Free Declaration in Support - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-04952-JSW

Document 10-3

Filed 12/26/2007

Page 1 of 5

'

4 P m T M E N T O F T H E NAVY O F F I C E O F T H E SECRETARY ATTN: J O H N H . DALTON. SECRETARY 1 0 0 0 NAVY PENTAGON WASHINGTON, D.C. 20350-1000

-

DEPARTMENT O F T H E NAVY NAVY P U B L I C WORKS C E N T E R SAX FRANCISCO BAY H3MAN RESOURCES O F F I C E ( H R O ) P.O. BOX 2 4 0 0 3 OAKLAND, CA 9 4 6 2 3 - 1 1 0 3 510-466-7617/16 P A U L I N E HORVATH 2 5 8 9 9 SEAVER S T R E E T HAYWARD, CA 9 4 5 4 5 (510) 532-3650 REFERENCE : #93-65885-003 E A R B D m . NO. 9 6 - 0 8 ' 6 C97-00534 DLJ* C 9 7 - 0 0 4 4 1 MHP C 9 7 - 0 0 0 8 8 MHP

- .
COMPLAINT FOR PROMOTION

J U L Y 23, 1998

I' AM F I L I N G T H I S COMPLAINT D I R E C T L Y W I T H YOUR O F F I C E S B E C A U S E T H E NAVAL A V I A T I O N DEPOT, ALAMEDA, C A H A S CLOSED AND I DO NOT KNOW WHICH I S THE CORRECT ADDRESS F O R F I L I N G T H I S E E O COMPLAINT.

I A F I L I N G THIS R E T R O A C T I V E PERMANENT PROMOTION T O A G S - 1 2 A S I M ONLY BECAME AWARE O F R E T A L I A T O R Y A C T S CONCERNING MY PERMANENT PROMOTIONS A S O F 6 - 1 4 - 9 8 W H I L E TWO S A N F R A N C I S C O D I S T R I C T COURT NAVY R E T A L I A T I O N C O M P L A I N T S WERE PENDING.. ON 7 - 2 8 - 9 8 T H E R E I S A S E T T L E M E N T CONFERENCE SCHEDULED W I T H T H E D I S T R I C T COURT ( J U D G E MARIA ELENA-JAMES, J O C E L Y N BURTON, A S S T D I S T . ATTORNEY HANDLING THESE TWO COMPLAINTS FOR THE NAVY, m ATTORNEYS AND MYSELF)

.

I AM AMENABLE T O COMBINING T H E S E T H R E E COMPLAINTS, BUT I AM NOT C O N F I D E N T THAT D I S T R I C T COURT COUNSEL WOULD B E . A G R Z E A B L E T O T H I S . I AM FORCED S I N C E I BECAME AWARE O F T H I S R E T A L I A T O R Y ACT 6 - 1 4 - 9 8 , T O F I L E T H I S COMPLAINT W I T H YOUR O F F I C E S P R I O R T O 7 - 2 8 - 9 8 , A S THE DATE OF THE SCHEDULED CONFERENCE I S W I T H I N T H E 4 5 DAY L I M I T F O R F I L I N G AN EEO C O M P L A I N T .
T H E ACT I AM C O M P L A I N I N G O F I S T H E I N T E N T I O N A L RETALIATORY U S E O F A "BLACK L I S T " P R I N T E D BY NADEP ALAMEDA AND C I R C U L A T E D T O S E L E C T E D MANAGERS. I T L I S T E D A L L T H E NAMES O F EMPLOYEES WHO HAD F I L E D E E O I T WAS COMPLAINTS AND THE STATUS O F T H E I R COMPLAINTS. I N T E N T I O N A L L Y USED T O R E T A L I A T E A G A I N S T EMPLOYEES WHO KAD F I L E D COMPLAINTS F O R FUTURE PROMOTIONS (PERMANENT AND T E M P O R A R Y ) , EMPLOYEES TO SETTLE OVERPAYMENTS TO PROVIDE LEVERAGE AGAINST COMPLAINTS AND HARASSMENT I N MANY O T H E R FORMS. E M P M Y E E S ( L I K E PAGE 1 O F 5

