August 27, 2020
Complaint of Discrimination Under the Provisions of the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act
RE UNRUH
and Governor Gavin Newsom
DFEH NUMBER HUD NUMBER
PROPERTY TYPE NO.OF UNITS
ELECTION CAMPAIGN
I ALLEGE THAT I EXPERIENCED DISCRIMINATION
ON OR BEFORE JANUARY 25, 2020
BECAUSE OF MY ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED AGE, RACE
AS A RESULT, I WAS DENIED FULL AND EQUAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS; DENIED EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AS POLITICAL CANDIDATE
THE POLITICS OF EXCLUSION
THE NAZI STORM TROOPER TACTICS OF EXCLUSION
Complaint for Denial of Equal Opportunity by Church and Neighborhood Councils- Civil Right Act of 1964
Complaint for Violation of the California Unruh Act, CC 51 et seq.
Complaint for Abuse of City Tax Dollars by Neighborhood Councils
Complaint for Violation of IRS regulations regarding Churches and Political Candidates
Complaint for damages by county employee Mark Ridley-Thomas for abuse of tax dollars used to participate in denial of equal opportunity of candidate G. Juan Johnson
Defamatory statements
Unfair Interference with the Election Process as to make the election results null and void
Intentional misrepresentation by Neighborhood Councils
Violation City Code of Ethics and (County Code of Ethics) sections II, XII, XIII, XIV.
Violation Los Angeles County Code of Ethics
Against respondent
First African Methodist Episcopal Church (“FAME”)
2270 S Harvard Blvd
Los Angeles CA 90018
(323) 735-1251
This is an Unruh Complaint regarding state and city
funded candidate forum
AGAINST RESPONDENT FIRST AFRICAN METHODIST CHURCH (“FAME”)
Section 73.1940 [47 CFR §73.1940]
Legally qualified candidates for public office
(a) A legally qualified candidate for public office is any person who:
(1) Has publicly announced his or her intention to run for nomination or office;
(2) Is qualified under the applicable local, State or Federal law to hold the office for which he or she is a candidate; and
(3) Has met the qualifications set forth in either paragraph (b), (c), (d), or (e) of this section.
(b) A person seeking election to any public office including that of President or Vice President of the United States, or nomination for any public office except that of President or Vice President, by means of a primary, general or special election, shall be considered a legally qualified candidate if, in addition to meeting the criteria set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, that person: (1) Has qualified for a place on the ballot; or
(2) Has publicly committed himself or herself to seeking election by the write-in method and is eligible under applicable law to be voted for by sticker, by writing in his or her name on the ballot or by other method, and makes a substantial showing that he or she is a bona de candidate for nomination or office
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Title 47 United States Code)
“A legally qualified candidate for public office is any person who….
Has publicly committed himself or herself to seeking election by the write-in method and is eligible under applicable law to be voted for by sticker, by writing in his or her name on the ballot or by other method” 47 CFR §73.1940
“Discrimination between candidates. In making time available to candidates for public office, no licensee shall make any discrimination between candidates in practices, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with the service rendered pursuant to this part, or make or give any preference to any candidate for public office or subject any such candidate to any prejudice or disadvantage; nor shall any licensee make any contract or other agreement which shall have the effect of permitting any legally qualified candidate for any public office to broadcast to the exclusion of other legally qualified candidates for the same public office.” Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Title 47 United States Code)
My position, as expressed, is that the Unruh Act protects “personal rights” and entitles “all persons” to “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services”no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status”.
There is no disparate impact or disparate treatment requirement under Unruh CC 51. Therefore it is not relevant to allege there was no discrimination due to race since some Black candidates were allowed a turn at the podium; that distinction does not appear under Unruh because the Unruh Act protects “all persons” meaning all Black candidates, meaning “all candidates” should have received full and equal advance social media publicity and a turn at the podium, “no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status.”
I was a Black, male, aged 66, color medium, qualified candidate who did not receive from FIRST AFRICAN METHODIST CHURCH (“FAME”)(“FAME”) full and equal privileges and services, and that is actionable no matter how many other Blacks were provided the privilege.
The FAME knew or perceived my protected characteristics prior to the date of the publicity for the candidate forum and prior to the date of the forum.
Summary The law
The Unruh act requires that:
1. “All” persons are free and equal.
2. “All” persons are entitled to “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services”
no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status”.
3. “This section shall not be construed to confer any right or privilege on a person that is conditioned or limited by law or that is applicable alike to persons of every sex, color, race, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status, or to persons regardless of their genetic information.” (Emphasis added)
4. “Sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status” includes a perception that the person has any particular characteristic or characteristics within the listed categories or that the person is associated with a person who has, or is perceived to have, any particular characteristic or characteristics within the listed categories.”
5. Nevertheless, the enumerated categories, bearing the “common element” of being “personal” characteristics of an individual, necessarily confine the Act’s reach to forms of discrimination based on characteristics similar to the statutory classifications—such as “a person’s geographical origin, physical attributes, and personal beliefs.” (Harris, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 1160.)
6. The Act’s “fundamental purpose” is “to secure to all persons equal access to public accommodations ‘no matter’ ” their personal characteristics. (Harris, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 1169.) To accomplish this purpose, the Act prohibits “arbitrary discrimination by business establishments.” (In re Cox (1970) 3 Cal.3d 205, 216 (Cox); Sargoy, supra, 8 Cal.App.4th at p. 1043 [the Act renders unlawful “arbitrary, invidious or unreasonable discrimination”].)
Summary of Facts
Claimant (myself) was a certified as qualified political candidate. That was my belief as expressed to the Respondent via email on or before January 19, 2020, and on January 19. However, as of Jan. 8 2020 Respondent would have had actual and constructive knowledge of my status as a legally qualified political candidate.
Respondent (thru others it participated with on January 12 2020) claimed I was being denied full and equal accommodations because I was not a qualified candidate. Since claimant was a qualified candidate, whose designation “write-in” candidate would appear on the ballot, I feel the reason of the Respondent was pretextual. The real reason I was intentionally denied full and equal privileges was because of my race Black, color medium, sex male, age 66, and my personal beliefs.
I note here that under an Unruh violation, no showing of disparate treatment/impact is needed because Unruh protects “all persons” and “all persons” are entitled to full and equal accommodations.
That the respondent provided services of social media advertising and candidates speaking on the podium, such action that denied full and equal treatment to myself as a Black, aged 66, color medium, male, who held the personal belief that I was a person and qualified candidate.
I was associated with the other qualified candidates because I was also a qualified candidate no matter my “sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status”‘ but respondent [discriminated and made a distinction and ] prohibited me from associating with the advertising and candidate forum provided to other candidates.
Discriminated against due to
Race, Black
Sex, male
Age, 66
Color, medium
Black male medium color aged 66, qualified political candidate
Personal beliefs that I was a legally qualified candidate
Proven Violations committed by Respondent
Intentional discrimination
Unreasonable and invidious conduct
Arbitrary treatment
Did deny, incite/aid in denying full and equal accommodations or making a distinction
Unequal treatment due to business practice – the policy of exclusion to political candidates was not applicable alike no matter what a person’s sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status
Discrimination due to personal belief of Black, aged 66, color medium, qualified write-in candidate
Discrimination due to association with other candidates who were Black, write-in, aged 66, and color medium and qualified and held the personal belief that they were qualified candidates (there were at least 12 other qualified write-in candidates and for the entire county wide race about 250 qualified write-in candidates)
All rights reserved.
Did respondent FAME deny, aid, incite, discriminate, or make distinction that denied full and equal accommodations, advantages , facilities , privileges, or services to plaintiff?
Yes.
Was the actions of the respondent FAME intentional?
Yes. Without FAME’s participation, the discrimination to claimant would not have occurred at that location.
Is it proven that a substantial motivating reason for the defendant’s conduct was the defendant’s perception of the plaintiff’s protected basis under the Unruh Act; or that the protected basis of a person whom the plaintiff was associated with was a substantial motivating reason for the defendant’s conduct ?
Yes. The FAME response, in concert, that claimant was not a qualified candidate, was pretextual. The real reason claimant was excluded was due to his race, Black, color medium, sex male, and age 66. Circumstantial evidence. The FAME had actual and constructive knowledge in advance of January 12, 2020, that claimant was African American Black, male, aged 66, and color medium. On January 12, 2020, claimant appeared at the FAME location and by appearance revealed his protected status to the respondent. Claimant announced numerous times to the ORGANIZERS and others in attendance on January 12, 2020 that he was a qualified candidate and would like to speak on the podium but such full and equal opportunity was repeatedly denied by those in charge. FAME had admitted by its conduct that its motivating reason for its conduct was the claimant’s association
with other Black, male, female, Asian, and Latinos persons who were candidates. (Associated with others in protected classes.)
Had claimant attempted to contract for services and afford himself of the full benefits and enjoyment of a public accommodation ?
Yes.
Were such services available to similarly situated persons outside his or her protected class who received full benefits or were treated better?
Yes. Two females, who were Latino of light color, Asian of light color, and both under age 66. Aura Vasquez and Grace Yoo.
Has it been proven that a certified “write-in” candidate was a legally qualified candidate?
Yes.
Did respondent give any reason why a Black, medium color, aged 66, male, legally qualified candidate should be denied full benefits or enjoyment of a public accommodation?
No.
Was there circumstantial evidence that the FAME denied claimant association with other Blacks at the candidate forum?
Yes.
Has claimant proven the acts of the respondent were intentional (planned in advance, not accidental) to discriminate against claimant ?
Yes.
Was the respondent practice of providing full and equal accommodations, up to and including the January 12, 2020 candidate publicity and forum, applicable alike to all persons regardless of race, color, sex, or religion, etc?
