Sunday, August 05, 2018
Friday, June 01, 2018
Full Initial Complaint of Philip Shropshire v. Elisabeth Wheeler and Pivot Physical Therapy
So it looks like this case is beginning to start. Generally, its never about the work where I lose these jobs. Usually it has to do with being uppity. Or perceived as being uppity. That usually means a black person speaking in complete sentences. Anyway, I'm thinking of using Elisabeth of Pivot Therapy, Zachary Reider of Fieldworks (A company whose behavior during the lawsuit has been nothing short of bizarre. It looks like they're trying to ignore the civil suit and risk a default judgement. I'm okay with that....) and Donald Trump as examples of really bad bosses. They could all be described as insecure (Elisabeth Wheeler was too cowardly to even show me my evaluation. I didn't see it until I read Pivot's EEOC statement.), mediocre, dimwitted sociopaths. Just my opinion. And, if the revolution comes, I truly believe that the at will system should be replaced with just cause and progressive discipline.
Anyway here's the initial complaint which was finally filed and accepted by the court.
IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Philip
Shropshire Civil Action No:
vs.
Elisabeth
Wheeler
Pivot
Physical Therapy (Formerly known as Allegheny Chesapeake)
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRO SE CIVIL COMPLAINT
1. Jurisdiction
The
jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1866,
42 U.S. Code § 1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the amended
Civil Rights Act of 1991, as well as Pennsylvania's Human Relations Act or the PHRA.
We are filing under the counts of discrimination based on race.
2.
The plaintiff has satisfied all procedural and administrative prerequisites to
sue under the PHRA, Title VII and 42 U.S. Code § 1981, He received his right to
sue letter on Nov. 23, 2017 from the EEOC for the permission to sue Elizabeth
Wheeler and Allegheny Chesapeake rehabilitation, since bought out by Pivot
Rehabilitation. The complaint also is
also timely under Section 1981 which gives you four years to file a complaint
after the termination date. (May 2016).
3.
Defendants Elizabeth
II Venue
4.
We believe the venue is proper because defendants have resided and/or conducted
business in this judicial district and/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
6.
Defendant Pivot Technology have an office at 7501 Penn Avenue
IV. Factual Background
7.
Paragraphs one through six are incorporated herein by reference as though set
in full.
8.
I received an offer letter Feb. 8 2016 . from the then Allegheny Chesapeake which also
included an employee handbook. My last day of employment was May 31st, 2016 . I was hired as kind of an in house taxi driver
who delivered patients to and from the Penn Avenue
9.
I believe I was fired over the phone, always a classy move and never leads to
lawsuits, about a week after May 31st, for an incident that was clearly the
fault of Elisabeth Wheeler and the then named Allegheny Chesapeake. Wheeler, or
one of her employees, gave me the wrong address for a client and then blamed me
for being late! In fact, after reading through Pivot's EEOC statement its
probable that their motivations were premeditated and had nothing to with my
work record. Or even that event. In fact, to put this in a non legal way, I was
most likely fired for being an uppity negro, which I'm proud of, but which I
also don't think is grounds for legal termination under prevailing civil rights
law.
Count 1
Title VII, PHRA and Section 1981
Race Discrimination
10.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 9.
11.
Plaintiff believes he was fired for his race for a host of pretextual reasons
including but not limited to: lying in wait, post hoc rationalizations, using a
hypercritical standard not applied to white workers, treating white workers better and holding
them to a lesser standard, false information in defendant's EEOC position
statement and a whole bunch of "weaknesses, implausibilities,
inconsistencies, incoherencies or contradictions" as written by Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, Hardy v. S.F. Phosphates Ltd. Co. , 185 F.3d 1076, 1080 (10th Cir.
1999). We plan to save Pivot's unsigned evaluation, a two page parade of
pretext, presented to the EEOC but never before seen by me, for either a
rebuttal or perhaps even an amended complaint.
12.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff Philip Shropshire demands judgment pursuant to Title
VII, Section 1981 and the PHRA as follows, included but not limited to:
- That Defendants be
required to compensate Plaintiff for the full value of wages he would have
received had it not been for the Defendant's illegal treatment of
Plaintiff with interest since his termination in May 2016.
- 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 (enforced this time.), as well as
clear First Amendment Rights, not to mention compensatory damages being
paid upfront.)
- That Defendants be
required to compensate Plaintiff for lost benefits, including profit
sharing and/or pension benefits until Plaintiff’s normal retirement date.
That defendants be awarded compensatory damages of at least $35,000 or an
amount to be determined at trial.