TXHIBIT

-2
-

Case 3:07-cv-04952-JSW

Document 10-3

Filed 12/26/2007

Page 2 of 5

:

MYSELF) WERE NOT TOLD O F T H I S L I S T I F THEY H A D COMPLAINTS, UNLESS I T "UNOFFICIALLY" REACHED T H E I R HANDS THROUGH COMPASSIONATE MANAGERS WHO D I D NOT L I K E THE WAY THE L I S T WAS BEING USED T O HRRM EMPLOYEES WITHOUT T H E I R KNOWLEDGE. S E C R E T A R I E S O F MANAGERS AT D I F F E R E N T LEVELS ALSO WERE MORE LIKELY TO BECOME AWARE O F T H I S L I S T AND I T S PURPOSE.

I HAVE WITNESSES (EMPLOYEES, F W P , G E X S , S E C R E T X Q I E S ) , I.:iiO hLSu PERSONALLY SAW T H E I R OWN NAMES AND STATUS O F T H E I R COMPLAINTS ON T H I S L I S T . I HAVE R E C E I V E D DECLARATIONS AND MORE ARE COMING.
I AM AGAIN OUTRAGED BY BLATANT RETALIATORY A C T I V I T Y . I HAD F I L E D EEO COMPLAINTS I N 1 9 8 6 AND 1 9 9 2 AND WAS NOT AWARE O F HOW MY BEING "BLACKLISTED" HAD BEEN USED AGAINST ME T O DENY PROMOTIONS. E X I S T E N C E O F THE L I S T I S S I G N I F I C A N T I N THE TWO PENDING RETALIATION CASES AS THE ASSISTANT D I S T R I C T ATTORNEY STATED T O THE MEDIA, HOW COULD I HAVE BEEN HARMED BY THE GOVERNMENT OVERPAYING ME? ( S E E P A R T I A L L I S T O F MEDIA REPORTS ON PAGE 1 O F DR. DAVID KNEAPLER'S ATTACHED REPORT)

.

,

THE DELIBERATE OVERPAYMENT TOOK P'LACE AFTER THE ~ A V Y HAD PLACED ME ON LWOP, ONLY AFTER THEY WERE FULLY AWARE I WAS H O S P I T A L I Z E D FOR S U R G E R I E S THEY CAUSED. I T OCCURRED AT THE SAME T I M E A L L MY EMPLOYEE B E N E F I T S WERE E I T H E R D E N I E D OR WITHHELD ( D I S A B I L I T Y RETIREMENT, S I P , WORKERS' COMPENSATION, V L T P ) . THE NAVY WITHHELD B E N E F I T S AND OVERPAID ME TO USE T H I S CONDITION AS LEVERAGE I N T H E I R ATTEMPTS TO I WAS NOT AWARE I HAD BEEN S E T T L E M COMPLAINT ( 9 3 - 6 5 8 8 5 - 0 0 3 ) Y BLACKLISTED DURING T H I S P E R I O D .

.

T H I S L I S T WAS INTENDED T O BE KEPT SECRET FROM EMPLOYEES WHO F I L E D COMPLAINTS. FOR THE MANY YEARS I WORKED A T NADEP ALAMEDA, I NEVER MR. ROBERT E L L I O T , THE ONLY OTHER HEARD MENTION O F T H I S L I S T . SEVERELY DISABLED EMPLOYEE, WHO USES A WHEELCHAIR, HAS ALSO NEVER HEARD O F T H I S L I S T , ALTHOUGH HE WORKED I N PERSONNEL AND THEN LATER WORKED DIRECTLY WITH NAVY COUNSEL ON EEO MATTERS. H E B E L I E V E S HE WAS NOT MADE PRIVY TO T H I S LIST BECAUSE HE ALSO HAD MADE EEO COMPLAINTS AGAINST NADEP ALAMEDA (CURRENTLY PENDING I N SAN FRANCISCO D I S T R I C T COURT). OTHER EMPLOYEES WHO WORKED I N THE EEO O F F I C E , WHO HAD NOT MADE COMPLAINTS, HOWEVER, .DID F I N D OUT ABOUT THIS LIST.