No.
Respondent violated the Unruh Act because of my personal beliefs
The Unruh Act protects “personal beliefs” and traits fundamental to a person’s identity; this is actionable under Unruh as prohibited discrimination
Nevertheless, the enumerated categories, bearing the “common element” of being “personal” characteristics of an individual, necessarily confine the Act’s reach to forms of discrimination based on characteristics similar to the statutory classifications—such as “a person’s geographical origin, physical attributes, and personal beliefs.” (Harris, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 1160.)
The “personal characteristics” protected by the Act are not defined by “immutability, since some are, while others are not [immutable], but that they represent traits, conditions, decisions, or choices fundamental to a person’s identity, beliefs and self-definition.” (Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club (2005) 36 Cal.4th 824, 842–843 (Koebke).)
In this instant case, the evidence shows that it was my personal belief that I was a legally qualified write-in candidate that should be associated with other legally qualified Black candidates and other legally qualified candidates who received full and equal treatment and privileges. The evidence shows that the Respondent used “write-in candidate” as its proffered reason for denying me full and equal accommodations; this is further proof that the Respondent violated the Unruh Act by denying me full and equal accommodations because of my personal beliefs.
Discriminated against due to
Race, Black
Sex, male
Age, 66
Color, medium
Black male medium color aged 66, qualified political candidate
Personal beliefs
Respondent violated the Unruh Act because of unequal treatment; this is actionable under Unruh as prohibited discrimination
The evidence proves that the practice of Respondent FAME —acting in concert with others to deny, incite/aid in denying full and equal accommodations or making a distinction— has excluded all write-in candidates from full and equal accommodations; and unequal treatment is the result of FAME ‘s practice. FAME has practiced unequal treatment to the class of qualified write-in candidates who are Black, medium color, male, and aged 66.
“The Act applies not merely in situations where businesses exclude individuals altogether, but also “where unequal treatment is the result of a business practice.” (Koire v. Metro Car Wash (1985) 40 Cal.3d 24, 29 (Koire).) “Unequal treatment includes offering price discounts on an arbitrary basis to certain classes of individuals.” (Pizarro, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 1174; Koire, at p. 29.)” (Source: Google Tinder case)
I ALLEGE THAT THE RESPONDENT TOOK THE FOLLOWING ADVERSE ACTIONS AGAINST THE
COMPLAINANT
Complainant was denied full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services by a business establishment of one or more Fair Employment and Housing Act (which incorporates Civil Code 51) protected basis.
ON OR BEFORE
1/25/2020 12:00:00 AM
BECAUSE OF MY ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED
Color;Race;Sex/Gender;Age; Personal Beliefs
AS A RESULT, I WAS SUBJECTED TO
Denied Full or Equal Accommodations, Advantages, Facilities, Privileges, or Services by a Business Establishment – Including both Private and Public Entities
PARTICULARS
On January 25, I believe I was denied full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges and services by a business establishment based on my race (African American), color medium , gender (male), age 66, and personal belief that I was a legally qualified candidate
Specifically, on January 6, 2020, I became a formal political candidate by the City and County Election Clerk and on January 6, 2020 appeared on the City Clerk website as a qualified candidate. I became aware of a candidate forum event at FIRST AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH to be held January 25, 2020 and emailed the listed contacts on January 19, 2020, stating that I wanted to participate. I did not receive any response from the sponsors of the event. The event was held January 25, 2020 at FAME church. At a similar sponsored event by some of the same sponsors of this forum, I had been told by email and in person that I would not be allowed to participate in a full and equal manner as other person candidates who were allowed to participate.
See attachments exhibits for the email to the sponsors of the event.
All rights reserved.
August 27, 2020.
Geary Juan Johnson
1522 Hi Point St 9
Los Angeles CA 90035
Phone (redacted)
This is an Unruh Complaint regarding state and city funded candidate forum
reference: FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION re crimes by Los Angeles city government employees
(Note from Editor: the intake form is 3 pages long, the Complaint is twelve pages long, attachments are pages 13-34. The Complaint above has been redacted. The DFEH process is that they ignore your drafted signed complaint, they may call for an interview, then they may “decide” whether they think your “intake” merits them drafting their own complaint for you to sign. Herein is a new complaint on the grounds that the DFEH on a previous complaint acted in a racist, unjust, arbitrary, and capricious manner by refusing to investigate racism at FAME church located in Los Angeles. The new documents were received by the DFEH by email. The Governor Gavin Newsom has been asked separately to reopen previously closed cases against Messob Ethiopian Restaurant and Kevin Kish on the grounds that DFEH employees closed the intakes due to their own racism. Current candidate for Los Angeles council and county employee Mark Ridley Thomas is named in complaints for aiding and participating in candidate forums that denied full and equal advantages and privileges to qualified write-in candidates.)
LA Rent Control (RAC) and Permits (LADBS) 