SINCLAIR DICKERSONS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

XXXX

Street Address

City, State  Zip

Phone Number (with area code)

Fax Number

Email Address

Complainant in pro per

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

XXXX DISTRICT OFFICE

 

XXXXX,

Complainant,

vs.

UNIVERSITY OF XXXX,

Respondent(s)

 ))

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 Case No.:

XXXX ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION

  1. I am writing to file a formal complaint against University of XXX for the retaliation, work place harassment, gender discrimination and age discrimination I have experienced in the workplace over the past four years. I believe that my rights as an employee have been violated, and I am seeking your assistance in addressing this matter.
  2. I was hired as the Director of Talent Acquisition & Diversity Outreach at University of XXXX  on XXXX. I have 23 years of Talent Acquisition experience in multiple industries, including Entertainment, Retail, and Local Government and Higher Education. I have ten years of leadership experience with a Bachelor’s of Science in Business Management and Masters of Science in Organizational Leadership. I have been working for four years at University of California Riverside. Regrettably, I have maintained contemporaneous notes throughout my four years with University of XXXX, in which I have encountered several incidents of discriminatory behavior, retaliation and harassment, which have created an uncomfortable and hostile work environment.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

  1. On or around XXXX, I was accused of falsifying my employment application by Sue Champion Tintorer, Human Resource Manager.
  2. Sue indicated there was a “Whistleblower Complaint” and UCR will be investigating the accuracy of my employment application. The whistleblower complained that my employment title on the application was not correct and questioned my employment with the City of Riverside. (Documentation Included #)
  3. Sue Champion XXXX and XXX interviewed me regarding my UCR employment application.
  4. Sue Champion XXXX contacted the Human Resources Director at the City of Riverside to verify my employment and title at the City of Riverside. (Witness: Stephanie XXXX, HR Director, City of XXXX)
  5. In XXXX, I hired XXX Esq, to prepare a legal response to UCR whistleblower compliant and investigation. In XXXX, Attorney XXXX sent a response to UCR addressing the whistleblower claims, indicating there was a “unwarranted investigation.” The letter was addressed to XXXX, Chief Compliance Officer, Sue Champion XXXX, Human Resources Manager and, XXXX, Interim Associate Vice Chancellor of Human Resources. (Documentation Included #)
  6. On XXXX Sue XXX, Human Resources Manager sent me an email indicating “After investigation, the determination was that the allegation related to the award was not substantiated, and that while your resume and application materials could have listed your experience more precisely, there are no actionable misrepresentation. Therefore, we have determined that the allegations are not actionable at this time and therefore we consider this issue to be closed.” (Documentation Included #)
  7. After working for the University of XXXX for six months this incident significantly impacted my emotional and mental well-being and job performance. I was very fearful of losing my employment with the University of Riverside California.
  8. In January 2020, I was directly retaliated against By John Stephen Henderson, Interim Associate Vice Chancellor of Human Resources. I prepared a legal response to the whistle blower complaint to protect myself and position as the Director of Talent Acquisition and Diversity Outreach. This legal response created a hostile work environment for me in the Central Human Resources department. (Documentation Included #)
  9. In January 2020, John Stephen Henderson directly changed the reporting structure of Lela Dennis who reported directly to me as the Manager to Director of Employee and Organization and changed her report structure to report directly to him.
  10. Lela Dennis was hired as a Manager of Director of Employee and Organization and reported directly to me in November 2019. During a one-on-one meeting in January John Stephen Henderson commented, “Why did you get an attorney to respond to the investigation?” My response was “UCR was trying to fire me with cause.”
  11. The restructure of my team and demotion of my position was direct retaliation from my legal response to the whistleblower. (Documentation Included #)
  12. After working for the University of California Riverside for seven months this incident significantly impacted my emotionally and experienced increased stress and anxiety, which has affected my ability to focus and contribute effectively to the team. (Documentation Included #)
  13. In XXXX, I was medically placed on leave for three days, due to the increased stress related to the whistleblower complaint and lack of leadership support from the University of XXXX.
  14. On XXXXX, I filled a compliant to protect my employment and address the harassment, discrimination, and retaliation through the UCR Ethic Point system.
  15. My compliant summarized that “The University of XXXX and the Leadership in Human Resources department have failed time and time again to protect me from the continuous workplace harassment and defamation of character leading to an extremely anxiety filled, hostile work environment.” (Documentation Included #)
  16. My compliant summarized the whistleblower complaint from XXXX and investigation was a part of the continuous and aggressive behavior from HR leadership, co-workers in Central Human Resources, harassment, defamation of professional character and reputation, and hostile work environment that I have endured for the past eight months while working in the Central Human Resources department at The University of XXXX.
  17. The University of XXXX and the Human Resources department leadership as failed to provide the reasonable support, guidance and feedback during the first eight months in an environment with high turnover within the Human Resources department (Documentation Included #)(Witnessed: XXX]
  18. On XXXX, the complaint with acknowledged and received via email by XXXX Chief Compliance Officer. I spoke with Kiersten the regarding compliant. Kiersten asked, “if I want to file a formal complaint” and I declined because John Stephen Henderson was officially leaving UCR as XXX. Kiersten did indicate there were some concerns she will investigate regarding my complaints. Tammy Few was hired and named as the new AVC Human Resources as in XXXX. (Documentation Included #)
  19. In XXXX, I filled in the Ethics Point system a compliant of workplace harassment gender, age discrimination. The summary of the compliant, “The workplace harassment and hostile work environment are compounded by the gender and age harassment and discrimination, as the only African American male over the age of fifty in a director-level role in Human Resources. The gender discrimination makes the workplace harassment, hostile work more difficult because of the direct aggression and micro-aggression I have endured for fifteen months. These consistent aggressions have created an extremely anxiety-filled work environment where I am continually protecting myself from the next whistleblower allegation. I am always fighting to preserve my employment with the University of XXXX.” (Documentation Included #)
  20. In XXXX, Tammy Few became in the new Associate Vice Chancellor of Human Resources. I met with Tammy and we discussed the various situations regarding my employment at UCR. Tammy and I agreed move forward with a renewed and positive attitude towards my employment with UCR.
  21. Between XXXX for one entire year I did not have any incidents or situations with any form of harassment until Tammy Few, announced her departure from UCR effective XXXX.
  22. In XXXX, Tammy Few Associate Vice Chancellor of Human Resources informed me before her departure that she completed a performance evaluation for me, because she felt UCR Leadership was trying to eliminate my position and push me out of the role of Director of Talent Acquisition. (Witness: Tammy XXX.)
  23. In XXXX, XXXX was announced as Interim AVC Human Resources UCR. XXXX would remain Director of Compensation at XXXX and manage the Interim AVC Human Resources UCR. This was a decision made by XXXX the Vice Chancellor of Planning, Budgeting and Administration.
  24. In XXX, XXXX announced to the Human Resources Leadership Group (HRLG) he will be managing both positions on a Interim basis until a decision is made about a replacement. The Human Resources Leadership Group (HRLG) consist of Director of Employee Labor – XXXXX esq., Director of Talent Acquisition – Sinclair Dickerson, MBA., Director of Employee Organizations Development – XXXX, MBA., Workplace Health & Wellness Manager – XXXX, and Human resources Information Systems Manager – XXXX.
