Michael A Ayele 25 Payrolls at a time are displayed. Find Payroll End Date: (CCYY) (MM) FIND NOW End Date Check Date Rate of Pay Gross Pay 12/31/2013 1/15/2014 533.92 533.92 Agency: 17 - Mental Health Optional Life Insurance System: REG Member: .00 Position Type: RS Spouse: .00 Payroll Cycle/Code: R - 77 Child: .00 Div/Org: 650 - F922 Basic Life: 2.32 Employee Contribution: 21.36 Retirement: 90.66 Updated: 4/09/2014 LTD: 2.64 End Date Check Date Rate of Pay Gross Pay 12/15/2013 12/31/2013 1,291.73 1,291.73 Agency: 17 - Mental Health Optional Life Insurance System: REG Member: 4.00 Position Type: RS Spouse: .00 Payroll Cycle/Code: R - 10 Child: .00 Div/Org: 650 - F922 Basic Life: 5.62 Employee Contribution: 51.67 Retirement: 219.34 Updated: 1/09/2014 LTD: 6.39 End Date Check Date Rate of Pay Gross Pay 11/30/2013 12/16/2013 3,306.55 3,306.55 Agency: 17 - Mental Health Optional Life Insurance System: REG Member: 4.00 Position Type: RS Spouse: .00 Payroll Cycle/Code: R - 10 Child: .00 Div/Org: 650 - F922 Basic Life: 14.38 Employee Contribution: 132.26 Retirement: 561.45 Updated: 12/10/2013 LTD: 16.37 End Date Check Date Rate of Pay Gross Pay 11/15/2013 11/27/2013 1,291.73 1,291.73 Agency: 17 - Mental Health Optional Life Insurance System: REG Member: 4.00 Position Type: RS Spouse: .00 Payroll Cycle/Code: R - 10 Child: .00 Div/Org: 650 - F922 Basic Life: 5.62 Employee Contribution: 51.67 Retirement: 219.34 Updated: 12/10/2013 LTD: 6.39 End Date Check Date Rate of Pay Gross Pay
10/31/2013 11/15/2013 2,572.91 2,572.91 Agency: 17 - Mental Health Optional Life Insurance System: REG Member: 4.00 Position Type: RS Spouse: .00 Payroll Cycle/Code: R - 10 Child: .00 Div/Org: 650 - F922 Basic Life: 11.19 Employee Contribution: 102.92 Retirement: 436.88 Updated: 11/08/2013 LTD: 12.74 End Date Check Date Rate of Pay Gross Pay 10/15/2013 10/31/2013 1,285.00 1,285.00 Agency: 17 - Mental Health Optional Life Insurance System: REG Member: 4.00 Position Type: RS Spouse: .00 Payroll Cycle/Code: R - 10 Child: .00 Div/Org: 650 - F922 Basic Life: 5.59 Employee Contribution: 51.40 Retirement: 218.19 Updated: 11/08/2013 LTD: 6.36 End Date Check Date Rate of Pay Gross Pay 9/30/2013 10/15/2013 3,888.73 3,888.73 Agency: 17 - Mental Health Optional Life Insurance System: REG Member: 4.00 Position Type: RS Spouse: .00 Payroll Cycle/Code: R - 10 Child: .00 Div/Org: 650 - F922 Basic Life: 16.92 Employee Contribution: 155.55 Retirement: 660.31 Updated: 10/09/2013 LTD: 19.25 End Date Check Date Rate of Pay Gross Pay 9/15/2013 9/30/2013 1,243.10 1,243.10 Agency: 17 - Mental Health Optional Life Insurance System: REG Member: 4.00 Position Type: RS Spouse: .00 Payroll Cycle/Code: R - 10 Child: .00 Div/Org: 650 - F922 Basic Life: 5.41 Employee Contribution: 49.72 Retirement: 211.08 Updated: 10/09/2013 LTD: 6.15 End Date Check Date Rate of Pay Gross Pay 8/31/2013 9/16/2013 1,215.50 1,215.50 Agency: 17 - Mental Health Optional Life Insurance System: REG Member: 4.00 Position Type: RS Spouse: .00 Payroll Cycle/Code: R - 10 Child: .00
Div/Org: 650 - F922 Basic Life: 5.29 Employee Contribution: 48.62 Retirement: 206.39 Updated: 9/10/2013 LTD: 6.02 End Date Check Date Rate of Pay Gross Pay 8/15/2013 8/30/2013 1,215.50 1,215.50 Agency: 17 - Mental Health Optional Life Insurance System: REG Member: 4.00 Position Type: RS Spouse: .00 Payroll Cycle/Code: R - 10 Child: .00 Div/Org: 650 - F922 Basic Life: 5.29 Employee Contribution: 48.62 Retirement: 206.39 Updated: 9/10/2013 LTD: 6.02 End Date Check Date Rate of Pay Gross Pay 7/31/2013 8/15/2013 1,215.50 1,215.50 Agency: 17 - Mental Health Optional Life Insurance System: REG Member: .00 Position Type: RS Spouse: .00 Payroll Cycle/Code: R - 10 Child: .00 Div/Org: 650 - F922 Basic Life: 5.29 Employee Contribution: 48.62 Retirement: 206.39 Updated: 8/09/2013 LTD: 6.02 End Date Check Date Rate of Pay Gross Pay 7/15/2013 7/31/2013 663.00 663.00 Agency: 17 - Mental Health Optional Life Insurance System: REG Member: .00 Position Type: RS Spouse: .00 Payroll Cycle/Code: R - 10 Child: .00 Div/Org: 650 - F922 Basic Life: 2.88 Employee Contribution: 26.52 Retirement: 112.58 Updated: 8/09/2013 LTD: 3.28
