Lea H Taylor Jr.

Pro Se
34 Delafield Street

RcCEI ;EO

New Brunswick, NJ 08901

United States. istrict Court

District of ew Jersey
Lea H.Ta lor Jr. v State fNew Jerse

DCT 3 1 2 13
AT 8:30

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

eta!

Lea H. Taylor Jr.

Civil Action No . _ _ _ __

Plaintiffs

vs.
COMPLAINT
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
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 086250717
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

l9ZlZ9ZL6

]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
her complaint against the State ofNew Jersey, et
NP. 09-6124. Yet even after the filing ofber co
against and it is possibly because of her sujte whi

ct to discrimination, etc. and it is detailed

l and can be found on Pacer with Civil Ac:ti n
plaint Iris has continued to be discrirnimite
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
who was the Director of the Division at the time,
service titles. Ali three are African American and
financially and emotionally. They had all been in
satisfaction of their ~uperv:isor. Yet they were not

Le.wis were told by Defendant Guenz:el

ey were all being demoted to their previous
e demotion would have been devastating
eir titles for years and doing the work to th
ermanent in their title and that is general!)

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
them. He has instead advocated for
Jennae and Andrea although he supervises all3
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
cock ensured :that Rob Capizzano was
Robinson and the former Deputy Director Brian
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.
because Plaintiff is African American and was b g disrespected by being replaced by a
Caucasian woman to speak for his service line.
.

lt' a.s

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 .ofAmerica) 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 CWA 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.

ctgs:go s ~ 60 oeo
gd

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

ofits 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 ofthe Revised Statutes (42 U.S. C. 1981), the complaining party may reco er
compensatory and punitive damages . .. i addition to anyreliefauthorized by seNion
706(g) ofthe 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
Court. Justice Thurgood Marshall in the B

very eloquently by the esteemed Supreme

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 ofequalitywith 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 ofequal 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 ofsecuring broad compliance with t e law. 2 A 'lYtle 11 suit is thus private in for
only. When a plaintiffbrings 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 ofthe 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 relidunder 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 of1964 esi'flblishes methods ofsecuring relleffol'
individuals complaining ofdiscrimilration 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 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.

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 ofracial 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 ofst tistical proof where It reachedproportions
comparable to those in this ease, to establi h a prima facie case ofracial 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 ofdiscrim nation. The mere fact that an ager{eved
private plaintiffis a member ofan identifia~Je class ofperson.s ofthe same mce or
national origin is insuf!icint to establish h s standing1o litigate on their be!wlfall
possible claims ofdiscrimination 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
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.

re

34. "[l]t :;hall not be an unlawfol employment practice for an employer to apply different
standards ofcompensation, or different te ~m. conditions, or privileges ofemployment
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 ofrace, . , . "PROCTER & GAMB E
MANUFACTU~G COMPANYv. Dennis FSHER 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 iffact "must decide which party''s explananon 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-Actpattern 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,

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, ifit has yet come, when the
promise of ourprinciples has flowered int the actuality J:Jfe9ual opporl!{11ity for all
regardless ofrace 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 ofthe Court ofAppeals Is Affirmed. Anne
P. NEWMAN et al. Petitioners v.J'rGGI 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
ofothers against unreasonable risk ofhar -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 ofTORTS, 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 ofconduct, 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 ofany breach of duty owed h m
by another chargeable with knowledge ofI e probable result ofhis 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 Andsfe 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 ofa 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 ofnegligen 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 ofrespondeat superior. In these cases, he
government's liability arises, if at all, only because ofthe 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 ofihe 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 ofnegligence 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 ofhis 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

CWA contract and downgraded tile Plaintiff's
opportunities of Plaintiff and we will set that los
forecast in the future and to that we apply a pu
$300,000 for a totai of $350,000 which includes r
court and fees.

bows disregard for federal law and tile

reer path, this has limited the :fmancial
at $50,000 which is the least he had
tive damage level of 6 times the amount o
al and punitive damages plus costs of

