Previous Entry Share
Complete Statement Sent to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) about Peter Gidas.
pshropshire
I'll be writing more about this. I'm going to go public with this because when I heard about the tragic and needless Christopher Donner murders I nonetheless knew exactly how he felt. Dorner was, if you've read the critical press at all, essentially railroaded out of his job by the thin blue line. This is actually common not only for black people but poor working men and women of any color. The courts are stacked against you but you can prevail. But it takes patience (Don't ever enter a court case thinking that it could be solved quickly. You need to think 3 to five years minimum.) to work your way through the court system.

So I'm going public with my own case. I'm currently in the process of suing Gidas Flowers. I believe I was fired illegally. I think that black people need to step up and fight bigots, especially somewhat obvious ones like Peter Gidas, who last I looked ran an all white store in the middle of Oakland, which makes me think you're making an effort. I also know that this is an uphill battle as we're going to witness. And I would never bring a case that I wasn't 99 percent sure that I was going to win, either with settlement or with a jury verdict. It's still hard. But I still think once this gets into a courtroom with a stronger evidence standard I will have a stronger case.

Anyway, I wanted to publish the main argument that I sent to the PHRC and mention that, in my opinion, Peter Gidas is one of the worst bosses I've ever had and one of the worst people that I've ever had the displeasure of working with. It's also my impression that everyone else at the office couldn't stand him either and that includes his kids who work for him. Just a stuttering, dim witted, racist liar that Peter Gidas who, unfortunately, is well protected by the American Court System and probably the republican Tom Corbett controlled PHRC. But we shall see. I lost the first round. I will appeal.

UPDATE and CLARIFICATION:

This was a statement I sent before the initial ruling against me. Here is part of the statement I sent to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) complaining about their verdict against me. Catherine Leete didn't do a very good job. Here is the summary of that statement:
.

Summary: So to sum up we think we think we've presented a very compelling case to the reviewer. And if the PHRC no longer advocates on behalf of the victims of racial discrimination then we would ask that the EEOC perform a Substantial Weight Review of the PHRC's final finding.
Just to document the atrocities as it were: We believe that PHRC investigator Catherine Leete did not act impartially because she seemed to cover up the fact that Peter Gidas is in violation of state law regarding false statements and also seemed to ignore this violation by taking his side on almost every subjective issue where the credibility (or in this case incredulity) of the witness should have been taken into account. We not only believe but know that Catherine Leete hid evidence against me and used these statements to form her final determination. We believe that PHRC investigator Catherine Leete committed clear errors of fact or exaggerated the claims of Peter Gidas in order to bolster what is fundamentally a very weak case. Peter Gidas is in for a rude awakening once he's introduced to either the state or federal Rules of Evidence. We also believe that PHRC investigator entered "conclusionary" statements as evidence without any written objective documentation whatsoever. With argument B we argue that subjective evidence -- evidence that is claimed without proof or written documentation -- can't overcome the retaliation claim in the same way that it can't overcome a motion for summary judgment. A retaliatory termination that happened mere hours after a final email declaring that I would be filing a complaint with both the EEOC and the PHRC. With argument C we make the argument that pitting your one lone black employee with hand maps against white co workers with GPS apps violates just about every standard of "fair testing" put forth by both the EEOC and PHRC. We also believe that PHRC investigator Catherine Leete ignored all proofs of pretext including the one where serial liar Peter Gidas pretty much lied to her face about me not telling him about my concerns or my right to sue. We also believe that alleged impartial PHRC investigator Catherine Leete cherry picked the evidence to help respondents and then misinterpreted this evidence where she demonstrates that she doesn't even know the difference between subjective and objective evidence. So, you know, the "little things".
We respectfully ask that this case be assigned further review by the PHRC or that the EEOC begin its Substantial Weight Review.

. You can read the full statement and rebuttal.

Here is the statement I sent during the intiial investigation.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
PENNSYLVANIA HUMAN RELATIONS

PHILIP SHROPSHIRE                          )
Complainant                                             )
                                                                  )
v.                                                                  )
                                                                   )
Peter Gidas                                                 )                                                                       
Gidas Flowers                                            )
Thompson's Decorators, Inc.              )
Respondents



PHRC Case No. 2011104733
EEOC No. 17F201261451


Complainant's Answer to Respondent's Answer and New Matter (Spoiler alert: Defense concedes retaliation claim...)



