Complaint Review: Tucson Medical Center TMC Palo Verde Hospital

For those of you who for any reason may have a misguided opinion of Civil Rights, racism, sexist harassment and utterly, indesputabe unsafe hospital practices that include loudly sending a bleeding right back to wash dishes and train a new employee who she obvious sexually harassed while continuing to operate unsafe high temperature and pressure equipment.

This apparently remains a hospital where autistic and clearly and obviously demented and un-speaking (mostly non-verbal autistic employees or those on drugs and obviously so) employees have a sadistic, racist and sexist Italian Catholic time while defiling, defaming and sexually violating male employees.

The Pima County District Court Judge, with completely juvenile and meaningless motion that is regardless reasonably written, has completely irresponsibly and with social maturity not possibly greater than that of a 13-year-old refused to grant the victim of this abuse time to - get this - actually hire an attorney to represent him in a Civil Rights case approved by the Arizona Attorney General's Office and conformed by the Pima County Superior Court.

This is not only a failure of hospital employees and sexist, racist female supremacist supervisors that are really and truly incompetent, but a failure of the Pima County Courts and the Arizona Attorney General's Office, both in Tucson and Phoenix, to take reasonable or any corrective action, and even allow the case to be heard in court.

The legalistic weenies - who are committing felony property violation, goading to insanity, hazing and relentless relative and home violation have prevented Civil Rights from getting any court hearing in Arizona, and can stop the process at any time (they need to so as not to be embarassed by real racism, sexism, secular prejudice, violation of hospital and any other safety code, completely unsafe practices that result in sexual abuse of male employees that cannot be reasonably nor safely prevented nor stopped, and unsafe wicked hospital practices that fecklessly continue to endanger anyone eating in this hospital.

Another Tucson Hospital University Medical Center, is likewise a candidate for the film, "Hell House 5-8". Here religious idiots and the completely body-covered tatooed "Satanic" parts of male hospital orderlies have contests late at night with patients. If you are not going to die today....

Yet another Tucson Hospital one might more-than-question is the Corondelet Medical Group. "The heart-attack hospital." Please take this advertisement to mean that if you are not really having a heart attack you might be after the sadistic female orderlies, with less couth than an average street person, ask you twenty questions.

This writer has inspected hospitals in Sweden, Nepal and other nations and holds three full-year college and university degrees.

Below is my lawsuit against one of Tucson, Arizona's hospitals, Tucson Medical Center, TMC. It's repeated workplace sexual harassment endangering employee welfare while operating potentially dangerous equipment, clear and sure and reported and witnessed and documented and all within the first few hours of work.



I am begging any lawyer that can handle this kind of case to contact me personally and all and any offers will be immediately considered.



Lawrence Morris Leight, pro per
2634 East Devon Street
Tucson, Arizona 85716-5506
Plaintiff



IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN AND FOR PIMA COUNTY



LAWRENCE MORRIS LEIGHT, )
) No.
Applicant ) COMPLAINT
) Application for Order to Show
) Cause and order Enforcing
Vs. ) Subpoena
)
Tucson Medical Center, TMC, its owners) Assigned to:
management, and employees, both )
individually and as company officers. ) [see court records]
Defendants. )
_______________________________)



Applicant Pima County, Arizona, resident Lawrence Morris Leight, pro per, and the Civil Rights Division of the Arizona Department of Law allege as follows:


1. This Court has jurisdiction of the instant application pursuant to A.R.S. section 41-1403(B)(3). This action is also filed under Federal Statute Title VII and ADA.


2. The Civil rights division of the Arizona Department of Law (hereinafter the Division) is an administrative agency created by A.R.S. section 41-1401-1984 for the purpose of investigating and conciliating charges of discrimination in employment and public accommodations.


3. A.R.S. section 41-1481(B) requires the Division to investigate charges of employment discrimination within A.R.S. section 41- 1463, which have been filed with it by members of the public.


4. To aid in investigating such charges, the Division is authorized by A.R.S. section 41-1403(B)(1) to issue subpoenas compelling the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of documents. Under A.R.S. section 41-1403(B)(4) such subpoenas may be served personally or by registered mail.


5. On April 18, 2008, Lawrence Leight filed a charge of employment discrimination and harassment with the Division against Tucson Medical Center, TMC. A copy of that charge is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated by reference herein. That charge was assigned to the Division for investigation.


6. In April, 2008, the Division caused to be served on Tucson Medical Center a set of interrogatories and an administrative subpoena duces tecum requiring answers to question and documents and records which are relevant to Leight's charge.


