THE TYRANNY OF U.S.A.

CIVIL DICTATOR INJUSTICE

-----------------------------------------------------

Just Like The People of Egypt Have Engaged In A

Revolution Against Hosni Mubarak, We The People Must
Take Action Against An Obama Dictator Injustice.

-----------------------------------------

Enclosed herewith, you will discover how state agencies

engage in an 18 USCA 245(b)(5) criminal conspiracy
against our Federally Protected Rights, so as to deny
USA Citizens the equal protection of law, due process of
law, and then willfully violate enumerated rights
guaranteed by the 9 t h AMENDMENT of the United
States Constitution.
-------------------------

Therefore, just like the dictatorship of Egypt, democracy

in the USA is only an Illusion, where the Obama
Administration knowingly permits this 18 USCA 245
horror of injustice, and willfully refuses to exercise its
executive powers to command federal and state agencies
to guarantee due process to USA Citizens.

------------------

Since this mockery of due process is now standard operational

procedure, American Democracy has been defeated to the point
where there is no democracy, and where the wealth, prosperity, and
welfare of We-The-People is being stolen, robbed, and cheated by a
massive organized crime operation, of extortion, being committed
under color of law, and under color of official right, so as to create
an oppressive dictatorship in places of employment.
 JOSHUA J. ISRAEL
P. O. Box ---, S----, MN -----

President, BARACK OBAMA

1600 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
Washington D.C. 20500
Ph. (202) 456-1414
Fax (202) 456-2461

Attention, President Obama:

Attached herewith is my effort to file a charge of retaliation for filing a charge of race
discrimination, with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, because the intake officers
have refused to take acknowledgement of the reprisal or respond or investigate (A-1). On the
19th day of August 19, 2010, I did speak with Sarah Finch about said refusal, and Sarah refused
to take acknowledgement of the physical violence aspect of the reprisal, and stated that she may
be able to process the charge in 8 months. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 363A.28(6)(b)(2) the
following equal protection of due process has been denied to myself:

Minn. Stat. 363A.28(6)(b)(2) Charge Processing: (a) Consistent with

paragraph (h) the Commissioner shall promptly inquire into the truth of the
allegations of the charge. The Commissioner shall make an immediate inquiry
when a charge alleges actual or threatened physical violence. ***
(b) The Commissioner shall give priority to investigating and processing those
charges, in the order below, when the commissioner determines have the
following characteristics:
(2) there is evidence that the respondent has intentionally engaged in a reprisal.

As a result, since my complaint alleges assault and battery, Sarah Finch has refused to enforce
Civil Rights protections afforded to this Black American Citizen, and Sarah is impeding and is
obstructing and is preventing myself from complying with the provisions of Civil Rights
protections, and this action is in violation of Minn. Stat. 363A.14(3).

If you would assist myself, and other USA citizens, in fighting against this corruption in MDHR,
OSHA, USDOL, and EEOC, your own benefits will be Great, and you will win all of your
campaign and election objectives.

____________________________________
Joshua J. Israel
STATE OF MINNESOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COUNTY OF SCOTT DISTRICT COURT

_____________________________________________________________________________
Case type: Civil

JOSHUA J. ISRAEL,
Plaintiff, Case No. 70-CV-11-186

vs.
SUMMONS
PIERSON PIZZA Inc,,
Defendant. Complaint Attached Herewith
_____________________________________________________________________________

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, a civil action has commenced in the Scott County First District

Court, at 200 Fourth Avenue West, JC 115, Shakopee MN 55379 (952) 496-8200.

You are hereby summoned and required to appear and to serve upon Plaintiff an Answer to

the Complaint within (20) days after service of this Summons upon you. If you fail to answer

the Complaint within 20 days, exclusive of the day of service, judgment by default will be taken

against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint.

Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 543.22, all civil cases are subject to the Alternative Dispute

Resolution process, except for those actions enumerated in Minn. Stat. 484.76 and Rules 111.01

and 310.01 of the Minnesota Rules of General Practice.

Dated: January 3, 2011

________________________________
Joshua J. Israel / Plaintiff
P. O. Box xxx
3xxx xx xxx xxxx
Sxxxxxx, MN xxxxx
(952) xxx-xxxx
STATE OF MINNESOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COUNTY OF SCOTT DISTRICT COURT

_____________________________________________________________________________
Case type: Civil

JOSHUA J. ISRAEL,
Plaintiff, Case No. 70-CV-11-186

vs. COMPLAINT
Tort, Constructive Discharge
PIERSON PIZZA Inc.,
Defendant. Judge, ___________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff, Joshua J. Israel, did bring an Unpaid Wages claim (PA-1), and an Expense

Reimbursement claim (PA-2) against the Defendant, PIERSON PIZZA Inc., and Plaintiff did

allege that Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for opposing wage discrimination, and that

Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for disclosure of information to other Minnesota State

Agencies. Therefore, this civil action has commenced to recover damages resulting from an

extensive malicious constructive discharge, created by intolerable conditions of employment

imposed upon Plaintiff by the Defendant, and to demonstrate said employment constructive

discharge, Plaintiff states as follows:

The Parties

1. Plaintiff, Joshua J. Israel, is a Minnesota Resident who resides at the address of P. O. Box

xxx, xxxx Avenue East, Sxxxxxx, MN xxxxx, Ph. 952-xxx-xxxxx.