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION St. Louis District Office Robert A. Young Building 1222 Spruce Street, Room 8.100 St. Louis, MO 63103 Toll Free: (877)-895-1802 TTY (314) 539-7803 FAX (314) 539-7050 Website: www.eeoc.gov December 13, 2016 Via: [email protected] Mr. Michael Ayele, Founder Association for the Advancement of Civil Liberties P.O.BOX 12596 ADDIS ABABA Ethiopia Re: FOIA No.: 560-2017-002325 (28E-2014-00485) Ayele v. MISSOURI DEPT OF MENTAL HEALTH Dear Mr. Ayele: Your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, received on November 14, 2016 is processed. Our search began on November 14, 2016. All agency records in creation as of November 14, 2016 are within the scope of EEOC’s search for responsive records. The paragraph(s) checked below apply. [ ] Your request is granted. [ X ] Your request is denied pursuant to the subsections of the FOIA indicated at the end of this letter. An attachment to this letter explains the use of these exemptions in more detail. [ ] Your request is procedurally denied as [ ] it does not reasonably describe the records you wish disclosed, or [ ] no records fitting the description of the records you seek disclosed exist or could be located after a thorough search, or [ ] the responsive records are already publically available. See the Comments page for further explanation. [ ] Your request is granted in part and denied in part. Portions not released are withheld pursuant to the subsections of the FOIA indicated at the end of this letter. An attachment to this letter explains the use of these exemptions in more detail. [ ] Your request is closed for administrative reasons. An attachment to this letter further explains this closure. [ ] A fee of $ 0.00 is charged. Charges for manual search and review services are assessed according to the personnel category of the person conducting the search a. Fees for search services range from $5.00 per quarter hour to $20.00 per quarter hour. Direct cost is charged for computer search and in certain other circumstances. Photocopying is .15 per page. 29 C.F.R. §1610.15. The attached Comments page further explains the direct costs assessed. The fee(s) charged is computed as follows: [ ] Commercial use request: [ ] pages of photocopying; [ ] quarter hour(s) of [ ] review time; and [ ] quarter hour(s) of [ ] search time. Direct costs are billed in the amount of [ ] for [ ];
[ ] Educational or noncommercial scientific institution or a representative of the news media request: [ ] pages of photocopying. The first 100 pages are provided free of charge; and [ ] All other requests: [ ] pages of photocopying and [ ] quarter hour(s) of search time. Direct costs are billed in the amount of [ ] for [ ]. The first 100 pages and the first two hours of search time are provided free of charge. [ ] Please submit payment of $ $ 0.00 by either: (1) Credit card at pay.gov. Visa, MasterCard, American Express and Discover credit cards are accepted. Debit cards bearing the Visa or MasterCard logo are also accepted. We will finish processing your request after EEOC receives a copy of your pay.gov credit or debit card receipt or (2) Check, payable to the United States Treasurer, to the address above. [ ] The disclosed records are enclosed. No fee is charged because the cost of collecting and processing the chargeable fee equals or exceeds the amount of the fee. 29 C.F.R. § 1610.15(d). [ ] The disclosed records are enclosed. Photocopying and search fees have been waived pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1610.14. [ ] I trust that the furnished information fully satisfies your request. If you need any further assistance or would like to discuss any aspect of your request please do not hesitate to contact the FOIA Professional who processed your request or our FOIA Public Liaison (see contact information in above letterhead or under signature line). [ X ] You may contact the EEOC FOIA Public Liaison for further assistance or to discuss any aspect of your request. In addition, you may contact the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) to inquire about the FOIA mediation services they offer. The contact information for OGIS is as follows: Office of Government Information Services, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi RoadOGIS, College Park, Maryland 20740-6001, email at [email protected]; telephone at (202) 741-5770; toll free 1-877-684-6448; or facsimile at (202)741-5769. The contact information for the FOIA Public Liaison: (see contact information in above letterhead or under signature line). [ X ] If you are not satisfied with the response to this request, you may administratively appeal in writing. Your appeal must be postmarked or electronically transmitted in 90 days from receipt of this letter to the Office of Legal Counsel, FOIA Programs, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street, NE, 5NW02E, Washington, D.C. 20507, or by fax to (202) 653-6034, or by email to [email protected]. https://publicportalfoiapal.eeoc.gov/palMain.aspx. Your appeal will be governed by 29 C.F.R. § 1610.11.
