Hello all, While I would not describe the experience as corruption at the federal court, I will briefly as possible share some of the public facts: In spring of 2004, I joined the Special Litigation Unit (SLU) at the Office of Corporation Counsel, the top legal department for the City of New York. SLU was considered a prestigious litigating group, handling high media profile, high-damages City of New York tort cases. When I joined I was the only non-white attorney in the unit, no Asians, Latin Americans, Blacks, etc.. Contrary to expectations, I performed my duties competently. However, that did not seem to matter, and I observed and experienced unequal and unfair treatment that implicated both race and religion. When I began to speak to the EEO officer at the department, matters only got worse. I was eventually forced to resign and took the only job I had at that time, which was at a private law firm where the City had been a major client. After I served my state-court complaint against the City, I was fired without notice from the private firm, one afternoon in June 2008, the beginning of the global economic crises. Although I was an effective attorney, with cases covered by the media, I could not find employment and eventually opened my own office in January 2009. Eventually, I discontinued my state court action to pursue my claims at the EEOC and federal court. In a letter to the Commissioner of the EEOC, I described the process I experienced in the EEOC investigation. No one regardless of the strength of the case could not have prevailed in a process like that. The written decision dismissing my claim not only stated untrue reasons but it included claims by the City that had never been shared with me. So I could not have rebutted them. The investigator appeared to have ignored the evidence I presented and the regulations of the EEOC. My last hope was the federal court. Interestingly, my federal case, filed in summer 2011, has had four judges assigned: two magistrates and two district judges, all of whom are non-white, including the recently assigned District Judge Chen who is the second Chinese American female district judge and openly lesbian, nominated by Obama. She replaced this spring Judge Townes (African American female judge) who had been nominated for judgeships by Bush and Reagan administrations. The current Magistrate who has presided over all of the discovery proceedings in this case is Ramon Reyes, Latin American. There are few minority judges in the federal court system, which makes it unlikely that one case would produce four minority judges through a random selection process. Also be mindful that the City is defended by an international private law firm, Littler Mendelson, which has a team of three attorneys working on this case against one pro se Plaintiff, me. The City has not spared tax-payers’ resources. Needless to say, the experience I have had as an attorney representing deep-pocket defendants is completely different from what I have experienced representing myself, a poor black female. I am competing against race, power, and money in this action. Magistrate Reyes stated on the record, only this February 2013, a couple of months before all discovery was scheduled to end, that he is a former classmate of one of my former supervisors whom I am suing in this action. He is also a former City attorney. It is important to note that discovery is the process during which the evidence for trial is gathered. It has been an unimaginable struggle for me to get the basic evidence I need during this process to prevail at trial. In addition, the Magistrate wrongfully went on record accusing me of submitting false statements to the Court and threatened to sanction me, merely because I objected to the City initial disclosures. Despite the fact he has failed to criticize or even address any wrongful or dishonest conduct by the City, the magistrate had not even reviewed the disclosures at issue prior to accusing me of false statements and threatening sanctions. Such statements on the record by the Court can be used to discredit or disbar an attorney. Some weeks ago, I made motion for the Magistrate to recuse himself and he denied it. Following this, the magistrate approved the City’s motion for a protective order. The protective order subjects essentially all of the information exchanged in discovery to concealment from the public, including the media, and anyone else not identified in the order. I then filed objections to this ruling by the magistrate with the district judge. Just this week the new judge assigned to my case, Judge Chen denied my objections and affirmed the protective order. The protective order not only prevents the media from exposing the wrongdoing of top level government officials in this action, but it prevents the officials from being discouraged to continue the conduct, because it cannot be used against them in subsequent lawsuits filed by other victims. Note that the supervisor I have sued, who is a former classmate of the magistrate, currently has another claim against him under investigation at the EEOC by another black attorney. Notably, the significant case law related to protective orders or public access involve cases in which the media, not the parties or their counsel, intervenes to demand public access. Not one case I have reviewed in which the media has fought for access involved a black media source, which means that our “intelligence” is dependent upon what mainstream media chooses for us to know. Ironically, the City of New York boasts that it has the toughest anti-discrimination laws in the nation. Thank you for your time if you have gotten this far. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Melissa Pressley, Esq. PRESSLEY, PLLC 100 CHURCH STREET, SUITE 843 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10007 TEL. 646-845-7333 FAX 646-845-7334
Posted on: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 01:14:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015