More City Public Records Requests

LOS ANGELES – Public records act requests to the City Clerk (“CPRA”) can been seen on the City Clerk’s Public Records Act website. Sometimes the clerk will publish the request to the internet separate from the clerk website.

December 11, 2019 CPRA

 City Request #19-7183

The EEOC Charge; City Clerk and Housing Discrimination

DEAR CITY CLERK LOS ANGELES:

(ANATOMY OF A FAIR EMPLOYMENT CASE. This is a true story. This case involves an applicant, Black, a recruiter and placement agency (EPIQ Global) and a law firm, Hogan Lovell law firm. The applicant is interviewed for a records specialist position and is interviewed in person and (over Skype) by Jesus the contract agency employer, and by two Hogan Lovell employees. The interview goes well as is to be inspected. The hiring process is then paused until the applicant answers some questions for a “conflict clearance”.

Hogan Lovells and EPIQ

(One of the questions asked by email chain is: “Are you currently or have you ever been a party to a lawsuit? “ [As you will see later, this is too vague a question. This is also a question that you want to be cautious of because some employers will retaliate if you have ever sued anyone, no matter what for. Employers like smart people, but not too smart. If you have sued someone, they may not hire you.) The applicant answers “I am not a lawyer but I will do my best to answer your conflicts clearance concerns” ; that he has been involved in a lawsuit under the Hyundai-Kia fuel economy class action, of which he says he is a class member but not a party. (You would think the questions will stop there.) These questions are coming from Hogans Lovell records director, not EPIQ, but EPIQ is a witness. So Hogan asks again (employee John Fennell): Fennell admits that the conflicts questions do not relate to job duties or qualifications. He says, “These questions, along with your honest and truthful answers, are used to determine if you should be screened from any Hogan Lovells’ business “matters” .” Fennell: “Can you please confirm your understanding of the above and your answers below are truthful to best of your knowledge?” This is confirmed by applicant. But then Fennell has to ask another question. “In regard to your response “I have in the past been a party to a lawsuit” … we ask that you please advise as to the full names of the other parties involved in this lawsuit, as well as a brief description of the issue in the lawsuit (e.g. Sued by landlord ABC Corp. for non-payment of rent) “. At this point the applicant is rightfully frustrated.

“…the path of unlawful retaliation…”

(He writes: “I am aware of the conflicts process. It is usually used when new clients are brought into a law firm, or new attorneys come in with clients. I have never seen the conflicts check used towards staff employees especially someone on the level of a file clerk.” Further “You also did not mention this in the Skype interview that I would be subjected to a deposition style conflicts check without being advised of my rights. I believe you have created a conflicts process only for the purposes of singling me out as an African American applicant.” Further: “I feel the path you are on is the path of unlawful retaliation, and if I keep answering your questions, I will have to make that charge against you at some point. The conflicts check is not the real reason for your actions. The real reason is your discriminatory shing expedition. That I believe is your intent on behalf of the attorneys of Hogan Lovells. Your human resources conflicts clearance process is being used for purposes of discrimination, as prohibited by the EEOC guidelines. The Hyundai Kia lawsuit, of which I am not a party, includes numerous plaintiffs; plaintiffs in the related Virginia case number over 300 and as the Virginia lawyers sued every Hyundai dealer in Virginia, which is about 500 defendants; I don’t intend to waste my time listing all the plaintiffs and defendants as you have requested, of any lawsuit, closed or open, for purposes of your law firms intentionally retaliatory fishing expedition, which should have nothing to do with my qualifications to do the job or even your stated requirements for the job. “

labelled “overreaction…”and flippant”…

(By the next email applicant says, “Even if there is a global business necessity, such questions and answers posed to me, from my limited research, would tend to (1) violate past confidentiality agreements with past law firms and/or (2) tend to violate the provisions of the EEOC regarding the interview/application process, and/or (3) tend to violate other confidentiality agreements. Thus I cannot answer any further questions under your conflicts clearance process.” Then to make a long story short, Human Resources June Zheng (EPIQ) gets involved in the email chain and writes in response to the applicants discrimination charge, “However, given your overreaction to these questions and your flippant communications towards both Hogan Lovells and Epiq, we will not be moving forward with you for this position. We would encourage you to apply for future openings. “ The applicant loses a $19.00 per hour position. No mention is made of the fact that one has never heard of a conflicts process stopping (an attorney) from being hired; it is just a process to screen them from certain cases.

