Amendment to Pursuant to 2018-775/2017-1205 LSA R.S. 42:1169, Freedom from Reprisal for disclosure of improper acts.
I, Kevin Day, wish to further clarify and update my complaint 2018-775/2017-1205.
I had a phone call on or around October 23, 2018 with a Joel Manuel (225) 219-5628. After contemplating the call, what questions were asked, what questions were not asked, and discovering that he did not have all of the evidence and documents I submitted, I decided that there may need to be further clarification.
To help ensure that you have the information that I put significant effort into compiling, I am providing a DVD with this information as well as copies from the DVDs that I had previously submitted. Given that Joel Manuel stated that he was not even aware of the information I submitted in October, I may even try to directly mail a copy of this information to him as well. (I would also note that he stated he received information in August, which confuses me as I do not recall ever sending anything.)
I want to emphasize that, although I have believe that I have plenty of evidence showing that there were numerous and repeated violations, I do not need to prove the violations only that I believe the violations were taking place. (Especially when there is a lawsuit that clearly states what ADA regulations we had to follow and giant meetings where all faculty/staff were required to show up to to receive training.)
I also remembered that Charlene Abbott had (at some point when I was filing an internal retaliation complaint) heard rumors that the personnel in the University where intending to use the police to cause an “incident” and that was why she told me to go home and not to the office (which can be heard in the audio recording). This further gives me reason to believe that the Bar Order was issued with hostile intent and conspiracy to harm in retaliation.
I also wish to emphasize the McNeese State University has failed to comply with the FOIA Request and are withholding the requested public records. I am making further attempts to get the information and I seek legal action to compel them to comply with the laws.
I further request my Broad Discovery rights as well as any Affirmative Defenses. - “McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 804-05 (1973).” - “Hollander V. American Cyanamid Co., 895, F.2d 80, 85 (2nd Cir. 1990)” - “Morrison v. City and County of Denver, 80 F.R.D. 289, 292 (D. Col. 1978)” - “Jones et al. v. Forrest City Grocery Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist LEXIS 19482 (E.D. Ark 2007)” - “Williams v. the Art Institute of Atlanta, 20076 U.S. DIst. LEXIS 62585 (N.D. Ga 2006)” - “Sallis v. Univ. of Mich., 408 F.3d 470, 478 (8th Circ. 2005)”
In the following sections I also intend to clarify why I believe I have more than enough reason and evidence to prove Whistleblower Retaliation (which is a copy of some of the contents of the e-mail that I sent to Joel Manuel). This information is described in more detail in my 2018-775 (and somewhat less so, 2017-1205), so this is another attempt to make my statements more clear. More than enough reasons to believe I suffered Whistleblower Retaliation
“employer's hostile attitude toward matter underlying employee's protected conduct” - This is proven through the multiple times (as proven in the Git Logs, Jira Tickets, and E-mails) when Chad Thibodeaux, Stan Hippler, and Patrick Eustis blatantly ignored ADA (Accessibility) requirements. Chad Thibodeaux and Stan Hippler removed me from my position as soon as I refused to push forward Patrick Eustis' ADA violations and then terminated my employment.
“employer's knowledge of protected conduct” - Chad Thibodeaux and Stan Hippler were informed of my complaint and did not care, as shown in the evidence.
“nature of protected conduct” - ADA violations (as well as security and other policy violations).
“special conditions of employment following protected conduct and leading up to discharge” - I was treated like I did something wrong. I was associated with a “Chemical Terrorist”. I had my constitutional rights violated. I was removed from my activities, moved to something lesser with no explanation. I had my position terminated without notice. I had unwarranted police force used against me with no justification or basis.
“disparate treatment of employee prior to protected conduct” - I had a near flawless annual progress report and I never had any complaints filed against me. I was told to keep doing what I have been doing because they hear nothing but good things.
“previous expressions of satisfaction with work record” - I had a near flawless annual progress report and I never had any complaints filed against me.
“disparate treatment of similarly situated employees” - Other employees get warned or even told they did something wrong if something wrong is even done. I was never told I had done anything wrong as shown in the evidence. The improper use of police force, which may also be a violation of the 14th amendment “Due Process of the Law” and “Equal Protection Clause”. By acting as a MSU Police Officer, they acted as a “State Action”. Furthermore, when the Discrimination Complaint and subsequent complaints were re-written again, I was further denied “Due Process of the Law” and “Equal Protection Clause” as I believe they, acting in their duties in a State institution qualifies as a “State Action”.
“termination procedure” - Terminated suddenly, without warning or justification, followed by a warentless use of police force with no justification. Attempts at clarification gave me no specific reason other than a vague “something I said”, which can only be referring to my complaints about ADA violations.
“timing of discharge” - Terminated suddenly, without warning or justification following my complaints of numerous violations.
“past history” - Exception Annual Report Reviews without any history of complaints or problems. Potentially Relevant Case Law
“Hale V. Touro, 886 So. 2d 120 (La. 2004)” - Whether or not they agree with my complaints about ADA violations, retaliating against me because I refused to engage in the ADA violations still constitutes Whistleblower Retaliation.
“Santiago-Ramos v. Centennial P.R. Wireless Corp., 217 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 2000)” - Derogatory comments by decisions makers, such as Stan Hippler (associating my work with Chemical Terrorism).
“Fassold V. Justice 409 F.3d 178 (3rd Cir. 2005)” - Employer “irritated” by protected activities. Where Chad Thibodeaux and Stan Hippler mention that Patrick Eustis is (using different words) irritated by the validation process and following the compliance.
“Fabela v. Socorro Independent School District, 329 F.3d 409 (5th Cir. 2003)” - I suspect that Stan Hippler and Chad Thibodeaux tried to justify my termination by stating I was a problem employer because I complaining about Patrick Eustis Harassing me as well as when I constantly pointed out ADA, security, and policy violations.
“Fierros v. Texas Dept. of Health, 274 F.3d 187 (5th Cir. 2001)” “Thomas v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 220 F.3d 389, 394 (5th Cir. 2000)” - Long record of positive performance. I have amazing progress reports my entire time employeed and have never had a complaint filed against me.
“Abramson v. Wiliam Paterson College, 260 F.3d 265 (3rd Cir. 2001)” - Change in demeanor after I made disclosures by Chad Thibodeaux and (most notably) Stan Hippler.
“Che v. Massachussetts Bay Transportation Authority, 342 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2003)” “Hite V. Vermeer, 446 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2007)” “Brammer-Hoelter v. Twin Peaks, 492 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2007)” - Change in behavior toward employee after protected activity by Chad Thibodeaux and (most notably) Stan Hippler.
“Fleeman v. Nevraska Park, 2008-STA-15 (DOL judge) (February 9, 2009), affirmed Administrative Review Board (May 28, 2010)” - Satisfactory performance/no-criticism for my entire employment prior to engaging in the protected activity.
“Centeno-Bernuy v. Perry, 202 F. Supp. 2d 128 (W.D. N.Y. 2003)” - Unfounded claims against me when Robert Spinks retaliated against me via the unlawful bar order.