SECOND CIRCUIT PANEL COMMITTED FRAUD AS PART OF CONSPIRACY TO MASK SOUTHERN DISTRICT “FIXING” OF VERIZON BREACH OF SETTLEMENT CASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
new york city, New York, United States of America (Free-Press-Release.com) April 10, 2011 --

1

SECOND CIRCUIT PANEL COMMITTED FRAUD AS PART OF CONSPIRACY TO MASK SOUTHERN DISTRICT “FIXING” OF VERIZON BREACH OF SETTLEMENT CASE

Welcome visit Our WebSite:

http://www.enddiscriminationnow.com

New York, N.Y. August 15th, 2011: On the heels of the shocking disclosure last week that Verizon had settled a $20M lawsuit for "disability discrimination" with the EEOC, the Plaintiff who first surfaced these complaints about Verizon in 2002, has now learned that the original "Settlement" was based on an "unconscionable agreement" and that the appeal of the Breach of the Settlement (Verizon breached all terms one month after execution) was dismissed by a conspiratorial panel headed by Judge Rosemary Pooler. Jordan's discrimination experience at Verizon led to her complete phyical collapse in 2002, after two years of hazing, exlcusion and denial of accommodation. Jordan filed a Complaint in 2002. Judge Shira Schiendlin orchestrated the "fixing" of that case for Verizon by intervening herself in the Settlement negotiation in order to dispense threats of "permanent litigation....of a nightmarish nature...and sanctions", if Jordan did not agree to Verizon's onerous terms. The proposed Settlement, which Jordan repeatedly rejected, demanded that Jordan "resign" her employment, without securing even the ERISA payments Verizon unlawfully witheld, much less damages for the ordeal which led to her incapacitation. It is a matter of Public Pollicy that employers cannot "fire" or constructively discharge employees who are out on disability. The machiavellan Judge Scheindlin disregarded this precedent and the limitations of her own jurisdiction to stage an "ambush" "Status Conference" when she knew Jordan was "ill" and without counsel.
Jordan only recently learned that Verizon then alterned her employment records to change her "termination date" so she would be ineligible for most of the ERISA benefits she needed to surrvie as a disabled person and to eliminate any medical expense costs to Verizons provider.

After Verizon outside counsel Ken Gage of Paul Hastings arranged to have the Breach of Settlement case dismissed by Judge Gerard Lynch when it came up for trial by withholding Verizon’s Corporate Disclosures in order to claim absence of "diversity" and by lying about the value of the benefits alleged in the Amended Complaint to claim "subject matter jurisdiction", a Second Circuit Panel headed by Judge Rosemary Pooler on appeal drafted a “Mandate” relying upon the same mis-stated facts and mis-applied legal arguments. Judge Raggi issued an Order citing case law that was inopposite to the legal argument asserted, claiming that Plaintiff has the burden of proof when it was actually the moving party, Verizon (Scherer v. Equitble Llife). Jordan argued that the breach by Verizon only one month after the coerced settlement was “total and intentional” and that she had been irreparably harmed by the breach and attendant frauds. Given Verizon’s scheme to have Judge Shira Scheindlin fix” the original $31M discrimination case for a token settlement in secret negotiations with counsel Ken Gage of Paul Hastings and former Plaintiff's lawyer Gary Phelan of Outten & Golden, the “bad faith” was highly predictable. Scheindlin acted extra judicially to intervene in her own case, usurping the Settlement Magistrate, after she began to receive a series of faxes and pleadings from Jordan, operating Pro Se, advising her that she did not want to go forward with the "coerced" deal that was extracted under "duress". Scheindlin had her secret deal with Verizon and she was determined to enter Final Judgment, denying the timely Recession demand, and apparently knowing that the Agreement was legally not valid (never page signed by the parties or witnessed by Verizon) and was tantamount to an unconscionable act to subvert the ADA and ERISA laws.