 

(Later, as turned over to the EEOC (a done deal IMO), an email from EPIQ contractor RH Legal recruiter indicated that in another (same) applicant conflicts situation, “My experience is merely being aware of a case would not suggest case involvement…there must be substantive direction provided to the litigant in the form of representation…”. In other words, the conflicts process should only apply to applicants who are attorneys. Of course no one even the EEOC questions what will happen if the applicant says he has been involved in a past employment discrimination case. And that is how retaliation works. The signed (discrimination) complaint was received by the EEOC on November 22 and by December 6 ——twelve days later with no further contact —-the case is dismissed.

“…a point completely ignored by the incompetent and biased EEOC…”

(In 2018, the federal EEOC received 76,418 complaints: race 24,600, sex, 24,655, Retaliation 30,556, and AGE 16,000. There is still too much employment discrimination. If a person objects to a conflicts process, or has lawsuits involving discrimination in their background, they should be very careful to possibly object to the conflicts process, as in this case the applicant objected that such questions, if answered, may violate his civil rights, a point completely ignored by the incompetent and biased EEOC.
(The EEOC’s only purpose is a depository of complaints. They need to be (closed down) and let applicants take to the streets/courts. I support courts being open some weekends and evenings, I support the elimination of ling fees for the individuals, so such persons will have greater access to the courts. Attached is the right to sue and original complaint.

 

(Power to the People. Pack the courts. Fighting housing and employment discrimination should be a priority of every 2020 candidate for political office.)

The city clerk is requested to release any and all documents/writings in the Clerk’s possession that would describe any city clerk’s office department employees by name/number who do NOT practice housing discrimination against Blacks and Latinos; the city clerk is requested to release any and all documents/writings in the Clerk’s possession that would describe lack of response from the HCIDLA regarding city RSO complaints CE248538 and CE248605. “Document” and “writing” mean a writing, as defined in Section 250 of the State Evidence Code. (submitted by G. Juan Johnson- Dec. 11, 2019.)

 2019-11-25 RSO number CE248538.pdf
 2019-12-11 Scanned Code Violation Complaint 749239.pdf

Received
December 11, 2019 via web

Departments City Clerk

Requester

 1522 Hi Point St 9, Los Angeles, CA 90035

(This CPRA above is based on records held by a government agency. There is some redaction here.)

December 8,  2019 CPRA

Unresponsive city employee and request to them; election write-in candidates

City Los Angeles CPRA 19-7106

Dear City Clerk Los Angeles: REFERENCE: email from (tenant) – Thu 12/5/2019 10:52 PM; To: councilmember.wesson@lacity.org <councilmember.wesson@lacity.org>;Mayor Garcetti <mayor.garcetti@lacity.org>;Robert Galardi <robert.galardi@lacity.org> Kasandra Harris Resident Manager 1522 <highpoint1522@gmail.com>;City of Los Angeles <councilmember.ofarrell@lacity.org>;City of Los Angeles <councilmember.bonin@lacity.org>;City of Los Angeles <councilmember.krekorian@lacity.org>;City of Los Angeles <councilmember.blumenfield@lacity.org>;paul.koretz@lacity.org <paul.koretz@lacity.org>;jan.perry@lacity.org <jan.perry@lacity.org>; SUBJECT: UNRESPONSIVE CITY EMPLOYEE AND MY RESPONSE TO HIS VOICEMAIL;

This voicemail was received from Joseph in city code enforcement at 4:14 pm today: “Good afternoon this is Joseph calling from Los Angeles housing department. This is my second attempt to try to schedule you. I do still have tomorrow December 6 at 12:45 available. I have your location penciled in. So if some reason we’re not able to speak and you call me back you can confirm through voicemail if that is a good time or if you can let me know if that time does not work we can try to schedule for a later date. I will make one more attempt. Thanks and have a good day.”