THERE ARE NUMEROUS FORMER NADEP ALAEDA EMPLOYEES WHO m 'CURRENTLY UNAWARE THAT T H E I R NAMES AND THE STATUS O F T H E I R COMPLAINTS WERE PUBLISHED AND ADVERSELY USED AGAINST THEM I N S E L E C T I O N FOR PROMOTION, HAVING THE NAVY RECOMMEND WAIVER O F OVERPAYMENTS, ETC. T H I S GROUP I S QUITE LARGE AS T H I S P R A C T I C E TOOK PLACE OVER A P E R I O D O F YEARS.

I D I D NOT RECEIVE THE S U P E R V I S O R ' S DECLARATIONS (WHO DENIED ME PERMANENT PROMOTION WITH BARBARA THOMAS) U N T I L AFTER THE FORMAL PART O F THE NAVY'S I N V E S T I G A T I O N HAD ENDED, THUS BLOCKING MY
PAGE 2 O F 5

Case 3:07-cv-04952-JSW

Document 10-3

Filed 12/26/2007

Page 3 of 5

A B I L I T Y TO ADD PERMANENT PROMOTION TO THE L I S T O F LENGTHY ALLEGATIONS. I WAS TOLD THERE WAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE T O SUBMIT A COMPLAINT BUT THEN I WAS NOT ALLOWED TO ADD I T AFTER THE FORMAL I N V E S T I G A T I O N , AT THE EEOC LEVEL, OR EVEN AT THE D I S T R I C T COURT LEVEL. I WAS TOLD BY MY P R I O R ATTORNEY THAT I T D I D NOT MATTER THAT T H I S ALLEGATION WAS NOT S P E C I F I C A L L Y INCLUDED BECAUSE THE NAVY HAD ADMITTED T O DISCRIMINATION TO THE TEMPORARY G S - 1 2 PROMOTION THAT COULD HAVE BEEN MADE PERMANENT. I T APPEARS T H I S ALLEGATJON HAS BZEN COfiTINUALLY BLOCKEu. I HAD BEEN DISCRIMINATED AGAINST REGARDING TEMPORARY PROMOTIONS Y BY BARBARA THOMAS, MARY MARKS AND JEWEL T E D R I C K , M F I R S T AND SECOND L I N E SUPERVISORS. NAVY COUNSEL D I D NOT ADDRESS T H I S I S S U E . HAD I T NOT BEEN FOR THE D I S C R I M I N A T I O N I SUFFERED AT THE HANDS O F BllRBARA THOMAS, MARY MARKS AND JEWEL T E D R I C K , I T I S MORE THAN LIKELY I WOULD HAVE BEEN PROMOTED TO A GS-12 OR G S - 1 3 SEVERAL YEARS AGO. I BEGAN WORK FOR BARBARA THOMAS I N 1888 AND NEVER R E C E I V E D ANOTHER I HAD PROMOTION THROUGH THE DATE I WAF FORCED T O LEAVE I N 1 9 9 2 . CONSISTENTLY RECEIVED PROMOTIONS BEFORE BEGINNING WORK FOR MS. MS. THOMAS CONSISTENTLY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST M I N EVERY E THOMAS. CATEGORY O F MY WORK AND I T I S INCONCEIVABLE THAT S H E WOULD NOT HAVE INFLUENCED SUCH A C R I T I C A L AREA, S I N C E THE NAVY INVESTIGATOR FOUND EVEN TEMPORARY PROMOTION D I S C R I M I N A T I O N .
MS. THOMAS STATED TO EVERYONE THAT I D I D NOT NEED A J O B AND SHOULD STAY HOME BECAUSE I WAS "HANDICAPPED." I T D I D NOT MATTER THAT I WAS FUNCTIONAL PRIOR TO MY SEVERE NON-ACCOMMODATIONS AND HARSH EMOTIONAL TREATMENT O F ME. ALL EVALUATIONS FOR PROMOTTONS WFNT THROUGH MS. THOMAS, S O SHE WAS AWARE O F EVERY P O S I T I O N I A P P L I E D FOR WHILE I WORKED FOR HER AND THUS WAS ABLE TO PROVIDE ADVERSE INFLUENCE. S H E , ALONG WITH MS. TEDRICX, REFUSED TO ALLOW ME TO P A R T I C I P A T E I N THE WOMEN'S EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP PROGRAM, -FUSED TO PROVIDE ME A PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY PROMOTION, OR EVEN A D E T A I L T O A GS-12 WHICH WOULD HAVE COST NO MONEY. SHE ADAMANTLY REFUSED TO PROVIDE ANY DOCUMENTATION THAT I WAS PERFORMING G S - 1 2 D U T I E S FOR HER OWN P O S I T I O N WHEN SHE WAS ON LEAVE.

