Jose Serrano
Address: 137 Ferdinand Drive Gallatin, Tn 37066
e-mail: jose.serrano2010@yahoo.com
Phone: (563) 940-8927
RE: Jose Serrano and Dover Corporation
EEOC Charge No. 494-2020-02662
February 10, 2021
Dear EEOC,
RESPONSE TO LAW FIRM’S POSITION
In a letter dated January 29, 2021, De-Sta-Co industries via the law firm of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. denies the claims I made. My claims are valid.
I would like to point out some discrepancies in this letter that are obvious. But first I wanted to reiterate that there were issues of discrimination prior to the PIP that came in July 23, 2020. As you can see in {Exhibit 1}, there was a potential case against De-Sta-Co that I decided to back away from giving the company the benefit of the doubt to make things right. This came in January of 2020, several months before the 2nd Inquiry and charge.
There are three requirements for retaliation cases specified by Section 704a of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1991). In the first prong, the plaintiff must engage in a protected activity by either complaining about a specific illegal employment practice (opposition) or filing a formal claim of discrimination (participation). In the second prong, after engaging in the protected activity, the plaintiff must suffer an adverse employment action from the defendant. Finally, in the third prong the plaintiff must be able to show a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.
The day I was terminated on October 6, 2020, it was said it was because of violating Dover Values. It was a couple days after I sent an email to a few Executives telling of my frustration and expressing the concern after going to management of my complaints. We can call this outburst in an email an opposition. An important point regarding retaliation claims is how opposition is determined. Opposition that is indirectly and unintentionally conveyed to an employer is just as serious as that which is directly expressed, intentional opposition (Green, 2010). As such, complaints to coworkers or general voicing of disagreement by the employee is protected (Oderda, 2010). Essentially, if opposition reaches a decision-maker at the managerial/supervisory level of the company, it is considered to be opposition. Participation is a formal act, but opposition can take many forms (Cavico & Mujtaba, 2011). Assuming the complaint reaches management, the employer is responsible for opposition occurring and must take action to rectify the issue without engaging in a retaliatory action. In Hertz v. Luzenac Am. Inc. (2004), the court held that when the employee got upset and yelled at his supervisor in public about some discriminatory comments, the employee action was protected under the opposition clause because the employee’s complaint was communicated to management (Oderda, 2010). My complaint was justified based on the retaliation tactics said manager(s) Robinette Eckers and Jason Foster were participating. Yet my employment was terminated.
In addition to the prior claims I made, I have another retaliation claim in regard to Covid-19 test results that is stated on the PIP report that was attached by said attorney. In late March when I had contracted pneumonia, I was asked to get tested for Covid-19 and quarantine for 14 days. I submitted a snapshot of my doctor’s note to Robin Eckers, the Human Resource Manager. Days later, I was called and informed that I had tested negative for Covid-19.
On the PIP issued July 23, I was asked to provide my Covid-19 test results. In an attachment referencing the PIP provided by Ogletree and their position statement, pg.26, it states on PIP on May, but it was late March 2020 when said absence occurred {Exhibit 5}. I called my doctor and asked for the results. I fail to understand why I was asked to provide my Covid-19 test results months after I had already tested negative and returned to work. A couple of weeks ago, Michael Stokes, a quality engineer, got married and went to Florida. The company asked him to stay home because he had come from a perceived hotspot and showed symptoms of Covid-19. He returned after a week with no Covid-19 test results. (Insert the name of the other employee on 2nd shift and his position), who had a relative with Covid-19 was able to return to work without any Covid-19 test results. I was asked to bring Covid-19 test results twice, while other employees were not required to bring Covid-19 test results even though they had been exposed to Covid-19. I find this as a retaliation tactic against me.
De-Sta-co actions are unwanted, unwelcomed, and have become unbearable to me. The actions also infringe upon my right to be heard and it is against Tennessee labor laws. This letter brings to your attention that the situation has caused financial difficulty, emotional distress, and a great deal of mental and emotional stress as well as substantial harm to my professional and social reputation.
Sincerely,
Jose Serrano
___________________
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 5
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, we will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible.