CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 0:11−cv−62525−WPD - United States ...

Case 0:11-cv-62525-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2011 Page 28 of 31
Iabor while varieties of positions available at diffcrent administration and schools buildings to reflect
plaintims qualifkation reasonably as follow:-
(l) Defendant action on April 28,2010 was wrongfuly applied in this case because-Even if
sub-teacher have to sign form as defendant stated that lthree or more negative letters then
the sub-teacher nnme will be rcmoved from sub-teacher list position) it does not say that
from any other position nor to be terminated period without identify the position. The
most critical factor in this case or other cmses it must be legaly a true not evaluations.
(2) Sub-teacher's position limited to be in the classroom oly to give a chnnce for
unqualised sub-teacher to change the position. Therefore stated the removable is from
sub-teacher list if the evaluation is true as a matter of law. While vmieties of job
opportunity at different departments, positions. and buildings is available in this
particular employer with up to 30,000.00 employees as six largest schools district in the
Nation which in contrary to any employer in US while occupied with salary started lkom
minimum wages to highest one similar to the presented of USA. This kind of evaluation
for this particular position it must be conducted for termination pumose specificaly from
clmssroom as stated sub-teacher position in very beginning to alnrm and movide chance to
employees to change their positions away from clmssroom. Plaintiff hms excellent three of
them when she started which alow her to conénuo tbr long years in the clmssroom and
encouraging her to seek higher education in same field in general not only classroom
setting. Nevertheless plaintiffs positive evaluations continued and recent false
evaluations proven to be not only legaly false but indicated misconduct and hate by few
individuals. Respondent failed to balance critical equation bv considerine false
evaluations eome Iatter after even vears but ia ored the material faets for manv in
addition to plaintiœ s recent hizher education and Ione vears of experiences in
critical subiect area. Plaintil science proieet for vounz talented ehildren not to
improve students scores but to solve our-ass-ort-ed- pr-ob-lem- at limited measurable
planet In this unu own universe to over come hunzer. homelessness. new diseases
and polutions.
G- Defendant cause of action was crystal clear and become a matter of 1aw when school
employee asked plaintiffto go home because she wms simply refusing improper behavior.
Defendnnt failed to folow the district and department of education laws and regulations for
proper action against their employees nor provided any type of reasonable and friar
reconciliation. The discrimination acts indicated in these six employee's misconduct,
discrimination statements to not accept plaintifrto work because plaintiffis not match, her
culture and she is not suitable suit for school's students and others as personal opinion not related
to plaintiffperformance or personality which reported in their own words in their E-mail or in the
28
l
lilill