CASE: 1:16-cv-02114-CRC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. KIRK E. WEBSTER, SR. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 16-2114-CRC JAMES N. MATTIS, Secretary of Defense, et al., 3 J 3 3 3 } 3 t 3 } Defendants. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR TRANSFER: Plaintiff, Kirk E. Webster, Sr., has brought suit against the various Defendants from the Department of Defense ("DOD") and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 V.S.C. § 2000, ef seq. Plaintiff objects to Defendants” statement that he is “alleging claims of retaliation” only. Plaintiff is alleging claims of retaliation (prior EEO activity), discrimination according to race (Black-Afro American), and age discrimination (as noted in several formal EEO complaints that Plaintiff has filed against his former employer), the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA). The only investigative file (IF) that is the current source of referenced in this Motion is NGA case No. NGAE-13-S02 (OFO appeal No. 0120151358), see PI's compl. exhibit 6. The other agency cases: NGAE-15-OGC27 (OFO appeal No. 0120161903); NGAE-15-OGC27 (OFO appeal No. 0120161903) have been dismissed by the NGA on the grounds of being barred by the 01 June 2012 waiver of claims settlement agreement (Plaintiff alleges is legally invalid), but have been included in the action filed in this Court on 10-24-2016. \ 4s GgCASE: 1:16-cv-02114-CRC EEO case No. 570-2012-001009X and NGA case No. NGAE-10-S-17); OFO Docket No. 0120-13-1177 is the legally invalid 01 June 2012 waiver of claims settlement agreement and breach appeal. The NGA claims filed in this suit and bases are as follows: 1. NGAE-10-S-17: RACE (BLACK AMERICAN), RETALIATION (PRIOR EEO ACTIVITY); 2. NGAE-13-S02 (OFO appeal No. 0120151358): RETALIATION; 3. NGAE-15-OGC27 (OFO appeal No. 0120161903): RACE (BLACK AMERICAN) & RETALIATION (PRIOR EEO ACTIVITY); 4. NGAE-15-OGC-10 (OFO appeal No. 0120-15-2014): RACE (BLACK AMERICAN) & RETALIATION (PRIOR FEO ACTIVITY) & AGE (54, at time of filing); 5. PHO2E-19: RACE (BLACK AMERICAN) & RETALIATION (PRIOR EEO ACTIVITY); 6, NIMA case No. GI-00E-24: RACE (BLACK) & RETALIATION (PRIOR EEO ACTIVITY): never properly closed pursuant to 29 CFR. § 1614.504(a). This is why on page 2 of Plaintiff's 10-24-2016 action, Plaintiff stated: [Mr, Rickert used NGA employees and management officials to ite and retaliate against Plaintiff 10 deny him promotions, bonuses, awards, and other monetary benefits in-order-to force Plaintiff into financial ruin with the deliberate intent to revoke Plaintiff's security clearance and remove Plaintiff from his position of Band IV Lead Cartographic Analyst]. On O1 March 2001, Plaintiff, Kirk Eugene Webster, Sr. wrote a letter to then EEOC Director of the Baltimore Field Office, Mr. James L. Lee, the first page can be seen at Exhibit B. Two days later, Plaintiff wrote another letter to EEOC’s then Director of Complaints ‘Adjudication Ms. Linda Jackson, on 03 March 2001, to bring to her attention what Plaintiff 2 4sCASE: 1:16-cv-02114-CRC referred to as a “very serious matter.” The first page of that letter can be seen at Exhibit A. The FEI air bill used to send the letter to James L. Lee appears at Exhibit C. Plaintiff alleges that his disclosures to Mr. Lee and Ms. Jackson is what resulted in over 16-years of discrimination, retaliation, disparate treatment, and hostile work environment against Plaintiff from Jack Rickert and NGA employees, James Lee and EEOC employees (administrative judges and OFO officials) to “settle the score” with Kirk Webster for disclosing information that led to James Lee's removal and demotion from the position of Director of the EEOC’s Baltimore Field Office during the 2002-2003-time frame and the removal of Gary Gilbert fom Chief Administrative Judge of the EEOC’s Baltimore Field Office, who left the EEOC in 2002 after working there for 16-years (Exhibits D & E). Plaintiff objects to Defendants assertion that the “Court should dismiss Plaintiff's claims against all Defendants; or in the alternative, dismiss Plaintiff s claims against all Defendants but the Secretary of Defense and transfer the case to the Eastern District of Virginia,” as Plaintiff explains below. STATEMENT OF FACTS As Defendants stated, “On October 24, 2016, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed his complaint in the above- captioned matter against several Defendants, including the Secretary of the Department of Defense; Robert Cardillo, the Director of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency ("NGA"), a component of the Department of Defense; NGA employees Jack Rickert, John Zimmerman, and Patsy Coleman; DOD Defense Finance and Accounting Service employee Theodore Harper; and EEOC employees Kenneth Morse and James Lee. Plaintiff brought his claims in the District of Columbia.” Defendants’ stated that Plaintif?"'s complaint is “difficult to comprehend, appears to allege that Plaintiff engaged in whistleblowing activities; and various DOD/NGA employees retaliated aSCASE: 1:16-ev-02114-CRC against him by revoking his security clearance, forcing him into early retirement, withholding financial benefits, removing him from his position, forcing him into a settlement agreement under duress, and colluding with EEOC counsel to undermine his wife's claims against the Department of the Navy. PL's Compl. at pp. 1-2. His elaims against EEOC employees Morse and Lee appear to be based on his dissatisfaction with EEOC's processing of several federal sector complaints of discrimination that he filed against the NGA.” This statement by the Defendants is not an accurate assessment, so Plaintiff will set the record straight. Plaintiff is not “appearing” to state, but is actually stating the following: Plaintiff is alleging it was because of his 03 March 2001 whistleblower letter to Linda Jackson that former EEOC Baltimore Field Office Chief Administrative Judge Gary Gilbert (see Plaintiff's compl. p. 35, #132) was removed from the EEOC’s Baltimore Field Office after 16 years (see exhibit D), approximately the same time as Mr. James L. Lee was removed from his position as Director of the Baltimore Field Office. Mr. Lee became the EEOC’s Deputy General Counsel at the Washington Field Office in 2003 and may have been transferred to the ‘Washington Field Office as early as 2002, about the same time Gary Gilbert left. Gary Gilbert left the EEOC and began working for the Law Firm of Passman and Kaplan from 2002-2005 (see exhibit E), he currently has his own law firm, “The Law Offices of Gary M. Gilbert, P.C..” see exhibit E. Plaintiff is alleging that all of his employment issues (clearance revocation, removal, denied a DSR, and etc.) are directly related to the 03 March 2001 letter Plaintiff forwarded to Linda Jackson that allegedly got former Director of the Baltimore Field Office James Lee demoted and Chief Administrative Judge Gary Gilbert removed. Plaintiff only included the first page of each letter to satisfy the 45-page limit, but the entire letter (2-pages missing) is available, Plaintiff alleges that James Lee and Rickert have collude for years to fire Plaintiff 4 asCASE: 1:16-cv-02114-CRC because of the disclosures Plaintiff made to Ms. Linda Jackson concerning the whistleblower disclosures detailed in Plaintiff's 01 and 03 March 2001 letters. Plaintiff alleges that the letter to Ms. Linda Jackson is what got Gilbert removed (fired or resigned) from the Chief Administrative Judge position at the EEOC’s Baltimore Field Office and James Lee removed from the position of Director of the Baltimore Field Office. Lee and Rickert became furious with Plaintiff's whistleblower disclosure to Ms. Linda Jackson and the resulting disciplinary actions that were delved out to Lee and Gilbert and this is why James Lee and Jack Rickert have severely retaliated and discriminated against Plaintiff since the March 2001 disclosures with such malice as wanting to see Plaintiff and his wife bankrupt, careers destroyed, and family “on the streets” James Lee and Jack Rickert must not be removed from this 10-24-2016 Court action that was filed by Plaintiff, but they must be removed from federal service for using the office of the federal government at their respective agencies (EEOC and NGA) to retaliate against a person who reported Title VII Civil Rights corruption. Rickert and Lee have DELIBERATELY made Plaintiff and his family’s life a living Hades, and must be removed from FEDERAL SERVICE. Rickert and Lee are not exempt from whistleblower retaliation/discrimination laws. Rickert, Lee, Morse, and Many other EEOC officials at the Baltimore and Washington, DC field offices (Chief AJ Teitelman, Chief AJ Mary Elizabeth Palmer, AJ Cynthia McKnight) have all aided Jack Rickert and James Lee in discriminating and retaliating against Plaintiff for over 15-years. Plaintiff has been retaliated against by many of Gary Gilbert’s and James Lee’s colleagues who deliberately botched Plaintiff's EEO complaints in retaliation and discrimination, ‘Mr. Rickert took it upon himself to personally ruin Plaintiff's career; this is why he has represented the agency in every EEO and MSPB complaint that Plaintiff has filed since the 01 March 2001 and 03 March 2001 whistleblower disclosure letters were sent to Mr. James Lee and = YSCASE: 1:16-cv-02114-CRC Linda Jackson. The 01 and 03 March 2001 letters included some the following pages that appear in the Investigative File for NGA case No. NGAE-13-S02 (OFO appeal No. 0120151358): pp. 237, 238, 239, 240, 241. ‘The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency's (NGA’s) Assistant General Counsel, Jack W. Rickert and current EEOC Deputy General Counsel, James