SHE HAD ME ACTING I N HER BEHALF FOR LENGTHY P E R I O D S , ALTHOUGH S H E REFUSED T O G I V E ME ANY V I S I B L E C R E D I T . I T I S A CERTAINTY MS. THOMAS, MS. TEDRICK AND MS. MARKS ACTIVELY BLOCKED AND DENIED ME PERMANENT PROMOTIONS. T H E I R ATTITUDES ARE EVIDENT I N T H E I R PREVIOUS DECLARATIONS FOR C 9 7 - 0 0 5 3 4 DLJ. I T . I S S T A T E D I N THE 1 1 - 7 - 9 6 F I N A L SECRETARY O F THE NAVY D E C I S I O N THIS THAT I SHOULD RECEIVE AT LEAST TEMPOXARY PROMOTION TO G S - 1 2 . NEVER TOOK PLACE AND THE $ 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 ENTRY O F JUDGEMENT ALSO INCLUDED A L L ATTORNEY AND COURT C O S T S . T I T L E V I I DAMAGES WERE NOT I WAS NOT EVEN PROVIDED THE W I T H I N GRADE INCREASES I CONSIDERED. WOULD HAVE EARNED AS A G S - 1 1 , HAD I NOT BEEN PERMANENTLY I N J U R E D ON THE J O B . PAGE 3 O F 5

Case 3:07-cv-04952-JSW

Document 10-3

Filed 12/26/2007

Page 4 of 5

THE S U P E R V I S O R S WHOM WERE STXONGLY RECOMMXDPD BE D I S C I P L I N E D FOR T H E I R SUBSTANTIAL D I S C R I M I N A T I O N CONTINUED TO BE PROMOTED A N D ~ --~ ~ REASSIGNED. IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN INTENTIONAL FOR THIS TO TAKE PLACE, BUT THERE I S THE D E F I N I T E APPEARANCE O F REWARDING RATHER THAN P U N I S H I N G T H E S E EMPLOYEES FOR T H E I R BEHAVIOR. THE COMMANDING O F F I C E R , CAPTAIN WAYNE S M I T H , THE R E S P O N S I B L E NAVAL AVIATION DEPOT ALAMEDA O F F I C I A L DURING M COMPLAINT, HAS NOW BEEN Y APPOINTED AN ADMIRAL. ALTHOUGH HE WAS AWARE O F M COMPLATNT AND Y THE RETALIATORY U S E O F THE " B L A C K L I S T , " I T WAS DECIDED MY COMPLAINT WOULD NOT BE S E T T L E D U N T I L HE R E C E I V E D H I S PROMOTION TO ADMIRAL AND THE BASE HAD CLOSED. T H I S I S EXACTLY WHAT OCCURRED.

-

~

I HAVE BEEN CONTACTED CONCERNING PRIVACY RIGHTS INVASION APPROXIMATELY A COUPLE MONTHS BACK BY A MAJOR T V CHANNEL (EMERALD YEH) REGARDING RETALIATORY, S E C R E T I V E EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES. SHE WAS AWARE O F M COMPLAINT THROUGH OTHER MEDIA. AT THE T I M E I SPOKE Y WITH HER, I WAS UNAWARE O F NADEP ALAMEDA'S BLACKLISTING POLICY AGAINST EMPLOYEES WHO F I L E D COMPLAINTS AND THE RESULTING ADVERSE IMPACT REGARDING T H E I R FUTURE PROMOTIONS, E T C . I POSTPONED CONTACT PENDING THE ANTICIPATED SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE NOW SCHEDULED 7-289 8 , WHICH HAD NOT YET BEEN SCHEDbLED WHEN I S P O m ' W I T H HER. THERE I S MUCH I N T E R E S T I N RETALIATORY EMPLOYMENT P R A C T I C E S AT T H I S T I M E .
THE NAVY MAINTAINED THEY D I D NOT HARM ME PHYSICALLY OR EMOTIONALLY THROUGHOUT THE LENGTHY EEO ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS. BY 1994 I HAD OVERWHELMING MEDICAL EVIDENCE REGARDING MY P H Y S I C A L AND EMOTIONAL DAMAGES. HOWEVER, DUE T O THE U R G E PENDING EEO COMPLAINT, T H I S EVIDENCE WAS S U P P R E S S E D . I AM J U S T NOW BEING PLACED ON WORKERS' COMPENSATION FOR PERMANENT I N J U R Y ON THE J O B . THE P H Y S I C A L AGGRAVATION CLAIM HAD BEEN APPROVED THROUGH 6 - 9 7 , EVEN A T - T H E T I M E O F THE ENTRY O F JUDGEMENT.. YET, THE NAVY REFUSED TO A S S I S T ME I N ANY WAY T O OBTAIN A B E N E F I T I WAS F U L L Y ' E N T I T L E D T O . I N S T E A D , THE NAVY ATTORNEY'S LAST LETTER REGARDING THE 11-7-96 F I N A L SECRETARY O F THE NAVY D E C I S I O N , STATED OUTRIGHT THE NAVY SHOULD NOT.HAVE TO PAY FOR THE I N J U R Y WHICH THEY KNOWINGLY CAUSED. THIS IS UNREASONABLE FROM ANY P E R S P E C T I V E . WHY WAS I NOT A S S I S T E D I N I WAS TOLD THE NAVY WOULD S T I P U L A T E TO OBTAINING T H I S B E N E F I T ? THE EEO A S P E C T S , BUT NOT THE DOL A S P E C T S . DOL COMPLIED WITH THE NAVY'S WISHES AND MY CLAIMS WERE CONS1STENTL.Y BLOCKED. T H I S I S BLATANTLY RETALIATORY.
ONCE M DOL CLAIM HAD BEEN APPROVED, DOL (WHO WORKED COOPERATIVELY Y WITH T H E NAVY THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS) ATTEMPTED T O U S E THE $ 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 ENTRY O F JUDGEMENT AS A C R E D I T TOWARD T H E I R L I A B I L I T Y . DOL SENT ME T O 3 O F THE 5 DOCTORS WHO PERFORMED INDEPENDENT EVALUATIONS ON ME. ALL 5 DOCTORS V E R I F I E D I WAS PERMANENTLY I N J U R E D BY M NAVY WORK. Y

LIKEWISE, THE NAVY R E F U S ~ DTO RECOMMEND WAIVER OF THE OVERPAYMENT WHICH THEY HAD INTENTIONALLY CAUSED, UNLESS I WOULD DROP MY P R I O R COMPLAINT. WHEN I QUESTIONED HOW T H E NAVY COULD SPEAK FOR DFAS, WHEN THEY HAD ALREADY DENIED ME WAIVER WITHOUT EXPLANATION, I WAS PAGE 4 O F 5

Case 3:07-cv-04952-JSW

Document 10-3

Filed 12/26/2007

Page 5 of 5

..

~

:

TOLD,

" I T S ALL ONE GOVERNMENT MS. HORVATH.

"

FROM 1988 THROUGH 1 9 9 2 , WHEN I WAS FORCED I N T O NUMEROUS SURGERIES DUE TO NAVY CONDUCT, I T I S MORE THAN PROBABLE 1 WOULD HAVE RECEIVED AT LEAST ONE PROMOTION. BUT, OVER A NORMAL WORK L I F E , HAD I NOT BEEN PERMANENTLY I N J U R E D , I T I S A CERTAINTY I WOULD HAVE REACHED G S - 1 2 , AT A MINIMUM. THE F I N A L AGENCY D E C I S I O N , DATED NOVEMBER 7 , 1 9 9 6 CONCLUDED .THAT I WAS "DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BASED ON M RACE AND PHYSICAL D I S A B I L I T Y Y WHEN I WAS DENIED REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR MY D I S A B I L I T Y , DENIED TEMPORARY PROMOTIONS, DENIED COMPUTER TRAINING AND WHEN I WAS HARASSED. " THERE WERE YEARS OF EGREGIOUS CONDUCT UNDERLYING THE FACTUAL B A S I S O F THE F I N D I N G O F FAILURE TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR M PHYSICAL D I S A B I L I T Y AND THE FINDING I WAS ROUTINELY HARASSED Y BASED ON M RACE AND D I S A B I L I T Y . Y THE PATTERN O F M R E C E I V I N G Y PERMANENT PROMOTIONS, P R I O R TO BEGINNING WORK FOR MS. THOMAS, MS. TEDRICK AND MS. HW.KS COMBINED WITH THE EFFECT OF YEARS O F NOT RECEIVING PROMOTIONS, D E T A I L S TO HIGHER GRADES, T R A I N I N G AND SUPERVISORY SUPPORT THAT OTHERS R ~ C E I V E D , WHO DID NOT SUFFER YEARS OF DISCRIMINATION, PROVIDE A RATIONAL ARGUMENT FOR MY R E C E I V I N G A T LEAST ONE PROMOTION BOTH FOR THE YEARS I WORKED FOR MS. THOMAMAS, ( 1 9 8 0 THROUGH 1 9 9 2 ) AND INTO THE FUTURE A T WHATEVER DATE I WOULD HAVE NORMALLY RETIRED, ABSENT BEING PERMANENTLY PHYSICALLY AND EMOTIONALLY HARMED. PERMANENT PROMOTION I S DOUBLY REASONABLE SINCE THE NAVY CONSISTENTLY THWARTED MY ATTEMPTS TO OBTAIN M WORKERS'COMPENSATION Y U N T I L 5 D I F F E R E N T DOCTORS UNEQUIVOCALLY AFFIRMED I HAD BEEN PERMANENTLY DISABLED BY M WORK. Y THERE, I S NO EXPLANATION OTHER I HAVE NEVER R E C E I V E D ANY THAN RETALIATION FOR T H I S NON-SUPPORT. TYPE OF CONDOLENCE FROM THE NAVY AND T H I S FURTHER EMPHASIZES THE NAVY'S ATTITUDE REGARDING MY CASE. MS. MARKS HAD EVEN STATED TO E DOL THAT SHE HAD NEVER KNOWN M T O HAVE A WHEELCHAIR AND I F I WAS EXPERIENCING ANY EMOTIONAL E F F E C T S I T WAS MY OWN FAULT. THE PROGRESSIVE RESULTS O F EXTENSIVE D I S C R I M I N A T I O N WAS PERMANENT INJURY AND LOSS OF MY CAREER. PERMANENT PROMOTION I S AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY. OVERALL RETALIATION I S EVIDENT I N THAT THE NAVY NEVER PROVIDED AN EXPLANATION O F WHY T H I S CASE WAS NOT S E T T L E D I N 1 9 9 3 , WHEN THE EVIDENCE WAS PROVIDED A T THAT T I M E . THE CONTINUED RETALIATION APPEARS TO BE THE R E A E N F O a T H I S IYACTION. PAULINE HORVATH /f/kIW/$' CC: O F F I C E O F HOROWITZ & RUBINOFF OF0 ENCL: MEDICAL REPORTS OF DR. DAVID KNEAPLER, DR. JOHN HEGE AND DR. BRIAN KAYE. MEDIA A R T I C L E S FROM SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE AND NEW MOBILITY MAGAZINE. PAGE 5 O F 5

i

76wQ1fl