Documentation

HRA  Falsifies Documents Causes Denial of  Private Disability Insurance Claim Leaves Me With No Income

After being dropped from payroll without restoration by HRA on April 2, 2009 in retaliation for having filed a discrimination lawsuit against them, and after District Council 37 refused to file a grievance on my behalf, I faxed a copy of my private Transamerica Insurance Disability Benefit Employer’s Statement to HRA personnel for processing so that I might receive my $1000.00 benefit. On their May 26, 2009 response, Inquiry Coordinator Marilyn Jenkins indicated that I not filed for or received Salary Continuation/Sick Leave despite the fact that I had received Continuation/Sick Leave between September 6, 2008 and April 1, 2009 when I was dropped from payroll. The salary indicated is much higher than I know my base Level I salary to be. Question number 23 asks will the employee earn any future Salary Continuation/Sick Leave.  Although the response was no, I had been on paid Sick Leave for approx 19 days after 9/6/08 and then on what they call 3.5 Grant leave time through April 1, 2009.

 

After several phone calls I received a revised Employer’s Statement indicating that I had indeed filed for or was receiving Salary Continuation/Sick Leave. It does not indicate the number of hours as of last date worked.  I was still on payroll using my own time as of the 9/2/08 date incorrectly indicated on the form. Question number 23 asks will the employee earn any future Salary Continuation/Sick Leave. My first request for this info was via fax on May 21, 2009.  I subsequently was blessed with coworker donations of time, receiving a check on or about June 30, 2009 – the date Ms. Jenkins signed off on the still incorrectly completed Employer statement below.  On this same form dated June 2009, Ms. Jenkins  indicates that I will earn future Salary Continuation/Sick Leave effective 4/1/09.  When I received the phone call from Renee Wilson advising me that I would be receiving this check (approx the 3rd week of  June 2009) I requested a breakdown of the hours donated but was denied.  Bottom line, it is the intention of HRA to “prove” that I had not been dropped from payroll as claimed by backdating time donated to me by my coworkers in May 2009 to paydate of April 2009.

 

Because of all this I have been unable to receive my private $1000.00 month disability insurance payment.  The likely reason that HRA refused to provide the exact number of hours/days of paid 3.5 grant leave I’ve received is because it would prove that they intentionally dropped me from payroll on April 2, 2009 as yet another instance of retaliatory harassment.   I was never advised in writing as to how much time had been donated to me though I requested same via phone and from current HRA Commissioner Robert Doar.  As of September 1, 2009 my Transamerica claim was closed for non-receipt of information which HRA clearly has no intention of providing.  This leaves me approx $4000.00 short (4 months) with no income coming in.  

As of September 1, 2009 my the status of my pension is also in jeopardy.  The status of my pension loan has been classified as non performing due to retaliatory harassment by HRA.  Being the city’s welfare agency, HRA management knows all the ways to prevent an individual from receiving income because its their business. Bottom line, I have no income and no prospects for income because of the construct of this situation.  I’ve lost my union prescription benefits and my most critical medication is $119.00/mo with a Walmart Drug card.

The stress of all of this is overwhelming.  And I have yet to speak on the physical isolation of having a dislocated ankle or of the emotional isolation of having been abandoned by friends who fear for their own wellbeing.  

EEOC Misrepresents Need For Submitting Notarized Official Charge

EEOC Title 29 states a charge is sufficient when the Commission receives from the person making the charge a written statement sufficiently precise to identify the parties, and to describe generally the action or practices complained of.  That being the case, it appears that since my EEOC Intake Questionnaire was logged in as charge number 520-2006-01362 on April 5^, 2006 it was sufficient as such. I was advised of this status by William Lai of the EEOC.  Nowhere in Title 29 was there language to the effect that verification is done via a notarized document.

• March 2006 faxed EEOC Intake Questionnaire to EEOC Intake Unit 
• July 2006 faxed copy of my in-house 1996 HRA/EEO to EEOC Intake Unit
• January 2007 hand delivered package to former HRA Commissioner Verna Eggleston explaining the circumstances of the May 2006 investigation interview and my belief that I had been set up
• January 2007 received undated letter from HRA Office of Legal Affairs acknowledging receipt of hand delivered package

 

• February 2007 sent package to EEOC that broke down almost 15 years of disparate treatment, disparate impact and corruption at MIS in over 25 “chapters”.
• February 2007 received a letter from the above EEOC Supervisory Investigator Lai stating that I had not enclosed a notarized copy of EEOC Form 5 Charge of Discrimination.  The investigator’s letter stated the need for notarization at least twice in the letter and once again in an enclosed EEOC instruction sheet on how to file a charge of employment discrimination.  Mr. Lai did not explain the reason for having Form 5 notarized.

 

Only after submitting the notarized EEOC Charge Form 5 as instructed did I receive a letter dated March 2007 letter from Supervisory Investigator Lai advising me after the fact that the EEOC was required to send that charge to the New York State Division of Human Rights and that “if” the charge was processed by NYSDHR it “might” need to be notarized.  Mr. Lai statements made it seem as though it was the prerogative of the NYSDHR as to whether they would choose to process my complaint or not when it was never my wish or intention that my complaint be handled by the NYSDHR because of possible collusion as HRA is a quasi state agency.