7. Those interrogatories and subpoena were served on Respondent.


8. Respondent has not been granted additional time to respond to the interrogatories or the subpoena duces tecum nor has objection been made to the subpoena on the grounds set out at A.R.S. Section 41-1403(B)(3), e.g. that the evidence does not relate to unlawful practices covered by this chapter, that it is not relevant to the charge which is the subject matter of the investigation, that it does not describe with sufficient particularity the evidence whose production is required, or that it is unduly burdensome or oppressive.


9. A.R.S. section 41-1403(B)(1) provides in relevant part:
The Superior Court, upon application by the division or the person subpoenaed, shall have jurisdiction to issue an order (a) requiring such person to appear before Arizona courts, the division, the Board or the duly authorized agent of either, there to produce evidence relating to the matter under investigation if so ordered.Any failure to obey such order may be punished by such court as a contempt.


10. The Plaintiff was at all times herein a resident of Pima County, Arizona.


11. The Defendant, Tucson Medical Center, is a business operated within Pima County.


12. The Defendants, each and all of them, were acting in their capacities as agents, employees and representatives of said Defendant; the Defendants JOHN DOES I-V and JANE DOES I-V were at all times relevant herein employees, officers or agents of the Defendant, each and all of them; the Defendants JOHN DOES I-V and Jane DOES I-V are as yet undetermined, but the Plaintiff will move this Court to amend the Complaint as soon as their identities are determined; the Defendants, each and all of them were acting in their capacities agents, servants and employees of each and all of the other Defendants and acted for all pertinent purposes within the course and scope of their employment.


13. Acts complained of herein took place primarily within Pima County, Arizona.


14. Plaintiff is a male of Hebraic descent who was employed as a dishwasher by the Defendant.


15. Defendant is in the hospital business. Defendant had at least one employee for twenty consecutive weeks in calendar years 2007-2008.


16. Plaintiff filed a charge of employment harassment and discrimination with the Civil Rights Division on April 18, 2008, alleging among other things, that during his employment an employee of Tucson Medical Center made unwelcome and unsolicited sexist egressions against the Plaintiff, continuing to place her groin against the defendants buttock and reaching around him while he was operating high temperature and pressure equipment, such that terminating his own employment was the only safe alternative to continued illegal and dangerous behavior around high temperature and pressure washing equipment with conveyor belt.


17. That additional habitual and various sexist prejudice, racist pride, wrongful account and punishment was levied against the Plaintiff by the Manager on duty, wrongly in favor the offending employee.


18. Plaintiff quit his job after being sexually harassed by the Defendant and loudly complaining three times to no avail, and complaining to hospital management both by phone and in person.


COUNT I Violation of Arizona Discrimination Laws


19. The facts previously set out give rise to a cause of action for discrimination pursuant to Arizona law. It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of gender, religion, race or ethnicity, or to otherwise create a hostile work environment. The Defendants, each and all of them, discriminated against the Plaintiff by creating and allowing a hostile work environment because of the Plaintiff's gender and their racial and other prejudice, and regardless of both. The Defendants, each and all of them, knew or reasonably should have known of the individual Defendant's conduct. The Plaintiff was constructively discharged and seriously harmed by this conduct. As such, the Plaintiff seeks recovery for his damages.


COUNT II Constructive Discharge


20. The facts set out previously give rise to a cause of action for constructive discharge when the Plaintiff criticized the bad management and judgment of employees. Despite repeated requests that the Defendants stop the harassment and sexual abuse, the Defendants failed to correct the situation. The constructive discharge of the Plaintiff by the Defendants was wrongful, in bad faith, and in violation of the public policy of the State of Arizona as embodied in the State's discrimination laws, Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964. Being constructively discharged from his employment has damaged the Plaintiff. The constructive discharge of the Plaintiff was done in bad faith, with malice and with evil minds.


COUNT III Violation of Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964


21. The facts set out previously give rise to a cause of action for violations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Plaintiff was a member of a protected class and the Defendant is a covered employer; The Plaintiff has set forth facts demonstrating employment discrimination, retaliation and other violation of his civil rights. Said actions were willful and warrant the implementation of damages for the harms the Plaintiff suffered.


22. The Plaintiff has suffered damages because of the actions and inaction of the Defendants. The Defendants' conduct proximately caused the Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress, mental and physical anguish, indignation, wounded love, shame and despair. In addition to these injuries, the Defendants' conduct has proximately caused the Plaintiff to suffer pecuniary losses and lost employment opportunities.