When the Lynch Order on the "Breach of Settlement" came up for appellate review, it should have simply been remanded back to the trial court. Instead, the Pooler Panel issued a Mandate adopting all the flawed legal arguments and falsified “facts” of Defense Counsel Ken Gage verbatim, a high risk practice under the best of circumstances. Jordan speculated that the Panel did not want to appear to be backing off Scheindlin's coerced Settlement "deal" with Verizon. However, as Verizon “did the favor for them” by breaching the Agreement “completely, knowingly and totally”, the Court had no choice but to vacate the Agreement given the strong legal precedent for willful breaches and "bad faith" , and the implications for public policy.. It is not believed that performance at this late date, nine years later, would mitigate the damage. “The Settlement Agreement must be vacated "in toto”, Jordan stated “and the Breach of Contract, Fraud, and other claims must be remanded to the trial court. Any action to cheat or circumvent relevant law to deny due process is tantamount to obstruction of justice. As far as the issue of the Court’s posture on a clearly onerous Agreement that contravened Public Policy, Verizon’s intentional breach demands vacature of the Agreement.. So it is moot. ”

END-JRN urges corporations to ruthlessly monitor corporate cultures and EEO practices proactively and to take complaints seriously, acting quickly and remedially. “The biggest mistakes that Corporate America makes when it comes to EEO matters are delegating serious matters that affect the corporate brand reputation to SBU Human Resource managers with conflicting loyalties or inexperienced AGC's who lack the judgment to recognize a potentially serious ethics scandal, and not having a separate EEO function that reports into the Chief Executive & Board with accountability to outside regulatory agencies".

"The biggest mistake courts, government and regulatory agencies make is to accept “pretexts” at face value and to fail to recognize “masking” strategies like forcing a disabled person off the payroll when out on leave, or timing protected class terminations during RIFs; failing to recognize EEO compliance “facades” like celebrity Board and Foundation appointments to give the “illusion” of EEO compliance while diverting attention from widespread practices of EEO violations; not enforcing laws vigorously and “wholly” and failing to make damages large enough to act as deterrents; accepting token “settlements” that are a fraction of the value of the damages being forfeited and failing to perform true “Structured Settlements” with authenticated expert testimony; assuming that Corporations are all genuinely interested in EEO compliance and that they dont lie or withhold evidence; assuming litigants "lie" even in the fact of decades of rising complaints and employment stats proving the ongong existence of the malaise; failing to keep abreast of latest expert journals on discrimination and changes in the Law; “adopting” the facts and legal arguments of employer defendants without fact checking or legal review; ignoring or discounting first hand accounts of discrimination by victims and adopting “blame the victim”strategies especially with female litigants that justify a Court’s ingoing biases ; relying upon outmoded PC stereotypes; searching the record for minor defects in testimony or using damages evidence to “impeach” an otherwise credible witness (instead of Bi-Furcation); using attorney gossip to “Vett” cases without regard for obvious economic motives; failing to recognize the fact that persons in Multiple Classes are exponentially at greater risk of discrimination events than those in only one class; using one’s personal experience and "hunches" as a benchmark for behaviors that are outside the Court’s expertise instead of relying upon qualified experts; failing to define the correct "law of the case" and using “cookie cutter” approaches even when the factual fabric of the case is complex; failing to implement the correct legal standard at the start of discovery or conduct sufficient discovery to meet minimal pleading standards posed by the Complaint; failing to properly judge which cases are conducive to “Settlement” or scheduling “Settlement” talks too early or too late; refusing to apply the same standards for damages in Settlements than those used at trial, which "de facto" renders Settlements inherently prejudicial to all litigants.
JRN considers the EEOC setttlement "enormously helpful", but argues individual cases are what "create legal precedent" and allow "make whole" damages.
"Excellent companies learn from mistakes, act remedially and proactively comply. Repeat offenders circumvent Rules and Law, encourage "case fixing", deny accountability & wait for corrupt judges to dole out favors. Strong judges send a "zero tolerance" message and enforce "make whole" laws, not emulate law breakers ", END found.

More information can be found online at http://www.enddiscriminationnow.com

ADA and accomodation     disability law and ADA     disability unemployment rate     EEO policy     Ivan Seidenberg     News for VZ     second circuit news     Verizon Communications NYC