IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
|
vs.
Manpower,
DTAG, Et Al
|
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
|
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
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
No comments:
Post a Comment