Pages

Viable Third Party Runs

There can be viable third party runs at the local, state, and federal levels. We need 300000 people giving 5 bucks a month to change the world. You can give here.

Friday, October 13, 2017

The Amended Complaint Against Fieldworks, Chris Gallaway and Zachary Reider

Still working to get this lawsuit on track. Not sure about the criminal complaints against Fieldworks. But they did use quotas in violation of state law. I know that for a fact because I helped prepare the EEOC complaints for the two women that Zachary Reider fired for not making quota. Whenever the state attorney general's office or local DA Stephen Zappala wants that information they just have to contact me at pshropshire@yahoo.com.

Anyway, here's the amended complaint:



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Philip Shropshire
Plaintiff,
v.
Chris Gallaway, Zachary Reider, Fieldworks Inc.
Defendant.
No.  17-935
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED



AMENDED COMPLAINT


PREFACE

1. We wish to amend some clerical errors that we missed in the first complaint. But in my defense Gallaway's second "A" did look like an "O" to my aging eyes.

2. We wish to strip the Whistleblower Claim entirely and refile it in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas or some other appropriate state court of choice. Apparently, if I were to file it at the federal level I would not be allowed to remand it to state court later. So better safe than sorry. And: the law is hard.

3. We make this amended complaint under federal rule 15(a).

4. We still await the court's decision on my in forma pauperis request. (See court docket.) Also: Still quite poor if anyone's asking.




JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

AMENDED CIVIL COMPLAINT


I. Jurisdiction


1. The jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. §1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and the state of Pennsylvania's Human Relations Act or the PHRA. We are filing under the counts of discrimination and retaliation.

2. The plaintiff has satisfied all procedural and administration prerequisites to sue under the PHRA, Title VII and the 42 U.S.C. §1981. He received his right to sue letter on April 17th from the EEOC for the permission to sue Zachary Reider and the Fieldworks Corporation. The complaint is also timely under Section §1981, which gives you four years to file a complaint after the termination date. (July 2016)

3. Defendants Chris Gallaway, Zachary Reider and Fieldworks are employers under Title VII, PHRA and 42 U.S.C. §1981.

II. Venue

4. We believe the venue is proper because defendants have resided or conducted business in this judicial district or because all of the acts giving rise to the claims set forth herein occurred in this judicial district.

III. Parties

5. Plaintiff Philip Shropshire is an African American male who resides at 740 Franklin Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15221

6. Defendants Fieldworks had an office at 321 Pennwood Avenue, Pgh. PA, where I interviewed and worked for about a month and a half. We are also naming Chris Gallaway and Zachary Reider as defendants. We are suing them both in their professional and personal capacities.

IV. Factual Background

7. Paragraphs 1 through 6 are incorporated herein by reference as though set in full.


8. Plaintiff began working for Defendant
in June 2016. I was either the first or second person hired and was promoted within the first several weeks to a field manager position along with an increase in pay. Plaintiff received not one complaint from Joel Williams, the African American manager who hired and promoted me. In fact, I was praised by Joel in front of the entire office for registering over 500 voters. Our staff, at times, was the most productive office in the state. The staff was 90 percent black with just a handful of white workers.


9. Unfortunately, Joel left for a better opportunity and was replaced by new manager Zachary Reider, who is white. I lost my job not because I couldn’t canvass, but because I was engaging in protected speech and urging the new white canvass director to not break the law. Fun fact: Several Fieldworks offices were eventually raided and the criminal investigations from the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s office are still ongoing. And, of course, even though I had given Reider links to the old news stories, quoted him the exact statute, he then proceeded to fire at least two black workers for not making quota anyway. Under state statute, you can’t fire voter registration workers over quotas, or at least that’s what DA Stephen Zappala argued publicly those many years ago. Two Fieldworks employees, including me, did file a criminal complaint against Zachary Reider and at the time assistant DA Richard Heister agreed that there was a valid criminal claim but we have not heard back from the county. You can read about one of the raids from the state, not connected to the county charges as far as I know, here:



Count 1
Title VI, PHRA and Section 1981
Race Discrimination


10. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraph 1 through 9.

11. Plaintiff believes he was fired because of his race for a host of pretextual reasons including but not limited to shifting explanations, post hoc rationalizations, treating white workers better and holding them to lesser standards, false information in defendants EEOC position statement and an overall pattern of racial discrimination in firing decisions, up to and including violating state criminal law. There's also should be direct testimony that Zachary Reider is a racist, probably from every person of color that worked with him here in Pittsburgh.

12. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff Philip Shropshire demands judgment pursuant to Title VII, Section 1981 and the PHRA as follows:

A.)        That Defendants be required to compensate Plaintiff for the full value of wages he would have received had it not been for the Defendants illegal treatment of Plaintiff, with interest since his termination in July 2016.
B.)        That Defendants be required to provide Plaintiff with front pay if the court decides reinstatement is not feasible. (I would only want to be reinstated under contract with clear definitions of work responsibilities, and with an enshrined code of progressive discipline, as well as clear first amendment rights, not to mention compensatory damages being paid upfront.)
C.)        That Defendants be required to compensate Plaintiff for lost benefits, including profit sharing and/or pension benefits until Plaintiff’s normal retirement date.
D.)        That Plaintiffs be awarded compensatory damages of at least $35,000 or an amount to be determined at trial.
E.)        That Defendants be ordered to pay, each, $1 million dollars in punitive damages or an amount to be determined at trial.
F.)        That Pro Se Plaintiff be awarded against Defendant the costs and expenses of this litigation.
G.)        That Plaintiff be granted such further legal and equitable relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Count II
Title VII,PHRA and Section 1981: Retaliation


13. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 12.

14. Plaintiff believes he was retaliated against by Defendants after using protected speech, both in defending fellow black workers from being terminated illegally and also in violation of the state’s Whistleblower Law. Plaintiff was clearly not “disruptive” in any way, shape or form as a worker or a field manager nor could that be interpreted to mean informing your boss, a college kid from Idaho, that he was breaking state law. And could he please not do that. Zachary Reider may have worked for Bernie Sanders but he ran that office pretty much like Donald Trump: just a toxic brew of arrogance, stupidity and incompetence. I believe I have written publicly that Reider is the worst canvass director I have ever worked for in my 30 years of canvassing, including the one that got fired for embezzlement. I stand by that statement. He has earned no less than five civil rights complaints to the EEOC. And those are just the ones I know of.

15. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Philip Shropshire demands judgment pursuant to Title VII, Section 1981, and the PHRA as follows:


A.) That Defendants be required to compensate Plaintiff for the full value of wages he would have received had it not been for the Defendants illegal treatment of Plaintiff, with interest since his termination in July 2016.
B.) That Defendants be required to provide Plaintiff with front pay if the court decides reinstatement is not feasible. (I would only want to be reinstated under contract with clear definitions of work responsibilities, and with an enshrined code of progressive discipline, as well as clear first amendment rights, not to mention compensatory damages being paid upfront.)
C.) That Defendants be required to compensate Plaintiff for lost benefits, including profit sharing and/or pension benefits until Plaintiff’s normal retirement date.
D.) That Defendants be required to compensate Plaintiff for lost benefits, including profit sharing and/or pension benefits until Plaintiff’s normal retirement date. That Plaintiff be awarded compensatory damages of at least $35,000 or an amount to be determined at trial.
E.) That Defendants be ordered to pay, each, $1 million dollars in punitive damages or an amount to be determined at trial.
F.) That Pro Se Plaintiff be awarded against Defendant the costs and expenses of this litigation.
F.) That Plaintiff be granted such further legal and equitable relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Summary and Implications of the Ongoing Criminal Investigation Into Fieldworks by the Pennsylvania Attorney General

16. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 15 as if fully restated.

17. Since the criminal investigation against Fieldworks hasn’t been concluded by the State Attorney General’s office I wouldn’t object, once service has been completed or waived, at waiting until those efforts have been concluded or no more than 1 month from the date this claim is filed. We certainly wouldn’t want, say, a statement made under deposition here, to lead to a criminal conviction in that case. Perish the thought.

Respectfully submitted,

Pro Se Plaintiff Philip Shropshire

pshropshire@yahoo.com
(home contact info deleted)
8-3-17


*Note to the court again: We will send papers to defendants to waive service within the next week or so.



And here 's the proof that it was filed. Its hard to get PDF's to copy here so....

Saturday, September 30, 2017

You can get Caviar at Walmart for 8 bucks...thought it was too salty, said the poorly reared Prole.

But I'm a working class prole so what do I know about elite tastes? Might go well in a soup though...or my salads. Here's a picture of the box:

I thought the Calamari tasted better. And yes I occasionally shop at evil Walmart. I also shop at high wage Costco and every union Giant Eagle I can find. But Giant Eagle doesn't make cobblers or bread pudding anymore so....

Friday, September 08, 2017

PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S AUGUST 31ST MOTION FOR ORDER REGARDING RESPONSE TIME

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA



Philip Shropshire
      
    vs.
Manpower, DTAG, Et Al
                       
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No:

 2:17-cv-00738

Judge David S. Cercone




PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S AUGUST 31ST MOTION FOR ORDER REGARDING RESPONSE TIME



Part One: Overall Statement

1. I wish to formally agree with the new proposed extension of September 18 but with the condition that this be the last one! Defendants have had the original complaint since mid June. Plenty of time for a law firm with the capacities and global reach like Ms. Danaher’s to come up with a response.

2. I have no problem with the alternate dispute resolution process but we think that process would be better served after an answer from the Defendants. So far, at least in front of the EEOC, the Defendants have lacked specificity (no times, dates, names and places for sometimes fictional crimes…) and seemed subjective, bordering on lazy darkie stereotyping. For example, in Christina Stoneburner’s, then lawyer for DTAG, sometimes fictional statement to the EEOC, she states:


”From the beginning of his employment, there were issues with Complainant’s performance. Namely, Complainant did not seem to want to do all of the responsibilities of the job and was not enthusiastic about his performance.”


Here are some things we would like Defendants and Maria Greco Danaher to answer about that statement, and others God knows: Who noted the issues about my performance? Which manager or co worker? Is there a record of these issues ever being discussed during my work period or only afterward when Christine needed some answers for a lawsuit? If it’s afterward, or post hoc, then that’s discernible pretext. How is enthusiasm measured precisely? I don’t believe I ever missed a day of work (if memory serves..), worked while sick and commuted to work an hour and a half each way to the airport taking two buses, but yet, I’m still a lazy nigger? Some objective evidence of this, please. How was the not so difficult job performance of parking cars and moving them around open lots measured, and how did I fail such a job? Objectively? And if that statement is true why did one of your managers offer me more hours several weeks before I was let go? This makes perfect sense in a racist context. It makes no sense in almost any other context. This is why we would like to see Maria’s answers to the filed complaint. And we would like names and dates, if possible. A statement by Defendants would give both parties a better sense of where they stand. We would like to see if Defendants have any objective evidence about my work record at all. Objective means dates, names and times not just “Denied”. Sworn statements without dates, names and times are also worthless and not objective. Subjective matters need to be seen by a jury as a matter of law, of course, and can’t sustain summary judgment.

3. If the outright lies about my work record are repeated from the Stoneburner statement, then I will ask this court to enforce the perjury rules. After depositions and a lengthy Discovery period, of course.

4. I am open minded about the resolution process after Defendants have given an opening answer to my complaint. If that occurs, then I would request that the court again appoint a counsel to represent me. That last guy was pretty good.

5. I will continue to publish commentary and briefs online. It should be noted now that while I might remove those online statements from my blogs should we reach a settlement, nothing behind say, an Amazon paywall, will be removed. Ever. I suppose there’s a price there but it would be seven times what you’re currently offering to settle. So I’m presuming “Never”.

6. In the meantime, I will work to resolve our outstanding issues with Ms. Danaher. But I’m not as optimistic as Ms. Danaher that we can resolve our issues as detailed in part two. It should also be pointed out that if we can’t get a deal by Sept. 18th, the current numbers are out the window. Expect double or triple the current damages request in any ADR meeting that follows.

Part Two: Specific Point by Point Answers to Ms. Danaher’s August 31st Motion


7. I also wish to comment on opposing counsel’s motion points one through 11.

1.      Agreed. Clarification: Defendants were given two sets of Motions to Waiver. Ms. Danaher chose to file the waiver motions that I hadn’t given a date to, presumably to show my incompetence(Thanks.)and to give Defendants more time, again presumably. But the earlier ones were properly served (and signed I hope) and we expect no challenges to the validity of those motions later on.
2.      Agreed.
3.      Well, to quote the case that Ms. Danaher herself has quoted, Millhouse v. Heath 3d circuit:

“Furthermore, this court (sitting en banc) recognized that the word ‘bring” in this context plainly refers to the time when the civil action is initiated. Adbul-Akbar 239 F. 3d at 313 (citing Gibbs. 160 F.3d at 162)

Just thought that should be put in the record should any other challenges arise.

4.      Agreed.
5.      Agreed but only for the extension not the start date of the filing.
6.      Half true I would say. First, being that I have not signed any agreement or agreed to any confidentiality, either verbal or written, about our discussions (I’m not a lawyer but a public writer/blogger by trade. See www.threeriversonline.com and about seven more of the public sites that I own and control.) I assume everything is for the public record. I certainly don’t have anything to hide and neither should you.

7.      Well it depends on how you define “discussion”. Defendants have made no compromises whatsoever. And their refusals seem to be both condescending and patronizing all at once, which takes a certain amount of talent I suppose. I have dealt with powerful opponents before, such as newspaper chains and labor unions, but they were all willing to make some compromise on the releases that were offered. Of course, in retrospect, it looks as if they really wanted to settle the case. Not so sure about the Defendants here.

8.      I would agree with the phrase “There are certain issues related to the terms and conditions of settlement on which the parties are unable to agree”. But I do not share Ms. Danaher’s optimism that a deal can be reached in the next several weeks, especially since all my offers –- to address my concerns, not theirs ­-- to change the nature of the release have been rejected.

9.      We agree that the deadline should be extended but that this is the last extension that should be granted. I would hate to have to look up the law on sanctions.

10.Agreed.

11. Not so sure about that. I was actually awaiting your response. If you’re taking such a hard line approach to negotiation you must think you have a fantastic case. It is my impression that you have a terrible case where the only conversation I’ve had with management about work product was how they wanted me to work more hours. This is an act that is not consistent with the alleged poor work performance that Defendants are now claiming.






Respectfully submitted,

Pro Se Plaintiff Philip Shropshire
9-8-2017
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE




I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the within PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT’S AUGUST 31ST MOTION FOR ORDER REGARDING RESPONSE TIME was served this 8th day of September 2017 to the email address to the following:



You can also read it online here:

http://mirroruniverse.blogspot.com/2017/09/plaintiffs-answer-to-defendants-august.html?spref=fb


Philip Shropshire
Pro Se Counsel
9-8-17