[ X ] See the attached Comments page for further information. Sincerely, Sylvia Smith District Resources Manager [email protected] Applicable Sections of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b): Exemption Codes Used: (b)(3), , (A)(i) 706(b) - Section 709(e), Exemption (b)(3)(A)(i) states that disclosure is not required for a matter specifically exempted from disclosure by statute . . . if that statute (A)(i) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue; Section 706(b) provides that: Charges shall not be made public by the Commission. Section 709(e) of Title VII provides: It shall be unlawful for any officer of the Commission to make public in any manner whatever any information obtained by the Commission pursuant to its authority under this section… prior to the institution of any proceeding under this title involving such information. Section 107 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 207 of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act adopt the confidentiality provisions of §§ 706 and 709 of Title VII. See Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Associated Dry Goods Co., 449 U.S. 590 (1981)., (A)(i) ADA, specifically exempted from disclosure by statute . . . if that statute (A)(i) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue; Section 706(b) provides that: Charges shall not be made public by the Commission. Section 709(e) of Title VII provides: It shall be unlawful for any officer of the Commission to make public in any manner whatever any information obtained by the Commission pursuant to its authority under this section… prior to the institution of any proceeding under this title involving such information. Section 107 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 207 of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act adopt the confidentiality provisions of §§ 706 and 709 of Title VII. See Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Associated Dry Goods Co., 449 U.S. 590 (1981)., (A)(i) GINA, specifically exempted from disclosure by statute . . . if that statute (A)(i) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue; Section 706(b) provides that: Charges shall not be made public by the Commission. Section 709(e) of Title VII provides: It shall be unlawful for any officer of the Commission to make public in any manner whatever any information obtained by the Commission pursuant to its authority under this section… prior to the institution of any proceeding under this title involving such information. Section 107 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 207 of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act adopt the confidentiality provisions of §§ 706 and 709 of Title VII. See Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Associated Dry Goods Co., 449 U.S. 590 (1981).
(b)(7)(C), Exemption (b)(7)(C) authorizes the Commission to withhold: records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information . . . (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy . . . . The seventh exemption applies to civil and criminal investigations conducted by regulatory agencies. Abraham & Rose, P.L.C. v. United States, 138 F.3d 1075, 1083 (6th Cir. 1998). Release of statements and identities of witnesses and subjects of an investigation creates the potential for witness intimidation that could deter their cooperation. National Labor Relations Board v. Robbins Tire and Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 239 (1978). “Personal privacy” only encompasses individuals, and does not extend to the privacy interests of corporations. FCC v. AT & T Inc., 131 S.Ct. 1177, 1178 (2011). Re: FOIA No. 560-2017-002325 Comments Page Your FOIA request for a copy of file 28E-2014-00485 is denied pursuant to the third and seventh exemptions to the FOIA. 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(3)(A)(i) and (b)(7)(C). There was no lawsuit timely filed in court. Also the following information must be directly requested from the Missouri Dept. of Mental Health: 1. Copy of his contract he signed when he was employed at the Fulton State Hospital 2. All statements made on my behalf, or against me and the reasons for which he was under investigation at the Fulton State Hospital 3. Reasons for his dismissal 4. Records of Aschalew Belachew and Muhammer Suljacer The confidentiality provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the ADA, and GINA prohibit the EEOC from confirming or denying the existence of a charge to a third party of the charge. The third exemption to the FOIA exempts this information from disclosure. The seventh exemption to the FOIA permits the agency to withhold information compiled in investigative files where disclosure of such information could result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. For a full description of the exemption codes used please find them at the following URL: https://publicportalfoiapal.eeoc.gov/palMain.aspx This response was prepared by Garry Stevens, FOIA Assistant, who may be reached at 314-539-7800.