LA Housing and Community Investment Dept Charged with Racism

Re: DFEH Case Number 202006-10459218 JOHNSON / LOS ANGELES HOUSING AND COMMUNITY INVESTMENT

From: GJohnson (email redacted)
To: james.cortes@dfeh.ca.gov; gavin@gavinnewsom.com; answers@hud.gov; askdoj@usdoj.gov; contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov; hcidla.rso.central@lacity.org

Date: Thursday, September 10, 2020, 03:45 PM PDT

Dear DFEH:


I disagree with your appeal denial.

Since as a Black American, I am still suffering continuing damages (due) to the actions of the Los Angeles Housing and Community Investment Department, I will be filing a new claim.

The associated case numbers are 202006-10405912 and 202004-09852207. Your letter does not appear to address those intakes.

As I stated before, the DFEH already accepted this matter of intercom and parking in a complaint I made around 2014. Since the DFEH turned this matter into a signed complaint for me to sign, res judicata applies, and the DFEH can not now claim there is no harm due to my race or color, because the DFEH already decided that matter in 2014 and thus investigated the complaint.

The prima facie requirements are thus under Unruh:

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

1/08/2020 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

1. I have filed over 100 complaints with the Respondent HCIDLA regarding these issues.

2. Unruh prohibits intentional discrimination. Were the acts of the Respondent proven to be intentional that they have not ordered the restoration of the intercom maintenance and parking to myself as Black, male, medium color, over aged 66 tenant? Yes.

3. Were the actions of the respondent arbitrary and not based on fact or law? Yes.

4. Does Unruh (Act) prohibit arbitrary discrimination? Yes.

5. Was the practice of the HCIDLA to deny me intercom maintenance and tandem parking applied alike to all tenants at this address? No.

6. Is an unequal policy under the jurisdiction of the DFEH? Yes.

7. Surely Cortes does not understand English. He claims “there is not enough to connect the actions regarding the intercom were motivated by a discriminatory intent because of your race or color.” There is no such requirement under Unruh.

“…The Cortes decision is racist, arbitrary, capricious, and unjust…”

8. Unruh clearly states that as a (person) Black American I am entitled to “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever” . The Cortes decision does not address the fact I have been denied full and equal accommodations to other tenants who have a working intercom or tandem parking. James Cortes is a racist. “Full and equal” applied to “all persons” but Cortes does not understand the requirements of Unruh and just like a lynch mob in heat, just flatly denies me “full and equal” housing services. Cortes has supported the racism of the Respondent that I am to be denied ” full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever”.

9. Unruh does not say the words, “because of your color or race.” Unruh is a personal rights law that says “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”. The word because is defined as “for the reason”. The phrase “no matter” is defined as “regardless of”. Again, Cortes the racist, does not want to and is incapable of even simple English comprehension.

The Cortes decision is racist, arbitrary, capricious, and unjust.

At the prima facie stage, not the investigation stage at which Cortes feels he is at, very little and almost no evidence is needed, infact only an inference is needed:

Claimant is a Black American, is a member of a group that Congress intended protection.

Claimant was entitled to Full or Equal Accommodations, Advantages, Facilities, Privileges, or Services by a Business Establishment – Including both Private and Public Entities

Claimant was denied Full or Equal Accommodations, Advantages, Facilities, Privileges, or Services by a Business Establishment – Including both Private and Public Entities by the Respondent.

Specifically, claimant (myself) was denied housing services of maintenance and tandem parking after making over 100 complaints to the Respondent.

Has the Respondent intentionally followed a practice that does not treat all persons alike and denies me as a Black American “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever” and “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 “? Yes.

The intake meets the DFEH jurisdiction.

Please fire James Cortes from employment.

I am attaching a new complaint as I will

continue to do so until the matter is resolved or hell freezes over,

whichever occurs first.

In this Black Lives Matter, COVID Medieval Newsom-Kiss-Cortes era, it is almost impossible for Blacks to know how they can attain fair housing or even find a White government official who knows the legal meaning of “fair housing”. Sad for America. The fight for fair housing continues.

All rights reserved.

Geary Juan Johnson

1522 Hi Point St 9

Los Angeles CA 90035


c: Justice Department/FBI

On Monday, August 31, 2020, 05:00:33 PM PDT, Cortes, James@DFEH <james.cortes@dfeh.ca.gov> wrote:

Hello Mr Johnson-
Please read my response to your appeal. Thanks.

James Cortes
Department of Fair Employment and Housing 916-478-7249
James.cortes@dfeh.ca.gov

2020-9-10 NEW DFEH RE HCIDLA.pdf

(Note from Editor: below is redacted from the eight page complaint)

Complaint of Discrimination Under the

Provisions of the 

California Fair Employment and

Housing Act

and Governor Gavin Newsom

DFEH Director Kevin Kish

PARTICULARS:

Complainant is a Black American , male, color medium, age 66, a member of a group(s) that Congress intended protection.

Complainant as tenant was entitled to housing services intercom maintenance and tandem parking,  the same as similarly situated white female tenants

Complainant met all qualifications as a rental tenant to receive housing services intercom maintenance and tandem parking, the same as similarly situated white female tenants

Complainant was denied housing services intercom maintenance and tandem parking, by the Respondent and others participating on behalf of the Respondent

After the denial of housing services to Complainant, the RESPONDENT continued providing services intercom and tandem parking to those persons of the white race, and female, who reside at the 1522 Hi Point St 90035 address

Unequal treatment due to business practice – policy did not apply 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

Intentional discrimination

Unreasonable and invidious

Arbitrary treatment

Did deny, incite/aid in denying full and equal accommodations or making a distinction

Discrimination due to personal belief that I am entitled to fair housing and full and equal housing services and privileges

“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)

This is a continuing damages complaint. This complaint is based on new damages. Damages accrue daily.

Did respondent HCIDLA 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 HCIDLA intentional?

Yes. Without HCIDLA’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.  

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.  Other tenants in the building have working intercoms and tandem parking stalls.

Did respondent give any reason why a Black, medium color, aged 66, male,   should be denied full benefits or enjoyment of a public accommodation?

No.

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, of working intercom and tandem parking stall,  applicable alike to all persons regardless of race, color, sex, or religion, etc?

No.

MONEY DAMAGES ARE REQUESTED. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.