Outskirts Press, INC.

Charging Party’s documented evidence and the Respondent’s false defense proved that EEOC dismissed Charging Party’s race and age discrimination charge by violating EEOC policies numerous times and rejecting any and all evidence that was presented by the Charging Party.

Greensboro Local EEO Investigator Arlene Glover wrote the following to charging party: “The evidence of record, which includes the evidence and information submitted by you and by the Respondent (Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center) concerning the above referenced charge (Curtis Dixon v. EEOC Charge No.: 435-2012-00148), has been reviewed. In your charge of employment discrimination, you state your job duties were taken away, your supervisor engaged in nepotism, you were harassed and humiliated by your supervisor and her daughter, your supervisor and her daughter eliminated minority involved with management of the CERTL Program, your supervisor refused to increase your hours, and you were terminated from your position due to funding. You cite being discriminated against your race (black), in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, of 1964 as amended. You also are alleging age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination Employment Act of 1967, as amended. First and foremost, many of your allegations are untimely. In the state of North Carolina, you have 180 days to file a charge. Based on when your initial paperwork was submitted to our office in mid to late November 2011, anything occurring prior to mid or late May 2011 would be considered untimely under our covered statutes. You allege that you were discriminated against based on your race and age. However, the evidence shows that you were hired by the same supervisor who informed you your position would be eliminated due to the lack of funding. If your race was an issue then, she would not have likely hired you. Furthermore, you were hired in the protected age group (40 years of age or older) by being hired by Dr. Ann Lambros at age 67 in 2006 into the CERTL program..….First, the harassment you described did not rise to the level of being severe or egregious. Secondly, there is no evidence that the alleged harassment was based on your race or age. Specifically, the evidence is absent of any comments, jokes, or gestures made to you based on your race and age. Despite the fact that your allegations of racial or age harassment does not rise to the level of harassment as defined by the statutes, you also never complained about any harassment based on protected activity covered by the Commission…..You indicated that when Dr. Lambros hired her daughter, it was a violation of the Respondent’s nepotism policy. However, evidence shows that the nepotism policy in effect at the time when you were employed with the Respondent, was not in effect at the time Ms. Lambros’ daughter was hired.”