I Introductory statement and types of pretext

A.) We feel that the defendants have failed to answer the complaint with enough specificity (times, dates, objective measurements such as timed routes from Google maps, etc.), as outlined in Supreme Court Doctrine to effectively counter either the age or race complaints and therefore are still guilty of vague and subjective comments which, when uttered by white managers like Peter Gidas, are almost always proof of pretext and a ready tool for discriminatory intent and action.

B.) Furthermore, we think that the comment that the defense constantly repeats about me being "litigious" is proof that he's guilty of retaliation. I should point out, and my statement is in a email that was timed and dated, that he referred to me exercising my rights under Title VII and all other applicable laws as being "threats". The EEOC found in my favor on a retaliation claim on an indirect comment about a previous legal proceeding on a failure to hire case I filed several years ago. Here you have direct evidence, repeated multiple times by the defendant. I mean, that guy who shot the black kid in Florida may have thought the black kid was "litigious". But don't be surprised if he gets 5 to 10 on a manslaughter charge. Likewise, Peter Gidas is guilty of retaliation even if he thinks he's being "threatened".

We now proceed to rebut the rest of the Defendant's "Answer and New Matter".




II Underlying Facts.

4. Denied. We're pretty certain that's when the unlawful conduct occurred.

5. Agreed.

6. Denied. It was definitely Peter Gidas' fault here. The way this worked is that Peter had to call in the final numbers before noon or at least before my shift ended which meant that I couldn't fill out the time card to get hours on Wednesday. That was his job. Not mine. I should point out that this isn't what made me angry about this. We all make mistakes. It's that it took him about five days to pay me what I was owed. When all he had to do was go to the front of the store, take out 40 dollars from the register, and pay me what I'm owed right then and there. The reason it would have been nice to have been paid sooner is that I could no longer afford to pay my cell phone which means I could not respond to calls placed to me in the field. Those were the "extenuating circumstances".

We do find that it fits a pattern of racial hostility aimed towards the company's lone black employee, as far as my eyes could tell. Please give us the names of any other black employees.

III Count One

7. The answers and denials of paragraphs I, II and 1 through 6 above are incorporated here.

8. Affirmed in part, denied in part. Just for the record I just turned 50. I was born on April 2, 1962. I believe I'm a part of the protected class. I deny the defendant's denials.

9.  Affirmed in part, denied in part. What exactly is counsel disagreeing with for the record? I deny the defendant's denials.

10. Affirmed and Agreed! The date was incorrect in the amended complaint. I usually write my own briefs so its easier to catch mistakes. The reason why this date is important is that it confirms the retaliation claim. We'll be coming back to this Sept. 22nd date later.

11. Denied in full and with anger. Let's take this one sentence at a time.

A. By way of further response, Mr. Shropshire's employment was terminated because he consistently failed to meet performance expectations.

There are no written performance expectations given to Flower Delivery Drivers. The other problem is that even if there were racist white bosses like Peter Gidas can "juke the stats" as they say to get the results they want. Peter Gidas was too lazy to even do that. (I mean, usually, when people build files they do it in writing, not by way of verbal hearsay.) Counsel has also provided no written proof, with say a time or date on it, that I violated any performance standards whatsoever. Whatever those standards are. I ask opposing counsel to please provide written evidence proving how I failed to meet performance expectations as opposed to hearsay and fantasy.

Just some ground rules:

1. A Date.
2. A Time. August 2004? January 2033? Give us a clue Peter Gidas.
3. Comparative routes. I'm late compared to who and what were their routes?  Was I late compared to the time estimates of Google maps? Have you ever had to make several deliveries in Oakland during heavy traffic? You can't compare somebody's work product who does deliveries to the North Side, West Penn and Greenfield compared to somebody who has five walk by drops several blocks from the office! We need to see Peter and Frank's routes as well
4. Time for routes as judged by Google maps or some other impartial source compared to my arrival times. This was never done when I worked for Gidas Flowers.

