After the hearing took place in Rowe on December 6, 2013 and after Judge Patterson rejected their request to expressly enjoin me in the permanent restraining order (“PRO”) against Leonard Rowe, Michael P. Zweig of Loeb & Loeb LLP immediately submitted a letter to Arbitrator Gregory seeking that he place a permanent restraining order against me from filing any commercial liens against those who have engaged in fraud throughout my entire case. I submitted a reply via e-mail on Saturday, December 7, 2013, stating that I would not file a “formal” response until after I received the transcript from the hearing to confirm Patterson’s statements. On Monday, December 9, 2013, Gregory stated that he was opening the case and giving me until the 17th to file my response and then he would have 30 days to issue his final decision. I immediately objected and asked that my e-mail serve as my response and stated that his final decision should still be issued, as originally planned, no later than December 23, 2013. A day later, there has been no response from Gregory or the AAA. I don’t even know if my case is opened or closed, and if it is in fact still opened, shouldn’t I be allowed the opportunity to conduct and complete discovery so that I can retrieve the hundreds of e-mails from William Morris’ backup tapes which show executives referring to African Americans as “nigger,” “nigga,” “coon,” “Uncle Tom” and “monkey”? Wtf is going on?! As I’ve always stated, my case is bigger than Gregory and the AAA. If Gregory is going to ignore the pyramid of evidence I’ve presented, as well as the law, to be able to enter an erroneous judgment against me, then there’s no need to waste any additional time to do so — do it now so I can continue fighting this case in the federal court!
Culture is most useful for antidiscrimination discourse, in contrast, when it is understood more discretely as a process of developing shared meanings of experience through ongoing, day-to-day social interaction. In this sense, culture is largely a matter of micro social action and the relational or behavioral expectations that signal membership in a group. This social-relations meaning of culture is related to the more mainstream use in that it recognizes the power of culture to shape beliefs, expectations, and behavior, but it is also more definite in its understanding of culture as a dynamic process of social interaction and signaling that both constitutes and is constituted by the individuals who engage in it. This meaning also goes hand-in-hand with voluntary identity formation, while at the same time recognizing the bounded nature of choice. Culture, in other words, is a form of “‘impression management’: we act in a way that creates an impression in others that we are adhering to a set of values.”
How did these work cultures come to or, perhaps more importantly, why do they continue to define acceptable and favored behavior along a white, male norm? The answer to this question requires an understanding of both the human and structural dimensions of work culture. Work culture, as a human process of social interaction, is subject to a myriad of cognitive and motivational biases. At the same time, it is influenced by larger organizational context, left to flourish in work environments with little formal organizational structure, where white males are given the power to dominate and define.
Source: Tristin K. Green. Work Culture and Discrimination. 93 Cal. L. Rev. 623, 631, 647 2005.
On June 8, 1993, the EEOC filed a complaint in the Southern District of Florida alleging that Joe’s violated Title VII through both intentional disparate treatment discrimination as well as unintentional disparate impact discrimination. The gravamen of the complaint centered around the EEOC’s findings with respect to Joe’s hiring and recruiting practices for food servers. The EEOC sought permanent injunctive relief, back pay, and prejudgment interest for qualified claimants. Over fifteen days interspersed from August 1996 to December 1996, the district court held a liability bench trial. The analysis at trial focused on two discrete time periods: first, the pre-EEOC charge period from 1986 to 1990; and finally, the post-EEOC charge period from 1991 to 1995.
In addition to its description of Joe’s hiring process,the district court also made several subsidiary findings relating to the historical operation of the roll call system. The district court observed that while ”women have predominated as owner/managers,” “most of Joe’s female employees have worked in positions traditionally viewed as ‘women’s jobs,’ e.g., as cashiers or laundry workers. Food servers generally have been male.” Id.at 731. Although Joe’s hired female food servers during World War II, most of these positions ”reverted to men at the conclusion of the war.” Id. Further, the district court found that, “[f]rom 1950 on, the food serving staff has been almost exclusively male. Indeed, one striking exception proves the rule. Dotty Malone worked as a food server at Joe’s for seventeen years, and for most of this time she was the lone female on a serving staff that ranged between twenty-four and thirty-two.” Id.
In explaining this historical dearth of female food servers, the district court found that Joe’s maintained an “Old World” European tradition, in which the highest level of food service is performed by men, in order to create an ambience of “fine dining” for its customers. Id.at 733.
(emphasis added) This is funny because Michael P. Zweig of Loeb & Loeb LLP has tried to argue throughout the entire arbitration proceeding that my claims are time barred or are in the alternative, limited to a 300 day statute of limitations. Zweig is intentionally misapplying the law for a number of reasons, but a big reason for why they are doing this, is because they cannot refute the pyramid of evidence I’ve presented establishing 115 year pattern and continuing practice of race-based employment discrimination and disparate impact to support that my race, color and/or national origin played a motivating factor in why I was not hired and/or promoted to Agent at the William Morris Agency (now known as William Morris Endeavor Entertainment) while working in the company’s New York office!!
What a crazy morning!! Earlier today, the hearing regarding the Defendants’ request for a permanent restraining order against Leonard Rowe and his “agents, servants, employees, attorneys and other persons in active concert and participation with Mr. Rowe” took place at Judge Robert P. Patterson’s Courthouse at the Southern District of New York. Of course, on our way there, we got stuck in traffic, and once we got there, we had to wait in the court’s long ass line, so we were about 20 minutes late. Without going into much detail, let’s just say I couldn’t be more disgusted with our judicial system and the way it operates. Leonard Rowe was not present, but to see the law firm that once represented Rowe and the firm that it conspired with to conceal smoking gun evidence sitting on the same side, acting in complete and total concert with one another, just shows how much corruption has taken place in Rowe’s case. Although the Respondents wanted this PRO to apply to me, Patterson said that it didn’t. There were lots of awkward moments of silence and the entire proceeding seemed questionable. Even Patterson seemed perturbed with himself by the amount of fraud he has allowed to occur in this case, but in the end, he granted the PRO to cease Rowe from taking any further action relating to this case.
Thanks IB & Devon for coming with and supporting me! All the blacks (the three of us) were sitting on one side of the courtroom and all whites were on the other. Lmao! As much things change, they stay the same. Smh.
Two standout quotes from Mandela:
Real leaders must be ready to sacrifice all for the freedom of their people.
No one is born hating another person because of the color of their skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can learn to love, for love comes more naturally o the human heart than its opposite.