23. The conduct of the Defendants described in this Complaint was willful and malicious so as to entitle the Plaintiff to recover exemplary damages to punish the Defendants and to deter such conduct in the future. The Plaintiff will show that, as a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff has suffered loss of time and expenses, including reasonable attorneys fees incurred in this investigation and prosecution of this action. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asks that exemplary damages be awarded against the Defendants in an amount greatly exceeding the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court.


COUNT IV Arizona Wage Law Violations


24. The Defendants actions caused severe harm to the Plaintiff, including monetary losses, severe emotional distress, harm to the Plaintiff's reputation and humiliation among others; said harms are permanent in nature.


25. The Defendants' conduct was intentional or was based upon a reckless disregard for the harm that would be caused and subjects the Defendants to punitive damages.



26. The conduct of the Defendant described in this Complaint was willful and malicious so as to entitle the Plaintiff to recover exemplary damages to punish the Defendants and to deter such conduct in the future. The Plaintiff will show that, as a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff has suffered loss of time and expenses, including fees incurred in this investigation and prosecution of this action. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asks that exemplary damages be awarded against the Defendants in an amount greatly exceeding the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court.


WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests judgment as follows:
1. That the Plaintiff be awarded compensatory damages including but not limited to emotional distress, back pay, front pay, lost benefits and sales commissions, interest on any sums certain, treble damages pursuant to statute;
2. That the Plaintiff be awarded punitive damages;
3. That the Plaintiff recovers his costs;
4. That the Plaintiff have such other and further relief as the Court deems proper; and,
5. That the Plaintiff be awarded any attorneys' fees incurred herein.




Dated August 8, 2008.


Lawrence Morris Leight, pro per


_______________________________




WHEREFORE, THE APPLICANT respectfully requests the Court to order Respondent Tucson Medical Center, TMC, it's owners, managers and/or representative(s) to appear before the Court to produce responses to interrogatories and subpoena relating to the charges of employment discrimination filed by Lawrence Leight, at reasonable time and date set by the Court.


DATED this 11th day of August 2008.
LAWRENCE LEIGHT
STATE OF ARIZONA )
)
County of Pima )


Lawrence Morris Leight, being acquainted with the facts, aver that I have read the above and foregoing application and know the contents thereof and that the same is true of my own personal knowledge except as to those statements made on information and belief and as to them, I believe them to be true.

_______________________________
Lawrence Morris Leight, Applicant


SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this th day of

August 2008.


Notary Public in and for the State of
Arizona. My commission expires:


****************************************************


I would like you to know that this sort of thing is not a communication problem - I trophied in extemporaneous and impromtu speaking in high school and college, winning firsts in Arizona and California state speach tournaments...the real motivation that controls this type of scenario is Catholic/Italian smearing, control and abuse of private families, and absolutely very, very surely and absolutely clearly and for decades, not at all dissimilar from McCarthyism. I cannot act my way out of it, move my way out of it, nor in any way ask it to stop and it has no terms of surrender.


If any of you have seen a poster of a female metal worker being oggled and fondled by a bunch of crude, fat, chauvinist male hecklers and sexist pigs and perverts than this is exactly what it felt like.


Another employee at TMC may have stated that this sexually abusive - and unstoppable - female employee was autistic and on medication (then one might conclude that perhaps she should be neither training new employees nor operating high temperature and pressure equipment).


The management clearly made a bad decision by allowing a worker who was essentially retarded, demented and on drugs who had just cut herself and was bleeding to train a brand new employee.


Believe it or not, the appearance of the incident and comments by the manager, that these utterly flagrant and more than thrice very loundly complained about ludicrously impractical sexual advances were surely actually not sexual harassment, actually in this case seems to indicate that the manager thought the employee to close to retarded to be sexually advancing in any capacity.


I have in fact been sexually abused, this time as a patient and not an employee, at another hospital, University Medical Center. These hospitals employ people who are utterly and flagrantly retarded, self-centered and completely illegal and dysfunctional. They employ clearly demented and utterly unprofessional perverts.


Trust these hospitals with your lives and children?


I have been to hospitals as an amateur journalist from Mexico to Nepal ... do not go to these wickeds if you can possibly avoid. My relatives have contributed to hospitals and home for the elderly and helped build them - these hospitals are unworthy of you, and surely, and for many more reasons than given herein.


If you need Civil Rights Lawsuit help, they all look roughly like the above, you have my permission to copy the legalistic bull part and change the details...because I have attempted to contact every Civil Rights and workplace lawyer in Tucson and only two even bothered to respond with a 'no'...and it never even gets to any discussion of fees.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

IN AND FOR PIMA COUNTY

LAWRENCE MORRIS LEIGHT, )

) No.

Applicant ) COMPLAINT

) Application for Order to Show

) Cause and order Enforcing

Vs. ) Subpoena

)

Tucson Medical Center, TMC, its owners) Assigned to:

management, and employees, both )

individually and as company officers. )

Defendants. )

_______________________________)







Applicant Pima County, Arizona, resident Lawrence Morris Leight, pro per, and the Civil Rights Division of the Arizona Department of Law allege as follows:



1. This Court has jurisdiction of the instant application pursuant to A.R.S. section 41-1403(B)(3). This action is also filed under Federal Statute Title VII and ADA.



2. The Civil rights division of the Arizona Department of Law (hereinafter the Division) is an administrative agency created by A.R.S. section 41-1401-1984 for the purpose of investigating and conciliating charges of discrimination in employment and public accommodations.



3. A.R.S. section 41-1481(B) requires the Division to investigate charges of employment discrimination within A.R.S. section 41- 1463, which have been filed with it by members of the public.



4. To aid in investigating such charges, the Division is authorized by A.R.S. section 41-1403(B)(1) to issue subpoenas compelling the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of documents. Under A.R.S. section 41-1403(B)(4) such subpoenas may be served personally or by registered mail.



5. On April 18, 2008, Lawrence Leight filed a charge of employment discrimination and harassment with the Division against Tucson Medical Center. A copy of that charge is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated by reference herein. That charge was assigned to the Division for investigation.



6. In April, 2008, the Division caused to be served on Tucson Medical Center a set of interrogatories and an administrative subpoena duces tecum requiring answers to question and documents and records which are relevant to Leight's charge.



7. Those interrogatories and subpoena were served on Respondent.



8. Respondent has not been granted additional time to respond to the interrogatories or the subpoena duces tecum nor has objection been made to the subpoena on the grounds set out at A.R.S. Section 41-1403(B)(3), e.g. that the evidence does not relate to unlawful practices covered by this chapter, that it is not relevant to the charge which is the subject matter of the investigation, that it does not describe with sufficient particularity the evidence whose production is required, or that it is unduly burdensome or oppressive.



9. A.R.S. section 41-1403(B)(1) provides in relevant part:

The Superior Court, upon application by the division or the person subpoenaed, shall have jurisdiction to issue an order (a) requiring such person to appear before Arizona courts, the division, the Board or the duly authorized agent of either, there to produce evidence relating to the matter under investigation if so ordered.Any failure to obey such order may be punished by such court as a contempt.



10. The Plaintiff was at all times herein a resident of Pima County, Arizona.



11. The Defendant, Tucson Medical Center, is a business operated within Pima County.



12. The Defendants, each and all of them, were acting in their capacities as agents, employees and representatives of said Defendant; the Defendants JOHN DOES I-V and JANE DOES I-V were at all times relevant herein employees, officers or agents of the Defendant, each and all of them; the Defendants JOHN DOES I-V and Jane DOES I-V are as yet undetermined, but the Plaintiff will move this Court to amend the Complaint as soon as their identities are determined; the Defendants, each and all of them were acting in their capacities agents, servants and employees of each and all of the other Defendants and acted for all pertinent purposes within the course and scope of their employment.



13. Acts complained of herein took place primarily within Pima County, Arizona.



14. Plaintiff is a male of Hebraic descent who was employed as a dishwasher by the Defendant.



15. Defendant is in the hospital business. Defendant had at least one employee for twenty consecutive weeks in calendar years 2007-2008.



16. Plaintiff filed a charge of employment harassment and discrimination with the Civil Rights Division on April 18, 2008, alleging among other things, that during his employment an employee of Tucson Medical Center made unwelcome and unsolicited sexist egressions against the Plaintiff, continuing to place her groin against the defendants buttock and reaching around him while he was operating high temperature and pressure equipment, such that terminating his own employment was the only safe alternative to continued illegal and dangerous behavior around high temperature and pressure washing equipment with conveyor belt.



17. That additional habitual and various sexist prejudice, racist pride, wrongful account and punishment was levied against the Plaintiff by the Manager on duty, wrongly in favor the offending employee.



18. Plaintiff quit his job after being sexually harassed by the Defendant and loudly complaining three times to no avail, and complaining to hospital management both by phone and in person.



COUNT I Violation of Arizona Discrimination Laws



19. The facts previously set out give rise to a cause of action for discrimination pursuant to Arizona law. It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of gender, religion, race or ethnicity, or to otherwise create a hostile work environment. The Defendants, each and all of them, discriminated against the Plaintiff by creating and allowing a hostile work environment because of the Plaintiff's gender and their racial and other prejudice, and regardless of both. The Defendants, each and all of them, knew or reasonably should have known of the individual Defendant's conduct. The Plaintiff was constructively discharged and seriously harmed by this conduct. As such, the Plaintiff seeks recovery for his damages.



COUNT II Constructive Discharge



20. The facts set out previously give rise to a cause of action for constructive discharge when the Plaintiff criticized the bad management and judgment of employees. Despite repeated requests that the Defendants stop the harassment and sexual abuse, the Defendants failed to correct the situation. The constructive discharge of the Plaintiff by the Defendants was wrongful, in bad faith, and in violation of the public policy of the State of Arizona as embodied in the State's discrimination laws, Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964. Being constructively discharged from his employment has damaged the Plaintiff. The constructive discharge of the Plaintiff was done in bad faith, with malice and with evil minds.



COUNT III Violation of Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964



21. The facts set out previously give rise to a cause of action for violations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Plaintiff was a member of a protected class and the Defendant is a covered employer; The Plaintiff has set forth facts demonstrating employment discrimination, retaliation and other violation of his civil rights. Said actions were willful and warrant the implementation of damages for the harms the Plaintiff suffered.



22. The Plaintiff has suffered damages because of the actions and inaction of the Defendants. The Defendants' conduct proximately caused the Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress, mental and physical anguish, indignation, wounded love, shame and despair. In addition to these injuries, the Defendants' conduct has proximately caused the Plaintiff to suffer pecuniary losses and lost employment opportunities.



23. The conduct of the Defendants described in this Complaint was willful and malicious so as to entitle the Plaintiff to recover exemplary damages to punish the Defendants and to deter such conduct in the future. The Plaintiff will show that, as a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff has suffered loss of time and expenses, including reasonable attorneys fees incurred in this investigation and prosecution of this action. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asks that exemplary damages be awarded against the Defendants in an amount greatly exceeding the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court.



COUNT IV Arizona Wage Law Violations



24. The Defendants actions caused severe harm to the Plaintiff, including monetary losses, severe emotional distress, harm to the Plaintiff's reputation and humiliation among others; said harms are permanent in nature.



25. The Defendants' conduct was intentional or was based upon a reckless disregard for the harm that would be caused and subjects the Defendants to punitive damages.



26. The conduct of the Defendant described in this Complaint was willful and malicious so as to entitle the Plaintiff to recover exemplary damages to punish the Defendants and to deter such conduct in the future. The Plaintiff will show that, as a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff has suffered loss of time and expenses, including fees incurred in this investigation and prosecution of this action. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asks that exemplary damages be awarded against the Defendants in an amount greatly exceeding the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court.



WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests judgment as follows:

1. That the Plaintiff be awarded compensatory damages including but not limited to emotional distress, back pay, front pay, lost benefits and sales commissions, interest on any sums certain, treble damages pursuant to statute;

2. That the Plaintiff be awarded punitive damages;

3. That the Plaintiff recovers his costs;

4. That the Plaintiff have such other and further relief as the Court deems proper; and,

5. That the Plaintiff be awarded any attorneys' fees incurred herein.





Dated August 8, 2008.





Lawrence Morris Leight, pro per





_______________________________



ATTORNEY GENERAL
Civil Rights Division
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE
Lawrence M. Leight vs. Tucson Medical Center
(Charging Party) (Respondent)
CRD No.: T08-0664 EEOC No.:35A-2008-00471C
On April 18, 2008 , you filed a charge with the Civil Rights Division alleging employment discrimination. Arizona law provides that you may bring a civil action in Superior court of the county where the alleged discriminatory action took place. Should you decide to file a civil action, you must do so within 90 days of the date you receive this Notice or within one year of the date you filed the charge, whichever comes first. A.R.S. 0 41-1481(D.)
This NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE is being issued for the following reason(s):
This office has made a final determination or has otherwise completed its processing of your charge and will be taking no further action.
The Civil Rights Division has not completed the processing of your charges, but there are approximately 90 days left before the expiration of the one year deadline for filing a civil action in Superior Court.
11 Although your charge was sent to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for processing, you
may also have a right to sue under the Arizona Civil Rights Act, and there are approximately 90 days left before the expiration of the one year deadline for filing a civil action in Superior Court.
Charging Party has submitted a written request. (Note: A Notice of Right to Sue cannot be issued until 90 days after the date the charge was initially filed unless the Civil Rights Division has issued a final determination.)
If you have any questions concerning this notice, please contact (520) 628-6500. If you need legal assistance, you should seek the advice of an attorney.