Just for the record, we also need to quote case law on how this works.  From Patrick v. Ridge, a fifth circuit appeals case that cites McDonnell Douglas:

Fatal to the INS's [first] position here is the well-established rule that, to meet its burden of production under McDonnell Douglas, an employer must articulate a nondiscriminatory reason with 'sufficient clarity' to afford the employee a realistic opportunity to show that the reason is pretextual," Wiener wrote. "This does not mean that an employer may not rely on subjective reasons for its personnel decisions. It does mean, though, that to rebut an employee's prima facie case, a defendant employer must articulate in some detail a more specific reason than its own vague and conclusional feeling about the employee," he said.


Defendant's counsel offers nothing in the way of detail so its impossible for me to rebut effectively. Just because you add a number doesn't mean you've added specifics.

Furthermore, we assert that this lack of written documentation is yet another proof of pretext. Or as it states in Lloyd v. Georgia Gulf Corp., 961 F.2d 1190 (5th Cir. 1992):

We have very recently held that, when an employer’s stated
motivation for an adverse employment decision involves the
employee’s performance, but there is no supporting
documentation, a jury can reasonably infer pretext. Walther v.
Lone Star Gas Co., 952 F.2d 119, 124 (5th Cir. 1992). See also
Hansard v. Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co., 865 F.2d 1461,
1465 (5th Cir. 1989) (“where the only evidence of intent is oral
testimony, a jury could always choose to discredit it.”) (quoting
Bhaya v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 832 F.2d 258, 262 (3d Cir.
1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1004, 109 S.Ct. 782, 102 L.Ed.2d
774 (1989)); Guthrie v. J.C. Penney Co., 803 F.2d 202, 207 (5th
Cir. 1986). The jury heard a great deal of testimony regarding
Lloyd’s performance problems, but concluded that he was
terminated in violation of the LADEA. This conclusion is
reasonable in light of the complete lack of documentation to
support Georgia Gulf’s assertion that Lloyd’s performance was
unsatisfactory.

I should also note that I emphatically and repeatedly asked for clarifications about policy and specifics numerous times. Here's what I wrote in my email, dated Sept 20, 2011, 4:26 pm.

For the record, I have completed every delivery I've been given on time. I also have received no complaints from the public. I am sorry that I'm not doing some of the deliveries quickly enough but I should point out that I'm not deliberately trying to slow down in the afternoon nor would it be worth the extra two to four dollars for me to attempt to do so. I must also note that you have offered no proof, whatsoever, that I'm deliberately slowing down during routes. None. Zip. And no your gut doesn't count when you're dealing with traffic in Oakland.

Again, for the record, these are things that cause deliveries to go slower than they should.

Bad addresses: Sometimes the addresses are correct but the zip code is wrong, which puts you in a completely different area of the field maps that I've been using. It takes time to figure that out. This can cost you anywhere from 10 to 15 minutes.

Lack of GPS: GPS takes you directly to addresses in the quickest way possible. But most importantly, it also takes you away from the wrong address and the wrong route. So you're not attempting to enter a one way street from the wrong direction. This can also cost you 10 to 15 minutes.

Learning the routes: it takes time to figure out the best way to do these routes. And even how to do stops that are done quite a bit. For example, during my training with Pete (with the purple fingernails) I never did the New children's hospital or even Montefiore. So the first time I went to Children's I used the receiving dock, which took me awhile. Since then, I've been driving into the front. Montefore doesn't allow me to  park out front like I did when I was with Medspeed so I had to learn to use Level 5 in order to make my deliveries. So I can do those places now very very quickly. Reasonable bosses, who aren't hypercritical, understand this. Medspeed even understood this. Are you using an illegal motivation to not understand this?

Plain Ol Traffic: Sometimes there is no fast way to move through the Oakland corridor. Every route has a traffic signal or a stop sign. I think the helicopter that goes to Presby is the only fast route that I know of. Even then, if you invested in a free GPS app with brower capability you could use Google maps to do real time analysis of traffic patterns.

Comparing my work product with people who do use GPS: Brad and Peter, and probably Frank, all have access to GPS apps through their cell phones. I have kind of a cheapie cell phone that doesn't allow me to easily do this if at all. The cost is zip. These applications are free. Furthermore, these applications should allow you to track me!

