Nature & Wildlife

37 views

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
of 76

Please download to get full document.

View again

All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Share
Tags
Transcript
  1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION Carl A. Robertson, Sr., and all ) others similarly situated ) ) Plaintiff ) ) CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. vs. ) ) 1:14-CV-2728-MHC-JSA Interactive Learning Systems, Inc./ ) Interactive College of Technology, et al; ) Thomas Blair, Individually and Within ) Demand for Jury trial His Official Capacity ) ) Defendants ) PLAINTIFF, CARL A. ROBERTSON, SR. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND INTRODUCTION: 1.  This is an action to vindicate violations of the Plaintiff’s civil rig hts and to redress the unlawful, egregious, and discriminatory conduct and employment practices by Defendant(s) Interactive College of Technology. This action arises out of the illegal and wrongful acts of racial discrimination in pay and other racial animus, defamation, conspiracy, retaliatory demotion, and wrongful discharge of Mr. Carl A. Robertson, Sr. before, after, on and/or about July 10, 2012 to present.  2 2.  Mr. Robertson alleges, inter alia, that he was paid less than his Caucasian co/manager and counterpart Mr. William Spyers, who was senior to him; but who had a reduced amount of responsibilities after Robertson’s promotion to the co/manager’s position; and,  Plaintiff was  bullied, subjected to repeated destructive criticisms, verbal and written threats, sabotage and/or undermining of an employee’s work routine, racially discriminatory pay disparity, extended suspension without pay, defamation, other forms of racial animus, illegal discriminatory discipline, retaliatory demotion, civil and criminal conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of equal  protection of the laws, other wage violations, and retaliatory wrongful discharge within his employment in whole or in part, and based upon: A.   Robertson’s  race and in retaliation for opposing what he considered as unlawful employment practices within the compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of his employment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section(s) 2000e et seq, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended by the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1991, as amended by 29 U.S.C. 201, et seq, Lilly Ledbetter Act of 2009; B.   Robertson’s  race and in retaliation for opposing what he considered as unlawful employment practices by Thomas Blair individually and in his official capacity within the terms, conditions, privileges, contractual relationship, compensation, and applicable due  process/equal protection in Plaintiff  ’s  employment; and, within the adverse actions of retaliatory demotion and retaliatory wrongful discharge likened to other employees of comparable or worse circumstances and outside of his protected class, in violation of the Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 2000a, b, and c; C.   Robertson’s  race and in retaliation for opposing what he considered as unlawful employment practices within the terms, conditions, compensation, and privileges of his employment; as well as his opposing racial discrimination amongst an Africa-American and a Caucasian male student(s) working under his directions and the disparity of  3 disciplinary actions by way of their unproven/proven bad acts identified as two-of-three reasons for Mr. Robertson’s demotion ; and, likened to other employees of managerial  positions involved in comparable or worse circumstances and outside of his protected class, in violation of the Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendment applicable due  process clauses and Title VI of the Civil Right Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d, et., seq.; and, D.   Robertson’s race and in retaliation for opposing what he considered as unlawful employment practices within the compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of his employment based on circumstances, information, and belief that he was framed or set-up for demotion through mutual agreement and understanding between two adult Caucasian males, Thomas Blair (Dean of College) and Kenneth Hamm (College Work Study Student) to commit the crime of larceny and then Thomas Blair accusing Robertson of wrongdoings involving that crime in violation of 42  U.S.C. § 1985(2)(3), and 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 245.   STATEMENT OF CLAIM: 3.  Beginning on or about January 8, 2008, Carl A. Robertson, Sr., an African-American male, was employed at Interactive College of Technology (later to be referenced as “ICT” ) and several months later, on or about October 10, 2008, Robertson was promoted to the maintenance co/manager’s position along with  his Caucasian counterpart Mr. William Spyers. 4.  Carl Robertson took over all aspects of the maintenance department as co-manager on or about October 10, 2008, without a ninety (90) day probationary period for such a position, and/or without any formal managerial, maintenance, or custodial extensive internal training from Interactive College of Technology. 5.  During the month of December 2011 Plaintiff Carl A. Robertson, Sr. wrote the required comments to his subjective appraisal and made objections to certain unsubstantiated disparaging and destructive criticisms as well as a 3.5 % increase in pay.  4 6.  Robertson based his objection on the fact that from October 2008 through December 2011 he was directing all aspects of the maintenance department, had positive appraisals and satisfactory work performances, and was paid approximately $4,500 less than his white counterpart and co/manager William Spyers who was retiring from his full-time position during that same month. A.   One month later January 2012, Robertson had $100.00 taken from his pay for teaching a subordinate who Robertson was about to promote to Lead Maintenance Technician the method of transferring information from an invoice to a purchase order; and, where the Defendants claimed that Robertson had violated company policy. B.   Carl Robertson was then placed into a no-win situation when during the month of May 2012, and after the death of William Spyers; the Campus President assigned additional tasks to be accomplished and completed before an upcoming Council on Occupational Education ( COE  ) accreditation inspection in August 2012. C.   Within the month of July 2012, Thomas Blair informed Robertson that he could not reschedule  the maintenance crew or allow them to work overtime, as a means to consummate the maintenance department’s additional assignments for the COE inspection and regular routine duties. D.   Such actions had never been taken against William Spyers before or after, he and Carl Robertson were assigned as co/managers. E.   Robertson wrote a letter to Thomas Blair explaining that without being able to reschedule his maintenance crew certain problems could occur when trying to perform the extra duties as assigned by Elmer Smith, but Robertson was ignored. 1.   During the month of July 2012, and due to the scheduled painting of an HVAC-R classroom floor. Furniture was not replaced back into a classroom for the first time out of some twenty or more prior occasions. 2.   Robertson got into a verbal shouting confrontation with the Dean of College concerning the above, and after hearing Thomas Blair belittling him during a phone conversation with the HVAC-R Chairperson. 3.   Robertson had no idea that Thomas Blair was speaking about him until after the  phone conversation and not until Blair started shouting at and then threatened Robertson’s managerial position before any reaction came from Robertson.    5 4.   Robertson was suspended for insubordination for one week, even though it was the Dean who disrespected and shouted at Robertson first. 7.  Carl Robertson was ordered by Thomas Blair to respond in writing to two questions written by Blair and before Robertson could return to work; and, as directed Robertson provided a response to the two questions as required. 8.  Within that same correspondence,   Robertson filed an internal complaint of racial discrimination in pay compensation and other possible forms of racial animus, as based on ICT’s “ 2008- 2010” employee handbook and personnel policies. 9.   Robertson’s suspension without pay was extended to two weeks in order to research his complaint of racial discrimination as indicated by the Human Resources Representative. 10.  No internal investigation was conducted into Robertson’s allegation of racial discrimi nation in pay compensation, the Campus President claimed that the internal complaint was unprofessional, and admitted within a written response that Robertson’s Caucasian counterpart William Spyers was being pa id “a little more” than Robertson, and based that determination on seniority which was/is non- existing as established by I.C.T.’s policies.   11. Carl   Robertson was restored to his managerial position from his initial one week suspension for insubordination, and at no time after Robertson’s restoration was he advised of or placed on a ninety day probationary  period. 12.  After returning to work the Plaintiff followed all newly designated instructions as written in the July 2012 reinstatement letter; and, Robertson never received any backpay for the additional week of suspension without pay for I.C.T. to research his discrimination complaint.
Advertisement
Related Documents
View more
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks