Comda Calendars, Comda.com, Comdapens.com,ACRD Arizona Civil Rights Division complaint filed vs. racist, prejudiced and clear anti-semetic workplace harassment Attorney General's office Tucson, Toronto, Canada, Amhearst Arizona

COMDA Employee Continues to Publicly Haze Former Worker

Yesturday, Friday, June 27, 2009, the same COMDA employee again left his office to publicly haze me in Tucson, Arizona in a small shopping center two blocks from my home, where there is a local bar, "Ain't Nobody's Business", a comedy club, "Laffs", a barber, a bank and several other business that I occasionally visit.

I have now been hazed at this shopping center, a Safeway food store and at the downtown bus station at COMDA's former location. At two of these location, the employee left his office during business hours to defile and haze.

This time the wicked was screaming in front of his office as I walked down the street, over 200 feet away and returning to my home.


There is an awefully big downside on only juvenile personal gratification for still employed COMDA workers - how immature, juvenile and illegal can these provincial denouements be?


Ladies and gentlemen, forget vengence - this is a gluttonous, sick, ludicrous and vain, proud, wicked, disgruntled and juvenile disenfranchised woman-worshipping Hispanic Catholic racist that needs help before committing not only more workplace harassment and/or felonies, but psychiatric treatment.


This lawsuit is only in the Pima County Superior Court, it can easily go to a higher court, and this company can be prevented from doing further business in the United States. I have already complained to the Canadian human rights commision. They have responded by mail.


Notice of this lawsuit was legally published in addition to court filings in Pima County and is readily found.


So you will note from the two rebuttals of manager/employees that they are both simply wrong - the fact are verified by the Arizona Civil Rights Division of the Attorney General's Office and were filed in Superior Court.


COMDA Employees: Below you will find the lawsuit against COMDA Calendars, its owners, management and staff.


If those who own and manage COMDA continue to both legally and illegally misbehave when they are totally, and I do mean totally, in the wrong, much, much more severe actions will be taken.


The owners/managers of this company must be utter idiots to continue to allow this type of hazing.

*************


PATRICIA A. NOLANI)
CLERK. SUPERIOR COURT
AM 2 5 2003 I
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN AND FOR PIMA COUNTY
C 0 0 8 5 8 6 7
LAWRENCE MORRIS LEIGHT,
Applicant
)
) No.
) COMPLAINT
) Application for Order to Show ) Cause and order Enforcing
Subpoena
Assigned to:
Vs.
COMDA Calendars Inc., a Toronto, Canada, Corporation, its owners, management, and employees, both individually and as company officers. )
Defendants. )_____ )
Applicant Pima County, Arizona, resident Lawrence Morris Leight, pro per, and the Civil Rights Division of the Arizona Department of Law allege as follows:
1. This Court has jurisdiction of the instant application pursuant to A.R.S. section 41-1403(B)(3). This action is also filed under Federal Statute Title VII and ADA.
2. The Civil rights division of the Arizona Department of Law (hereinafter "the Division") is an administrative agency created by A.R.S. section 41-1401-1984 for the purpose of investigating and
conciliating charges of discrimination in employment and public accommodations.
3. A.R.S. section 41-1481(B) requires the Division to investigate charges of employment discrimination within A.R.S. section 41- 1463, which have been filed with it by members of the public.
4. To aid in investigating such charges, the Division is authorized by A.R.S. section 41-1403(B)(1) to issue subpoenas compelling the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of documents. Under A.R.S. section 41-1403(B)(4) such subpoenas may be served personally or by registered mail.
5. On February 15, 2008, Lawrence Leight filed a charge of employment discrimination and harassment with the Division against COMDA Calendars. A copy of that charge is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated by reference herein. That charge was assigned to the Division for investigation.
6. In February, 2008, the Division caused to be served on COMM Calendars a set of interrogatories and an administrative subpoena duces tecum requiring answers to question and documents and records which are relevant to Leight's charge.
7. Those interrogatories and subpoena were served on Respondent.
8. Respondent has not been grant ed additional time to respond to the interrogatories or the subpoena duces tecum nor has objection been made to the subpoena on the grounds set out at A.R.S. Section 411403(B)(3), e.g. that the evidence does not relate to unlawful practices covered by this chapter, that it is not relevant to the charge which is the subject matter of the investigation, that it does=2 0not describe with sufficient particularity the evidence whose production is required, or that it is unduly burdensome or oppressive.
9. A.R.S. section 41-1403(B)(1) provides in relevant part: The Superior Court, upon application by the division or the person subpoenaed, shall have jurisdiction to issue an order (a) requiring such person to appear before Arizona courts, the division, the Board or the duly authorized agent of either, there to produce evidence relating to the matter under investigation if so ordered.... Any failure to obey such order may be punished by such court as a contempt.
10. The Plaintiff was at all times herein a resident of Pima County, Arizona.
11. The Defendant, COMDA Calendars, is a Canadian Corporation based in Toronto, Canada.
12. The Defendants, each and all of them, were acting in their capacities as agents, employees and representatives of said Defendant; the Defendants JOHN DOES I-V and JANE DOES I-V were at all times relevant herein employees, officers or agents of the Defendant, each and all of them; the Defendants JOHN DOES I-V and Jane DOES I-V are as yet undetermined, but the Plaintiff will move this Court to amend the Complaint as soon as20their identities are determined; the Defendants, each and all of them were acting in their capacities agents, servants and employees of each and all of the other Defendants and acted for all pertinent purposes within the course and scope of their employment.
13. Acts complained of herein took place primarily within Pima County, Arizona.
14. Plaintiff is a male of Hebraic descent who was employed as a Se nior Sales Associate by the Defendant.
15. Defendant is in the business of selling calendars with advertisement/logo of calendar-purchasing clients. Defendant had at least one employee for twenty consecutive weeks in calendar years 2007-2008.
16. Plaintiff filed a charge of employment harassment and discrimination with the Civil Rights Division on February 15, 2008, alleging among other things, that during his employment employees of COMM Calendars made unwelcome and unsolicited racist, swear words against the Plaintiff and comments and innuendos, including repeatedly calling the defendant "weido", swearing before other employees regarding the defendant, wearing of Gang Colors, requiring the Plaintiff to purchase goods during time of employment to take Mexican-only client calls, other religious prejudice and failing to desist despite both repeated complaint to the manager, Dan Valdez, and complaint to other employees.
17. That Dan Valdez additionally withheld promised first-week wages from the Plaintiff.
18. That additional habitual and various religious prejudice, racist pride, wrongful accusation and punishment was levied against the Plaintiff by Manager Dan Valdez, wrongly in favor of Hispanic and
Catholic employees, making COMDA Calendars a hostile and illegal work environment.
19. The Defendant was fired from his job by Dan Valdez after evacuating in his pants while speaking to a customer on a sales call while being so loudly and sadistically mocked by other employees that he could not hear the call; that another employee also continued to mock the Plaintiff despite his objection; that senior management in Toronto was apprised of the situation but took no constructive action to address Plaintiffs complaints and objections to the illegal ways in which COMDA Calendars was run and managed.
COUNT I - Violation of Arizona Discrimination Laws
20.&nbs p; The facts previously set out give rise to a cause of action for discrimination pursuant to Arizona law. It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of gender, religion, race or ethnicity, or to otherwise create a hostile work environment. The Defendants, each and all of them, discriminated against the Plaintiff by creating and allowing a hostile work environment because of the Plaintiff's gender and their racial and other prejudice, and regardless of both. The Defendants, each and all of them, knew or reasonably should have known of the individual Defendant's conduct. The Plaintiff was constructively discharged and seriously harmed by this conduct. As such, the Plaintiff seeks recovery for his damages.
COUNT II - Constructive Discharge
21. The facts set out previously give rise to a cause of action for constructive discharge wh en the Plaintiff criticized the bad management and judgment of employees. Despite repeated requests that the Defendants stop the harassment and verbal abuse, the Defendants failed to correct the situation. The constructive discharge of the Plaintiff by the Defendants was wrongful, in bad faith, and in violation of the public policy of the State of Arizona as embodied in the State's discrimination laws, Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964. Being constructively discharged from his employment
