Interactive College of Technology, Elmer Smith, Thomas Blair Retaliatory Conduct, Possible Fraudulent Unethical Activities Chamblee Georgia

EEOC Unnecessary Criminal Activity, You Be the Judge. On December 26, 2012, I was discharged from employment approximately four (4) hours after signing EEOC Form 5 with EEOC Atlanta District Office (Investigator, Larry Satterwhite). [The charge alleged racial discrimination in pay disparity and retaliatory demotion, and was based on the fact that during the month of July 2012; I had filed a complaint of pay disparity with the institution [Interactive College of Technology] who I was working for, and against the Campus President and Dean of College. I followed the procedures as written within their company policy, and submitted the complaint to the Human Resources Department].

Thirteen (13) days earlier (December 13, 2012); I was demoted from my managerial position of four years, for some bad managerial decisions within a ninety (90) day period, starting in September 2012. The decision for my demotion was made by Thomas Blair (Dean of College), and approved of by Elmer Smith (Owner/Campus President). Reasons for Demotion: (a.) September 2012, an African-American Male student is accused of stealing $1,000.00 and some checks without any substantial proof that the young man stole anything. The Caucasian Employees who counted the money were never considered suspect in the theft. The money and checks were supposedly left on one of the employee's desk inside a purse, inside a bag, inside a money bag. None of the Caucasian employees or manager were reprimanded for this incident, and neither did the employees who counted the money follow protocol as required in immediately depositing the money and checks with the school's Banking Institution. The African-American student was removed from the Work Study Program, expelled from school, and informed to not return to the school's premises at all. Since the student worked under my directions, I was demoted for this incident. The employer claimed that students were unauthorized to work within that location, but I provided documentary evidence to EEOC demonstrating that the employer's explanation was totally untrue, and the rule used was not implemented until after the theft incident.

(b.) A Caucasian Male student is accused of theft with proof of stealing two (2) $1,000.00 laptop computers. The incident is caught on the surveillance equipment, and it was I who studied and examined the recording. The student claimed that he had cleaned up in the office area where the laptops were stolen from, and the only reason for his re-entering the office later that day was to find his personal key for home. After re-examination of the recording the students story was completely fabricated. Several individuals observed the theft at my request for verification purposes, and some also observed as I did; that earlier during that day the only other person who entered that office was the Dean of College. Snap shots of the incident was taken, and left for the Dean requesting a meeting between he and I, before speaking with the student, because "the students story does not jive." The Dean ignored the request for a meeting, met with the student, allowed the student to return to work (I had suspended the student until further notice), and on the very next day (December 13, 2012) I was demoted from my managerial position of four years, because the student worked under my directions. The Caucasian Male student was not removed from the Work Study Program due to the theft, was not expelled from school, and was allowed to return (1) of the $1,000.00 laptops that was stolen.

Where is the justification for these type actions? Why was the African-American student treated so unfairly, and why was the Caucasian Male student made justified? Why was the African-American manager demoted, and why was nothing done to the Caucasian manager concerning the theft of $1,000.00 and checks stolen from within her department that was counted and left unsecured by her employee(s). Why did the Dean of College ignore a request for a meeting concerning the stolen laptops? Does this appear to be a set-up for the demotion of the African-American manager who had filed a complaint of racial discrimination a few months earlier? The only person (besides the accused student) who entered the room where the laptops were stolen from was the Dean of College. Why would EEOC (Investigator, Larry Satterwhite who typed the initial charge) try to dismiss my charge based on termination from employment? Why would EEOC claim that there was no violations within my charge of the Title VII Statute that they enforce? Why after arguing the dismissal based on employment discharge, would EEOC forge my name onto a newly typed EEOC Form 5, and add information to that form affirming that I consented to and authorized that information, when I had not? How many others has this happened to? What person within their right mind will commit an unnecessary criminal act on behalf of another, and not receive some form of compensation for that act? Why would the government agencies with the authority to investigate public corruption (forgery and false altering of a document is a crime) choose to ignore the matter, or pass the buck elsewhere? You be the Judge!