  25. In XXXX started announcing herself as the Interim Deputy Director of Human Resources with oversight of the Compensation, HR Communications, HRIS, EOD departments. Lela was promoted to a higher-level work and responsibilities within the HR department. There was no indication an Interim Deputy Director of Human Resources was able to all HRLG members. This was    a promotional everyone should have the opportunity to interview or be considered according to UCR Local Policy PPSM 20 and within the Human Resources Department.
  26. Lela’s appointment to Interim Deputy Director of Human Resources, was not a fair and equitable promotion within the Central Human Resources department. Lela’s appointment to a high-profile position was not for or equitable the two African American male leaders (Sinclair XXXX ) with more experience, tenure, and overall responsibilities within the department. Lela was consistently been appointed to higher titles based on her relationship with XXXX. There was no merit to promote a former manager to Director of Employee Organization Development (EOD), now the Interim Deputy Director of Human Resources.
  27. At the time of this appointment XXX had approximately nineteen months of experience and employment in her EOD role. Twelve of the nineteen months were with Tammy Few, former AVC Central Human Resources. Lela did not have any experience leading or supervising the following departments Classification & Compensation, HR Communications, HR Information Systems and Employee Organization Development.
  28. Lela told one of her employees in EOD that she has “special relationship” with John Stephen Henderson, Interim AVC Human Resources. XXX was her “mentor” and he is going help her professionally grow within UCR and UCOP (Documentation Included # Violation of PPSM 20) (Witnessed: CCC and XXXX)
  29. In XXX, I submitted a request to review my official personnel file to Samuel Alex Najera, Associate Vice Chancellor of Human Resources. The request to review my personnel file to confirm if Tammy Few submitted a performance evaluation on my behalf. After four years of employment the University failed to provide to a proper performance evaluation according to University of XXXX Office of the President policy. A violation against UCOP policy. PPSM 23 (Documentation included #)
  30. On XXXX, I received my first official performance evaluation after four years of working with UCR. A violation against UCOP policy. PPSM 23 (Documentation included #)
  31. On May 25, 2023 Alex Najera acknowledge that the system failed me and I should have received a performance evaluation; however, there was a performance evaluation filed in XXXX by Tammy Few, former AVC Central Human Resources (XXXXX performance evaluation rating was a 4 out of 5.
  32. On XXXX indicated in my XXXX performance evaluation overall score will 4 out of 5. The overall rating “4- Exceeds Performance Expectation.” Alex acknowledged receiving my promotion requests from XXXX and XXXX. Alex indicated I will receive an equity increase but not the 30% increase in compensation. Also, Alex indicated I will receive a reclassification of my position from Employment Manger 1 to Employment Manager 2 level.
  33. In XXXX, I discovered my performance evaluation overall scores of 4 out of 5. The overall rating “4- Exceeds Performance Expectation” The official score recorded in my personnel file was reduced down to 3 out of 5. A three “3 – Successfully Meets Performance Expectations”. This official score was submitted to the Central Human Resources – Employee Labor Relation Department as the official record. (Documentation attached # )
  34. After working for the University of California Riverside for four years and two months, a total of fifty months of employment, I received a performance evaluation of a 4 out of 5 and subsequently reduced to a 3 average. That did not reflect my overall work performance and continuous contributions as the most tendered leader within the Central Human Resources department. These incidents have significantly impacted my health, mental health and experienced increased stress and anxiety, which has affected my ability to focus and contribute effectively to the team. I have been in constant retaliation and gender discrimination, age discrimination, with the fear of losing my employment with the University of California Riverside. (XXXX #)