In 2000 MIS employees initiated a class action complaint with the EEOC against MIS that included myself and 35 other black, non-white, and disabled employees.  That speaks of filing charges with the State Division of Human Rights in the past to no avail.  The 2000 complaint was filed solely with the EEOC and EEOC  Charge Form 5 was clearly not required, notarized or otherwise.  This begs the question, “Why would Mr. Lai have me complete an unnecessarily notarized EEOC Charge Form 5 without advising me of his intention to file with the State Division of Human Rights since doing so would be without my knowledge or consent?”  The answer would have to be for the same reasons that

• EEOC Senior Investigator Donna Walcott suppressed the April 2006 voicemail that links my personal life to my job life
• EEOC took approx 15 months to complete processing of my case without speaking to me and suppressing stacks of damning evidence that I had submitted to them by dismissing my case including evidence of a 36 person class action compaint against MIS that the EEOC never dealt with from 2000
• EEOC has a long standing political partnership with HRA that precludes the individual rights of the citizens that the EEOC is sworn to protect

2009 Receipts Posted for Packages Sent to EEOC and Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit

EEOC Suppresses Additional Evidence in Dismissal of  My 2006 Complaint

The EEOC sought to suppress all the evidence I submitted with my March 2006 charge including a copy of the August 2000 class action complaint against HRA/MIS alleging a “racially stratified” workplace “which confers favor upon whites and excludes blacks and non-Caucasians from equal opportunities and professional development”.  The complaint requests that the EEOC investigate via onsite visits instead of relying on HRA document submissions as a defense and cited my former union, Communications Workers of America as co-defendant.  There were 36 co-complainants involved and I was one of them.  After meeting with our attorney, William T. Martin, toward the end of September 2000, a group of us subsequently met with the EEOC at their offices at 7 World Trade Center. We were advised by the woman that we met with that the EEOC was very busy but that someone would get back to us as soon as they could. Nobody ever did and 7 World Trade Center fell in the 9/11/01 attacks.  The contents of this package as evidence demonstrates, among other things, that

• EEOC has, on at least one other occasion sought to, and did indeed protect the political interests of HRA
•  EEOC has no intention of treating the complaints of blacks and other protected classes at MIS seriously despite the fact that there were 36 co-complainant involved

Page 8 of the complaint details how black and other employees in protected classes remained fixed in lower level titles for 10 to 25 years.  Between 1979 and 1994 I averaged a paid promotion every two years.  I have not received another paid promotion since 1994.  I remained in level one of my current title while employees who came in after me have been promoted to levels 3 and 4. 

 

April 2006 Voicemail Suppressed By the EEOC

This is a copy of the first page of the June 2006 EEOC Letter of Dismissal.  You will notice that the letter cites me as having been a victim of an ongoing high level conspiracy of retaliatory harassment.  What it really is, is an ongoing campaign of political interference.  As political interference has its basis in partnership, political interference is by its very nature conspiratorial.   See http://integraltalk.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/political-interference-v-conspiracy/

 

Remember that all of this is driven by corruption to the tune of several million dollars. 

The above letter of dismissal from the EEOC references the fact that I had alleged to be the victim of an ongoing high level campaign of political interference, via discriminatory and retaliatory harassment as per a predetermined plan very much like the found in the Project on Government Oversight’s Whistleblower’s manual.  See

http://www.pogoarchives.org/m/gp/gp-WhistleblowerManual-Chapter1.pdf

Point three of the above allegations state that my employer devised a broad, complex and multifaceted plan of attack against me that extended into my personal life in an attempt to fire me.  The following excerpt from page 3 of the above letter proves the above to be true. 

Present at the above May 3, 2006 Investigation interview were me, my DC 37 Union Rep who never on that day, prior to or after advised me of my rights per the city wide contract, the HRA Special Investigator and his supervisor.  Whether or not HRA monitored and recorded my phone calls is a separate issue.  Key in the above intentionally misstated allegation is that there is no reference to the April 8, 2006 voicemail  left by Candice Sena on my husband’s cell phone that I played at the investigation hearing.  Because her voicemail proves that my allegations as stated in point 1 – 3 above are true, it had to be suppressed.  Because most of the May 3, 2006 investigation interview was spent discussing Ms. Sena and my relationship to her HRA Special Investigations denied my a written explanation/disposition of charges.  Following is that so far suppressed voicemail.

Candice Sena’s April 8, 2006 Voicemail

What this voicemail does is validate my claims per points 1 – 3 in the above letter of dismissal from the EEOC.  It proves that my home life was violated as well and links subsequent events external to the job right back to the February 2006 investigation.

Contents/Results of 2006 Investigation Denied

This is a copy of the February 2006 letter that I received from HRA Special Investigations. The original interview date was April 13, 2006

My DC 37 Union Rep, who accompanied me to the rescheduled May 3, 2006 interview investigation never advised me that I was entitled to a written explanation/disposition of charges. 

Even though my DC 37 Union Rep was present at the investigation interview and had been briefed via phone and fax on the situation, he said nothing.  I didn’t find out until April 2009 that this was a violation of the citywide contract.  As a matter of fact most of what I reported to the DC 37 Rep and the EEOC were violations of the city wide contract.  When I presented this to the EDNY court in May 2009 as a clear violation of my rights re=”rights “>re HRA AND District Council 37 intentionally misleading re: my pursuit of this particular cause of action, my case was dismissed effective June 2009.  The above is representative of political interference at it’s highest levels.

Following  are pages from my 1996 HRA/EEO Complaint which was squashed at very high levels.

 1996 HRA/EEO Complaint

 

The entire complaint was approx 23 pages long and detailed not only the discrimination and harassment I was subjected to but the corrupt activities as well. Use the link below. 

http://s691.photobucket.com/albums/vv279/rpughperry/1996%20HRA%20EEO%20Complaint/

 Following is a copy of the 1996 dismissal letter from HRA/EEO.  This letter denies the credibility of my oh so credible allegations as documented in the above complaint.

1996 HRA/EEO Dismissal Letter