Again, the defendant offered no written documentation that anything he's saying is actually true, or even provable. That's called pretext.


B. Specifically, Mr Shropshire would take approximately one half hour to forty five minutes longer than expected for many of his delivery trips.

Denied and please offer some proof. This was never told to me while I worked at Gidas Flowers, not orally and certainly not in writing.

And "specifically", you offer no specifics. Nothing. Did these events even occur on this planet because I would like to know. Please provide proof. Just for the record, I was only reprimanded twice verbally by Peter over alleged "lateness" out of over an estimated more than 100 deliveries that I successfully made. These events both occurred in the morning and I gave, to use Samantha's language, "reasonable factors" to explain way I couldn't have gotten back sooner whatever that meant. I should also point out to the trier of fact that during my final day of work I wasn't verbally reprimanded for anything. In fact, I was fired several hours over the phone after I sent an email saying that I was definitely going to sue Gidas Flowers for race discrimination. I believe that was the clear trigger.

Please provide more proof than a conclusionary statement. This way I could actually rebut it. See my response to III 11a for help. Please provide some documented proof. Undocumented proof is defined as "pretext".

Oh, and for the record, I was never told that specific time during my tenure, probably because the number was in Peter's head and whatever it was I was sure not to make it. I did ask for specifics in my Sept. 20 email. I also asked for a GPS numerous times, also documented in my Sept. 20th email.


C. Because of this, other delivery drivers would often be required to pick up Mr. Shropshire's inability to complete his trips.

Yeah, again. Okay when did this happen? I remember the opposite of that happening. I refer to one of the drivers as being "barely ambulatory" not to be derogatory but really: Frank was barely ambulatory when I worked with him. I can't recall if it was knee or back problems but he could barely walk. So, when it came time to do Magee in the afternoon runs mostly, which has been undergoing renovations since April 2011 I was given those deliveries, which I did because I knew Frank couldn't walk because some of the elevators were inoperable. In other words, Frank had to do some real walking which he really couldn't do very well.

Here is the written link, which also illustrates the repairs I'm talking about. If you were to ask anyone who works there  you would discover that some of the elevators were disabled. You had to do a lot of walking and Frank couldn't cheat.

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/business/news/magee-womens-to-expand-icu-add-beds-292135/


We address this problem in 11a. Please provide written documentation if you have any.


D. Additionally, other employees who needed this company van to make deliveries or to return home at the end of their shifts, were often delayed due to Mr. Shropshire's inability to complete his trips in a quick and efficient manner.


Violently denied. This is a new problem that I was never told of when I was working there at Gidas flowers. Specifics, please. A time and a date would be nice. By the way, Catherine and Samantha, I've got some good news for you: we can do a test for that. We can pick four areas in the county, take pics, Then we can compare this to the times rendered in google maps. But this time it will be a fair test. And I'll have GPS this time. If I come in a half hour to 45 minutes after the time rendered in the maps or the comparative times of other white drivers  -- we have to test them too that would only be fair -- then I would withdraw from the case. Of course, if I meet those times then Peter Gidas would have to admit that he fired me because of race. (Note: We would have to discuss conditions for the test. But I'm willing...)

E. Mr. Peter Gidas repeatedly discussed performance expectations with Mr. Shropshire and also asked if there was anything the company could do to assist him, including providing him assistance mapping out routes.

Denied. Peter Gidas is a liar. No nice way to say that. Unless you define "repeatedly" as twice. One verbal warning then another warning outside the office saying that I would be fired if I didn't get back faster, whatever that meant. Total time for both of the meetings about "performance expectations":  Three minutes.  I should also point out that I wasn't admonished for "lateness" my last day of employment. I was fired about three hours after I wrote an email that I was definitely filing a complaint about these subjective standards. That was the trigger.

F. However, Mr. Shropshire denied that this was a problem.

Denied. The whole purpose of the Sept. 20th email was to define the problem better so that I could solve it. Why would I repeatedly ask for GPS if I wasn't interested in solving the problem of very subjective and vague "lateness"? I should point out that it hasn't been proven that I was late for anything. I will also mention again that I was not even verbally admonished for "lateness" my final day of work. I should point out that by asking for GPS tracking I was solving the alleged pretextual problem. It's probably why Peter didn't want to do it!

In fact, not only did I not deny the problem -- although I should stress that this would be a problem that would never be solved by Peter in that its subjective basis would be a ready made tool for discrimination -- I offered a way for Peter Gidas to cheaply (about 100 bucks for the phone or about a tenth of what he's already paid to Samantha Clancy...)track me while making my deliveries! Why did I want that? Because tracking technology would also prove that I was doing my job! In fact, when I spent a year making deliveries for Medspeed, I carried a GPS phone with me. I'm sure they never mentioned that they were probably tracking me or had the tech to do so. And that was fine because I'm an honest hardworking person and the tracking would show me doing my job. Period.

G. Further, Mr. Shropshire made derogatory comments about other employees, including referring to another employee as "barely ambulatory". He also called Company management "jerks" and accused the company of poor financial performance.

Denied. The first claim is a lie. The second claim is taken widely out of context. And the third claim was offered in the company's defense for failing to pay me the money I was owed in a quick and efficient manner.

Frank was, or at least he was, when I worked with him in 2011, barely able to walk. It was also clear to me that he was in pain at times. It was simply a statement of fact as far as I can tell. In fact, I felt sorry for him. Also, in the afternoon, I think on Wednesdays (My entire career at Gidas flowers was only 10 to 15 days out of a month. I worked two or three days a week with five to seven hour shifts.) I was asked to do the deliveries to Magee where the elevators were undergoing repairs and you had to walk to places.

The second statement, proving that they receive my emails which is good,  was taken out of context. I believe I used jerk indirectly as kind of a verbal proof as to the kinds of people I write about online. Here is the entire graph, not taken out of context. Oh, and I'll do something magical that the defendants can't do: here's a time and date for the written correspondence. Exciting I know. I can actually prove things I said.

From: Philip Shropshire <pshropshire@yahoo.com>
To: "orders@gidasflowers.com" <orders@gidasflowers.com>
Cc: "LGidas@gidasflowers.com" <LGidas@gidasflowers.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:26 PM
Subject: Still no word on if its Wednesday or Friday...


Here is the entire graph, unedited:

PPS: I usually make it a habit of not writing about companies that I work for online. However, I do make exceptions for jerks. People who don't pay me in a timely fashion or mysteriously reduce my hours are "jerks" . Please pay me what I'm owed...You should be aware by now from my last email that I'm in fact an online journalist. Everything you say or do to me can be placed into the public record.

It should be noted that I did not place this into the public record, yet. In other words, that would be the fulfillment of the "jerk" statement. However, after reading this statement I do believe that Peter Gidas is a racist liar, who offers no verifiable proof for anything he states. That might make it into the public record one day. You never know.

12. Denied. The point is that if these standards were applied then all of your white drivers should have been discharged. They weren't because they were the right color. And proof that Peter does his deliveries in a timely manner? Any?

13. Denied. See full answer to III 11 for further rebuttal. I should point out that the age and color of co workers is irrelevant in civil rights law. It used to be relevant in the early 90s when I first started looking at the case law but no longer. On the other hand, since you can offer no other black employees as cover in the next count we should probably presume that you're conceding the race claim. How can you not have a single African American employee in 2011, unless you're making an illegal effort?

14. Denied. We believe they're in violation.

15. Denied. Right now you're looking at a jury trial and a punitive damage request of a quarter of a million dollars. I like my hand. How about you?

IV Count 3 Race Discrimination

16. I incorporate by reference each of their allegations and responses to the proceeding paragraphs as fully as though set forth herein at length.

17. What are they denying again?

18. Denied (Again see my full response to III 11 a through g). But just to go over it: It has not been proven that I was consistently late. I was never told a specific time of lateness. Other delivery drivers and other managers never complained to me about my work. The only person who ever complained about my work effort at Gidas Flowers was Peter Gidas.