CAUSES OF ACTION

First Cause of Action: Gender Discrimination and Preferential Treatment

  1. John Stephen Henderson Interim Associate Vice Chancellor of Human Resources (XXXX) and XXXX, Associate Vice Chancellor of Human Resources (XXXX) both discriminated against Sinclair Dickerson’s professional development and use preferential treatment of advance female professionals in UCR Human Resources.
  2. Central Human Resources leadership consistently over looked my seniority, knowledge, skills and abilities as an African American “male” professional in Human resources; however, creating promotional opportunities for Lela Dennis (African American female), and Lorena Velasquez (Latina female). Both promoted to higher level positions without a recruitment or open position within the department. Sinclair Dickerson and the other African American males were not presented within the opportunity to promote within the Human Resources department.
  3. XXX was promoted from manager to Director of Employee and Organizational Development (XXXX). Lela indicated she had a special relationship with XXXX. In XXXX, she was promoted to Deputy Chief Human Resources Officer (XXX). This was done without any official notification, recruitment process according to UCOP Policy PPSM 20. (XXXX #)
  4. In XXX, I submitted to request for promotion and increase in compensation to XXXX, he declined the request and indicated in a email “What increase work have you done? (Email documentation)
  5. In XXXX, I submitted another formal request for promotion and increase to XXXX who indicated the request will be reviewed by the newly hired Associate Vice Chancellor of Human Resources.
  6. In XXXX Quid Pro Quo: XXXX, relationship with Lorena Velasquez benefited him in the final candidate for the Associate Vice Chancellor of Human Resources. XXXXX a contract employee (5 years) was allowed to participate on the search committee for the Associate Vice Chancellor of Human Resources. This is not a normal process for contract employee to participate in a high-level recruitment.
  7. In XXXX , was selected as the final candidate for Associate Vice Chancellor of Human Resources. XXXX admitted she had a personal relationship with XXXX.
  8. After XXXX was hired Associate Vice Chancellor of Human Resources, he often referred to his personal relationship with Lorena Velasquez. During a meeting Alex referenced having “early Saturday morning calls with Lorena to discuss Central Human Resources topics.” This relationship created an alarming fact that their personal relationship was going to affect our business relationship and interaction with Alex. Alex often made many references to their rich Hispanic culture and respect for Lorena Velasquez. (XXXX #)
  9. In XXX I submitted to request for promotion and increase in compensation to Samuel Alex Najera, he declined the request and indicated the Central Human resources department was under “extreme budget deficient and no promotions is not available for me at this time”. (Documentation Included #)
  10. In XXXX was promoted from a non -funded role contract Project Manager to a permanent fully funded career position as a Project manager by XXXX within two months of his new appointment as Associate Vice Chancellor of Human Resources.

 (Quid Pro Quo)

In XXX was promoted to Director of Human Resources Information Systems in XXXX, during the same fiscal year of my request for a promotion and increase in compensation. (Quid Pro Quo)

  1. In XXXX was promoted to a director level position and still allowed to report directly to XXXX, despite the actual reporting structure should be to Mary White, Senior Director of HR Policy & Strategy. Lorena’s personal relationship and preferential treatment from Alex Najera has created a hostile work environment.
  2. In XXXX a newly promoted to Director of Human Resources Information Systems received the highest performance evaluation rating of 5 out of 5 within the entire Central Human Resources department. XXXX preferential treatment Lorena’s ranked her higher than the two African American professionals (Sinclair Dickerson, Director of Talent Acquisition) and XXXX, Director of Employee Labor Relations) in Central Human Resources. George and I received a performance rating of 3 out 5 on our XXXX from XXXX, Associate Vice Chancellor of Human Resources.

Second Cause of Action: Systematic Retaliation and Denial of Opportunity for Career Advancement