L. Lee, have colluded for years to ruin Plaintiff's career because of the letter Plaintiff sent to Ms. Linda Jackson. On 01 March 2001, Plaintiff wrote a letter to Mr. James L. Lee (Ex! it B ), back when he was the Director of the EEOC’s Baltimore Field Office, about illegal EEO activity involving his subordinate Administrative Judge, Charles G. Shubow; NGA’s Assistant General Counsel, Jack W. Rickert; and NGA’s former Acting EEO Director, John Sutkowsky; for violating C-F-R. § 1614.108(D to put Plaintiff's EEO case in to the hands of an Administrative Judge of the NGA’s (NIMA’s back then) choice, Charles G. Shubow, with the deliberate intent to throw out Plaintiff's EEO ‘complaint because it revealed blatant discrimination, retaliation, and abuse of power. Plaintiff informed then EEOC Baltimore Field Office Director, Mr. James L. Lee, on March of 2001 and EEOC’s Director of Complaints Adjudication, Linda Jackson, on 03 March 2001 (Exhibit A) that Administrative Judge Charles Shubow had illegally and unethically received Plaintiff's investigative file (IF) directly from NGA (National Imagery and Mapping Agency [NIMA] back then) for case No. GI-O0E-24, by FEDEX overnight mail, then AT Shubow sent Plaintiff an Acknowledgement and Order the same day Plaintiff's IF was received (Exhibit A and B; IF p. 000249), This was obviously to disadvantage Plaintiff because Plaintiff was pro se. Plaintiff alleges this was to aid NGA in disadvantaging him in Discovery and adjudication of his Hearing Request, evidently James Lee, Gary Gilbert and AJ Charles Shubow had done this for Jack Rickert on many separate occasions to undermine EEO Complainants. & 4sCASE: 1:16-ev-02114-CRC ‘After reporting the actions of AJ Shubow to Mr. James L. Lee, AJ Shubow remained on the case to the very end, Former EEOC Baltimore Field Office Director, James L. Lee, in subsequent years was removed from being the EEOC’s Director of the Baltimore Field Office and later became the EEOC’S Deputy General Counsel in 2003. It was during this time that NGA ramped up their discrimination and retaliation with impunity against Plaintiff and with no fear of consequences for their actions, Plaintiff believes Deputy General Counsel James L. Lee, used his influence and position to have EEOC Administrative Judges and OFO Officials intentionally retaliate against Plaintiff during the adjudication of Plaintiff's Hearing requests and OFO appeals, because of disclosures Plaintiff made that resulted in Gary Gilbert's removal and Lee's demotion. Administrative Judge Charles G. Shubow illegally received Plaintiff's IF in January of 2001 directly from NGA to aid NGA in hiding that NGA had taken retaliatory action against a white female Supervisory Cartographer by the name of Teresa Joan Boyd, who had previously identified the Senior Managers (Jack Hild and Eva Collazo de Cruz) as the NGA Senior Managers that forced her hand at discriminating and retaliating against Plaintiff. ‘The agency saw Ms, Boyd as a threat to Plaintiff's case against NGA, because it was Ms. Boyd who identified to Plaintiff the senior Managers (Jack Hild and Eva Collazo De Cruz) that made her disriminate and retaliate against Plaintiff. Therefore, NGA revoked Ms. Boyd's security clearance to remove her from being a witness in the event of an EEOC Hearing. Federal employees are required to be witnesses at EEOC Hearings, but once removed from being a federal employee, cannot be compelled to be a witness. Thus, NGA revoked Ms. Boyd’s clearance to also take away her job, so she could not be called as an agency witness in the event of the Hearing (IF, p. 213). After the revocation of her security clearance, Ms. Boyd, who suffered from ss 4SCASE: :16-ev-02114-CRC bipolar disorder, later burn the NGA’s ladies’ restrooms, which caused over $10,000- dollars of damage (IF, pp. 205). To cover-up what was done to Ms. Boyd, the NGA sent Plaintiff's IF by FEDEX overnight to their own handpicked administrative Judge, Charles Shubow, and former EEOC’s Baltimore Field Office Director, James L. Lee, whom they could count on to aid them in throwing out a case of blatant racial discrimination (Black) and retaliation (prior EEO activity); and to cover up what was done to Ms. Boyd (LF, pp. 238, 239, 000249). Mr. Rickert lied in a sworn affidavit that went to the EEOC’s OFO and tried to make it, seem that Ms. Boyd retired in good favor with NGA and considered the agency “decen/t] in dealing with her crime,” (IF, p. 205) but what Rickert failed to mention is that Ms. Boyd came back to NIMA/NGA after her clearance was revoked and wrecked several cars at the Bethesda Office. Coworkers told Plaintiff they could hear Boyd screaming “what are you going to do to me now.” Ms. Boyd, according to a newspaper article in the “Leesburg Today.” written by a Mr. Andrew Parker, was later killed in an accident. According to emails sent to Plaintiff (and other NIMA/NGA employees) from a NIMA/NGA Team Leader, by the name of Rick Norgaard, it appears Boyd was going to Dulles Airport to see her mother off, who had been living with Boyd, to begin living with Boyd's brother in Florida after Ms. Boyd had lost her home due to the NIMA/NGA revoking her security clearance and taking away her employment (IF, p. 215). NGA’s Jack Rickert has a history of getting NGA management to revoke security clearances in order to protect management from being found guilty of discrimination. This is exactly what happened to Plaintiff, with the help of NGA employees, James L. Lee and Kenneth Morse. All this questionable activity was under the Leadership of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency’s (NIMA’s) then Directors, Army General James King, and his successor, & GsCASE: H16-ev-02114-CRC NGA Director, retired General James Clapper, who knowingly allowed NGA’s management, employees, and Jack Rickert to discriminate against Plaintiff with impunity, according to his race (Black American) and retaliate against Plaintiff (prior EEO activity). Plaintiff's whistleblower disclosure against the EEOC’s Baltimore Field Office and NGA Officials led to years of retaliation and discrimination by NGA and EEOC officials (Baltimore and Washington Fields Offices). This is why Agency case No. NGAE-13-S02 has been tied up at the FEOC’s Washington, D.C. location for the past 4-years, as of this past December 2016, NGAE-13-S02 ‘was in Hearings adjudication from 09 October 2013 to 12/9/214 and at the Office of Federal Operations from 11 March 2014 until this action was filed on 10-24-2016. Plaintiff has been retaliated against (for the past 16-years) since he sent the 01 March and 03 March 2001 whistleblower disclosure to Mr. James L. Lee and Linda Jackson. Mr. Lee was himself involved in the corruption and allowed it to occur. Mr. Jack W. Rickert, Assistant General Counsel of NGA and Mr. James L. Lee, Deputy General Counsel of the EEOC used their positions to retaliate against Plaintiff for blowing the whistle on corruption they were both involved in when Mr. James L. Lee was the Director of the EEOC Baltimore Field Office. ‘They also retaliated against Plaintiff for statements/disclosures he made in Agency case No. PH-02E-19 filed jointly by Plaintiff and his wife on 11 March of 2002 because it explains how NIMA (now NGA) illegally forwarded Plaintiff's case No. GI- 00E-24 to the EEOC’s Baltimore Field Office when Mr. James L. Lee was the Director and Gary Gilbert was the Chief Administrative Judge (IF, P. 000249), Plaintiff's wife's, Mrs. Katrina Webster's, annual salary has been at the GS-06 level or its pay band equivalent since approximately June of 2000 to the date this action was filed on 10- 24-2016. She has not been promoted since the filing NIMA case number PHO2E-19. 9 GBCASE: 1:16-ev-02114-CRC In a previous court case, No. 04-1739, the 4" Circuit Court of Appeals stated, in referring to agency case No. PHO2E-19, “Webster filed a third EEO complaint [which is Agency case No. PHO2E-19), alleging that NIMA (NGA’s predecessor agency) had breached the settlement agreement [for Agency case number, GI-OOE-24] and discriminated against him [Plaintiff] because of his race and in retaliation for his prior EEO activity. The EEOC Office of Federal Operations Jappellate arm of the EEOC] held that Webster had not shown a breach of settlement agreement [for OFO Appeal No. 01422096 (breach appeal for agency case No. GI- 00E-24)] and agreed with NIMA’S rejection of the claim [for agency case No. PHO2E-19]” But, this statement was a lie that Plaintiff alleges was submitted by Deputy General Counsel James Lee or a subordinate on his behalf, because the “The General Counsel is also responsible for the staffin the headquarters office, which includes a division that handles all of EEOC’s appellate [the OFO} and amicus curiae work.” This was done to prevent the investigation of PHO2E-19, which would have revealed corruption, collusion, abuse of power, and violations of EEO law that James L. Lee, Jack Rickert, John Sutkowsky (left NIMA at after PHO2E19): hitp://archives.timesleader.com/2002/2002_06/2002_04_28 CORPORATE_LADDER.html and Administrative Judge Charles Shubow (James Lee’s subordinate at the EEOC’s Baltimore Field Office) were involved in to “throw out” a blatant case of discrimination according to my race (Black Afro-American) and retaliation (for my prior EEO aetivity), which the EEO complaint No. PHO2E-19 exposes. In so doing, James Lee and Jack Rickert have violated Plaintiff's Title VII Civil Rights (LF, pp. 237-251). NGA (called NIMA—the National Imagery and Mapping Agency at this time) violated EEO law when they rejected claim PHO2E19, because the formal complaint/claim was unlawfully rejected to hide corruption. Moreover, the OFO never issued a decision on whether or not agency case No. GI-O0E- 24 was breached. The EEOC’s OFO only dismissed the appeal of agency case No. GI-00E-24 Je O aSCASE: 1:16-ev-02114-CRC because Plaintiff had filed in federal court. Plaintiff wishes to use the unlawful rejection of agency case No. PH-02E-19, as further evidence to prove years of retaliation by Mr. Jack W. Rickert and Mr. James L. Lee because of Plaintiff's whistleblower disclosure to Ms. Linda Jackson, The OFO had never made a decision on Appeal No. 01422096 (Agency case No. GI- 00E-24) as proven by the OFO"s 26 March 2003 “Dismissal” letter, in which the OFO states: “The regulation found at 29 C.F-R. § 1614.409 provides that the filing of a civil action “shall terminate Commission processing of the appeal.” Accordingly, complainant's appeal is DISMISSED” After Plaintiff's whistleblower disclosure to Mr. Lee was ignored, Administrative Judge Charles G. Shubow later prematurely dismissed Plaintiff's EEO complaint on 10-02-2001, (IF, P. 251) before terms of the email dated, 10-01-2001, which detailed the terms of the negotiated settlement agreement (NSA) that the dismissal was based on, were even drafted by Mr. Rickert (IE, pp. 248-249), Then 15-days later (10-17-2001), after the 10-02-2001 dismissal by AT Shubow, Mr. Rickert drafted a settlement agreement (IF, pp. 216-217, dated 17 October 2001), that deliberately excluded, in retaliation, what was in the email that went out to Mr. Jack W. Rickert and Administrative Judge Charles G. Shubow, and Plaintiff's Attomey Richard ‘Thompson. Mr. Rickert later lied during the OFO appeal and stated that he didn’t agree to the terms of the Negotiated Settlement Agreement (NSA) as detailed in the 10-01-2001 email to AJ Shubow, on which the dismissal of Plaintiff's case, GIOOE-24, was obviously based on, Mr. Rickert stated “[he] didn’t receive the email sent by Mr. Thompson to the Administrative Judge indicating that a settlement had been reached and subsequently moving to withdraw or dismiss the case,” even though the email went to his agency email address (Rickert/@nima.mil) and his u asCASE: 1:16-cv-02114-CRC personal email address (RickertJ33@aol.com) (IF, p. 245). Plaintiff and Plaintiff" wife, a NGA (NIMA at this time) applicant with prior EEO activity (IF, P. 220), later filed a joint formal EEO complaint, PHO2E-19, for breach of settlement RETALIATION & RACE DISCRIMINATION (BLACK), in March of 2002, both formal complaints were unlawfully rejected by NGA and neither has been investigated in over 16-years this March 2017, because it ties NGA’s Assistant General Counsel Jack W. Rickert, and EEOC’s Deputy General Counsel James L. Lee, former Chief AJ Gary Gilbert, and Charles G. Shubow to collusion and corruption, Jack Rickert and James L.. Lee rejected this claim to avoid an EEO investigation, Plaintiff has suffered years of retaliation for making the whistleblower disclosures to former EEOC Baltimore Field Office Director, James L. Lee and Ms, Linda Jackson, Years of repeated questionable Decisions by the OFO that were not in Plaintif?’s favor, repeated attempts by EEOC Administrative Judges to deny Plaintiff'a Hearing and/or force Plaintiff in to filing an appeal with the Office of Federal Operation’s (OFO), and the OFO's 2013 Decision that included the name of John Sutkowsky (who became the Tobyhanna Army “Depot's new equal employment opportunity manager in April 2002"), led Plaintiff, in September of 2016, to perform an internet search on the former Director of the EEOC’s Baltimore Field Office, James L. Lee, to whom he made the 01 March 2001 whistleblower disclosure. During this search, Plaintiff noticed that Mr. Lee went from the Director of the EEOC’s Baltimore Field Office to become the Deputy General Counsel of the EEOC’s Washington Field Office in 2003, but may have arrived in 2002, which is when the NGA began to deliberately harass, discriminate and retaliate against Plaintiff with no fear of being held accountable for racial discrimination, and the bold and blatant racial discrimination and retaliation never stopped, not even after Plaintiff had been ousted. Now Plaintiff knows it was 12 aSCASE: 1:16-cv-02114-CRC because Mr. Rickert and NGA management knew they would be protected by James L. Lee on all of Plaintiff's charges of discrimination that went before the EEOC. When Plaintiff's security clearance was suspended, Plaintiff had pending appeals at the Office of Federal Operations (OFO) and pending formal EEO complaints against the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency conceming corrupt actions of {OC Baltimore Ficld Office Administrative Judge Charles G. Shubow, Chief Administrative Judge Samuel Teitelman, and Chief Administrative Judge Mary Elizabeth Palmer of the EEOC’s Baltimore Field Office, where James L. Lee had served as Director and Gary Gilbert as Chief Administrative Judge. Plaintiff alleges the fact that Mr. Lee never addressed Plaintiff's concerns of corruption at the Baltimore Field Office and never removed Administrative Judge Shubow from the adjudication of Plaintiff" 2001 Hearing request agency case No. GI-00-E24 is because the former Baltimore Director was indeed himself involved in the corruption and colluded with NGA’s Assistant General Counsel, Jack W. Rickert; NIMA/NGA’s Acting EEO Director, John Sutkowsky; and Administrative Judge Charles G. Shubow, to throw out Plaintiffs 2001 complaint and has been colluding with Mr. Rickert ever since to retaliate against Plaintiff for the 03 March 2001 disclosures Plaintiff made to Ms. Linda Jackson, James Lee and Jack Rickert must be removed as from federal service for what they have done to Plaintiff, his wife and two children, but not removed from this case as Defendants, because they are not above the law. Plaintiff is leging that all adverse adjudications of his EEO complaints, subsequent to P! {ffs 01 and 03 March 2001 disclosures to Mr. Lee and Linda Jackson, when Lee served as Director of the EEOC’s Baltimore Field Office, were reprisal for whistleblowing, and Plaintiff is asking for a judgment at the statutory cap of $300,000, per claim filed, to be award to Plaintiff for bold and blatant retaliation and racial 13, YSCASE: 1:16-cv-02114-CRC discrimination. Plaintiff is also asking for the removal each EEOC and NGA employee that assisted Lee and Rickert over a 16-year span in retaliating and discriminating against Plaintiff. Mr. Lee's position as the Deputy General Counsel at the EEOC creates a tremendous conflict of interest that must result judgment in Plaintiff's favor. Plaintiff alleges Agency Assistant General Counsel, Jack W. Rickert, has again used the influence of his position. and connections with Mr. James L. Lee to force Plaintiff's into a legally invalid settlement agreement in Agency case No. NGAE-13-S02, which has been tied up at the EEOC since it was filed in December of 2012. Mr. Lee and/or Rickert did this by getting EEOC Washington Field Office employee, Federal Sector Mediator, Kenneth Morse, to prematurely give the waiver of claims settlement agreement to AJ McKnight once Morse informed Rickert and/or Lee that Plaintiff had retained Tulley Rinckey as an Attorney. This is why Mr. Morse never fulfilled his promise of meeting with Plaintiff on 30 July 2012. Mr. James L. Lee’s position of Deputy General Counsel of the EEOC has created a gross conflict of interest during the processing of Plaintiff"s complaints, because he knowingly never recused himself from any of Plaintif?"s complaints that fell under his authority and Plaintiff believe James L. Lee has been directing the corruption involving EEOC AJ's and OFO Decisions that have all gone against him. As made evident when the OFO included the name John Sutkowksy as a NGA EEO Manager in the OFO Decision for NGAE-10-S-17 (appeal No. 0120-13-1177), while all the while knowing that records indicated the current NGA Director was, Ms. Patsy Coleman, who included the name Robert Barnhart on her 30 April 2013 Decision letter (Exhibit 4, PL’s complaint). Plaintiff alleges this was Mr. Lee’s signal to Mr. Rickert that the 19 July 2013 OFO Decision was Mr. Lee’s Decision. Plaintiff also alleges the EEOC’s Deputy General Counsel, Mr. James L. Lee, and the NGA’s Assistant General Counsel, Mr. Jack W. Rickert (who was allowed to represent the agency in every ease Plaintiff filed, even i4, YsCASE: 1:16-cv-02114-CRC where Mr. Rickert was named by Plaintiff as a Responsible Discriminating Official), colluded to have Plaintiff fired for blowing the whistle on Title VII corruption they engaged in when James L. Lee was the Director of the Baltimore Field Office, that led to disciplinary action against Lee and Gilbert. Plaintiff had been employed full-time by the NGA for approximately 23-years prior to being forced into “voluntary” retirement, which Plaintiff attributes to reprisal for previously noted whistleblowing. Plaintiff was forced into a settlement agreement dated, 01 June 2012, as a result of his security clearance revocation and alleges whistleblower disclosures on corruption and collusion between NGA’s Associate General Counsel Jack W. Rickert, current EEOC Deputy General Counsel James L. Lee (when Lee was the Director of the Baltimore Field Office), and Administrative Judge Charles G. Shubow, is related to years of discrimination and retaliation that Plaintiff suffered while employed at the NGA and Plaintiff's wife has suffered during her employment with her DOD Navy employer Strategic Systems Programs Office (SSP). Plaintiff believes the agency has discriminated and retaliated against him with no fear of retribution because EEOC Deputy General Counsel, James L. Lee shielded NGA’s Associate General Counsel, Mr. Jack W. Rickert, EEOC’s Administrative Judges, Office of Federal Operation Officials (OFO), and NGA employees from being found guilty of discrimination and retaliation charges. Plaintiff is also alleging that James Lee was colluding with his wife’s Navy Assistant General Counsel, Kevin Keefe, at the Navy's Strategic Systems Programs Office (SSP). Plaintiff and his wife were denied every promotion they applied for at their respective agency since filing the joint whistleblower complaint No. PHO2E-19. Plaintiff's wife was promoted once at SSP from a GS-05 to a GS-06 in the year 2000. After she filed the joint complaint No. PHO2E-19 with Plaintiff, she has remained a GS-06 (or its pay band equivalent) from the year as asCASE: 1:16-cv-02114-CRC 2000 until this action was filed on 10-24-2016. Despite having a Bachelor’s of Science degree in Business and Management; and an Associate Degree in Business Administration. This was done to impose hardship on Plaintiff and his wife to later revoke their security clearances. Plaintiff had been employed full-time by the NGA for approximately 23-years prior to being forced into “voluntary” retirement, which Plaintiff attributes to reprisal for previously noted whistleblowing. Plaintiff was forced into a settlement agreement dated, 01 June 2012, as a result of his security clearance revocation and alleges whistleblower disclosures on corruption and collusion between NGA’s Associate General Counsel, Jack W. Rickert and current EEOC Deputy General Counsel, James L. Lee (when he was the Director of the Baltimore Field Offfice), Chief AJ Gary M. Gilbert, and Administrative Judge Charles G. Shubow, is related to years of discrimination and retaliation that Plaintiff suffered while employed at the NGA, On the day Plaintifi’s security clearance was suspended, NGA Benefits Specialist, Nancy Moore, didn’t tell Plaintiff that in the event his security clearance was revoked, Plaintiff was entitled, by statute, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 8336(d)(1), 8414(b)(1), to a discontinued service retirement (DSR). “The regulations regarding DSR determination states that: the request must be made by the agency headquarters Retirement Counselor at least 30 to 45 days prior to the effective date of the employee’s proposed separation from service,” which means NGA should have processed Plaintiff's DSR between February 4'-20" of 2012, since Plaintiff's “proposed removal” date was 21 March 2012. “Your agency was required to submit the application upon retirement. In addition, you mention other benefits for DSR. All of these benefits would have been the responsibility of your agency. I urge you to contact your agency Beneftis Officer for any further questions or concerns regarding this issue. On behalf of OPM, I appreciate the opportunity to serve you.” The “other benefits for DSR” that Plaintiff mentioned to Office of Personnel 16 1sCASE: 1:16-cv-02114-CRC ‘Management (OPM) were as follows: FERS annuity supplement *Placement assistance Selection priority under the Career Transition and Interagency Career Transition Assistance Programs (CT AP and ICTAP) or Priority Placement with DOD. Full amount of severance pay Reemployment with the Federal government. This information was intentionally kept from Plaintiff to later use retirement as a bargaining chip to force Plaintiff to waive his pending EEO claims and OFO appeals that reflected how NGA and EEOC employees have retaliated against Plaintiff for blowing the whistle on Civil Rights Title VII corruption that EEOC officials at the Baltimore Field Office engaged in for Jack Rickert. Plaintiff alleges that the NGA was also retaliating against him because he filed an EEO complaint (Agency case No. GI-00-E-24) that resulted in a promotion to a GS-13, back pay, position changed to a Lead Cartographic Analyst. Based on the information that was presented to Plaintiff when his security clearance was revoked, Plaintiff unwisely appealed his security clearance suspension. ‘The agency rejected Plaintiff's response to the Agency’s proposal to place Plaintiff on indefinite suspension. After rejecting Plaintiff's response, the NGA placed Plaintiff on indefinite suspension for 12 months without pay, then forced Plaintiff into a “voluntary” retirement and meager $25,000-dollar separation bonus that forced Plaintiff out of federal service for 5 years without his security clearance and stripped away Plaintiff's ability to provide for his family as a DOD contractor, because all DOD contract work in Plaintiff's tradecraft requires a security clearance After the suspension of Plaintifi"s security clearance, Plaintiff's and his wife filed for Bee 4SCASE: 1:16-cv-02114-CRC joint chapter 13 bankruptcy in July 2011, since Plaintifs security clearance was revoked for financial reasons, Plaintiff thought interring a repayment plan through the court would enable him to retain his security clearance. Plaintiff filed Chapter 13 bankruptey to stop interest and repay his creditors. Plaintiff provided all records to the agency's security officials concerning the chapter 13 bankruptcy. ‘The following September 2011, the agency still revoked Plaintiff's security clearance, knowing that Plaintiff had been approved by the court for a chapter 13 bankruptcy. After Plaintiff's security clearance was revoked, Plaintiff and his wife made the decision, along with Plaintiff's attorney Mr. Robert Weed, to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. At the final stage of Plaintiff's security clearance appeal, January of 2012, Plaintif had to go before the agency’s Personnel Security Advisory Board (PSAB) members that were aware of Plaintiff's prior EEO activity (Sandra Renfro and Michelle Thompson especially). Yet, they were to vote on whether Plaintiff ‘s security clearance would be permanently revoked. At the conclusion of the PSAB meeting, the agency’s PSAB asked Plai ff's attomey for a copy of Plaintiff's Chapter 7 “discharge of debtors.” In February 2012, Plaintiff's Security Clearance Attomey, Allen Edmunds, emailed a copy of Plaintiff's “discharge of debtors” to the agency"s responsible security official. Still, all PSAB members voted to permanently revoke Plaintiff's security clearance in February 2012 (IF, pp. 266-268). From June 2011 to August 2011, while Plaintiff's security clearance was being suspended and Plaintiff was placed on indefinite suspension, an investigation of Plaintiff's formal complaint of discrimination was being conducted by the Defense Investigation and Resolution Division (IRD). After the completion of the investigation, Plaintiff requested a Hearing from the EEOC’s Washington Field Office because Plaintiff could not afford to file in federal court. Plaintiff's case was assigned to Administrative Judge (AJ) Cynthia McKnight in August of 2012. AJ McKnight allowed Jack Rickert to take advantage of Plaintiff during the processing of Plaintiff's Hearing request. Plaintiff was in a very 18CASE: :16-cv-02114-CRC disadvantageous position. Plaintiff had no money and had as recent as 9 months prior, had a stroke and was still under the care of stroke and primary care doctors. AJ MeKnight allowed the agency's Assistant General Counsel/Representative, Jack W. Rickert, to go well beyond the discovery period detailed in her Orders, which Plaintiff objected to. The agency proposed to remove Plaintiff from federal service on 21 March 2012. Plaintiff requested mediation because of his declining health and need for permanent medical insurance, because the agency was paying Plaintiff's medical care, which was due to expire in August of 2012. Plaintiff had requested to have the agency continue paying for his health benefits, because Plaintiff didn’t know this would have been covered if Plaintiff had been informed of his immediate statutory rights to retire under a DSR. AJ McKnight called for a “status conference” with Plaintiff and the NGAVs Assistant General Counsel/Agency Representative, Jack W. Rickert, on 19 April 2012 at 2:00 p.m. (IF, p. 233), During this meeting, Mr. Rickert stated that the agency could give Plaintiff a DSR. AJ McKnight submitted an Order for mediation in April of 2012 (IF, pp. 333). AJ McKnight also assigned an EEOC Federal Sector Mediator by the name of Kenneth Morse. During the mediation, the agency's representative stated that he would NOT offer Plaintiff a DSR, as stated during the meeting with AJ Cynthia McKnight. Mr. Rickert stated that the agency would only offer Plaintiff a Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA) and a Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment (VSIP). Mr. Rickert’s plan was to get Plaintiff out of the agency without Plaintiff"s security clearance, which was to prevent Plaintiff from being able to qualify for contractor employment in Plaintiff's tradecraft, which required a security clearance. Mr. Rickert was retaliating against Plaintiff because Plaintiff blew the whistle on the corruption that resulted in the removal of James Lee as the Director of the Baltimore Field Office and removal of Gary Gilbert as Chief AJ, 2 persons that he had couldn’t count on any 19 iCASE: 1:16-ev-02114-CRC ‘more to aid him in “throwing” EEO complaints at the Baltimore Field Office. Moreover, Mr. Rickert was also named as a discriminating official in several of Plaintiff's EEO complaints and OFO appeals that were being adjudicated by AJ Cynthia McKnight, and on appeal at the OFO that Chief Judge Mary Elizabeth Palmer and Samuel Tietelman, of the EEOC’s Baltimore Field Office, had presided over. Despite this obvious conflict of interest, Mr. Rickert was allowed to remain the agency Representative. Plaintiff was forced to take what the agency had offered him because Plaintiff was also suffering with kidney failure and didn’t have time to fight for a better settlement offer. At all times during the processing of the Hearing and mediation, Plaintiff did not have a lawyer, neither was Plaintiff directed by the agency to get one. According to a document that was published by the EEOC called “Understanding waiver_of claims agreements,” the contract Plaintiff entered into would be legally invalid if entered into without and attomey or under duress. Both situations applied to Plaintiff, Plaintiff took the settlement because of his declining health and immediate need for continued healthcare. At all times Plaintiff was in communication with EEOC Mediator, Kenneth Morse. Mr. Morse had informed Plaintiff that Plaintiff should receive his $25, 000 Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment (VSIP) by 20 July 2012. Mr. Morse also stated that if Plaintiff didn’t receive the annuity by 30 July 2012 that he (Mr. Morse) would inform AJ McKnight that mediation didn’t work. Mr. Morse stated specifically and directly that Plaintiff should not call him until 30 July 2012 and if by that time Plaintifi’s annuity wasn’t received, he (Mr. Morse) would tell AJ McKnight that mediation didn’t work (see Exhibit F). Mr. Morse had been holding on to the completed settlement contract with all signatures since 01 June 2012 (see Exhibit F; and IF, p. 323) and had no valid reason to all of a sudden give the waiver of claims agreement to A Cynthia McKnight before Plaintiff received his annuity, yet this is what the EEOC Federal Ey aSCASE: 1:16-cv-02114-CRC Sector Mediator, Kenneth Morse, did to effectuate an agreement that had not been fulfilled by the agency. On 20 July 2012, Plaintiff received $15,916.54 VSIP after taxes, but didn’t receive the annuity. Plaintiff sent an email dated, 7-20-2012, to the Mediator Kenneth Morse stating that Plaintiff didn’t receive his annuity, and that “the [VERA] is still hanging out there” (Exhibit F), Because of Plaintiff's adverse experiences with Agency's Associate General Counsel, Jack W. Rickert, Plaintiff decided to get Tulley Rinckey Law Firm to look into the possibility of the settlement agreement being breached. On Monday, 23 July 2013, Plaintiff met with Mr. John Mahoney of Tulley Rinckey Law Firm about looking into the possible NGA breaching the 01 June 2012 settlement agreement, On 24 July 2012, Plaintiff entered into a contractual agreement with Tulley Rinckey law Firm. Mr. John Mahoney, of Tulley Rinekey Law Firm, assigned Plaintiff's case to his subordinate at Tulley Rinckey, an Attomey by the name of Sterling DeRamus. ‘When Plaintiff arrived at home, from his initial conference with Mr. Mahoney on 23 July 2012, to Plaintiff's surprise, Mr. Morse, the EEOC Mediator, had been trying to contact Plaintiff by telephone. Plaintiff finally retumed Mr. Morse’s call on Tuesday, 24 July 2012, after Plaintiff completed and signed the contract with Tulley Rinckey. Plaintiff asked Mr. Morse why ‘was he calling him since it was he, Mr. Morse, who directed Plaintiff to not call him until 30 July 2012? Plaintiff even has email from Tulley Rinckey’s Attomey, Sterling DeRamus, regarding Plaintiff's stated meeting with Mr. Kenneth Morse. On 24 July 2012, Plaintiff informed Mr. Morse that he had retained Tulley Rinckey Law Firm and that Mr. Mahoney would be meeting with Mr. Morse in Plaintiff's stead, on 30 July 2012. To Plaintiff"s surprise and dismay, on approximately Friday 27 July 2012, Plaintiff received by regular U.S. mail an Order from AJ McKnight, dated 25 July 2012, dismissing his 21 4SCASE: 1:16-cv-02114-CRC case (IF, p. 353) well before Plaintiff received his annuity and before Mr. Morse would meet with Plaintiff's Tulley Rinckey Attorney. On 27 July 2012, Plaintiff also received a letter from DFAS that Plaintiff perceived as a reprisal for whistle blowing and a material breach of the 01 June 2012 settlement agreement between Plaintiff and NGA (Exhibit 1, PI’s eomp.; IR, p. 124). The letter stated: “this is to inform you that you were overpaid for non-payment of federal employees Health Benefits premium for pay period ending September 24, 2011 through June 30, 2012 [effective date of Plaintiff's retirement]. The gross amount of your overpayment (including pay, all taxes, benefits and other deductions) is $7, 449.18, DFAS has adjusted your debt for all payments and offsets and has determined that the net amount of the debt currently owed by you is $7, 449.18. Your account was audited and the attached debt worksheet contains information detailing the overpayment (IF, p. 124).” Plaintiff perceived the DFAS letter as retaliation for whistleblowing, It is Mr. Rickert’s modus operandi (M.O.) to use overpayments to retaliate against Plaintiff. Mr. Rickert deliberately foreed an overpayment issue in agency case No. GI-00E-24 to retaliate against Plaintiff. Mr. Rickert deliberately had Plaintiff's attorney's (Richard Thompson of Donald ‘Temple Law Firm) payment sent to Plaintiff to create an overpayment, then he had DFAS send Plaintiff a demand letter to recover money that should have never been sent to Plaintiff in the first place (IF, p. 523). Plaintiff paid the $7, 449.18, because it was an attempt by Mr. Rickert to get Plaintiff in further debt and to prevent Plaintiff from getting an annuity and Heath & Life insurance benefits in retaliation for aforementioned whistleblowing. It was clear Plaintiff's annuity would never begin until the $7,449.18 debt was paid to DFAS. It wasn’t until Plaintiff paid the $7,449.18 that the annuity of $1, 145.00 deposited into Plaintiff's Capital One account GE, pp. 135, 373 and 374). According to the settlement agreement, plaintiff did not owe the 22 4SCASE: 1:16-cv-02114-CRC debt because, as Plaintiff's Attorney Mr. DeRamus stated in his letter to NGA, “the agreement explicitly stated: ‘the submission of this agreement to the EEOC and MSPB will constitute a request for closure and dismissal with prejudice of all litigation between the parties, including but not limited to, the activity identified in section 2(B) of this agreement.’ It further states that the scope of the agreement resolved all claims “that arose from or are related to Complainant's employment at NGA. As such, this debt is resolved by the settlement agreement and we respectfully suggest that the attempt to collect it is a material breach” (IK, p. 136-138). Mr. DeRamus submitted a timely allegation of breach letter to NGA’s Associate General Counsel, Jack Rickert, NGA’s EEO Director, Patsy Coleman, and DFAS’ Mr, Harper (PL compl. exhibit 1; I, p. 136). Plaintiff's Attomey, Mr. DeRamus, sent an email to Plaintiff stating that Mr. Rickert wrote a letter to Mr. Harper informing him that “he foo disputes this debt and considers the matter resolved by the settlement agreement” (PI’s compl. Exhibit 2). Mr. Rickert wrote a letter to Harper, dated, 09-07-2012, agreeing that the debt was invalid (Ps compl. exhibit 3; IF P. 375). Mr. Theodore Harper testifies he first became aware Complainant's EEO activity in November 2012. He went on to state, “Jack Rickert sent a letter a letter to our workilow requesting that Mr. Webster's debt be forgiven, however I did not sec the letter until Ms. Cunningham asked for it during her informal investigation in November 2012. I then did a search of our ‘employee locator’ database and found the letter. The letter said that Mr. Webster was involved in a discrimination complaint.” Plaintiff believes Mr. Rickert never intended for his letter to be received by Mr. Harper, because he could have sent an email to Mr. Harper just like Ms. Cunningham did. The letter went two months without being received and Mr. Rickert never followed up on it, because Mr. Rickert wanted to impose hardship on Plaintiff for aforementioned whistleblorCASE: 1:16-cv-02114-CRC Just as Plaintiff's Attomey, Mr. DeRamus’ letter to NGA’s EEO Director, Patsy Coleman forewamed, Plaintiff had no other choice than to file a formal complaint of retaliation for breach of settlement agreement, on 10 December 2012, which was later amended on 8 January 2013, GE, p. 7). Plaintiff made a second amendment on 05 May 2013 (IF, p. 506). None of Plaintiff's amendments to his 01-29-2013 appeal was addressed in the OFO’s 19 July 2013 final decision; they were just ignored. Plaintiff also filed a breach of settlement agreement appeal with the OFO on 30 January 2013, The OFO continued to retaliate against Plaintiff for blowing the whistle on James L. Lee, Chief AJ Gary Gilbert, Charles Shubow, and Agency Associate General Counsel Jack Rickert, by arriving at a decision of no breach in their July 2013 Decision. In their 19 July 2013 decision, the OFO stated “the agency did not issue a final decision,” but this was a lie to hide that the agency's EEO Director, Patsy Coleman, did indeed issue a final decision on 30 April 2012 and a copy was sent to the OFO's Director of Compliance and Resolution Division, Mr. Robert Bamhart. NGA’s EEO Director, Ms. Patsy Coleman, stated in her 30 April 2013 letter, “Breach of Settlement Agreement Decision (EEOC Case No. 570-2012-001009X and NGA Case No. NGAE-10-S17); EEOC OFO Docket # 0120131177:” “after careful review and consideration of the settlement agreement and documents you submitted to support your claim, the agency finds that an unintentional misinterpretation of the agreement exists or at the very least a mistake occurred during the construction of the contract. This decision is based on the fact that both you and the Agency’s legal representative agree that the settlement agreement resolved claims that arose from your employment with NGA. She also states, “Because our office is aware of email correspondence that you submitted indicative of the agency's interest in payment of the debt, it appears that you and the agency are addressing this matter as a breach and that the parties have effected a resolution” (Exhibit 4, Pl.’s complaint). ee aSCASE: :16-ev-02114-CRC Since the agency has failed to make to resolve this issue with the Plaintiff, Plaintiff is requesting, that pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504(a), the underlying complaint is reinstated for processing. Plaintiff received an email from his attorney, Sterling DeRamus, that stated: “Mr, Rickert has sent this letter Mr. Harper of DEFAS to inform him that he too disputes this debt and considers the matter resolved by the settlement agreement. He also asks for leniency based on your financial situation. In another email Plaintiff received from his Attorney Mr. DeRamus, dated, 28 August 2012, he states: “Mr. Rickert, the General Counsel of the NGA, just contacted me and stated that he agrees that the debt is invalid due to the settlement agreement and that he will be taking steps to have DFAS cease collection on this debt. He will have a letter out by this Friday” (IF, p. 271). Shortly after Plaintiff filed the EEO informal complaint of retaliation, Mr. Rickert began recanting statements that he made to Plaintiff's Attorney, Mr. DeRamus, agreeing that “he too disputes this debt and considers the matter resolved by the settlement agreement” (PL. compl., Exhibit 2). On 10 April 2013, Mr. Rickert leamed, while in a teleconference meeting with MSPB Administrative Judge Andrew Neidrick and Plaintiff, that Plaintiff was no longer represented by Mr. DeRamus of Tulley Rinckey Law Firm. Also, during this teleconference meeting, Mr. Rickert promised to pay Plaintiff approximately $3,000-dollars for attomey’s fees plus the $7,500-dollars. Plaintiff went on to state in the email, “if he [Mr. Rickert adds 0 this amount, for the additional emotional strain and stress that this caused my family and me, then we might be able to work something out. Please get back to me as soon as possible” (IF p. 495). Mr. Rickert replies by email dated, 15 April 2013, “Barbara will be out all this week due to death in her family. I’m sure she'll be in touch once she gets back to work” (IF, p. 494). To date, Plaintiff has never heard back from Ms. Barbara Ritter (IF, p. 434), Mr. Rickert stated to Plaintiff on several occasions that Ms. Ritter is his best friend. In the agency’s 24 April 2013 25 ¥SCASE: 1:16-cv-02114-CRC brief, Mr. Rickert started stating that he never conceded that the agency breached the 01 June 2012 waiver of claims agreement, which contradicted what he stated when Plaintiff was represented by Mr. Sterling DeRamus of Tulley Rinckey Law Firm. This too is Mr. Rickert M.O. Mr. Rickert stated in a swom affidavit that he did not see or agree with the email my attorney, Richard Thompson, submitted to AJ Shubow in the breach appeal of Agency case No. GI-00E-24. Yet, the email went to Mr. Rickert’s personal address at (RICKERTI33@AOL.COM) and his work email address at (RICKERTJ@nima.mil). To this date, I still have a voice mail from NGA (NIMA’s back then) Acting FEO Director, John Sutkowsky, stating that I would get everything detailed in the 10-01-2001 email that Mr. Rickert stated he didn’t agree with. So, this is not the first time Mr. Rickert lied about what he agreed to during settlement negotiations that also conflicted with the statement of the agency’s EEO Director. The OFO used the agency's 24 April 2013 untimely submission in their 19 July 2013 Decision affirming the agency Decision of no breach and ignored Ms. Patsy Coleman’s, NGA’s EEO Director, Resolution Resource Center, Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity, 30 April 2013, “Breach of Settlement Agreement Decision, (EEOC Case No. 570-2012-001009X and NGA Case No. NGAE-10-S-17); EEOC OFO Docket #0120131177,” which courtesy copied, Mr. Robert Barnhart of the FEOC’s OFO and the NGAs Associate General Counsel, Barbara Ritter. NGA’s Patsy Coleman's 30 April 2013 Decision letter was ignored by the OFO because Mr. Rickert and James L. Lee were still retaliating ‘against Plaintiff for the aforementioned whistleblowing. Prior to submitting the 30 April 2013 letter, Ms. Coleman had contacted Plaintiff by telephone and stated to Plaintiff that the settlement was breached and that she would be sending a letter out to Plaintiff: ‘The EEOC’s OFO even lied and stated in their 19 July 2013 Decision letter (appeal # 0120131177) that “the agency did not issue a final decision” (P1.’s complaint, exhibit 4). 6 “CASE: 1:16-ev-02114-CRC Plaintiff believes the OFO did this because Plaintiff was representing himself and in retaliation for aforementioned whistleblowing. On 30 April 2013, the Ageney’s EEO Director, Patsy Coleman, issued her NGA Decision letter admitting to breach, On 19 July 2013, the OFO issued a Decision letter to Plaintiff stating that the agency's 30 April FAD finding of “no breach” had been affirmed. The 19 July letter had Mr. Sutkowsky name on it as an EEO Manager. By Mr. Rickert’s own admission, Mr. Sutkowsky has not been with NGA for many years prior to July 2013. So Plaintiff believes by placing Mr. Sutkowsky’s name on the 19 July 2013 Decision, Mr. Lee was alerting Mr. Rickert that he made the decision in retaliation against Plaintiff for the aforementioned whistleblower discloser. Plaintiff requested a Hearing for Agency case No. NGAE-13S02 from the EEOC’s Washington Field Office. Plaintiff received an Acknowledgement and Order from Chief Administrative Judge Gladys Collazo of the Washington Field Office on 4 June 2014. Chief Judge Collazo officially transferred Agency case No. NGAE-13S02 to Administrative Judge John Fellin on 25 September 2014. Administrative Judge Fellin denied the agency's dispositive motion. He also ruled in Plaintiff's favor to compel the deposition of Jack Rickert, but with stipulations that prevented Plaintiff from asking questions about EEO complaints that were barred by the legally invalid 01 June 2012 waiver of claims agreement--this is telling. As will be shown in this Motion, this Court is the proper venue for Plaintiff's complaint against the Secretary of Defense and the other all Defendants. Plaintiff also alleges, as stated above, as to EEOC employees Morse and Lee, that his claims do have subject-matter jurisdiction in this Court and he has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, as will be seen later in this Motion. Moreover, EEOC employees Morse and Lee or not exempt from being sued according to their individual capacities. They are not above the law because they happen to be EEOC employees. Plaintiff therefore objects to the Defendants’ request “fo move this Court to 27. aeCASE: 1:16-cv-02114-CRC dismiss the Complaint against all Defendants; or in the alternative, to dismiss the Complaint against all Defendants but the Secretary of Defense and transfer venue to the Eastern District of Virginia.” ARGUMENT. L The District_is the Proper Venue for Plaintiff's Title VIL Claim. Against the Secretary of the Department of Defense, The Defendant DOD Employees, and EEOC employees Morse and Lee. In The Defendants’ 15 February Motion, the Defendants state: (Venue in Title VII cases is set by the vere provision in 42 US.C. § 2000e-5()(3). Taylor v, Shinseki, 13 F. Supp. 3d 81, 86 (D.D.C, 2014). Under Section 2000e-5(f)(3), a plaintiff may bring a Title VII action (i) where “the unlawful employment practice is alleged to have been committed," (ti) where "the employment records relevant 10 such practice are maintained and administered," or (iti) where “the aggrieved person would have worked but for the alleged unlawful employment practice." 42 US.C. § 20000-5()(3). "Only if the defendant is not found within any of these districts can a plaintiff rely on a fourth possible location - ‘the judicial district in which the respondent has his principal office."" Taylor, 13 F. Supp. 3d at 86. "This venue statue governs all Title VII claims «and supersedes any other venue provision governing actions in federal court." Id.] Plaintiff is proving evidence that the unlawful action that occurred at the EEOC’s Washington Field Office establishes that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction and also that the District of Columbia is the proper venue for Plaintif?’s 10-24-2016 action, pursuant to venue provision in 42 US.C. § 2000¢-5()(3) (J “Such an action may be brought in any judicial district in the State in which the unlawful employment practice is alleged to have been committed:” 28 USCASE: 1:16-cv-02114-CRC It was the “unlawful employment practice” that was committed by the EEOC’s Federal Sector Mediator, Kenneth Morse, against Plaintiff, acting at the behest of NGA’s Assistant General Counsel, Jack Rickert, that establishes venue in the District of Columbia (Exhibit F, and G). At all times Plaintiff was in communication with EEOC Mediator, Kenneth Morse. Mr. Morse had informed Plaintiff that Plaintiff should receive his $25, 000 Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment (VSIP) by 20 July 2012. Mr. Morse also stated that if PlaintifY didn’t receive the annuity by 30 July 2012 that he (Mr. Morse) would inform AJ McKnight that mediation didn’t work. Mr. Morse stated specifically and directly that Plaintiff should not call him until 30 July 2012 and if by that time, Plaintif?’s annuity wasn’t received, he (Mr. Morse) would tell AJ McKnight that mediation didn’t work. Mr. Morse had been holding on to the completed settlement contract with all signatures since 01 June 2012 (Exhibit F; G; and IF, p. 323) and had no valid reason to all of a sudden give the waiver of claims agreement to AJ Cynthia McKnight before Plaintiff received his annuity, yet this is what the EEOC Federal Sector Mediator, Kenneth Morse did, to effectuate an agreement that had not been fulfilled by the agency. ‘The actions of EEOC’s Federal Sector Mediator Kenneth Morse occurred at the EEOC’s Washington Field Office in Washington, D.C., also “the mutual terms of the settlement were discussed with EEOC Federal Sector Complaints Mediator, Kenneth Morse, during mediation at the EEOC Washington Field Office in Washington, DC." Accordingly, venue lies in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, defendant Morse is found in this judicial district. This establishes venue in the District of Columbia, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(a) §2 and (b)§2, which is the judicial district in which the most substantial part of the events giving rise to the most significant claim, involving the actions of EEOC Mediator Kenneth Morse occurred. If it were not for the retaliatory act committed by Kenneth Morse, at 29, 4sCASE: 1:16-cv-02114-CRC the behest of Jack Rickert at the EEOC’s Washington Field Office, the 01 June 2012 settlement agreement would never have gone into effect, the resulting claims would not have been filed, and the claims prior to 01 June 2012 would not be “barred” from processing. 1 is also for this reason that Kenneth Morse must not be removed as a Defendant, as explained in detail in the previous section, In their 15 February 2017 Motion Defendants’ state, “to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(6)(1), plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that the Court has subject-matter Jurisdiction to hear their claims, Olson y. United. ‘States, 953 F. Supp. 2d 223,228 (D.D.C. 2013); Us. Ecology, Inc. v. Dep 't of Interior, 231 F.3d 20,24 (D.C. Cir. 2000). A court has an independent obligation to determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party. Olson, 953 F. Supp. 2d at 228 (citing Arbaugh v. ¥ & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006).” Plaintiff alleges Jack Rickert and/or James L. Lee directed Mr. Morse to give the June 2012 settlement contract to AJ McKnight to effectively waive Plaintiff's rights to all pending NGA EEO complaints and OFO appeals that reveal how James Lee, Jack Rickert, NGA, and EEOC employees collude for years to retaliate against Plaintiff because of the disclosures he made to Ms. Linda Jackson in Plaintiff's 03 March 2001 letter that led to the removal of James L. Lee from his position as Director of the Baltimore Field Office and Gary Gilbert as the Chief AJ at the EEOC’s Baltimore Field Office. Plaintiff alleges that James Lee, Jack Rickert, NGA, and EEOC employees retaliated and discriminated against Plaintiff for years because of the disclosures he made to Ms. Linda Jackson, Due to the breaching of the 2012 settlement agreement, Plaintiff is requesting to have all claims reinstated, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 1614.504 (a), and awarded the statutory cap of $300,000 per claim. NGA’s EEO Director, Patsy Coleman, despite telling Plaintiff by phone and letter a0 asCASE: 1:16-cv-02114-CRC that the 12 June 2012 settlement was breached, failed to reinstate Plaintiff's Claims and is therefore rightly listed as a defendant, sued in her individual capacity. IL PLAINTIFF OBJECTS TO DEFENDANTS’ ASSERTION THAT PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT ‘MUST BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO NAME THE REQUIRED PARTY. In emails on the matter, Plaintiff attempted clarify to the U.S. Attorney that he is only suing the Secretary of Defense and Director of NGA in their official capacity. Plaintiff had already stated in the complaint at page 4, number 4, that Robert Cardillo was only being sued in his official capacity as the Director of NGA. In Plaintiff's previous case, CA-03-924-RWT, Donald H. Rumsfeld was listed in the caption as the Secretary of Defense and James Clapper as the Director of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA). This is why Plaintiff listed the Secretary of Defense and Director of NGA to be sued in their official capacities in this case too. After the NGA Director, all Defendants Plaintiff listed are understood to be sued in their individual and official capacities and are also listed on page 4, at number 5, as persons Plaintiff's complaint concems the actions of in this suit. “Further, it is the actions of Mr. Rickert [and] these DOD Jofficials/employees] acting at his direction that form the basis for alleged claims of discrimination;” along with James Lee and Kenneth Morse acting in their official capacities. Plaintiff stated to the U.S. Attomey that he was suing all Defendants other than the Secretary of Defense and Director of NGA in their official and independent capacities. Plaintiff listed defendants to identify the official capacity each person served in with respect to the suit and this is why they are separately listed under the NGA Director, Robert Cardillo, It is important to note that EEOC’s Administrative Judge John Fellin, in his 16 October 2014 rulings, ruled in Plaintiff's favor and denied the agency's dispositive motion for the claim NGAE 13-$02, which is a claim currently before this Court, Later, AJ Fellin ruled in Plaintiff's 31 eBCASE: 1:16-ev-02114-CRC favor on the Motion to compel the deposition of Jack W. Rickert, but with stipulations. Plaintiff points to AJ Fellin’s reasoning in his ruling to also state that pursuant to this ruling Jack Rickert should not be removed as a defendant. Plaintiff alleges Jack Rickert, James Lee, Kenneth Morse and others have relevant testimony regarding the 03 March 2001 letter to Linda Jackson, demotion of James Lee from Director of the EEOC’s Baltimore Field Office & removal of former Chief AJ Gary Gilbert after 16-years; and the claim NGAE-13-S02. Plaintiff alleges Jack Rickert should not be removed as a Defendant in this ease, because Mr. Rickert is alleged to be a discriminating official/fact witness involved in the alleged discrimi fatory acts. In his ruling AJ Felin states: “The Notice of Acceptance in this case identifies Mr. Rickert as an Alleged Discriminating Official. ROI at 104. The ROI in this case contains sworn statements from Mr. Rickert. ROI at 210-13,623-27. In its Response, the Agency noted that the only issues in this case are whether Mr. Rickert and Mr. Zimmermann retaliated against Complainant after he signed the June 1, 2012 settlement agreement. Response at 11. In the ROI is an e-mail from Complainant stating: “Mr. Zimmerman was the manager involved with the processing of my VERA/YSIP paperwork. I believe he colluded with Jack Rickert to disadvantage me by sending paperwork to DFAS for collection while knowing it was not due to be paid because of the settlement agreement. ROL at 35. To the extent that Mr. Rickert is a fact witness involved in the alleged discriminatory act, he may be a relevant witness who may be deposed. By contrast, to the extent that his role was as the Agency's legal representative, his actions are protected by the attorney-client and work product privileges. Mr. Rickert is not opposing counsel in the instant case, so the concerns addressed in 32 $sCASE; 1:16-cv-02114-CRC Shelton are lessened. See Lusier, Civil Aetion No. 08-CV-02399-PAB-KMT, 2009 U.S. Dist LEXIS 130033. Because the record contains relevant non-privileged discoverable information apparently within Mr. Rickert's control, and the ROI contains his sworn testimony, see ROI at 194-98,623- 27, it appears to me appropriate for the Plaintiff to test the information contained in the sworn statements by deposition to the extent the information relates to this case. See Luster, Civil Action No. 08-CV-02399-PAB-KMT, *8. Further, it is the actions of Mr. Rickert or an individual acting at his direction that appear to form the basis for alleged claims of discrimination in the complaint. To the extent that the deposition questions concern Mr. Rickert's actions and not his legal advice," the deposition does not trample on the attorney client privilege. Similarly, for work product, to the extent that the deposition questions concern factual information rather than ‘the mental Processes of the attorney, ... a privileged area within which he can analyze and prepare his client's case? or ‘mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories authored in anticipation of litigation,’ the deposition does not impinge on work product. ”? Complainant's Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART as to Mr. Rickert Complainant is limited 10 questioning the witness concerning facts pertaining to this ease only, not previous cases, and not information that would be protected by attorney work product or attorney-client privilege. The scope of Complainant's questioning will be confined and Complainant will have to provide information detailed below to be permitted to conduct a deposition. Complainant is cautioned that he is not permitted to stray outside the parameters of this Order.”CASE: 1:16-cv-02114-CRC I The attorney-client privilege "protects confidential communications by a client to ‘an attornev made in order to obtain leval assistance from the attornev in his or her canacitv as a legal advisor." United States v. Phelan. 3 Fed. Annx. 716.718 (10th Cir.2001) (quoting In re Grand Jurv Suhnoena Duces Tecum. 