(An aside: Those other managers include his son and his daughter. Never received a complaint from them about my work. In fact, I was complimented by the son I believe for making an extra afternoon run to Montefiore. In fact, I happily did the walking Magee deliveries for Frank -- because he was in pain and "barely ambulatory" -- and I believe I did one or two deliveries for Peter (the driver) that were accidentally placed into my vehicle. The only person who I had any problem with was Peter Gidas, or the racist old white man that I often have to find a way to work around.)

No examples of when I didn't perform quickly or efficiently. Mr. Gidas did not repeatedly discuss anything and I should point that I wasn't fired for being late at work (Will repeat this: not admonished for "lateness" my final day of work. I was fired several hours after I stated for the record that I was going to file a civil rights claim.) but after my final legally protected email, dated and timed as usual. Never denied that there wasn't a problem but I did suggest an illegal motive for so transparently trying to build a verbal file, unprovable and unverifiable though it may be. As to alleged derogatory comments, that weren't placed into the public record, but only directed to one Mr. Peter Gidas, please see my full response to III 11 G.

21. Denied. The examples of wrecked vehicles, dropped vases (which would require a several hour return time and not just 30 minutes)  coming to work late (This is something that I saw with my own eyes and knew that I could never get away with as a black man...),  and delivering to the wrong address came from the mouth of Peter Oddi when he was training me for more first week or so. But more gold to be mined from the discovery process. We have no objective proof for anything that Mr. Gidas says about Peter Oddi's work performance and he's lying if he says he doesn't remember any of his white employee's mistakes, although I suppose that would be consistent with the behavior of racist managers. Kind of a selective denial.

22. Denied I guess. I should point out that I believe I was hired by the son and not the father, which explains my hiring.

23. Denied. They're guilty of racial discrimination. Or I guess black people can serve as president of the free world but can't deliver flowers for Peter Gidas. But I would love to see their written proof for ANYTHING THEY SAY. Please prove it.

24. Denied. There are also federal remedies as well. Just like I fulfilled my promise to file complaints with both the EEOC and the PHRC please rest assured that Peter Gidas is going to get sued in either the state or federal courts. I haven't decided which one yet.

IV Count 3 Retaliation With Introductory Statement and Proofs for Retaliation

Introductory statement and proofs for Retaliation.

A. Defendants concede retaliation claim. We believe that the defendants have conceded the retaliation claim. We're going to deny the claims of the defendants specifically but first we need to outline the case for retaliation as outlined by the EEOC. I know this case law pretty well because I won a five figure settlement just several years ago based on this very claim. I should point out that this claim is actually stronger than that previous case. The defendants give us direct evidence in statements 26 and 27.

B. Outline of Retaliation claim by the EEOC. Here is the outline for a retaliation claim.

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/retal.html

First, the EEOC states that there are three factors in a retaliation case. Those factors are listed here:

1)  protected activity -- opposition to discrimination or participation in the statutory complaint process

2)  adverse action

3)  causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action

I gave direct notice about my intent to file a complaint against Gidas Flowers at least four times in writing before I was terminated. I believe an impartial trier of fact or jury could also determine that I made several indirect notices as well. I didn't use words like "pretext" or "hypercritical" accidentally. The adverse action was my termination several hours after my Sept. 22nd email (timed and dated) confirming that I was going to file a claim with the EEOC and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. We also believe that this was the causal connection. How could I be fired for "lateness" on a non work day? It was the email, which was clearly protected speech.


C. There are Two Proofs of Retaliation according to the EEOC. Those proofs are direct evidence and indirect/circumstantial evidence. This is how the EEOC defines direct evidence.

Direct evidence of a retaliatory motive is any written or verbal
statement by a respondent official that s/he undertook the challenged
action because the charging party engaged in protected activity.  Such
evidence also includes a written or oral statement by a respondent
official that on its face demonstrates a bias toward the charging party
based on his or her protected activity, along with evidence linking that
bias to the adverse action.  Such a link could be shown if the statement
was made by the decision-maker at the time of the adverse action\46.
Direct evidence of retaliation is rare.