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

1. "Iftwo or more persons in any State or Terr

highway or on the premises ofanother, [firs
or indirectly, any person or class ofpersons
equal priJileges and immunities under the Ia
preventing or hindering the constituted auth

ory conspire or go in disguise on the

for the purpose ofdepriving, either direct/
if the equal protection ofthe laws, or of
vs; or [second] for the purpose of
rifles ofany State or Territory jiom giving

13

dgs:so ~ 50 oao

w securing to all pr;rsons within such Stati

... in any case af.consptrcrcy set forth In t
therein do, or cause to be done, any act in
whereby another is iiljured in his persoi1 o
exercising any-right or privilege ofa citize
deprived may have an action for the recov
deprivation, against any one or more ofth
2. 42 u.s.c. 1985.

or Territory the equal protection of the l

if one or more persons engaged
rther4nce ofthe object ofsuch conspiracy,
property, or depriyed ofhavin~ and
ofthe United States, lhe party $0 injured o
ry ofdamages occasioned by such injury or
conspirators.,.

is section,

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

4. The reassign ofPlaintiffwas unlawful and gainsthis will.
5. The gist oftlze crime ofconspiracy as dejin d by the statute is the agreement or
confederation ofthe conspirators to comm one or more )mlawfol acts where 'one or
more ofsuch pwties do any act to effie/ th object ofthe conspiracy'. The ov.ert act,
without proofofwhich a charge of conspir cy cannot be submitted to the jury, maybe
that of only a single one ofthe conspirato~ and need not be itselfa 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 ofcorroborating the e;>.istence ofthe
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

Department of Children and Families.

pf Care is under and integrai in Defendant

12. The State employs them all and is respons 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 ofChicago, 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 ofthe
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, 'Ifthe overt act be the oJ. 'ei!Se which was the object ofthe conspirac~
and is also punished, there is not a double p !f2iShment ofit.' The agreement to do an
unlawfol act is even then distinct from the de 'ng ofthe 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 court and fees.

of

Cou

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 ofCo 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 ofcollective-bargaini 1g
contracts was stlfficiently poweiful to susta n thejurisdiCtion ofthe district cour.ts over
enforc~nent suits even though the condud nvofvedwas arguably or would amount to n
unfair labor practice within the jurisdictio .ofthe 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 ofA 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,
ofemployees 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 ofcase
Congress provide<! for in 301.

2. Collecti'le-bargaini?lg contracts, howver, g nerally contain procedures for the

settlement ofdisputes 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 ofgrievance
disputes . ... "This congressional policy "ca be effictuated o11ly ifthe means chosen by
the parties for settlement oftheir differences under a colieclive 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 ofarbitration awards but should deft to the tribunal chose1l by the parties finally
to settle their disputes. Otherwise "plenary r view by a court ofthe 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 ofAmerica v. ~ucas FlourCo . 369 U.S. 95, 102-104, 82
S.Ct. 57!, 576, 7 L.Ed.2d 593; Textile Wor ers Union ofAmerica 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 CWA 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 ofa 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) CWA 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 CWA 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 ofany 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 ofwhat 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, ifit 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 ~~ ~lltiHM

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

:-:
::;
...

973-252-1252

Guenzel

16. That hardly can be considered maxim

p.1

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

made to .achieve any ofthe objectives i
gtven maximumpossi"ble notice. The co
reassignments will not -apply. The utiliz
wiU not be used unreasonably."
19. Aliicle 37.8.3 CWA Union Cont1act

ily a/less than six (6) months' duration) are

B. 2. above, employees to be affected will be
sideratioiz ofseniority otherwise applicable fn
lion ofthe concept oftemporary reassignments

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 ofany guilt on her part, but
because there is a suspicion that some a e ofthe group which was discharged was guilty
ofmisconduct. The sum total ofwhat 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
ofthe 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 jiom the joint power ofemployers 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

an the violations of the CWA contract.

:1!9. During the meeting between Defendants nenzel and Whitaker and the Plaintiff on
O.ctober 2, 2012, Plaintiff invoked his
ingarten Rigtits and
d~Jnlro.

was

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