September 7, 2020
(Note from Editor: This complaint is based on a candidate forum that was organized by and held at the Messob Ethiopian Restaurant (“MESSOB”) on Fairfax in Los Angeles California on January 11, 2020. The restaurant allowed election candidates to speak from the podium, but refused to allow election write-in candidates to speak along with the other candidates. The refusals to allow write-in candidates to speak was told to myself as write-in candidate when I appeared at the event and announced I was a city clerk legally qualified write-in candidate. This denial of equal opportunity and denial of full and equal privileges has been reported to the Los Angeles Mayor and Council, city clerk’s office, city attorney’s office, city election division, LA County Board of Supervisors and Secretary of State Alex Padilla. Naturally there has been no response from those entities. This page concerns the complaint against MESSOB that was filed with Governor Gavin Newsom/Kevin Kish’s California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”). The DFEH does not recognize or have any forms that say “Complaint” at least initially. IMO this is because this is the government’s way of intimidating and discouraging those who wish to file discrimination complaints. Yes this practice has been authorized by prior officials like Governor Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris. So the initial contact with the DFEH is called the “Intake” form. The DFEH will then call you, and then after an interview, in their words, they decide whether they will turn the facts into a complaint to be signed by you. I determine this to be an arbitrary, capricious, and unjust practice that denies thousands their right to file a complaint with government (“redress of grievances”). The DFEH is actually preventing claimants from filing a complaint and then will refuse to investigate. I have been saying for years that the only form the DFEH should be authorized to give a complainant is a “Complaint” form. Of course DFEH employees get paid a lot of money to deny thousands of intakes, many I feel are actionable complaints. In this case, the intake against MESSOB was received by the DFEH around February 7, 2020. I drafted my own signed “complaint” same day and forwarded it to the DFEH; that signed 34 page complaint with exhibits is not repeated in this blog, but it is a publicly accessible document. Around June 28, 2020, after a heated interview and appeal with DFEH employees, DFEH refused to draft their own “complaint” and refused to investigate MESSOB for violations of the Unruh Act.) A lot of people have been marching in the streets this past few months; IMO marching and protesting is old school. Racism is occuring in the government offices and business board rooms; that is where the protest needs to be. More Power to the People. This email below has been redacted. G. Juan Johnson)
Subject: Further Response to the DFEH Refusal to Prosecute MEESOB restaurant for Civil Rights Violations- DFEH case number 202002-09440429
From: GJohnson (email redacted)
To: gavin@gavinnewsom.com; answers@hud.gov
Cc: selena.wong@dfeh.ca.gov; contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov; mayor.garcetti@lacity.org; councilmember.wesson@lacity.org; councilmember.bonin@lacity.org
Date: Thursday, July 2, 2020, 11:56 PM PDT
Why Race Relations In America
will Worsen Under Newsom’s DFEH
Did respondent MESSOB 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 MESSOB intentional?
Yes. Without MESSOB’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 Messob 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 MESSOB restaurant had actual and constructive knowledge in advance of January 11, 2020, that claimant was African American Black, male, aged 66, and color medium. On January 11, 2020, claimant appeared at the MESSOB location and by appearance revealed his status to the respondent. Claimant announced numerous times to the restaurant owners and others in attendance on January 11, 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. MESSOB 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.
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.
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 MESSOB 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 11, 2020 candidate publicity and forum, applicable alike to all persons regardless of race, color, sex, or religion, etc?
No.
Dear Governor Newsom and the HUD:
The DFEH Selena Wong appeal denial of June 29, 2020 (attached) ignores the issues and facts presented to her in my June 22, 2020 email, and June 23 emails, reprinted below. Does Wong comprehend English?
Just as the respondent MESSOB has violated my civil rights, so has the DFEH by not pursuing this complaint. I again remind you that there is still a “Complaint” pending with the DFEH against MESSOB since the denial of the appeal only applies to the “intake” form.
I redacted from the NewsomWongLetter June 29:
Wong claims that a prima facie claim can be met with three elements:
(1) the complainant is a member of a protected class
(2) the complainant sustained an act of harm and
(3) establish linking evidence between harm and basis (e.g. direct or circumstantial)
Wong claims my intake (not complaint) does not meet prima facie. My Response:
I note that the DFEH does not allow any California resident to file a discrimination complaint. The DFEH without authority feels that it only has to give residents unequal opportunity to file an “intake” form, while reserving the filing of a resident’s Complaint only the right of the DFEH. In other words, under the government, the respondent a Black man, in this BLM 2020 year in America, has no legal right to file a discrimination complaint in the State of California DFEH.
“The specific elements of a prima facie case may vary depending on the particular facts,” but a plaintiff must generally show that “(1) [she] was a member of a protected class, (2) [she] was qualified for the position [she] sought or was performing competently in the position [she] held, (3) [she] suffered an adverse employment action, such as termination, demotion, or denial of an available job, and (4) some other circumstance suggests discriminatory motive.” (Guz, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 355.)
The requisite degree of proof necessary to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on summary judgment is minimal and does not even need to rise to the level of a preponderance of the evidence. Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 1994); see also Lyons v. England, 307 F.3d 1092, 1112 (9th Cir. 2002); Aragon v. Republic Silver State Disposal, Inc., 292 F.3d 654, 659-60 (9th Cir. 2002) (emphasizing the low threshold for a prima facie case and holding that even an employee’s self-assessment is relevant evidence). A plaintiff needs only to offer evidence which “gives rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.” Lowe v. City of Monrovia, 775 F.2d 998, 1005 (9th Cir. 1983); see also Sischo-Nownejad v. Merced Community College Dist., 934 F.2d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that “[t]he amount of evidence that must be produced in order to create a prima facie case is very little”).
To establish a prima facie case, a plaintiff must demonstrate that she ” (1) is a member of a protected class, (2) attempted to contract for services and afford herself of the full benefits and enjoyment of a public accommodation, (3) was denied the full benefits or enjoyment of a public accommodation, and (4) such services were available to similarly situated persons outside his or her protected class who received full benefits or were treated better.” Jackson v. Wae House, Inc., 413 F. Supp.2d 1338, 1361 (N.D. Ga. 2006).
First, the intake form I received from the DFEH and completed, does not indicate that I have to “establish linking evidence between harm and basis (e.g. direct or circumstantial)”. However when I submitted the Intake form, I attached a three page intake form, a twelve page signed complaint, and 34 pages of exhibits. Yet the Newsom DFEH says it cannot find linking evidence.
Second, the cases I quote above show that at the prima facie stage, almost no evidence is needed, only an “inference is needed or claimant’s self assessment of the facts. No where in the cases I have quoted do they agree with the DFEH Wong that I must “establish linking evidence between harm and basis (e.g. direct or circumstantial)”.
Third, the prima facie case has been established.
The DFEH states, “You did not identify any direct comments linked to a protected class such as your race, color and/or other.”
My Response:
“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 protected class is race Black, medium color, male, aged 66, political candidate. As a Black, of medium color, qualified candidate, I fall under the characteristics enumerated under the Unruh act, and the Act covers this case because the Act prohibits “all arbitrary and intentional discrimination by a business establishment on the basis of personal characteristics similar to those listed above.” Due to the circumstances I have submitted, I have provided a direct link from the conduct of the Respondent to my protected class as a race Black, medium color, male, aged 66, political candidate.
The DFEH states: “You were not able to identify any individual who was also a “write in candidate” that was allowed to speak at the forum.”
In Harris, the court interpreted this sentence to mean that a policy which limits access to public accommodations does not amount to prohibited discrimination so long as the policy “is applicable alike to all persons regardless of race, color, sex, religion, etc.” (Harris, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 1155; Beaty v. Truck Ins. Exchange, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at p. 1463.). The DFEH knows that in this instant case MESSOB, the MESSOB conduct to exclude certain candidates from publicity and the candidate forums was not “applicable alike to all persons regardless of race, color, sex, religion, etc.” Such policy by MESSOB is a violation of the Unruh Act. Thus, the DFEH has authority to investigate.
I attempted to associate myself as a Black candidate with other Black candidates as well as candidates of other races. Respondent Messob denied me full and equal privilege to be featured in social media publicity of the forum and denied me full and equal privileges to the right of association with other Black, Latino, and Asian candidates. “It is thus manifested by section 51 that all persons are entitled to the full and equal privilege of associating with others in any business establishment. And section 52, liberally interpreted, makes clear that discrimination by such a business establishment against one’s right of association on account of the associates’ color, is violative of the Act. It follows . . . that discrimination by a business establishment against persons on account of their association with others of the black race is actionable under the Act.” (Winchell v. English (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 125, 129 [133 Cal.Rptr. 20].) I was denied association in all social media advertising and I was denied association to speak along with candidates at the forum. The denial of right to association is actionable under Unruh. I remind the reader that candidates and qualified write-in candidates are all legally qualified candidates. As a legally qualified candidate, I was entitled to full and equal privileges, the same as those persons similarly situated but of a different protected category, e.g. Latinos, Asians, and females.
What the DFEH alleges, is not required under Unruh.
The DFEH states: You also provided information showing that candidates who were of the same protected basis were allowed to speak at the forum, this does not support that you were denied based on your race, color/or other.
The DFEH here is not following the requirements of the Unruh Act. The actions of the DFEH towards this complaint are the reasons a Derek Chauvin is able to exist.