This is the EEOC's definition of circumstantial evidence:

The most common method of proving that retaliation was the reason
for an adverse action is through circumstantial evidence.  A violation is
established if there is circumstantial evidence raising an inference of
retaliation and if the respondent fails to produce evidence of a
legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the challenged action, or if the
reason advanced by the respondent is a pretext to hide the retaliatory
motive.

We argue that the defendant's constant use of the word "litigious", as a derogatory term about my work performance, rises to the level of direct evidence. I mean, what else could they be talking about? I should also note that ignorance of the law is no defense. This is a clear violation of civil rights discrimination law.

D. Timeline that proves causal relationship between adverse action and protected activity.

I believe I was trying to clarify the deadline for this counter brief Friday afternoon on August 24th 2012 with the investigator and she remarked that she was confused about the timeline. This is the timeline as best as I can recall of the incidents that led to my firing. This did happen a year ago.

Sept. 20th: As it was quite obvious that I was being set up, I wrote a long email where I said I was considering legal action. You already have this in the evidence. But here is the time stamp:

From: Philip Shropshire <pshropshire@yahoo.com>
To: "orders@gidasflowers.com" <orders@gidasflowers.com>
Cc: "LGidas@gidasflowers.com" <LGidas@gidasflowers.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:26 PM
Subject: Still no word on if its Wednesday or Friday...

Sept 21st: I think this is my last day of work or it could have been the 14th. Payroll records could confirm this. We had a meeting, I believe sometime in the morning where I was finally given the $40 dollars I was owed. I mentioned verbally that I was considering legal action against Gidas Flowers. It should also be pointed out that I wasn't even verbally admonished for "lateness" on Wednesday.

Sept 22nd: I send another email to Gidas flowers saying that I'm definitely filing a complaint against Gidas Flowers and that I'm going to file with both the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission and the EEOC.

From: Philip Shropshire <pshropshire@yahoo.com>
To: "orders@gidasflowers.com" <orders@gidasflowers.com>
Cc: "LGidas@gidasflowers.com" <LGidas@gidasflowers.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 10:20 AM
Subject: Attn: Pete Gidas

Several hours later I was fired. It should be noted that the adverse action is directly tied to the email and not work performance. This should be noted. This is illegal even under the Roberts Supreme Court. How could I be fired for work performance on a day that I didn't work?


E: Proof that Peter Gidas is a liar and why we want written proof of assertions.

Here's why we want written proof in a nutshell. Here's what the defendants state in 26 and 27.

Let's be precise here. Here's what they say at 26: "However, Gidas denies that Shropshire made any specific complaints of age, race or other discrimination"

At 27 of their Aug. 10 statement: "However, Mr. Gidas denies that Mr. Shropshire made any specific complaints of age, race or other discrimination."

Okay. Remember those emails. Let's take a look at the one written on Sept. 20, 2011. Now keep in mind that something this innocuous "How can you discriminate?" is considered protected speech for retaliation purposes. I was far more specific than that.

First the time frame:



From: Philip Shropshire <pshropshire@yahoo.com>
To: "orders@gidasflowers.com" <orders@gidasflowers.com>
Cc: "LGidas@gidasflowers.com" <LGidas@gidasflowers.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 4:26 PM
Subject: Still no word on if its Wednesday or Friday...


Okay, Gidas is denying that I ever told him about my intention to sue or give specific examples of discrimination despite the lengthy and example rich Sept. 20 email that I sent him.

1. I have to be honest, if I was being let go, especially after shorting me on my paycheck (!), then I would look into my legal options and probably execute them.


2. Some quick suggestions if you're really concerned about timeliness and if you're arguments aren't mere pretext: Get GPS!


I must point out that these are the same emails that the defendants reference when pointing out my "derogatory" statements. But maybe that's not enough. You need more proof. Okay. Here's the second email. Let's make sure we have a time frame.

From: Philip Shropshire <pshropshire@yahoo.com>
To: "orders@gidasflowers.com" <orders@gidasflowers.com>
Cc: "LGidas@gidasflowers.com" <LGidas@gidasflowers.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 10:20 AM
Subject: Attn: Pete Gidas

Well, I hope this is clear. I should point out that I'm merely repeating what I verbally told him at Wednesday's meeting. So he was told several times, once or twice to his face, and in writing.

How about this?

Well, after our discussion Wednesday where you made it very clear that you would consider firing me for filing a civil rights complaint (what you call "threats") I have decided to go ahead and file civil rights complaints with both the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission and the EEOC. Just for the record, it is illegal to fire someone for filing or making notice of a potential filing of a civil rights complaint.

I should point out that I even told him that his actions were illegal. But wait that's not enough? Well how about this:

2. My case becomes stronger if I'm terminated. Right now you're just looking at harassment and unfair standards.
3. The idea that I would be fired for legitimate cause when some of your other drivers are barely ambulatory strikes me as absurd. I believe a jury will agree with me.

Well, "denial" is one thing. Obfuscation and clear lies are something else entirely. The record, a record that's written down and timed unlike anything that the defendant is offering, would show this denial is either a lie or reckless stupidity. I'm going with "both".  I should also point out that this is clearly "falsity of statements", yet another proof of pretext.

Okay. Let's rebut these one at a time.

25. Our comments are incorporated from 1 -24 as if fully set herein.

26. Denied. Let's go back to the Sept. 20th email:

Are you using an illegal motivation to not understand this?

I realize that Peter Gidas isn't the smartest bulb in the barrel but just for the record: the illegal motivation I refer to here is race. Of course, the Sept. 22 email would seem to have clarified that. Also for the record I believe I was hired by the son and not the father, obviously.

27. Denied. And their "litigious" statement is proof of direct evidence. Title VII is protected and radically so.

28.Agreed and affirmed! This proves my retaliation case.

29. Denied and every utterance is completely unproven. Not a single written document have we seen.

30. Denied, emphatically.

31. Denied. And the defendants are guilty. Guilty guilty and guilty.

32. Why would we lie?

Furthermore, the defendants haven't offered a shred of evidence, other than the information in my own emails which proves my case more than theirs, for anything they say. Their "evidence" would be laughed out of any impartial court and the mostly Republican federal courts are pro employer. I think they would even laugh.

V. New Matter

We also look forward to depositions and discovery.

1. Denied. See all the above and everything from 1 through 32.
2. Denied and specifically rebutted multiple times by my own emails. Why bother to ask for GPS multiple times if I'm not trying to address company concerns, subjective and vague though they may be? Why would a person truly guilty of "lateness" offer to be tracked?
3. Denied. Some evidence for that, please. Something written? Something timed, perhaps?
4. Denied. Peter Gidas did everything wrong an employer could do. He tried to build a verbal file as opposed to a written one that could be verified. He has no objective standards for judging anything. He is a bald faced liar who can't even intelligently read the emails I've given him.
5. Denied. See all the above.
6. Denied. I'm 50 years old and I know when I'm dealing with racist bosses and bosses who are legitimately trying to help for me. The truth of the matter is that I've worked much much harder jobs than delivery jobs. The difference is that while doing the harder jobs I was given objective standards that were uniformly applied. For the record, I worked for Medspeed for about a year. I got bonuses three out of the four quarters that I worked. I currently work for Meals on Wheels part time and I've had no problems working for them so far. The only difference is that Peter Gidas and his imaginary problems are no where to be found.
7. Denied. What performance expectations? And I wasn't fired after coming in late. I was fired several hours after I gave him that email telling him that I was filing discrimination claims. That was the trigger. Proves "temporal proximity".
8. Denied. And prove it.
9. Denied. You should replace the word "none" with "all".
10. Yeah. Good luck.

We respectfully ask that the defendants prove anything they say with anything that can be independently verified before anything is dismissed. If not, especially on the race claim, then we think we win. We may file a separate motion for summary judgment on the Retaliation if I'm up for it.

Respectfully yet angrily submitted,

Philip Shropshire.

By:
Philip Shropshire
pshropshire@yahoo.com


VERIFICATION

I, Philip Shropshire, verify that the statements contained in my "Complainant's Answer to Respondent's Answer and New Matter (Spoiler alert: Defense concedes retaliation claim...)" are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I would be willing to be sworn quite frankly but I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 P.A. C.S. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.

Date: Aug. 28th, 2012

Signature____Philip Shropshire__________
Philip Shropshire

You are viewing pshropshire