This is an unprofessional Collection cite. That wishes for Speech and Debate with Regards to the topics collected and Special Libraried. I wish for defense of Fair Use Doctrine, not for profit, educational collection.

"The new order was tailored to a genius who proposed to constrain the contending forces, both domestic and foreign, by manipulating their antagonisms" "As a professor, I tended to think of history as run by impersonal forces. But when you see it in practice, you see the difference personalities make." Therefore, "Whenever peace-concieved as the avoidance of war-has been the primary objective of a power or a group of powers, the international system has been at the mercy of the most ruthless member" Henry Kissinger
The World market crashed. There was complete blame from the worlds most ruthless power on the world's most protective and meditational power. So I responded with: "We must now face the harsh truth that the objectives of communism [The Communist Chinese Party's (CCP) Economic Espionage Units called the MSS] are being steadily advanced because many of us do not recognize the means used to advance them. ... The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a Conspiracy so monstrous she or he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst" Therefore, like Dr. John Nash would probable think: This is because of our lost state craft of tracing scientific coding in the intelligence community of the algorithmic code of the Communist espionage agents. As "The Communist [CCP's economic espionage units called the MSS] threat from without must not blind us to the Communist [CCP's economic espionage units called the MSS] threat from within. The latter is reaching into the very heart of America through its espionage agents and a cunning, defiant, and lawless communist party, which is fanatically dedicated to the Marxist cause of world enslavement and destruction of the foundations of our Democracy/Republic." J. Edgar Hoover. Which allows the Communist to shape the future and powers that be. As "Our citizens and our future citizens cannot share properly in shaping the future unless we understand the present, for the raw material of events to come is the knowledge of the present and what we make it"
Lieutenant General Leslie R. Groves



http://rideriantieconomicwarfare.blogspot.com/

http://rideriantieconomicwarfaretrisii.blogspot.com/

http://rideriantieconomicwarfaretrisiii.blogspot.com/

http://rideriantieconomicwarfaretrisiv.blogspot.com/


If you have any problem with IP or copyright laws that you feel are in violation of the research clause that allows me to cite them as per clicking on them. Then please email me at ridereye@gmail.com
US Copy Right Office Fair Use doctrine. Special Libary community common law, and Speech and Debate Congressional research civilian assistant. All legal defenses to copy right infringement.

Wruckers room

A Country a People a Culture Stays great cause it does not allow itself to be attacked or oppressed. The USA is currently run by a grid of losers to the Communist Chinese oppression. Racist Latin's leaders more worried about allowing Mexico to invade our grids to take over. African Racist Progressive more worried about taken over US European heritage muscle influence and base closures. European American's more worried about the Communist Chinese Proxy Warriors instead of the root of the matter like we did during the Cold War against the Russian Puppetted state of China's Bolshevist proxy warriors. A grid of losers and not one can figure out a simple plan to get us out of deficit to compete against the Communist State Owned Enterprise's. A country and culture does not stay great cause of some kind of ideological perspective that their theory will win. Even if they are massively being destroyed by a foreign state. Free Trade does not work in a neo-mercantilism world. The US alone has lost 3,000 Export Business over the last 18 years. Accumulative to 55,000 just to the Communist State Owned Enterprises of a mono fascist party state. This then would have been around currently with our civil needs, we would be in $34 trillion dollars of surplus if we would have fought the Communist like we did during the Cold War. As during the cold war we where spending around 15 trillion a year just on space race. These days thanks to oppressed weak leaders we are cutting everything and running scared from grid speech and grid maneuvers.

