Interactive College of Technology Elmer Smith,Thomas Blair COVER-RUPTION OF BIGOTRY AND REPRISAL BY EMPLOYERS AND BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT Decatur Georgia

A few years ago I wrote and updated a Ripoff Report involving what I considered as the possible dishonest acts between my former employer(s) [Interactive College of Technology, Elmer Smith, and Thomas Blair] and federal agencies such as EEOC, OSHA, Wage & Hour and the DOE. The purpose of the report was to demonstrate how EEOC and other federal agencies accepted the employer’s reasoning for its adverse actions without any documented proof of what was being expressed, ignored undeviating racial discrimination between alleged like circumstances of theft involving a NEGRO and WHITE male student(s); and, how EEOC [the protector of civil rights] altered information and forged my name onto an official EEOC Form 5 intended for the detriment of my claim and for the advantage of the employer with full impunity from criminal misconduct. Now enters the Northern District of Georgia who have previously manipulated facts or rules of discovery/evidence within this case, and who will now decide ICT’s Summary Judgment Motion based on the following rebuttal: This legal action involves allegations of racial discrimination in pay, retaliatory demotion, and retaliatory discharge from employment against Interactive College of Technology (ICT) and its agents Elmer Smith (Campus President) and Thomas Blair (V.P. Dean of College); as well as racial discrimination under like circumstances involving alleged bad acts (theft) by an African-American and a Caucasian male(s) Federal College Work Study (CWS) students working under Plaintiff’s directions, and given as two of three reasons for Robertson’s demotion (poor managerial decisions within a ninety-day period) from his managerial position. Carl Robertson went to Interactive College of Technology as a student from 2006 through 2007 where he acquired a HVAC-R certification.

In January 2008, Plaintiff was hired as a full-time maintenance technician by William Spyers; and, by October 2008 Elmer Smith had promoted Robertson to a maintenance co/manager’s position along with William Spyers who held the position of maintenance supervisor for several years before being placed into a co/manager’s position along with Robertson. On the day of Plaintiff’s promotion to the co/manager’s position he was instructed by Elmer Smith that he (Robertson) would be responsible for all administrative and personnel decisions as a means of relieving stress from William Spyers whose duties were drastically reduced. While employed with ICT from January 2008 through December 2012, Carl Robertson never received any type of oral or written warnings that were placed within his personnel files/records for any failures to accept responsibilities, confrontational attitude with supervisors or employees, harassment of full-time maintenance employees, and/or disregarding workplace rules; and, Robertson’s appraisals demonstrates that he had very satisfactory work performances and received raises based on his work performance.

However, in July 2012, Robertson did received a one week suspension for insubordination (placed within his personnel file) which he rebutted as no more than a means for Defendant(s) to make it appear that he was incapable of doing his job properly. The routine scheduling practices of the maintenance department, established by William Spyers over several years in completing extraordinary tasks was suddenly altered by Thomas Blair; even though Blair and Smith had assigned over forty (40) extraordinary tasks to be completed for an upcoming Counsel on Occupational Education (COE) inspection. Thomas Blair and Elmer Smith both knew and understood, that Plaintiff and William Spyers (spanning a four year period) would on many occasions work together on weekends when necessary to complete certain assignments as a means to avoid overtime. When Thomas Blair changed that particular routine practice he knew that William Spyers (now deceased) was no longer around to help Robertson as a means to avoid overtime and/or the changing of maintenance employees work schedules. Plaintiff have accused Defendant(s) of extending that one week suspension for insubordination into two weeks without pay (for research of Robertson’s racial discrimination complaint which never occurred) after filing an internal complaint based on ICT’s (EEO) policies in relationship to compensation discrimination and other possible forms of racial animus. ICT’s legitimate non-discriminatory/non-retaliatory explanation for its reasons to pay lower wages to Robertson based on William Spyers seniority, Plaintiff’s suspension for insubordination, demotion for poor managerial decisions, and eventual termination for not calling his direct supervisor are all based on pretext to cover-up Defendant(s) alleged racial and retaliatory acts against Plaintiff. Carl Robertson was discharged from employment on December 26, 2012, for not calling his direct supervisor Thomas Blair although Plaintiff called each day absent; and, Robertson was never informed by anyone within the maintenance department or ICT’s administration that his job was in jeopardy, and/or he needed to call Thomas Blair.

Further, Plaintiff did not receive the required appraisal for a demotion with a salary decrease which should have informed him of ICT’s expectations after his demotion. Plaintiff accuses Elmer Smith and eventually Thomas Blair of harboring racism, as well as bias attitudes towards Robertson when compared to William Spyers (Caucasian male), when compared to B. C. (Caucasian female), when compared to L. N. (Caucasian female), when compared to J. M. (Caucasian male), when compared to D. F. (Guamanian male), when compared to V. R. (Hispanic Male), when compared to C. T.-R. (African-American female), and when compared to Kenneth Hamm (Caucasian male). Since Elmer Smith, as the final decision maker never made any attempt to investigate the alleged racism or wrongdoings complained about against Thomas Blair and/or himself. Blair’s individual racist, bias, and retaliatory attitude concerning Robertson’s demotion and discharge from employment is imputed to Elmer Smith under § 1981 and the “Cat’s Paw Theory of Liability;” as well as racial discrimination under like circumstances involving an African-American and Caucasian students working under Plaintiff’s directions. “Although ethical codes require judges to disclose facts bearing upon their impartiality, they don't always do so. They sit on cases in which they have undisclosed relationships with parties, their attorneys, or have interests in the outcome, and do so deliberately because they wish to advantage either one side over another or sometimes themselves. They exercise their wide discretion in that side's favor. That's the side for whom deadlines are flexible and for whom procedural standards and evidentiary rules don't apply. A common thread running through judicial misconduct cases is litigation misconduct by the favored side. Meanwhile, the other side struggles to meet inflexible deadlines, and has its worthy motions denied. In extreme cases, a judicial process predicated on standards of conduct, elementary legal principles, rules of evidence, simply ceases to exist.” Without Merit: The Empty Promise of Judicial Discipline, Elena Ruth Sassower; Massachusetts School of Law, “The Long Term View”, Volume 4, Number I, (1997). Elena Ruth Sassower Co-founder and Coordinator, Center for Judicial Accountability, Inc.