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION St. Louis District Office Robert A. Young Building 1222 Spruce Street, Room 8.100 St. Louis, MO 63103 Toll Free: (877)-895-1802 TTY (314) 539-7803 FAX (314) 539-7050 Website: www.eeoc.gov April 13, 2020 Via: [email protected] Mr. Michael Ayele Association For The Advancement of Civil Liberties P.O.Box 20438 Addis Ababa Ethiopia Re: FOIA No.: 560-2020-008405 Charge No: 28E-2014-00485C Ayele, vs MISSOURI DEPT OF MENTAL HEALTH Dear Mr. Ayele: Your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, received on April 13, 2020 is processed. Our search began on April 13, 2020. All agency records in creation as of April 13, 2020 are within the scope of EEOC’s search for responsive records. The paragraph(s) checked below apply. [ x ] Your request is granted. [ X ] You may contact the EEOC FOIA Public Liaison Stephanie D. Garner for further assistance or to discuss any aspect of your request. In addition, you may contact the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) to inquire about the FOIA mediation services they offer. The contact information for OGIS is as follows: Office of Government Information Services, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi RoadOGIS, College Park, Maryland 20740-6001, email at [email protected]; telephone at (202) 741-5770; toll free 1-877-684-6448; or facsimile at (202) 741-5769. The contact information for the FOIA Public Liaison is as follows: Stephanie D. Garner, EEOC FOIA Public Liaison, Office of Legal Counsel, FOIA Division, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M. Street, N.E., Fifth Floor, Washington, D.C. 20507, email to [email protected], telephone at (202) 663- 4634; or fax at (202) 653-6034. [ X ] If you are not satisfied with the response to this request, you may administratively appeal in writing. Your appeal must be postmarked or electronically transmitted in 90 days from receipt of this letter to the Office of Legal Counsel, FOIA Division, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street, NE, 5NW02E, Washington, D.C. 20507, email to [email protected]; online at https://publicportalfoiapal.eeoc.gov/palMain.aspx, or fax at (202) 653-6034. Your appeal will be governed by 29 C.F.R. § 1610.11. [ x ] See the attached Comments page for further information. Sincerely,
L. Jack Vasquez, Jr. District Director [email protected] Applicable Sections of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b): Exemption(s) Used: (b)(7)(C), Exemption (b)(7)(C) to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C) (2016), as amended by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-185, 130 Stat. 538, authorizes the Commission to withhold: records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information . . . (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy . . . . The seventh exemption applies to civil and criminal investigations conducted by regulatory agencies. Abraham & Rose, P.L.C. v. United States, 138 F.3d 1075, 1083 (6th Cir. 1998). Release of statements and identities of witnesses and subjects of an investigation creates the potential for witness intimidation that could deter their cooperation. National Labor Relations Board v. Robbins Tire and Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 239 (1978); Manna v. United States Dep’t. of Justice, 51 F.3d 1158,1164 (3d Cir. 1995). Disclosure of identities of employee-witnesses could cause "problems at their jobs and with their livelihoods." L&C Marine Transport, Ltd. v. United States, 740 F.2d 919, 923 (11th Cir. 1984). The Supreme Court has explained that only "[o]fficial information that sheds light on an agency's performance of its statutory duties" merits disclosure under FOIA, and noted that "disclosure of information about private citizens that is accumulated in various governmental files" would "reveal little or nothing about an agency's own conduct." United States Dep't of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 773 (1989). For the purposes of determining what constitutes an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under exemption (b)(7)(C), the term “personal privacy” only encompasses individuals, and does not extend to the privacy interests of corporations. FCC v. AT&T Inc., 131 S.Ct. 1177, 1178 (2011). DOCUMENTS WITHHELD PURSUANT TO EXEMPTION (b)(7)(C):560-2020-008405 Comment: Your FOIA request for a copy of file [ ] is denied pursuant to the third and Seventh exemptions to the FOIA. 5 U.S. 552 (b)(7)(C). The confidentiality provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the ADA, and GINA prohibit the EEOC from confirming or denying the existence of a charge to a third party of the charge. The third exemption to the FOIA exempts this information from disclosure.