The DFEH claims, “”candidates of the same protected basis were allowed to speak at the forum”. As the DFEH knows, the Unruh Act prohibits me from being separated from being associated with those of the same protected characteristic. “It is thus manifested by section 51 that all persons are entitled to the full and equal privilege of associating with others in any business establishment. And section 52, liberally interpreted, makes clear that discrimination by such a business establishment against one’s right of association on account of the associates’ color, is violative of the Act. It follows . . . that discrimination by a business establishment against persons on account of their association with others of the black race is actionable under the Act.” (Winchell v. English (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 125, 129 [133 Cal.Rptr. 20].)
The DFEH has supported the illegal segregation
of Blacks from Blacks.
This is actionable under Unruh.
“[T]he language and history of the Unruh Act indicate that the legislative object was to prohibit intentional discrimination in access to public accommodations. We have been directed to no authority, nor have we located any, that would justify extension of a disparate impact test, which has been developed and applied by the federal courts primarily in employment discrimination cases, to a general discrimination-in-public- accommodations statute like the Unruh Act. Although evidence of adverse impact on a particular group of persons may have probative value in public accommodations cases and should therefore be admitted in appropriate cases subject to the general rules of evidence, a plaintiff must nonetheless plead and prove a case of intentional discrimination to recover under the Act.” (Harris, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 1149.) The DFEH has abused its authority by unlawfully applying disparate impact and treatment to an Unruh complaint. It is unfortunate that Selena Wong does not comprehend the discrimination laws or are the discrimination laws in 2020 only reserved for Asians?
“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)”. Selena/Newsom: federal CFR does not allow discrimination between candidates, which is what the DFEH practices.
THE POLICY OF MESSOB , AIDED BY OTHERS, ENGAGED IN PROHIBITED DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE ITS PRIVILEGED POLICY OF INCLUSION IN THE CANDIDATE FORUM DID NOT APPLY ALIKE TO EVERY PERSON WHO WAS BLACK OR COLOR, MEDIUM. INFACT UNDER CFR 47 CFR §73.1940,
This argument by the DFEH has already been rejected by the Courts in enforcing Unruh. “The court indicated it did not have to review whether summary judgment was appropriate on plaintiff’s direct evidence claim because it found plaintiff had presented circumstantial evidence to establish a prima facie case and rebutted the nondiscriminatory reason offered by the defendant. The court stated that it was clear plaintiff was replaced by someone outside of her racial class. With respect to the sex discrimination claim, the court noted that it could not be “untangled” from her race discrimination claim. The two characteristics do not exist in isolation. The court stated, “African American women are subjected to unique stereotypes that neither African American men nor white women must endure.(citation omitted) And Title VII does not permit plaintiffs to fall between two stools when their claim rests on multiple protected grounds” The court went on to state that if a female African American plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, a defendant cannot undermine it by showing that white women and African American men received the same treatment.” (Source: Google)
The DFEH states: “You also provided information which shows the individuals who informed you would not be able to speak at the forum were not connected to the identified respondent but rather were part of the organization that rented the restaurant for the event.” The DFEH is incorrect on two counts here. First, the Messob Restaurant and the Ethiopian Democratic Club are essentially one and the same as they share the building at the same address, as told to the DFEH, 1037-1041 S. Fairfax, both entities run by the same Ethiopians, if the DFEH would follow the facts instead of making groundless assumptions. Further, even if the Ethiopian Democratic club acted separately from the Messob restaurant, their conduct of exclusion would still be actionable under Unruh because as told to the DFEH June 22 : “That Respondent MESSOB denied/aided and incited a candidate forum publicized on social media and held at the restaurant January 11, 2020, open to the Public, that denied full and equal privileges, advantages, and services to Claimant Geary Johnson” Under California CC section 52. “ (a) Whoever denies, aids or incites a denial, or makes any discrimination or distinction contrary to Section 51, 51.5, or 51.6, is liable for each and every offense for the actual damages, and any amount that may be determined by a jury, or a court sitting without a jury, up to a maximum of three times the amount of actual damage but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000), and any attorney’s fees that may be determined by the court in addition thereto, suffered by any person denied the rights provided in Section 51, 51.5, or 51.6.” Thus, as MESSOB aided in the denial of full and equal services and privileges, this complaint against MESSOB is actionable. MESSOB facilitated (aided and incited)….