- That Defendants be
ordered to pay, each, $1.5 million dollars in punitive damages or an
amount to be determined at trial.
- That Pro Se
Plaintiff be awarded against Defendant the costs and expenses of this
litigation.
- That Plaintiff be
granted such further legal and equitable relief as the Court may deem just
and proper.
Summary
13.
Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 12 as if fully restated.
14.
I look forward to seeing the rebuttal by Defendants. It will be thoroughly
debunked, probably line by line.
Respectfully
submitted,
Pro
Se Plaintiff Philip Shropshire
(I edited out my personal address and phone number.)
2
21 2018
*Note
to the court again: We will send papers to defendants to waive service within
the next week or so.
Wednesday, May 23, 2018
#TheAmericans Look Paige your mom sleeps with everybody and she kills everybody. Its the job!
Raymond Reddington might have a bigger body count but he's not the only one. I'm also upset that Mrs. Jennings never seduced and slept with me. I'm a Kewl black guy with a decent jazz collection. She seems to like that...
Wednesday, April 04, 2018
#TheBlacklist I must admit, much like the Invisible Hand, I kind of agree with this week's killer. Nice Badbadnotgood tune at the end.
But by all means let's kill the husbands of child brides. Right now.
Wednesday, February 07, 2018
Wednesday, October 18, 2017
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:
8-3-17
Anyway, here's the amended complaint:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OFPENNSYLVANIA
WESTERN DISTRICT OF
|
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
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
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)
*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....
Monday, October 09, 2017
#TheDeuce ep 5 Where Saggy Maggie (should get Emmy) shows us the glamorous life of a Pro...
Features beatings and possibly ruins your sex life.
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....
Monday, September 11, 2017
#TheDeuce Why are you making Maggie do those horrible things? Why can't I stop watching?
Well written, with a slew of Sopranos and Wire actors.
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
|
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
Thursday, September 07, 2017
Wednesday, August 23, 2017
Wednesday, July 05, 2017
Estimated Donald Trump death toll: Anything under 1 million not that bad. But could be 8 figures or more though...
This could get pretty horrific.
Under 1 million dead is everything sort of stays as is. That's counting all minor conflicts the US is involved in, whoever the Saudis kill next with our arm (Yemen war that we indirectly support), all those bases and actions in Africa, bloodshed in Iraq and Afghanistan. That under 1 million estimate also includes the dead that the US creates on its own shores by taking away healthcare from 24 million people. Let's limit the dead to about 200000, which is what some reports estimate.
Now the bad news.
Any kind of Korean conflict would probably escalate into a nuclear conflict pretty quickly. So you're looking at a death toll, minimum of 500 thousand. Without nukes. With nukes, and thinking about targets like heavily populated areas like South Korea and Japan hit with nukes...not to mention the US wiping out North Korea's population of 25 million or so...
You could get to 10 million casualties pretty quickly. We have no idea what the aftermath of numerous nuke strikes looks like. Trump's watch could reach 9 figures or more.
So, if Trump leaves with less than a million dead, that's actually pretty good news. I don't think we'll be getting good news.
Hopefully, I'll be around in 2020 and can reflect back on this. If not, well here's to posterity's wisdom. And the hopes that the future will still have a functioning Internet.
Under 1 million dead is everything sort of stays as is. That's counting all minor conflicts the US is involved in, whoever the Saudis kill next with our arm (Yemen war that we indirectly support), all those bases and actions in Africa, bloodshed in Iraq and Afghanistan. That under 1 million estimate also includes the dead that the US creates on its own shores by taking away healthcare from 24 million people. Let's limit the dead to about 200000, which is what some reports estimate.
Now the bad news.
Any kind of Korean conflict would probably escalate into a nuclear conflict pretty quickly. So you're looking at a death toll, minimum of 500 thousand. Without nukes. With nukes, and thinking about targets like heavily populated areas like South Korea and Japan hit with nukes...not to mention the US wiping out North Korea's population of 25 million or so...
You could get to 10 million casualties pretty quickly. We have no idea what the aftermath of numerous nuke strikes looks like. Trump's watch could reach 9 figures or more.
So, if Trump leaves with less than a million dead, that's actually pretty good news. I don't think we'll be getting good news.
Hopefully, I'll be around in 2020 and can reflect back on this. If not, well here's to posterity's wisdom. And the hopes that the future will still have a functioning Internet.
Sunday, April 30, 2017
Thursday, April 20, 2017
Final Saved Version of World TV's Acid Jazz Channel (No Longer Works)
This channel hasn't worked in two months. I've replaced it with ViLoud. I'm saving the remnants here. Maybe it will turn back on one day. I doubt it.
