CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 0:11−cv−62525−WPD - United States ...
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 0:11−cv−62525−WPD - United States ...
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 0:11−cv−62525−WPD - United States ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Case 0:11-cv-62525-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2011 Page 8 of 31<br />
case as EEOC order ex. #3 stated that f this does not certifv thpt the respondent is in compliance<br />
with the statutesl, but the EEOC offke further claimed that they are unable to conelude the<br />
matter' in other word unable to enforce the 1aw applications on bmsis of EEOC rules and federal<br />
law forjob discrimination.<br />
(b) the 2 nd point<br />
in the decision which Dismissal Of Speeife Ads especialv Aae<br />
discrimination act when EEOC decision Linked it with entire case and added two another<br />
acts never reported bv plaintiff in anv record which :<br />
-1- Genetic lnformation Act.<br />
-2- American With Disabilities Act, EEOC stated in a separate paragraphs which indicated three<br />
.<br />
different acts including the Age Discn'mlation Act then EEOC stated that ûtlzis wil be the only<br />
notice of dismissal'. Regarding Age Discrimination Act it is an issue in this case as I reported in<br />
my intake questionnaire and my amended omcial notarized request dated Feb. 03,201 1 ex.# 2 to<br />
correct any mistake and misunderstanding occurred by EEOC omce employee who checked<br />
wrong boxes in fonn 5 (11/09). The other two charges (other two discrimination Acts ) reported<br />
by EEOC in the decision but never applied or reported by me omcially in any fonn which is:-1-<br />
Genetic Information Act and 2- American With Disabilities. This 2 nd part i nEEOC<br />
decision was<br />
tmclear with incorrect discrimination acts.<br />
(c ) Therefore plaintiff sled timely pleading for re-review and for reconsideration<br />
within 30 days by certised mail on Sep. 13,2011on the EEOC decision which denied on Oct.<br />
19,201 1 order exhibit A 4. in order to be legaly represented by EEOC in the court and / or other<br />
relief through legal depmïment. because EEOC support statement sated that (respondent wasn't<br />
in compliance with law/ stamtesl. Also respondent discriminatory action impacted plaintifrs life<br />
entirely and many lawyer refused to get involve as they stated (NO, not with Browed Countyl. In<br />
addition plaintiff obligated to present her self as a pro-se to defend her self, belongs, and %sets<br />
which is her entire life including her divorce cœse, car accident case and burglary case to her<br />
belongs as a1l these cases pending in the court which generate very extraordinary circumsfnnces<br />
and sever diftkulty to handle them in one time. Plaintiff who has no clue or experienccs to cvery<br />
apect of Iaw as she obligated to defend her self as a pro-se while is not her career or wishes to<br />
do so.<br />
4- Plaintil-consulted with the directors OI-EEOC Mr./ Malcum and Mr.l Gonzales in<br />
begging of the case when Age discrimination no need for right to sue âom their ofsce but al-ter<br />
60 days 9om the date the charge was tiled l can do so. But they advised me that I have to wait six<br />
months for the case to be done as a whole. Plaintisthen filed Response And Request For Re-<br />
Review And For Claritkation On ( DISMISSAL ND NOTICE OF RIGHTS ) For Potential<br />
Referral To EEOC Legal Department. In addition plnintiYs sled a complnint to EEOC<br />
headquarter Federal Operation /Washington because of EEOC violation to the EEOC rule to J 1<br />
assist plaintiffor provide any sort of mediation and / or reconciliation especialy refusing to ( f<br />
d 'f ?11fl<br />
?
Change language