The worlds largest temporary staffing agency, Manpower Inc. has been accused of sex, religeous, disability discrimination and retaliation from 2000-2002. In two similar circumstance complaints to the EEOC placed within the past two years Manpower has been accused of manipulating the actual date of discrimination in two EEOC cases so that they were time barred and they dismiss allegations of retaliation by former employees. In both cases the employees were dismissed from the local agency with the backing of the corporate office in Milwaukee Wis.
West Palm Beach, FL (PRWEB) July 27, 2004 -- Growing evidence exists that the
nations largest temporary staffing employer, Manpower Inc, discriminates against
people with disabilities and also sex and religeous beliefs. Two EEOC cases
against Manpower and its franchise allege discrimination between 2000 and
Raymond C. Persik charged that Manpower Inc fired him because of his sex and religeous beliefs. Persik worked out of the Boulder, CO office. He filed a pro se lawsuit against Manpower Inc. in 2003. ( Raymond Charles Persik v Manpower Inc.).
Herbert J. Morris filed an EEOC charge on June 9, 2003 against Manpower of Dayton Inc.(Herbert J. Morris v Manpower of Dayton, Inc.) alleging disability discrimination from 1999-2002.
After Morris was fired from the company on January 24, 2002 he was told not to contact the Dayton offices again. In Manpowers position statement to the EEOC they state that Morris's complaint was time barred. Morris filed a charge of retaliation against Manpower of Dayton, Inc. in March 2004 for threatening Morris and charging Morris with trespassing on their property. Morris was told not to contact Manpower of Dayton in three written correspondences between May 2003 and April 2004. In all three written correspondences Morris engaged in protected activity. Under section 503 of the ADA no employer can retaliate against a former or current employee because they engaged in protected activity.
Raymond Persik alleges that the defendant, Manpower Inc. (Manpower), unlawfully discriminated against him based on his sex, religion, and his "Religious/Political Pro Life view. Manpower is a temporary agency that places employees with employers who contract for temporary labor. It employed Persik as a temporary employee.
Persik asserts that the first incident of discrimination occurred on March 27, 2000, during a job assignment arranged by the Manpower office in Boulder, Colorado. He alleges that a Manpower representative contacted him and asked if he was experiencing emotional problems. On April 24, 2000, Persik was prematurely released from a Manpower assignment through the Boulder office at the University of Colorado. He alleges that this termination occurred due to discrimination rather than the reason given, his failure to follow directions.
Persik claims he was unable to obtain employment through Manpower during the summer of 2000. (Charge of Discrimination). Apparently, he is referring only to the Boulder branch office, for on July 5, 2000, Persik states he again worked for Manpower at an assignment arranged by the Louisville, Colorado branch office and "had an excellent assignment." Id. at 2. In December 2000, Persik also worked out of the Manpower office in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. He alleges no discriminatory incident in this assignment. The last incident of discrimination purportedly took place on July 27, 2001, when Persik received a letter from Manpower's corporate headquarters, indicating that it stood by the decision reached by the Boulder branch office in April 24, 2000 to terminate his employment.
Persik filed a charge of discrimination complaining of these practices with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on January 22, 2002. The district court dismissed Persik's complaint for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), because his complaint showed that his EEOC charge had not been timely filed. A Title VII plaintiff must file a charge with the EEOC within 300 days "after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). A claim is time-barred if the charge is not filed within this time limit. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 109 (2002). Discrete discriminatory acts, such as those Persik alleges here, "occur" on the day they "happen." Id. at 110. "Each discrete discriminatory act starts a new clock for filing charges alleging that act.
The only alleged act of discrimination that occurred within 300 days of the date on which Persik filed his EEOC charge was the July 27, 2001 letter from Manpower's headquarters. The district court concluded that this letter merely ratified Persik's earlier termination, and therefore did not re-start the 300-day clock.
Persik learned of his termination on or before April 24, 2000. He failed to file a charge with the EEOC within three hundred days of this date. The July 26, 2001 letter informing plaintiff that Manpower would not reverse its April 24, 2000 decision to terminate him did not constitute a fresh act of discrimination for purposes of the EEOC filing.