  1. The University of XXXX has long upheld a reputation of fostering an environment of education, growth, and inclusivity. However, beneath this veneer of excellence lies a deeply troubling reality faced by Sinclair Dickerson, the Director of Talent Acquisition & Diversity Outreach.
  2. XXX, serving as Interim Associate Vice Chancellor of Human Resources during the periods XXXX, emerges as a central figure in the saga of retaliation against Sinclair Dickerson. Despite the University’s commitment to diversity and equal treatment, Henderson’s actions reveal a darker side of the institution. In XXXX, when XXXX exercised his legal right to address a whistleblower complaint, Henderson’s response was not one of impartiality but rather retaliation.
  3. Upon Dickerson’s legal response to the whistleblower complaint, Henderson orchestrated a restructuring of Dickerson’s reporting hierarchy, demoting his position and removing his ability to oversee a key team member. This calculated maneuver was nothing short of a direct response to Dickerson’s lawful defense, showcasing an attempt to undermine his authority and dissuade future legal action. The message was clear: seeking legal recourse would come at a steep professional cost.
  4. Moreover, Action Two highlights Henderson’s actions as a clear violation of Dickerson’s right to career advancement. In XXXX, with the departure of XXXX once again assumed a position of power within the Human Resources department. By assuming the role of Interim AVC Human Resources, Henderson gained the ability to influence promotions and advancements within the department. It is evident that his actions were driven by a desire to impede Dickerson’s progress rather than foster it.
  5. The narrative continues with Samuel Alex Najera, who assumed the role of Associate Vice Chancellor of Human Resources in XXXX tenure, marked by the same retaliatory tendencies, further solidified the notion that career advancement for Dickerson was systematically obstructed. In the face of Dickerson’s attempts to secure promotions and increased compensation, XXXX responded with an unsettling display of favoritism.
  6. Najera’s relationship with XXXX, a colleague who was rapidly promoted under his watch, hints at a biased approach to career development. The preferential treatment received by XXXXX in the form of promotions raises questions about XXXXX commitment to equitable advancement. This scenario, coupled with Dickerson’s consistent denial of promotions, creates a troubling dichotomy in which certain individuals thrive while others are unjustly stunted.
  7. The repercussions of systematic retaliation and obstruction of career advancement are far-reaching. Not only do they tarnish the University’s reputation for fostering a fair and supportive work environment, but they also deeply affect XXX emotional and mental well-being and professional performance. The cumulative impact of these actions has instilled a sense of anxiety and insecurity in Dickerson, perpetuating a cycle of stress that hampers his ability to contribute effectively to the team.

Third Cause of Action: Harassment and Creation of a Hostile Working Environment

  1. In XXXXX– Asked: Why is there some tension between me and Lorena? I need to let her participate on the Contract Out project immediately.
  2. In XXXX (Interim AVC CHORO) told Alex Najera (New AVC CHORO) – There is an ongoing conflict between Sinclair and Lorena over roles and responsibilities.
  3. In XXXXX (New AVC CHORO) approached me about the ongoing conflict with me and Lorena Velasquez. He said I can see tension between the two of you and I need to find a resolution.
  4. In XXXXX, During our monthly touch base. Alex asked me, “why can’t me a Lorena get along?” “You are overly aggressive with her” I informed him that we both have similar Talent management experience. She likes to insert herself into my roles and responsibilities as Director of Talent Acquisition. Also, making references publicly when she was the Talent Acquisition Manager at UCR she did thing differently. This has been an ongoing issue for four years. There are others HR leaders that have witnessed her statement as “when I was the UCR Talent Acquisition Manager, this is what I would do.”
  5. In February 2023, after a training meeting in Hinderaker building. Alex asked me and Lorena to come into his office. He wanted to discuss the conflict between me and Lorena. I sat at the round table with three seats. I informed Alex, “this was uncomfortable because I do not have any issues with Lorena and it’s her issue with me.” Lorena began to explain that “I do not acknowledge her role in the department.” I explained that, “it’s my understanding that your role focuses on HR systems, and I acknowledge your roles and responsibilities.” Also, “there is no overlap with my role as Director of Talent Acquisition and my team.” She is not responsible for the Talent Acquisition department and people. Alex did not address Lorena’s behavior in the meeting.  Alex, informed Lorena “we will have to find a way to collaborate with each other” and we agreed to end the meeting. I left the meeting, understanding that Lorena’s personal relationship with Alex was clear and transparent and I need to be careful of my communication and interaction moving forward with Lorena Velasquez.

 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

REASONS WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, I respectfully request the Honorable Commission to go through my Complaint and exhibits, then issue a determination in my favor.

Dated this _____ day of XXXX.

Respectfully Submitted,

XXXX,

Complainant

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, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )