Comments on: Sue Happy

By: richard davidson

richard davidson — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 06:06:59 +0000

HR Whiz: What readers should know any appeal by EEOC will likely fail. This involves the criminal statutes Tite 18 sec. 1001 false statements on an official document EEOC made a determination based upon an investigation. EEOC did not interview the witnesses. How did EEOC determine a violation of the statutes it enforces? By making a false statement that an investigation including the interviews are part of the determination. EEOC simply bluffed its way in court and lost. And will lose on appeal. MORE INFO COMMENT REPLY

By: HR Whiz

HR Whiz — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 02:05:31 +0000

Thanks for visiting and for the comment, Richard.

By: richard davidson

richard davidson — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 23:47:06 +0000

Accusing EEOC attorney: This is not about labor or employment law. It is about Federal criminal law and where EEOC crossed the line. District or Circuit court IS NOT the purview to comment on Title 18 criminal statutes. It’s the job of the United States Attorney or Attorney General. Why did the truck company win $4.5 million?
EEOC has a mandatory obligation to disclose violation of title 18 to the Attorney General see 28 USC sec. 535. What EEOC apparently did see press release 4th para: February 9, 2010 order and opinion…WITHOUT FIRST CONDUCTING A PROPER INVESTIGATION REQUIRED BY LAW is the opposite of EEOC based its suit on an investigation of information provided established a violation of the statutes. What is going on: Title 18 sec. 1001 fraud and false statements. When EEOC committed to a government document an investigation that appears fabriciated is seen as a false document. Again the District or Circuit court do not comment on Title 18 statutes. What the court determined no proper investigation took place. There is another element the court statement “The EEOC’s failure to investigate” has the perception of predetermined judgement and is not fair. This brings on the added apperance of bias and can be construed as discriminatory. For documents reply by email.