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Treatise on Political Discrimination In the Hiring Process


"I am not an attorney"
Treatise on Political Discrimination In the Hiring Process
Issue: political line of questioning lead to majority of political conservation in the interview. Then reason given for not hiring the Plaintiff was that the Plaintiff did not fit in.
On REDACTED I was asked to go into an interview. The Manger of REDACTED asked me a little bit about myself. In one of my statements I stated one of my hobbies was politics. The manager then decided to break the law and ask me my political affiliation. The “outrageous” “illegitimate criterion” of an employment question based on California Labor Code Section 98.6 and Section 1101pg 20 http://apps.americanbar.org/labor/eeocomm/mw/Papers/2009/data/papers/19.pdf  and Labor and Employment Law Political Discrimination Treatise
https://litigationessentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=4129+Labor+and+Employment+Law+129.syn&srctype=smi&srcid=38D7&key=530215c1e6e64bf2d471dcc3d2a690d0  and State of California Government Code section 19703 prohibits the asking of any questions relating to political or religious affiliations of any state employee or employment candidate. http://oag.ca.gov/publications/CRhandbook/ch2 gave me a “gut reaction” that made me very scared, and I asked if it mattered.  After that I began talking about my political beliefs. That then directed the majority of the interview towards politics and not my skills. As he then asked me about how I felt about the Presidential Election. This then gave me less than one quarter of the interview on my skills. Thus showing a “substantial negative reliance on an illegitimate criterion.” As the line of question was a “non bona fide business necessity” hiring question. That was designed to create a possible discrimination against me. The "EEOC has defined the act to include intentional discrimination bust also acts that have discriminatory impact"  pg 435 Law of Business 9th edition Barnes Dworkin and Richards. Thus the political questioning had nothing to do with my abilities to sell a product "Court rulings and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") guidelines prohibit the use of all pre-employment inquiries that […]that are a not valid predictors of successful job performance or which cannot be justified by "business necessity." See Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971)" As my political beliefs have no “disparate impact against the business” and if they eliminated the line of questioning it would have no impact on the business as per business necessity standards of Government Code Section 12900-12996 Cal Fair Employment and Housing Act Ardy v Stumpf (1978) 21 C3d 1, 145 CR 176.  I then went back to find out why I was not hired. And a man with a bald head and white hair was standing there. As the manager told me I just “did not fit in.” This then gave me a preponderance of evidence that the line of illegal question was the in part a reason for my not being hired. The FEHC has a “test for determining whether a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that an adverse employment decision was caused at least in part by a discriminatory motive” DFEH v Church’s Fried Chicken, Inc. (1987) FEHC Dec. No 87-18. As the political line of questioning has to show his  concept of hiring questions is more than merely convenient but something less than absolutely necessary for survival of the enterprise Albernarle Paper Co. V Moody (1975) 422 US 405, 45 L Ed 2d 280