Over 4000 1000 new vids
(explanation) in random play. More
Update: Channel is working
properly when you see a picture. Takes one minute to load. Channel not
working as well
when you don't see a picture.Update:
If the embed above isn't working,
then try here.
This is the New Acid Jazz Channel. I'm not sure about the future of the
company behind the old Acid Channel, which
you can find here. You can also
catch a
widescreen version here.
Current Channel Playing: I have switched to the old Acid Jazz Channel which plays just the last 1000 vids I've added. (Can also be found here, here, here and at WorldTV). You can find the oldies at "More Acid Jazz",with over 3500 videos in random play here, and at WorldTV. You can find both channels at this page
Current Channel Playing: I have switched to the old Acid Jazz Channel which plays just the last 1000 vids I've added. (Can also be found here, here, here and at WorldTV). You can find the oldies at "More Acid Jazz",with over 3500 videos in random play here, and at WorldTV. You can find both channels at this page
Tuesday, April 11, 2017
Statement to EEOC about Zachary Reider and Fieldworks
I pointed out today that I was never insubordinate because I was actually never given any orders by Zachary Reider to disobey. But let's make this public. This is what I sent to the EEOC today:
(a) Prohibition.--A person may not give, solicit or accept payment or financial incentive to obtain a voter registration if the payment or incentive is based upon the number of registrations or applications obtained.
(b) Penalty.--A person who violates subsection (a) commits a misdemeanor of the third degree and shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $2,500 or to imprisonment for not less than one month nor more than one year, or both
I did
actually have one more question about that statement: when exactly was I
insubordinate? I never disobeyed any orders from Zach. And this is also
important: I was never given any orders by Zach. I mentioned two things in the
morning meeting of the day I was fired: One, that I canvassed someone from the
county's voter registration office and she informed me that they were accepting
voter registration cards without the social security number but not
registrations with a number that we used to use in those situations. I also
mentioned that we had to abide by the no quota rule for voter
registrations, an aftermath of the ACORN scandals of some years back. I said
that in order to protect Fieldworks and what I thought (my opinion) was a very immature,
insecure and dim witted canvass director in Zachary Reider (A guy who punishes
workers for daring to attend funerals. Yeah I hear that guy is suing too.) ,
who, from the emails he sent to me, indicated that he would probably ignore
that law. But I should point out that in those emails, where he was provided
with the statute, he said he would abide by it and understood it. Here is the
statute yet again.
§ 1713.
Solicitation of registration.(a) Prohibition.--A person may not give, solicit or accept payment or financial incentive to obtain a voter registration if the payment or incentive is based upon the number of registrations or applications obtained.
(b) Penalty.--A person who violates subsection (a) commits a misdemeanor of the third degree and shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $2,500 or to imprisonment for not less than one month nor more than one year, or both
Fieldworks lied, of
course, and fired Maria and Heather (I'll keep their last names out if it.) for
not meeting the quota. They also filed a complaint with the EEOC and legitimately so. And Ruthann Alexander in
Philly (she's a friend of mine) has stated this on the record for a newspaper
that she was fired for not making quota. That's just three that I know of.
Probably two dozen more. Really, both Zachary Reider and Laura Barkley, if she
fired someone over quotas, should be in jail cells. I'm going to do everything
in my power to make that happen. Even if I have to file a private criminal
complaint. Or to put this in the context of the law Zachary Reider, and
certainly the person who fired Ruthann Alexander, were clearly given incentives
to fire people based upon the number of registrations workers' obtained.
But bottom
line: I was never given any orders to disobey. And if I was so disobedient why
let me work all day and get 15 registrations? Just awful dopey lies. I hope you
don't mean that Zach wanted to break the law and enforce quotas and he minded
me pointing out the law in front of the workforce. I hope you don't mean that.
I believe I'm protected by the state's whistle blowing statute and the position
of the Obama administration's position on speech in the workplace. Sure the Trump
administration NLRB rules will be worse, such as summary execution for the
insubordinate employee or something, but that wasn't in effect during the
summer of 2016.
So, hey,
I'll bite: what orders did I disobey? Anything in writing to prove that?
Sincerely,
Philip
Shropshire
www.threeriversonline.com
PS: I never
agreed to accept any rules regarding confidentiality or limiting this
information to just privileged sources. The EEOC has known for years that
I'm an online writer... Just a reminder. I also decided to
publish this on my blog. You're welcome to comment. You won't be censored. But
there will be a response.
Tuesday, March 21, 2017
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)