1. Based on my numerous code enforcement complaints, and calls to Joseph and voicemails and emails and citations on the worldwide web, it is obvious to me that code enforcement Joseph is unresponsive to my complaints.

2. It appears Joseph is involved in a one-way conversation with himself that my wishes are not a part of nor do they matter for his prejudiced agenda on behalf of Mayor Eric Garcetti and Herb Wesson.

3. I need to file a Police Complaint against Joseph and his supervisor for harassment.

4. What part of the word “harassment” does Joseph not understand?
5. I wonder if Joseph is getting my voicemails and emails to him?

6. Everytime I file a new code complaint, and I have information that the city refuses to inspect the property with the owner present, I will file a new complaint and add one million dollars in damages against the owner.

7. Please forward this email to Joseph in code enforcement because this is my response to his voicemails.

“I have received a number of calls from city code enforcement. I have repeatedly asked code enforcement not to harass me but the harassment has persisted. The code enforcement employees have actual and constructive knowledge that housing services at this location have not been restored, per the code violations filed over 100 complaints. I have repeatedly given code enforcement the access code to the property. I have repeatedly supplied the manager and owner contact info to enter the unit.  (Redacted: What will citizens MILTON “SARGE” HALL, LILY LARSEN, CHANNING L MARTINEZ,  JACE DAWSON,  FAALANIGA “NINA” SMITH, DALLAS FOWLER, MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS,  MELVIN SNELL, GRACE YOO, ANNE KIM, AURA VÁSQUEZ, ALTHEA SHAW, HOLLY L. HANCOCK do about lack of fair housing, government corruption, transportation, jobs, denial of housing services, homelessness, lack of government fiscal management: I do not think these citizens have a clue what to do. What steps will they take to assure that multifamily unit owners are fined for denial of housing services?City No. 748473)

I have even quoted city regulation that inspectors have the authority to enter the unit in the absence of complaint. I have repeatedly told the city I will not incur the cost to be present. This failure is government corruption at its highest under Mayor Eric Garcetti. The weight should be on the owner, not the tenant, to be present for any code violation complaint inspection. Any city employee who closes a code violation complaint knowing that services have not been restored should face termination of employment, as in this case. The city code should be that upon a written complaint, the city is obligated to meet with the property owner/management company/resident manager at the property and it will be the owner’s obligation to prove that the violations in the (tenant) complaint have been addressed. If the tenant is requested to be present (not obligated) they must be paid (in advance) by the owner. The city council is requested to pass such ordinance. Any code inspector or city employee who attempts to force a tenant to appear for an inspection without that tenant being paid, should face termination of employment. Any city employee who closes a code violation complaint without following such procedures should face termination of employment, or face termination if closing the complaint without housing services being restored. My understanding is that the state DFEH has started an investigation of the city government’s role in housing discrimination.” 

G. Juan Johnson; 1522 Hi Point St 9; Los Angeles CA 90035 Phone (redacted). Attached see email of December 5, 2019 and code violation complaint 748473. Excerpt: “Other than the intercom in my unit, all the issues complained about are on the outside of the unit. The intercom outside the building at the front door can clearly be seen from the street; code enforcement employees have no excuse not to engage in a due diligence inspection of the intercom ipse res loquitor.”

TO THE CLERK: In 2019, the Los Angeles City council approved an ordinance that allows write-in candidates to file 57 days before the primary election. Prior to this amendment, write in candidates were allowed to file the day after the close of nominating petitions. As of the 57 day change, write-in candidates cannot file until January 6, 2020. In addition, this year voters will be able to vote eleven days before March 3 which means to me that the election date is actually 11 days before March 3. An unfair and unethical change in procedure that could be grounds to file legal action to invalidate the election process.  The city clerk is requested to release any and all documents/writings in the Clerk’s possession that would describe the city council’s rational for making the change in the election code in this regard.  “Document” and “writing” mean a writing, as defined in Section 250 of the State Evidence Code.

(As of December 12, the city clerk has not responded to the question about write-in candidate deadlines.)