Complaint Review: EEOC Atlanta District Office - Atlanta Georgia

EEOC generated my name onto an EEOC Form 5, and False Altered that document after I argued against dismissal of my charge based on termination from employment.  This act was done for the benefit of the employer (Interactive College of Technology) who I once worked for.  The question is why?  On December 15, 2012, I mailed my complaint to EEOC Atlanta based on pay disparity, and retaliatory demotion.  The reason for the charge, was due to my filing a racial discrimination complaint with the above named company as required by their policies and procedures during the month of July 2012. By taking this action I was giving the company the opportunity to rectify the complained of problem before bringing the matter to a Federal Agency.  Instead of the Human Resources Department investigating the complaint, the matter was placed into the hands of the Campus President (one of the individuals) who the complaint was alleged against.  Nothing was done about the matter, because the Campus President justified his actions through a fabricated policy (Seniority).  Several months later on December 13, 2012, I was demoted from my managerial position of four years for some bad managerial decisions within a ninety day period beginning in September 2012.

Reasons for Demotion: (a) During the month of September 2012, an African-American Male student , who worked under my directions is accused of stealing $1,000.00 and some checks without any substantiial evidence that the student stole anything.  It was stated that the Caucasian Female who counted the money and checks had placed them into her purse, inside of a plastic bag, inside of a money bag, and left her purse on her desk unattended.  She then went to another cubicle to talk to her coworker.

 All of this occurred at the time that the maintenance personnel was scheduled to clean within that area.  It is claimed, that within a matter of eight (8) seconds the student stole the money and checks, that he had no idea was inside of the female's purse.  After searching the student, trash receptacles, interior/exterior of the premises no money or checks were found.  Despite of a lack of evidence, the student was removed from the Work Study Program, expelled from school, and told to not come onto company property at all or he would be arrested.  (b) During the month of December 2012, a Caucasian Male student, working under my directions is accused of stealing two $1,000.00 laptop computers from an office area.  

There was proof of the theft, because it was the individual who has written this report who observed, studied, examined, and re-examined the recording to verify the theft.  Several individuals also observed the theft at my request, in making sure that what was being observed was accurate.  The student claimed that he used a key to enter the office, but that was found to be untrue.  However, what I and others did observe was that the door to the office in question was apparently left unsecured by the Dean of College earlier that day.  [It should be noted that the Dean of College was the other person named within the discrimination complaint filed during the month of July 2012.].  Snap shot of the theft was left for the Dean, along with a note requesting a meeting with the Dean, because the student had fabricated the truth when being questioned by the Chamblee Police and myself.  Instead of speaking with me, the Dean chose to only speak with the student.  On the very next day I was demoted for the above two incidents.  The Caucasian Male student was not removed from the Work Study Program, was not expelled or suspended from school, and continues his studies as of the date of this report.  Further, the student was allowed to return one (1) of the $1,000.00 laptop computers, and I have no idea what occurred with the other.  

Could these incidents have been some form of orchestrated set-up to try and justify my demotion?  On December 26, 2012, I went to EEOC to sign and file EEOC Form 5 with my charge of compensation disparity and retaliatory demotion.  Four (4) hours after signing that form I was discharged from employment.  Why would EEOC try to bypass the above incidents that were given as the reasons for my demotion; especially, when that agency had received my complaint by mail several days before I actually signed and filed the official EEOC charge form?  Why would EEOC try to dismiss my charge based of termination from employment, when I was discharged four hours after filing the initial charge?  Who is EEOC actually protecting, the charging party or the employer?  Why forge my name onto a government document, and add information that I did not consent to or authorized?  Does there appear to be something wrong with this matter?  why is EEOC employees immune from criminal investigation or prosecution?  What person [EEOC Investigator] will commit an unnecessary criminal act on behalf of another, and not receive some form of compensation for that act?  You be the judge!