“To establish standing for damages under the Unruh Act, parties must show that they were in fact denied equal access. Where there is no direct evidence of intentional discrimination, statistical evidence can be probative in showing that alleged discriminatory conduct has a discriminatory effect. In the absence of direct evidence of intentional discrimination, courts will also use the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green burden-shifting test for an Unruh Act claim, to determine whether there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to warrant a finding of intentional discrimination.” (SOURCE: Google)
In this case, contrary to the Google source, only intentional discrimination is actionable under Unruh. Claimant does not have to prove or disprove disparate treatment or impact. Intentional discrimination by MESSOB has been proven by direct and circumstantial evidence. The MCDonnell Douglas burden shifting is not necessary here, but if it was, it can only be used by the DFEH. We know from experience the DFEH will not use the McDonald Douglas burden shifting because they will not let a case get that far.
summary prima facie
That the defendant denied, aided or incited, discriminated or made a distinction that denied full and equal accommodations, advantages , facilities , privileges, or services to plaintiff; 2. 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; 3. That the plaintiff was harmed; and 4. That the defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm
SUMMARY
1. Is claimant a member of a protected class? Yes.
2. Did respondent MESSOB deny, aid, incite, discriminate, or make distinction that denied full and equal accommodations, advantages , facilities , privileges, or services to plaintiff?
Yes.
3. Was the actions of the respondent MESSOB intentional?
Yes. Without MESSOB’s participation, the discrimination to claimant would not have occurred at that location.
4. 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 Messob 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 MESSOB restaurant had actual and constructive knowledge in advance of January 11, 2020, that claimant was African American Black, male, aged 66, and color medium. On January 11, 2020, claimant appeared at the MESSOB location and by appearance revealed his status to the respondent. Claimant announced numerous times to the restaurant owners and others in attendance on January 11, 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.
MESSOB had admitted by its conduct that its motivating reason for its conduct was the claimant’s association with other Black, male, female, Asian, and Latino persons who were candidates.
5. Has claimant proven harm? Yes.
6. Was respondent’s actions a substantial factor in causing harm to the claimant?
Yes.
7. Has claimant established a causal link between harm and the basis? Yes.
8. Had claimant attempted to contract for services and afford himself of the full benefits and enjoyment of a public accommodation ?
Yes.
9. Was claimant denied the full benefits or enjoyment of a public accommodation?
Yes. The benefits were offered by the respondent in concert with the Ethiopian Democratic Club.
10. 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.
11. Has it been proven that a certified “write-in” candidate was a legally qualified candidate?
Yes.
12. 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.
13. Was there circumstantial evidence that the MESSOB denied claimant association with other Blacks at the candidate forum?
Yes.
14. Has claimant proven the acts of the respondent were intentional (planned in advance, not accidental) to discriminate against claimant ?
Yes.
15. Was the respondent practice of providing full and equal
accommodations, up to and including the January 11, 2020 candidate publicity and forum, applicable alike to all persons regardless of race, color, sex, or religion, etc?
No.
16. Does the Unruh Act apply to “all” persons?
Yes.
17. Is the claimant Black, male, aged 66, color medium, a person?
Yes.
I request that the HUD suspend federal funding to the DFEH on the grounds of the DFEH’s bias towards me as a Black American.
All rights reserved.
G. Juan Johnson
1522 Hi Point St 9
Los Angeles CA 90035
BLACK LIVES MATTER
c: Selena Wong, regional administrator DFEH 2218 Kausen Drive Suite 100
Elk Grove CA 95758
The primary purpose of the Unruh Civil Rights Act “is to compel recognition of the equality of all persons in the right to the particular service offered by an organization or entity covered by the act.” (Curran v. Mount Diablo Council of the Boy Scouts (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 712, 733.)
The protection afforded by the Act applies to “all persons,” and is not confined to a limited category of “protected classes.” (Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson (1982) 30 Cal.3d 721, 730; see Gates v. Super. Ct. (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 481, 508, 512.)
Appeal RE: DFEH Case 202002-09440429 JOHNSON V MESSOB ETHIOPIAN
From: GJohnson
To: selena.wong@dfeh.ca.gov
Date: Tuesday, June 23, 2020, 10:03 PM PDT
1. I wonder why this Intake was closed? I believe I received an official documentation from the DFEH that the Matter was being sent to the Complaint stage? Why the change from what I was told?
2. Reminder: the prima facie case was established against respondent MESSOB:
To establish a prima facie case, a plaintiff must demonstrate that she “(1) is a member of a protected class, (2) attempted to contract for services and afford herself of the full benefits and enjoyment of a public accommodation, (3) was denied the full benefits or enjoyment of a public accommodation, and (4) such services were available to similarly situated persons outside his or her protected class who received full benefits or were treated better.”
The written documents I supplied with the Intake show that similarly situated persons and candidates that were Latino and Asian received full and equal privileges and benefits of the candidate publicity and candidate forum(s) and were treated better than myself as a Black candidate.
The Latino and Asian candidates were in different protected classes than myself.
All rights reserved.
Election 2020
LA Rent Control (RAC) and Permits (LADBS) 