The seventh exemption to the FOIA permits the agency to withhold information complied in investigation files where disclosure of such information could result in an unwarranted Invasion of personal privacy. If an employment discrimination lawsuit, based on the allegations in the charge, is pending. please resubmit your FOIA request with a copy of the “filed’ stamped court complaint indicating a pending Title VII, ADA, GINA ADEA, of EPA case for possible reconsideration NO LAWSUIT COMMENT No file stamped law suit was submitted with your request. Exemption 7( c ) to the Foia permits the agency to withhold information compiled In investigative files where disclosure of such information could result in an unwarranted Invasion of personal privacy. For a full description of the exemption codes used please find them at the following URL: https://publicportalfoiapal.eeoc.gov/palMain.aspx This response was prepared by AZZIE HICKS, who may be reached at 314-539-7919. Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Legal Counsel 131 M St, N. E., Fifth Floor Washington, D. C. 20507 Free: (833)-827-2920 TTY(202) 663-6056 FAX(202) 663-7026 Website: www.eeoc.gov 06/28/2021 VIA: [email protected] Michael Ayele (aka) W Association for the Advancement of Civil Liberties P.O. Box 20438 Addis Ababa, ETHIOPIA 10013 Re: FOIA No.: 820-2021-004999 MOSERS (FSH) Dear Mr. Ayele (aka) W: Your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, received on 05/31/2021, is processed. Our search began on 06/01/2021. All agency records in creation as of 06/01/2021 are within the scope of EEOC’s search for responsive records. The paragraph(s) checked below apply. [ X ] Portions of your request are as follows: [ X ] Granted. See the Comments page for further explanation. [ X ] Procedurally denied as no records fitting the description of the records you seek exist. See the Comments page for further explanation. [ X ] Denied pursuant to the subsections of the FOIA indicated at the end of this letter. An attachment to this letter explains the use of these exemptions in more detail. [ X ] I trust that the furnished information fully satisfies your request. If you need any further assistance or would like to discuss any aspect of your request, please do not hesitate to contact the FOIA Professional who processed your request or our FOIA Public Liaison (see contact information in above letterhead or under signature line). [ X ] You may contact the EEOC FOIA Public Liaison for further assistance or to discuss any aspect of your request. In addition, you may contact the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) to inquire about the FOIA mediation services they offer. The contact information for OGIS is as follows: Office of Government Information Services, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi RoadOGIS, College Park, Maryland 20740-6001, email at [email protected]; telephone at (202) 741-5770; toll free 1-877-684-6448; or facsimile at (202) 741-5769. The contact information for the FOIA Public Liaison: (see contact information in the above letterhead or under signature line).
820-2021-004999 [ X ] If you are not satisfied with the response to this request, you may administratively appeal in writing. Your appeal must be postmarked or electronically transmitted in 90 days from receipt of this letter to the Office of Legal Counsel, FOIA Division, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street, NE, 5NW02E, Washington, D.C. 20507, email to [email protected]; online at https://eeoc.arkcase.com/foia/portal/login, or fax at (202) 653-6034. Your appeal will be governed by 29 C.F.R. § 1610.11. [ X ] See the attached Comments page for further information. Sincerely, Draga G. Anthony for Stephanie D. Garner Assistant Legal Counsel (202) 921-2542 [email protected] Applicable Sections of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b): Exemption(s) Used: [ X ] (3) (A)(i) [ X ] Section 706(b) of Title VII [ X ] Section 709(e) of Title VII [ X ] Section 107 of the ADA [ X ] Section 207 of the GINA For a full description of the exemption codes used please find them at the following URL: https://eeoc.arkcase.com/foia/portal/login.
820-2021-004999 Exemption 3 to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3)(A)(i) (2009), as amended by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, states that disclosure is not required for a matter specifically exempted from disclosure by statute . . . if that statute (A)(i) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue; Sections 706(b) and 709(e) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-5(b), 2000e-8(e)(2006), are part of such a statute. Section 706(b) provides that: Charges shall not be made public by the Commission . . . . Nothing said or done during and as a part of [the Commission's informal endeavors at resolving charges of discrimination] may be made public . . . . Section 709(e) of Title VII provides: It shall be unlawful for any officer of the Commission to make public in any manner whatever any information obtained by the Commission pursuant to its authority under this section [to investigate charges of discrimination and to require employers to maintain and submit records] prior to the institution of any proceeding under this title involving such information. Section 107 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 207 of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) adopt the procedures of sections 706 and 709 of Title VII. See Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Associated Dry Goods Co., 449 U.S. 590 (1981); Frito-Lay v. EEOC, 964 F. Supp. 236, 239-43 (W.D. Ky. 1997); American Centennial Insurance Co. v. United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 722 F. Supp. 180 (D.N.J. 1989); and EEOC v. City of Milwaukee, 54 F. Supp. 2d 885, 893 (E.D. Wis. 1999). INFORMATION WITHHELD PURSUANT TO THE THIRD EXEMPTION TO THE FOIA: Access to investigative files in which the issuance of your right to sue has long since expired; Charge Nos. 28E-2014-00485 and 28E-2014-01070
820-2021-004999 COMMENTS The following is this office’s response to your request under the FOIA: 1. Your request for “formal and informal ties existing between your offices, the MOSERS, the EEOC, the Office of Attorney General (OAG), the City of Los Angeles (California), the City of Oakland (California), the City of San Diego (California) and the City of San Francisco (California)” is granted. The EEOC provides leadership and guidance to federal agencies on all aspects of the federal government's equal employment opportunity program. The requested information is already available online, via EEOC’s public website. See the following link: https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector. The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, by employers such as state and local governmental departments, against a job applicant or an employee. The requested information is already available online, via EEOC’s public website. See the following link: https://www.eeoc.gov/employers. 2. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the FBI background check [you] had passed in May2013 to secure an employment with the DMH (FSH)” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 3. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the stress and psychological trauma [you] have lived as a direct consequence of several critical incidents and emotionally difficult events in my previous employment with the DMH (FSH)” is denied pursuant to the third exemption to the FOIA. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3)(A)(i). The confidentiality provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the ADA, and GINA, prohibit the EEOC from granting access to, or copies of, a charge brought by an individual to a third party of the charge. The third exemption to the FOIA exempts this information from disclosure. 4. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about Missouri Senate Bill 26 failing to provide the same rights and privileges tohealth care workers as it does to law enforcement officers even though they are both required to pass similar FBI background checks” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 5. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the Joint Commission letter sent to [you] on April 23, 2014, indicating that “23 written complaints were filed against,” [your] former employer for a broad range of issues” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 6. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the EEOC and [your] previous employer (FSH) having thus far failed to promptly disclose the reasons for which [you] were under investigation in my former capacity as a health-care worker, who was assigned the title of Forensic Rehab Specialist (FRS),” is procedurally denied. No records exist. 7. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the EEOC and [your] former employer (FSH) having failed to
820-2021-004999 inform [you] in writing of the nature and alleged violation [you] had supposedly committed until after they concluded their investigation” is procedurally denied. No records exist. 8. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the EEOC and [your] former employer having failed to promptly disclose the name(s), the academic background(s), the professional responsibilities, and annual salaries, of the investigator/investigators, who were assigned to the complaint of employee misconduct that had been filed against [you] in October 2013” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 9. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about [your] having, pursuant to Lori Hollinger’s letter dated December 20, 2013, given back on December 23, 2013, the uniform provided to [you] by the FSH, in order to claim [your] last paycheck” is denied pursuant to the third exemption to the FOIA. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3)(A)(i). 10. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the harassment [you] endured on December 23, 2013, after having presented a copy of Lori Hollinger’s letter and the uniforms provided to [you] by the FSH to staff thereof in order to claim my last paycheck” is denied pursuant to the third exemption to the FOIA. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3)(A)(i). 11. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the vague answers [you] were provided by employees and legal representatives of the FSH to specific questions [you] had asked about [your] last paycheck, which failed to be forthcoming upon the return of the uniforms and the badge given to [you] by the FSH” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 12. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the receipt [you] were provided by the FSH on December 23, 2013, following the return of five white polo t-shirts” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 13. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the several unreturned phone calls [you] had made to [your] former employer between December 24, 2013, and December 30, 2013, where [you] reminded them that [you] had returned [your] badge and uniforms even though no paycheck was provided to [you]” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 14. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about [your] arrest dated December 30, 2013, at the FSH” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 15. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the Statement of Probable Cause failing to mention that [you] were present on Fulton State Hospital (FSH) lobby on December 23, 2013, to return [your] uniforms and request that it provide [your] paycheck for the work [you] performed in November and December 2013” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 16. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the Statement of Probable failing to mention that the now posted video on YouTube showing the events before [your] arrest was deleted” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
820-2021-004999 17. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about [your] previous use of the software called DiskDigger to recover the deleted video footage, of [your] arrest dated December 30, 2013, from [your] cellphone” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 18. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S government finding in Sibron v New York that “before an officer places a hand on the person of a citizen in search of anything, he must have constitutionally adequate, reasonable grounds for doing so”” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 19. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence your communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S government finding in Ornelas v United States that the “principal components of a determination of reasonable suspicion or probable cause will be the events which occurred leading up to the stop or search, and then the decision whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer, amount to reasonable suspicion or to probable cause”” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 20. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S government finding in Beck v Ohio that the “validity of an arrest depends upon whether, at the moment of thearrest, the officer had probable cause (or a warrant) to believe that the individual could be arrested”” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 21. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S government finding in Florida v Royer that a “restraint on the person amounting to a seizure for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment is invalid unless justified by probable cause”” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 22. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S government finding in Hayes v Florida that “police officersacting without probable cause and without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, by forcibly removing a person from his home or other place where he was entitled to be and transporting him to the police station for fingerprinting”” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 23. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S government finding in McCurdy v Montgomery County that Plaintiff-Appellant James McCurdy First and Fourth Amendment were violated as a direct consequence of his arrest without probable cause”” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 24. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S government finding in Centanni v Eight Unknown Officers that Marilyn Centanni’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated as a direct consequence of her detention, which required probable cause because it constituted an arrest”” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 25. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S government finding in Dunaway v New York that Dunaway’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights were violated by the police
820-2021-004999 who picked him up and took him to the police station to be questioned without probable cause”” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 26. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S government finding in City of Houston, Tex. v Hill that “a municipal ordinance that makes it unlawful to interrupt a police officer in the performance of his duty is substantially overbroad, and therefore invalid on its face under the First Amendment”” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 27. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence the judicial branch of the U.S. government finding in Jean v. Mass. State Police that “the First Amendment prevents Massachusetts law enforcement officials from interfering with an individual’s internet posting ofan audio and video recording of an arrest and warrantless search”” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 28. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S. government finding in Butterworth v Smith that “state officials may not constitutionally punish publication of lawfully obtained truthful information about a matter of public importance”” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 29. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the judicial branchof the U.S. government finding in Daugherty v Campbell that a “strip search, regardless of how professionally and courteously conducted, is an embarrassing and humiliating experience”” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 30. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S. government finding in Jones v Buchanan that “to determine the appropriate amount of force used by a law enforcement officer, one should examine (a) the severity of the crime at issue, (b) the extent to which the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers orothers, and (c) whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight,”” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 31. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S. government finding that a “reasonable juror could determine that the force Mayor Bise and Chief Shoemaker used was not objectively reasonable,” and that “Mayor Bise, acting on personal animosity, ordered Chief Shoemaker to arrest him,” in Richard Goff v Lloyd Bise”” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 32. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S. government finding that the “record evidence compelled the conclusion that the force with which Leporati effected the sudden, unannounced, violent seizure and removal of Alexis’s person was not objectively reasonable, especially since there is no evidence or suggestion that she posed a risk of flight, attempted to resist or evade arrest, or threatened the peace, property, or safety of anyone” in Alexis v. McDonald Restaurants of Massachusetts” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 33. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S. government decision to reverse “the grants of directed verdicts for Officer Macker on the state of tort claims of false arrest and imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process, and the state and federal
820-2021-004999 civil right claims for illegal arrest and civil rights conspiracy” in Santiago v Fenton” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 34. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S. government finding that the “problems posed by, and thus the tactics to be employed against, an emotionally distraught individual who is creating a disturbance or resisting arrest are, and must be, differentiated from those involved in efforts to subdue an armed and dangerous criminal, who has recently committed a serious offense” in Deorie v. Rutherford” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 35. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S. government finding that “police officers were called to take a mentally ill individual into custody for his own safety, but within a half-hour, they had caused him to fall into a coma that has left him in a vegetative state.” in Drummond v City of Anaheim” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 36. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S. government finding in Meyers v Baltimore County that the police in Baltimore, Maryland, used force that was clearly “unnecessary, gratuitous and disproportionate”” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 37. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S. government finding in Estate of Armstrong v Village of Pinehurst that the police in North Carolina used unconstitutionally excessive force, when seizing Ronald H. Armstrong” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 38. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about Justice John Paul Stevens dissenting opinion in Anderson v Creighton arguing that the “majority’s opinion unnecessarily expands the idea of qualified immunity beyond high political officials to police officers, whom it is in the public’s best interests to hold accountable for their actions” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 39. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S. government finding in Brady v Maryland that the “suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused who has requested it violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 40. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S. government finding that the “Sixth amendment’s guarantee of a right to assistance of counsel applies to criminal defendants in state court by way of the Fourteenth Amendment,” in Gideon v Wainwright” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 41. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S. government decision to appoint attorney of counsel to Petitioner Henry A. McClain following the filing of his Habeas Corpus complaint” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
820-2021-004999 42. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the judicial branch of the U.S. government decision to appoint attorney of counsel to Petitioners Walter Pyles (aka Sonni Pyles) and Charles Pyles (aka Timbuk Pyles) following the filing of their Habeas Corpus complaint” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 43. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the societal benefits of appointing legal counsel to people who request it following the filing of a Habeas Corpus and/or a Civil Complaint” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 44. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) response to the protests that erupted in the city following the decision of the grand jury not to criminally prosecute former Ferguson Police Department Officer (FPD) officer Darren Wilson in November 2014” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 45. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about residents’ of Oakland, California, reaction to the shooting death of Michael Brown” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 46. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the decisions of students associated with the University of California, Berkeley, to protest the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown in the San Francisco Bay area in December 2014” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 47. Your request for “the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), the Napa Police Department, the Oakland Police Department, the San Diego Police Department, and the San Francisco Police Department policies pertaining the use of tear gas and other chemical irritants in circumstances of protests following the death of an unarmed Black person” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 48. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about [your] membership with the Los Angeles Public Library (LAPL) in November 2014” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 49. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about [your] membership with the San Francisco Public Library (SFPL) in December 2014” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 50. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about [your] previous visits to the University of California, Berkeley, in December 2014” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 51. Your request for “formal and informal ties existing between the University of California, Berkeley, International Student Office and the Office of California Senator Dianne Feinstein” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 52. Your request for “the date and time of [EEOC employees] last visit to the University of California Free Speech Center as part of an activity approved of by the Agency” is procedurally denied. No records exist. 53. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the legislative branch of the Missouri government eagerness to penalize people who attend protests and demonstrations following the deaths of unarmed
820-2021-004999 Black men at the hands of the police (taking into consideration what occurred in the City of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Oakland California)” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 54. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the legislative branch of the Missouri government eagerness to penalize protesters (in Missouri Senate Bill 26 and Missouri Senate Bill66), who may wish to block traffic on highways to bring attention to police use of excessive force as residents of the City of Los Angeles (California) and the City of San Francisco (California) had previously done in November and December 2014” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 55. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the N-word having set off a series of unfortunate incidents in the State of Missouri between September and November 2014” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 56. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about Northwest Missouri State University response to [your] Sunshine request dealing with the events that occurred between September and November 2015” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 57. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about Missouri Senate Bill 26 and Missouri Senate Bill 66 failing to recognize the N-word as a racial slur, which is belittling, derogatory, hurtful, inflammatory, offensive and unacceptable,” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 58. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about Missouri Senate Bill 26 and Missouri Senate Bill 66 failing to prohibit the display of the confederate flag, nooses and swastikas in and around Missouri’s Capitol located in Jefferson City” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 59. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about MissouriSenator Joshua David Hawley’s objections to certify President Joseph Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 60. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about Missouri Senator Joshua David Hawley complaining about being cancelled and silenced, while being hosted on the Washington Post” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 61. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about Cori Bush having become the first Black Congresswoman to represent the State of Missouri in Congress” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 62. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the criticism faced by Congresswoman Cori Bush for her support to defund the police” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 63. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the criticism faced by Congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib, for their support to reallocate police funding” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC.
820-2021-004999 64. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about William Maher’s unfair comparison of Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib to Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene on his HBO show broadcasting from the State of California” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 65. Your request for “all hateful e-mails and postal mail correspondence sent to employees and legal representatives of the City of Los Angeles Counsel, the City of Napa (California), the City of Oakland (California), the City of SanDiego (California), and the City of San Francisco (California) for having acknowledged the existence of systemic racism like Rashida Tlaib has done on many previous occasions” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 66. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene’s previous refusal to acknowledge in public the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School (located in Parkland, Florida) on February 14, 2018,” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 67. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene’s previous refusal to acknowledge in public the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012,” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 68. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene following March for Our Lives co-founder David Hogg in Washington D.C to criticize his support for Red flag laws” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 69. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about the reasons why Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez believes Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene to be ‘deeply unwell”” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 70. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about former U.S President Barack Obama having called some of William Maher’s ideas ‘wacky’” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. 71. Your request for “[EEOC] communications in the form of e-mails and postal correspondence about Chris Rock stand-up comedy dealing with U.S. policy on gun control” is procedurally denied. No records exist within the EEOC. This response was prepared by Joanne Murray, Government Information Specialist, who may be reached at (202) 663-4500.