There are many laws making the identity of a political person a protected class under the discrimination clause of employment. As the EEOC has stated that "we must vigilantly prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation, parental status, marital status, political affiliation, military service, or any other non-merit based factor." http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/internal/eeo_policy_statement.cfm
 The California State Discrimination Complaint has a place for political affiliation http://www.dre.ca.gov/files/pdf/forms/re154.pdf. USDA Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html  Selective Service System http://www.sss.gov/eeo/EEO-complaintform.pdf .  State of California DMV https://www.dmv.ca.gov/otherser/eeo/EXEC50.pdf . California Department of Corrections http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/ocr/eeopolicy.html. County of Orange County Equal Employment Opportunity Access Office  http://egov.ocgov.com/vgnfiles/ocgov/HR/doc/DISCRIMINATIONFORM.pdf The California Supreme Court has read its Political Discrimination statute as covering discrimination in hiring, even though the statutory text refers just to actions with regard to “employee Gay Law Students Ass’n v. Pac. Tel.  & Tel. Co., 595 P.2d 592, 610 n.16 (Cal. 1979). http://www.trolp.org/main_pgs/issues/v16n2/Volokh.pdf   BARCLAYS CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS “Executive Order No. B-54-79 (1979). In addition, "[w]ithin 30 days after receipt of notice of termination of a career executive assignment, the affected employee may appeal to the State Personnel Board upon the grounds that the termination was effected for reasons of age, sex, sexual preference as prohibited by Governor's Executive Order B-54-79 (4/4/79), marital status, race, color, national origin, ancestry, disability as defined in Government Code section 19231(a)(1), religion, or religious opinions and affiliations, political affiliation, or political opinions. After hearing the appeal, the board may affirm the action of the appointing power, or restore the affected employee to the career executive assignment." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 548.13.) Article 15 Termination of Assignment §548.136. Appeal from Termination.  Within 30 days after receipt of notice of termination of a career executive assignment, the affected employee may appeal to the State Personnel Board upon the grounds that the termination was effected for reasons of  age, sex, sexual preference as prohibited by Governor's Executive Order B-54-79 (4/4/79), marital status, race, color, national origin, ancestry,  disability as defined in Government Code Section 1923 1(a)(1), religion, or religious opinions and affiliations, political affiliation, or political opinions. After hearing the appeal, the board may affirm the action of the appointing power, or restore the affected employee to the career executive assignment. http://archive.org/stream/ca.ccr.02.1/ca.ccr.02.1_djvu.txt
The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) contains a number of prohibitions, known as prohibited personnel practices, which are designed to promote overall fairness in federal personnel actions 5 U.S.C. 2302. The CSRA prohibits any employee who has authority to take certain personnel actions from discriminating for or against employees or applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age or disability. It also provides that certain personnel actions cannot be based on attributes or conduct that do not adversely affect employee performance, such as marital status and political affiliation. http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html  Education Code section 45293 provides that no question may be asked of a candidate for a classified services position of any public school system regarding his or her political or religious opinions or affiliations, race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, or marital status, nor may any candidate be discriminated against on any of these bases. http://oag.ca.gov/publications/CRhandbook/ch2  Labor Code sections 1101 and 1102 prohibit employers from adopting or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy preventing employers from participating in politics or controlling the political activities or affiliations of employees. http://oag.ca.gov/publications/CRhandbook/ch2  Race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability (including HIV and AIDS), mental disability, medical condition (cancer and genetic characteristics), genetic information, marital status (including domestic partnershiop), sex (including pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions), age (40+), sexual orientation, gender (including gender-identity or the perception that the person has any of these characteristics); denial of family and medical care leave; alcohol and drug abuse, political affiliation. CAL.GOV'T CODE §§ 12926, 12940, 12949; CAL.LAB.CODE §§ 1025, 1101 et seq.  Section 188 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) prohibits discrimination against applicants, employees and participants in WIA Title I-financially assisted programs and activities, and programs that are part of the One-Stop system, on the ground of age. In addition, WIA prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, political affiliation or belief, and for beneficiaries only, citizenship or participation in a WIA Title I-financially assisted program or activity. According to the Department of California Social Services: The California Department of Social Services (CDSS) in accordance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as California Government Code sections 19700 through 19706, prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, political beliefs, disability, marital status, ancestry, sexual orientation, age and retaliation. If you feel you have been discriminated against, you have the right to file a complaint directly with CDSS Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Office. Examples of areas it is illegal to ask you about as an applicant/candidate include: Political Beliefs http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/CDSSWEB/PG121.htm  California Labor Code Sections 1101 and 1102 prohibit employers from preventing or punishing an employee’s political activity. The Labor Commissioner of California Enforces Discrimination Prohibition based on Political views http://www.dir.ca.gov/bulletin/summer_94/labor_commiss.html.
  Convention Concerning Discrimination In Respect of Employment and occupation requires the international treaty states (which the US is a partner to) to enact legislation to stop political discrimination in the work place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_(Employment_and_Occupation)_Convention,_1958
If this complaint is dismissed by the EEOC or DFEH it violates the above international treaty the US has ratified with. Thus creating a Federal relief for a bigger case and even more media and possible attorney fees for the Defendant as a unique case. As the above treaty is currently pending in the Senate and has not seen the proper case work to see it through to full ratification http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/pending/. Thus making this case an even bigger media case to show the issue to the people due to the firms actions. Ratification cases are very powerful and cause very in depth media analysts and polling and bringing out the defendant that has allowed the Plaintiff to seek its justice in name.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_ujVaXAJnw.  says revolution.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvdL5EHmPAo 

Loan to Lennar Gives China Firm a U.S. Role
El Dutche

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shWMYdNPmqI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6Wygjx2dzc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bMfrixJyWc

In conclusion  it is my belief that there is no refutation for the business necessity just without advantage to an alternative selection method that would have compared business utility with a less adverse impact Calds v County of Los Angeles (9th Cir 1985) 770 F2d 1421. As the the discrimination test shows a prima facia case under the disparate treatment treatise. As the Plaintiff in this case was a member of a 1. protected class as per the laws of the above stated nature and the California Supreme Court case treatise on the matter of political discrimination in the hiring process. Also the Plaintiff did 2. apply for the job and was very available  and very qualified. While 3. Despite the Plaintiff’s qualifications he was rejected because of the line of questioning gave a in part possibility of discriminatory intent and holding by the manager. The 4. Employer kept seeking applications for the position as per many craigslist positing after words. McDonell Douglas Corp v Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct 1817 Even though the disparate impact theory concern’s employment practices that exclude entire groups of people, an individual Plaintiff may bring complaints under the theory. In such circumstances the plaintiff is simply claiming that he or she was particularly impacted by an employer practice which has an adverse impact on the group or groups to which the plaintiff belongs. Connecticut v Teal, 457 U.S. 440, 102 S. Ct. 2525 The purpose of this case is to prove arguable case that could be taken to court. Thus showing ability where the Plaintiff can seek an injunctive relief order to cause all management practices to teach nondiscrimination in the hiring process. As this cited ABA manual does http://apps.americanbar.org/labor/eeocomm/mw/Papers/2009/data/papers/19.pdf  and the International Finance Corporation Good Practices Note Non Discrimination and Equal Employment http://www1.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/629b648048865944b8aafa6a6515bb18/NonDiscrimination.pdf?MOD=AJPERES. While also the International Labor Organization Eliminating Discrimination in the Workplace Manual    http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---emp_ent/---multi/documents/publication/wcms_116342.pdf
    Where the court case will cost the defendant upwards of $150,000. Because “ an employer, labor organization, employment agency apprenticeship, training program or any training program leading to employment, to fail to take reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring. Government Code Section 12940 subdivision k. Is illegal and an actionable injunctive order in court. Which can be done by both the EEOC, DFEH and then also a proper Civil Court can rule on the matter. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgaQbwvZcwQ With multiple awards for injunction.  As “The shifting burdens of proof set forth in McDonnell Douglas are designed to assure that the "plaintiff [has] his day in court despite the unavailability of direct evidence." Loeb v. Textron, Inc., 600 F.2d 1003, 1014 (CA1 1979)” The Plaintiff is a paralegal and can work his own case and also receive attorney’s fees if the plaintiff is granted the injunctive order for relief. Where the plaintiff’s going rate as per his last employment was $125 an hour. Thus a normal paralegal work case is about $85,000 for one case. REDACTED. REDACTED Plaintiff is willing to settle the case for $50,000 in the FEHA. Or will, as proven above, show cause for a court order and case in the public view.  Also the Plaintiff is unemployed, indigent and possible having to go on welfare. The Plaintiff can seek relief from having to pay any attorney’s fees if the Judge finds against the Plaintiffs argument. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E012w3gxDgY&NR=1&feature=endscreen  Over the years, the legislation would be broadened further. In 1975, discrimination based on sex, marital status, sexual orientation, and political ideology were outlawed. In 1979, parental status was added; in 1986, creed and disability; and in 1999 gender identityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_housing#cite_note-8 The original meaning of the Fair Housing and Employment was not just to protect housing regulations for political freedom of speech but also employment as a protected form of civil rights. That an employer has no rights without a business necessity to ask about. Fair housing and employment go hand and hand. This is an arguable case and can cost Defendants big sums of money and also very big grid work issues. Thus I can take it to the higher courts for more exposure.  http://lalawyersjournal.blogspot.com/2009/02/discrimination-due-to-political.html

No comments:

Post a Comment