697 F.2d 277.278 (10th Ci 1983). To be protected bv the privilece. "a communication between a lawver and. client must relate to leeal advice or strateev soucht by the client." United States v. Johnston, 146 F.3d 785, 794 (10 th Cir.1998). Luster, supra, at *9.” ILL PLAINTIFF OBJECTS TO DEFENDANTS REQUEST THAT DEFENDANTS LEE AND MORSE SHOUL BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION. ‘The EEOC does not exercise sovereign immunity when their employees knowingly use their position(s) to retaliate against a whistleblower who exposes corrupt EEOC Employees (Managers, AJ’s, and Mediators). Plaintiff has explained in section I., why this Court has subject matter jurisdiction and is the proper venue with respect to the actions of EEOC’s Federal Sector Mediator, Kenneth Morse. Plaintiff alleges that James Lee and Rickert have collude for years to fire Plaintiff because of the whistleblower disclosures he made to Ms. Linda Jackson detailed in Plaintif?"s 03 March 2001 letters (exs A& B), Plaintiff alleges that the letter to Ms. Linda Jackson is what got former Baltimore Chief AJ Gary Gilbert removed from his Chief Administrative Judge position at the EEOC’s Baltimore Field Office and James Lee demoted from Director of the Baltimore Field Office. Plaintiff is not a lawyer, but is confident there is no federal statute that protects an EEOC employee (or any federal employee) who abuses their authority to retaliate (“settle the score”) against a whistleblower, because his disclosures resulted in their and/or their colleague or former colleague being demoted or fired. The “unlawful employment practice” that was committed by the EEOC’s Federal Sector Mediator Kenneth Morse against Plaintiff, on behalf of NGA’s Assistant General Counsel Jack 34 gsCASE: 1:16-ev-02114-CRC Rickert and/or James Lee establishes venue as well as subject matter in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, James L. Lee and Kenneth Morse are employed in the District of Columbia, which is where the initial action occurred that precipitated the 10-24-2016 action that was filed in this Court. The above stated retaliatory act committed by Kenneth Morse on behalf of Jack Rickert and/or James Lee at the EEOC’s Washington Field Office was committed to force Plaintiff into a legally invalid waiver of claims settlement agreement in retaliation for aforementioned whistleblowing. If it were not for the retaliatory act committed by Kenneth Morse, on behalf of Jack Rickert and/or James Lee at the EEOC’s Washington Field Office, the 01 June 2012 settlement agreement would never have gone into effect, and the resulting claims would not have been filed, CONCLUSION For all reasons previously stated, Plaintiff respectfully moves the Court to not dismiss the claims against any Department of Defense employees for improper venue; and not dismiss the claims against EEOC employees, Kenneth Morse and James L. Lee for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Morse and Lee are not above the law because they are employees of the EEOC. Morse and Lee are held to the same standards as all other federal employees when it comes to committing acts of unlawful whistleblower retaliation. Being an employee of the EEOC does not exempt them from the law. In fact, as employees of the EEOC, they should be held to a higher standard because they are employees of an agency that was created by Congress to protect the American people from the same acts they have been accused of committing. Finally, Plaintiff respectfully moves to have all claims remain as filed against all named Defendants. Dae; 3~ 9-70) F Respectfully submitted by: Le asCase 1:16-cv-02114-CRC EXHIBIT A 03 March 2001 Ms. Linda Jackson Kirk E. Webster Director of Complaints Adjudication 43184 Gatwick Sq. 1801 L. Street NW Ashburn, Va, 20147 Suite 5000 Phone: 703-729-5955 Washington, D.C. 20507 Fax: 703-729-1847 Z Karmykirk@aol,com ~ Dear Madam: \ Enclosed is a letter I forwarded to Mr. James L. Lee, Director of the 10 South Howard Street EEOC Office in Baltimore, Maryland. I am writing to bring your attention to this serious matter. Tam humbly asking that you would please give this matter urgent attention since itis in the early stages of the administrative adjudication process. [am humbly requesting that you will check into the enclosed to ensure that it doesn’t get into hands other than Mr, Lee’s and consequently “fall through the cracks.” Judge Charles Shubow produced an Acknowledgment and Order (dated 31 January 2001) within 5 days of my 26 January (enclosure 4) letter to NIMA’s EEO Office. I informed the EEO office that I would be requesting a hearing by an administrative Judge of the EEOC. sn for informing; that I be requ: hearing by an adminis re iuds EOC is. 180 day elapsed since my formal complai n.05 April and Thy infor rior to submitting the 26 letter that the investigati completed. In fact, my investigation didn’t start until 1 Oct. 2000, which was 199 days aftet my complaint went formal, My EEO counselor (Ms. Bea Oviedo) called to inform sme that OCI had in turn informed them within 15 minutes of receiving my letter, that the investigation of my complaint (which became formal on 05 April 2000) was suddenly completed, but the investigative file has the date of investigation from 11 October - December 4, 2000 (enclosure 9). If the case had been closed before I could submit my Fequest to the Baltimore Office then the agency should have pursuant to 1614.108 (6) informed me of my right to request a final agency decision or a hearing by an administrative judge and given me 30 days to reply. [ leaned that I could request a hearing from visiting the EEOC website and reading the part 1614—federal sector equal employment opportunity (published July 12, 1999; effective November 9, 1999), ‘After being informed of my intentions to request a hearing by an administrative judge of the EEOC, the agency expedited my records to Judge Charles Shubow. If the agency knew prior to sending my records to Judge Shubow that my investigation was completed then they should have acted pursuant to1640, 108 (f). Little did I know that the agency would expedite my records into the hands of a judge of their choice; and that I would be issued an Acknowledgement and Order dated (31 January 2001) within five days of informing the agency of my intentions to request a hearing from the EEOC. I have been through the administrative hearing process before and went months before receiving an Acknowledgement and Order, I would have assumed, due to the many cases ahead of N) W 6 as Li orFrSLCase 1:16-ev-02114-CRC EXHIBIT B March 1, 2001 Attn: Mr. James L. Lee Kirk E. Webster Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 43184 Gatwick Sq Baltimore District Office Ashburn, Va, 20147 City Crescent Building Phone: 703-729-5955 10 South Howard Street, 3“ floor Fax: 703-729-1847 Baltimore, Maryland 21201 Karmykirk@aol.com Dear Sir: On 26 January 2001, I telephonically (and by letter [copy enclosed--enclosure 4]) informed the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) Complaints Manager Mr. John Sutkowsky that I would be requesting a hearing by an administrative Judge of the EEOC directly from the EEOC’s Baltimore office, pursuant to PART 1614 .108 (g) of the federal sector equal employment opportunity (published 12 July 1999; effective 09 ‘November 1999—enelosure 2 and 3); since it was well past 180 since my formal complaint had been filed. Within fifteen minutes of my conversation with Mr. Sutkowsky, I received a call from Ms. Oviedo, stating that she was informed by OCI that my investigation was complete and they will be forwarding a copy of my records to the EEOC’s Baltimore Office since I had requested a hearing. In my letter to NIMA (gnclosure 4, I clearly stated that | was requesting a hearing by an administrative judge of the EEOC since it was well past 180 days since my formal complaint was filed (05 April 2000—enclosure 5). I further stated that I will directly request a hearing from the South Howard Street Office and asked if they would inform me if the address ‘was incorrect, but before I could forward a letier to the Commission, NIMA had my investigative file in the hands of Judge Charles Shubow; so fast that I had received an Acknowledgement and Order (enclosure 6) before I could forward a letter to the Commission. Pursuant to part 1614.108 (9) of the above refererenced (enclosure 3), an investigation is not closed until the agency has provided the complainant with a copy of the investigative file and shall notify the complainant that, within 30 days of receipt of the investigative file, the complainant has the right to request a hearing and decision from an administrative judge or may requests an immediate final decision pursuant to 1614.10 from the agency with which the complaint was filed” (PART 1614— FEDERAL SECTOR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY—pages | land 12). Mr. Lee, NIMA did not act according to 1614.108 (0), because my investigation was never officially completed with me being afforded the opportunity to choose between a final agency decision or a hearing. In my 26 January letter, I was informing the agency of my rights according to 1614.108 (g) because the agency had not completed my investigation. But under these circumstances, I was suppose to request the hearing from the EEOC; not the agency on my behalf. NIMA enclosed a letter with the investigative file that deceivingly states, “the complainant chose to exercise his right to hearing as. stated in his notification letter dated January 26, 2001 (enclosure 7).” If the investigation had been properly completed, NIMA’s EEO office would have been notifying me; I ‘would not have been notifying. I found out that I could request a hearing on my own by 37 = 4 OF 3]EXHIBIT C CASE: 1:16-cv-02114-CRC we AOVe2bY 33849? ste DB AAD 7 O02. gee Kk iL ERSTER. raw WRN T29 - F455 or. rave EBLE E CAT MEE SOLE i oittitie WA oe LOLED Mame RD oman 5 EC, COR EEC EOL THE PILE OT A) Eye gescawr Bazepe re Ge, iia es nude Gowihh? TREE INES, bag LEE. wl G10) 76 co GOES i ot