has damaged the Plaintiff. The constructive discharge of the Plaintiff was done in bad faith, with malice and with evil minds.
COUNT III - Violation of Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964
22. The facts set out previously give rise to a cause of action for violations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Plaintiff was a member of a protected class and the Defendant is a covered employer; The Plaintiff has set forth facts demonstrating employment discrimination, retaliation and other violation of his civil rights. Said actions were willful and warrant the implementation of damages for the harms the Plaintiff suffered.
23. The Plaintiff has suffered damages because of the actions and inaction of the Defendants. The Defendants' conduct proximately caused the Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress, mental and physical anguish, indignation, wounded love, shame and despair. In addition to these injuries, the Defendants' conduct has proximately caused the Plaintiff to suffer pecuniary losses and lost employment opportunities.
24. The conduct of the Defendants described in this Complaint was willful and malicious so as to entitle the Plaintiff to recover exemplary damages to punish the Defendants and to deter such conduct in the future. The Plaintiff will show that, as a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff has suffered loss of time and expenses, including reasonable attorneys fees incurred in this investigation and prosecution of this action. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asks that exemplary damages be awarded against the Defendants in an amount greatly exceeding the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court.
COUNT IV - Arizona Wage Law Violations
25. The Defendants actions caused severe harm to the Plaintiff, including monetary losses, severe emotional distress, harm to the Plaintiff's reputation and humiliation among others; said harms are permanent in nature.
26. The Defendants' conduct was intentional or was based upon a reckless disregard for the harm that would be caused and subjects the Defendants to punitive damages.
27. The conduct of the Defendant described in this Complaint was willful and malicious so as to entitle the Plaintiff to recover exemplary damages to punish the Defendants and to deter such conduct in the future. The Plaintiff will show that, as a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff has suffered loss of time and expenses, including fees incurred in this investigation and prosecution of this action. Accordingl y, the Plaintiff asks that exemplary damages be awarded against the Defendants in an amount greatly exceeding the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests judgment as follows:
1. That the Plaintiff be awarded compensatory damages including but not limited to emotional distress, back pay, front pay, lost benefits and sales commissions, interest on any sums certain, treble damages pursuant to statute;
2. That the Plaintiff be awarded punitive damages;
3. That the Plaintiff recovers his costs;
4. That the Plaintiff have such other and further relief as the Court deems proper; and,
5. That the Plaintiff be awarded any attorneys' fees incurred herein.
Dated August 8, 2008.
Lawrence Morris Leight, pro per
WHEREFORE, THE APPLICANT respectfully requests the Court to order Respondent COMDA Calendars Incorporated, it's owners, managers and/or representative(s) to appear before the Court to produce responses to interrogatories and subpoena relating to the charges of employment discrimination filed by Lawrence Leight, at reasonable time and date set by the Court.
DATED this 11th day of August 2008.
LAWRENCE LEIGHT
STATE OF ARIZONA )
)
County of Pima )
Lawrence Morris Leight, being acquainted with the facts, aver that I have read the above and foregoing application and know the contents thereof and that the same is true of my own personal knowledge except as to those statements made on information and belief and as to them, I believe them to be true.
Lawrence Morris Leight, Applicant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this th day of August 2008.
Notary Public in and for the State of Arizona. My commission expires:
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Civil Rights Division
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE
Lawrence M. Leight vs. Comda International Calendars West
(Charging Party) (Respondent)
CRD No.: T08-0222 &n bsp; EEOC No.:35A-2008-00327C
On February 15, 2008, you filed a charge with the Civil Rights Division alleging employment discrimination. Arizona law provides that you may bring a civil action in Superior court of the county where the alleged discriminatory action took place. Should you decide to file a civil action, you must do so within 90 days of the date you receive this Notice or within one year of the date you filed the charge, whichever comes first. A.R.S. 41-1481(D.)
This NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE is being issued for the following reason(s):
This office has made a final determination or has otherwise completed its processing of your charge and will be taking no further action.
The Civil Rights Division has not completed the processing of your charges, but there are
approximately 90 days left before the expiration of the one year deadline for filing a civil action in Superior Court.
q Although your charge was sent to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for processing, you may also have a right to sue under the A rizona Civil Rights Act, and there are approximately 90 days left before the expiration of the one year deadline for filing a civil action in Superior Court.
Charging Party has submitted a written request. (Note: A Notice of Right to Sue cannot be issued until 90 days after the date the charge was initially filed unless the Civil Rights Division has issued a final determination.)
If you have any questions concerning this notice, please contact (520) 628-6500. If you need legal assistance, you should seek the advice of an attorney.
Sincerely,
BY:
,
Ernest Granillo,
ance Manager
Diana L. Varela, Chief Counsel Compliance Section
Sent by regular mail on this 16th day of May, 2008
Hand delivered to charging party at our office on this 16th day of May, 2008
cc: Comda International Calendars West(Respondent)
AUG Z 5 len
PATRICIA A. NOLANb
CLERK. SUPERIOR COURT
Lawrence Morris Leight, pro per Plaintiff
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZOMM-LI 110GLER IN AND FOR PIMA COUNTY
LAWRENCE MORRIS LEIGHT, )
Case NoC 0
" 5 8 67
CERTIFICATE OF COMPULSORY ARBITRATION
Vs. Applicant

)
COMDA Calendars Inc., a Toronto, )
Canada, Corporation, its owners, management, and employees, both )
)
individually and as company officers. )
Defendants. )


Assigned to: [readily checked if you are interested in attending]
__________ )
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, LAWRENCE LEIGHT, pro per, and hereby certifies that the largest award sought, including punitive damages but excluding interest, attorney's fees and costs, exceeds the limits set by local Rule for compulsory arbitra tion. This case is not subject to the Uniform Rules of Procedure for Arbitration.
DATED August 11, 2008.
Lawrence Leight