Interactive College of Technology Stone Mountain Georgia


Complaint: EEOC Unnecessary Criminal Activity, You Be the Judge. On December 26, 2012, I was discharged from employment approximately four (4) hours after signing EEOC Form 5 with EEOC Atlanta District Office (Investigator, Larry Satterwhite). [The charge alleged racial discrimination in pay disparity and retaliatory demotion, and was based on the fact that during the month of July 2012; I had filed a complaint of pay disparity with the institution [Interactive College of Technology] who I was working for, and against the Campus President and Dean of College. I followed the procedures as written within their company policy, and submitted the complaint to the Human Resources Department]. Thirteen (13) days earlier (December 13, 2012); I was demoted from my managerial position of four years, for some bad managerial decisions within a ninety (90) day period, starting in September 2012. The decision for my demotion was made by Thomas Blair (Dean of College), and approved of by Elmer Smith (Owner/Campus President). Reasons for Demotion: (a.) September 2012, an African-American Male student is accused of stealing $1,000.00 and some checks without any substantial proof that the young man stole anything. The Caucasian Employees who counted the money were never considered suspect in the theft. The money and checks were supposedly left on one of the employee’s desk inside a purse, inside a bag, inside a money bag. None of the Caucasian employees or manager were reprimanded for this incident, and neither did the employees who counted the money follow protocol as required in immediately depositing the money and checks with the school’s Banking Institution. The African-American student was removed from the Work Study Program, expelled from school, and informed to not return to the school’s premises at all. Since the student worked under my directions, I was demoted for this incident. The employer claimed that students were unauthorized to work within that location, but I provided documentary evidence to EEOC demonstrating that the employer’s explanation was totally untrue, and the rule used was not implemented until after the theft incident. (b.) A Caucasian Male student is accused of theft with proof of stealing two (2) $1,000.00 laptop computers. The incident is caught on the surveillance equipment, and it was I who studied and examined the recording. The student claimed that he had cleaned up in the office area where the laptops were stolen from, and the only reason for his re-entering the office later that day was to find his personal key for home. After re-examination of the recording the students story was completely fabricated. Several individuals observed the theft at my request for verification purposes, and some also observed as I did; that earlier during that day the only other person who entered that office was the Dean of College. Snap shots of the incident was taken, and left for the Dean requesting a meeting between he and I, before speaking with the student, because “the students story does not jive.”” The Dean ignored the request for a meeting

Tags: Civil Rights Violators

Address: met with the student

Website: 2012) I was demoted from my managerial position of four years

Phone: allowed the student to return to work (I had suspended the student until further notice)

Add comment