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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)