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY. 370 U.S. 238 (82 S.Ct. 1318 8 L.Ed.2d 41 2)

q. The CW A contract defines the legal relatio !Ship between Plaintiff and Defendants.

7. "The Labor Management Relations Act exp essly furnishes some substantive law. It points out what the parties inay or may not ~o in certain situqtions. COMPLETE. AUTO TRANSIT INC. et al. Petitioners. v. Dannv REIS et al. 451 U.S. 401 flO! S.Ct. 1836, 68 L.Ed.2d 248)

8. The. first violation is the reassignment was ot agreed with by the Plaintiff.

9. "Jflhere such reassignments are not mutual 'yagreed to, the appointing authority will make reassignments in the inverse order of he job classification seniority ofth.e eml!loyees affected, ?n:en the above con~itj ns, P_rovl~lng the employees .are capable o~ domg the work and rt ts agreed that speccal~ualijications of a persona/nature or specu l hardships which may result will be given dt e consideration." Article 37 .B.2 (second sentcnce).CW'A Union Contract

10. The second violation ,has to do wi1:h the obj ctive selection process of seniority.

II. The "Inverse orcier of the job classification eniority," a,s stated in Article 37.B .. 2 (secon sentence) CW A Union Contract. was not fol owed as the objective method of selection and therefore management or the departmen is in breach of contract.

12. At the time Plaintiff was selected there wen other candidates that were in the same job classification.

13. The third violation had to do with notice.

14. "When temporary reassignments (ordinarilY_ of less than six (6) lizo11ths' duration) are made to achieve any ofthe objectives in B. ~ above, employees· to be affected will be .given maximum possible notice. "Article 37 B.3 CWA Union Contract

15. Plaintiff was given 6 'h days' notice of his n assignment.

17

dov:so 8 ~ 60 aao

24. It turned. out the Defendant Hibner misinte reted the CWA contract for temporary r~ssignments when Plaintiff had been reas igned for mqre thail6 months.

25. These violation of the CW A contract are .de nitely violations of the Labor Manage men Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat 156,29 U.S. 185.

26. The plain fact is that petitioner has lost her 'ob, not becaz{se of any guilt on her part, bu because there is a suspicion that some one >/the group which was discharged was guilt of misconduct. The sum total of what bas b en dane here J's to abandon the fine, old American ideai thai guilt is personal. Our stem ofjurtsprudence should not tolerate imposing on the innocent, punishment that hould be laid on the guilty. If the construcri n of/he lqbor/aw given by the courts belowi to stand, it should he clearly and unequivocally announced by this Court so a/ Congress can, if it seesfit, consider this question and pro/eel the just claims ofeinp yees from the joint power of employers an unions. 'Florence SIMMONS etitioner . UNION NEWS CO. a New York Co oration.382 U.S. 884 86 S.Ct. 165 5 L.Ed.2d 125

27. It is the plain factthatthe Plaintiff was reas igned through no guilt pfhisown.

28. Yet there is even a greatertransgressiort th the viohtions of the CWA contract.

~~. Ikillg th~ ~~e!;ng 8~!WMn D~i~M~t~ ~ ~mi M~ Mit~M ~J ~~ ~lltiH M October 2, 2012, Plaintiff invoked his We in arten Rights and was denied.

30. Plaintiffs Weingarten rights give him the ri htofrepresentation and he requested it.

.... c 09 13 05:44p

:-: ::;· Guenzel 973-252-1252 p.1

... 16. That hardly can be considered maxim possible notice.

17 .. Temporary assigrunents ar.e ordinarily months or Jess as defined bv the contract and therefore Defendants ll<!Ve again viola! d the contract. • ·

18. When temporary reassignments (ordin ily a/less than six (6) months' duration) are made to .achieve any ofthe objectives i B. 2. above, employees to be affected will be gtven maximumpossi"ble notice. The co sideratioiz of seniority otherwise applicable fn reassignments will not -apply. The utiliz lion oft he concept of temporary reassignments wiU not be used unreasonably."

19. Aliicle 37.8.3 CWA Union Cont1·act

20. Plaintiff filed a grievance when 6mont spassed.

21. 011 June 3, 2013 Plaintiff bad a grievail e meeting with Defendants Hibner and Ng.

22. Plaintiff was told he would be informed of.the decision in writing.

23. The decision was that he should remain his reassigned position.

4. It turned out the Defendant Hibner misi terpreted the CWA contract for temporary reassignments when Plaintiff had been assigned for more tb.an 6 months.

25. These violation of the CWA contract ar definitely violations of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947,61 Stat.156,29 U .. C.l85 .

. The plain fact is that petitioner has lost er job, not because of any guilt on her part, but because there is a suspicion that some a e of the group which was discharged was guilty of misconduct. The sum total of what ha been done here fs to abandon thejfne, old American ideai that gulit is personal. 0 r system ofjurisprudence should not tolerate imposing on the innocent, punishment t f should be laid on the guilty . .{[the construe/ion of the labor law given by the courts belo is to stand, it should be clearly and unequivocally annol.(nced by this Court o that Congress can, if it sees fit, consider this question and protect the just claims of e rployees ji·om the joint power of employers and unions. 'Florence SIMMONS etition v. UNION NEWS CO. a New York Cor oration.382 U.S. 884 86 S.Ct. 16 15 L.Ed.2d 125

P.7. It Is the plain fact that th.e Plaintiff was r · ssigned through no guilt of his own.

hs. Yet there is even a greater transgression 1 . :1!9. During the meeting between Defendants

O.ctober 2, 2012, Plaintiff invoked his

an the violations of the CWA contract.

nenzel and Whitaker and the Plaintiff on ingarten Rigtits and was d~Jnlro.

0. Plaintiff's Weingarten rights give him th right of representation and he requested it.