In Herbert J. Morris v Manpower of Dayton Inc. (EEOC charge number 221-2003-00782) termination was based upon the same circumstances. In October 1999 Manpower of Dayton's area manager was called to a job assignment because Morris was having emotional problems. Much like the Persik case Morris was abruptly terminated from that assignment. Later Morris told Manpower of Dayton that he had a disability which Manpower did not ask for proof. Manpower acknowleged that Morris told Manpower of Dayton of his disability in Dec. 1999. (Manpower position statement).
In similarity with the Persik case Morris also had problems obtaining employment with Manpower in the summer of 2000. Morris was sent to one day non-clerical assignments in late 1999 and early 2000 instead of the long term clerical assignments Morris requested from Manpower of Dayton. After getting hired by Manpower's client in fall 2000 Morris worked for the client for a year and then resigned due to his disability and then re-registered with Manpower of Dayton.
After three months of no referrals Morris complained to Manpower of Dayton only to be released from the company in January 2002.
Morris was told not to contact Manpower and in the similarity of the two cases Manpower of Dayton said the EEOC complaint was time barred. Morris filed with the EEOC in June of 2003. Morris was fired in Jan. 2002.
In each case Manpower used different tactics to ward off the time allowed for discrimination cases making them time barred.
The EEOC dismissed Morris's case because according to Manpower(Manpower position statement) Morris was a below average worker in great economic times and because the economy downturned in late 2001 and early 2002 and there were no positions available. The last assignment Morris completed and was hired by Manpower's client.
Evidence shows that Manpower of Dayton did not lose any business from 2001 to 2002(Dayton Business Journal Book of Lists). Manpower of Dayton sent out 10,000 people on assignments during each years of 2001 and 2002. In 2003 Manpower Inc recorded large profits (Dayton Daily News article 3/4/04.)
Manpower also said in their position statement that Morris also had problems following directions in one job assignment after Morris approached his supervisor about his job security. Morris would call in for jobs after Sept. 2000 and Manpower of Dayton would not make him active in their system.
In April and May 2003 Morris asked for reinstatement and was denied. In April 2003 Morris told Manpower of Dayton he had a disability. Morris then complained to Manpower's corporate offices in Milwaukee in June 2003 and was told in an email in june 2003 that the corporate offices backed the local office in the decision to not rehire Morris.
On March 9, 2004 Morris walked into Manpower of Dayton's corporate offices with proof of disability and to apply for work. Morris was escorted out of the building by police for allegedly causing a scene(trespassing).
On March 17, 2004 Morris sent a registered letter to Manpower of Dayton's area manager providing proof of disability with no response.
On April 19, 2004 Morris recieved a threatening letter from Manpower of Dayton's attorney claiming that Morris was verbally abusive and the attorney threatened Morris with law enforcement action if Morris did not stop contacting Manpower's employees by email, fax, phone or in person. Morris sent emails and made phone calls in opposition to discrimination to Manpower Inc. corporate offices in Milwaukee. Manpower Inc did not respond to those emails and when told of discrimination by Morris an attorney for Manpower Inc. said they would not get involved.
Morris filed a retaliation claim against Manpower on April 20, 2004(Ohio Civil Rights Commission charge #76030904 (16519) 042004);22A A4 01951
Morris recieved the official OCRC decision dated July 22, 2004.
OCRC investigators suggest that there was no retaliation because Morris continued to contact Manpower Employees after he was told to stop. Morris contacted Manpower employees to voice opposition to discrimination, therefore the OCRC's ruling backs the employer Manpower of Dayton. The OCRC's ruling sends the wrong message to employees.
Morris states the treatment he recieved was unlike any in the same situation because Manpower knew of his opposition to discrimination. The OCRC also concluded that Manpower was not going to re-hire Morris.
The EEOC compliance manual, as well as the Supreme Court ruling(Robinson v Shell Oil Company) says that retaliation can apply to ex-employees as well as current employees.
Under the EEOC rules(EEOC compliance manual) participation is protected regardless of whether the allegations in the original charge were valid or reasonable.
The specifics of Persik's case can be found on the web. Morris is appealing the Ohio Civil Rights decision and or will request a right to sue letter from the EEOC.
There are other unrelated cases against Manpower and its franchises/branches in the past 3 years.
The cases are Elizabeth Wilson v Manpower Int'l(2/24/03, Mullin v Rochester Manpower Inc. (2002),McGowin v Manpower Int'l (4/8/04, and Neal v Manpower Int'l (2001).
# # #
Source : http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/7/prweb144207.htm