2. Defendant, Pierson Pizza, is a fast food restaurant, where its principle place of business is at

the address of 224 First Ave. East, Shakopee, MN 55379, Phone (952) 445-9200; 2nd Phone

(952) 250-5552.
 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant, pursuant to Minn. Stat.181.171(2)

which sets forth the following jurisdiction:

Minn. Stat. 181.171(2) Civil Action; Damages. (1) A person may bring a civil
action seeking redress for violations of sections *** 181.13, 181.14 *** directly
to the district court. An employer who is found to have violated the above
sections is liable to the aggrieved party for the civil penalties or damages
provided for in the section violated. An employer who is found to have violated
the above sections shall also be liable for compensatory damages and other
appropriate relief including but not limited to injunctive relief.
(2) District Court Jurisdiction. Any action brought under subdivision 1 may be
filed in the district court wherein the violation is alleged to have been
committed, where the respondent resides or has a principle place of business, or
any other court of competent jurisdiction.
Minn. Stat. 181.935 Individual Remedies; Penalty. (a) In addition to any
remedies otherwise provided by law, an employee injured by a violation of
section 181.932 may bring a civil action to recover any and all damages
recoverable at law, together with costs and disbursements, ***.

4. This action arose in Scott County, Minnesota, at the Defendant’s Shakopee, Minnesota,

address; therefore, venue is proper pursuant to 181.171(2).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

5. Plaintiff, Joshua J. Israel, completed an application for employment with the Defendant on

the 4th day of December, 2007; and Plaintiff was later hired, and Plaintiff did become

employed as a pizza delivery driver, for the Defendant, on the 7th day of December, 2007.

6. That to this day, the Defendant has not presented Plaintiff with any Employee Handbook,

with any Employer Work Rules, with any Seniority System, or with any bona fide employee

Seniority Practice, during the entire tenure of employment with the Defendant.

7. At all times during employment, the Plaintiff was required to use his own personal vehicle in

the course of employment; and even though the delivery charge was $1.50, the Defendant

only paid Plaintiff $1.00 for each delivery completed.

8. Moreover, at all times during employment, Plaintiff was required to pay his own costs for the

annual vehicular license and registration, costs for auto insurance, costs for gasoline, and

costs for any and all vehicular repair and maintenance.

9. In addition, Plaintiff did receive gratuities and tips for his customer delivery service as

governed by the following Minnesota Fair Labor standard:

Minn. Stat. 177.24.(4)(2) Gratuities Not Applied. No employer may directly

or indirectly credit, apply, or utilize gratuities towards the payment of the
minimum wage set by this section or federal law.

10. After the year 2007 Christmas Holiday business increase did end, Plaintiff did have a

meeting with Defendant, Jeff Pierson, on 1/11/2008, and Plaintiff did seek Defendant’s

corrective opportunity when Plaintiff did oppose the race discrimination of Keith West.

11. On 1/11/2008, Plaintiff did inform Defendant, Jeff Pierson, that senior-employee, Keith

West, was cheating and stealing pizza deliveries from the Plaintiff; that Keith West did not

cheat or steal from any other white employee; and that said theft was wage discrimination to

deprive Plaintiff of wage earning opportunity that white employees enjoyed.

12. Moreover, on 1/11/2008, Plaintiff did inform Defendant, Jeff Pierson, that Plaintiff was

compelled to obtain other full-time employment because of cheating and theft by Keith West,

and that Plaintiff would continue to work for Defendant on a part-time basis.

13. Thereafter, from 1/11/2008 to 2/22/2008, the weekly hours of Plaintiff was reduced from

(11) hours per week to (6) hours per week.

14. On the 19th day of March, 2008, Plaintiff did inform Defendant, Jeff Pierson, that Mike

Krepela did cheat and stealing driver tip-money from Plaintiff; in addition, Plaintiff
 additionally informed Defendant that said money theft appears to be retaliation and

constructive discharge for opposing the race discrimination of Keith West.

15. On the 2nd day of August, 2008, Defendant, Jeff Pierson, did discuss with Plaintiff a wage

dispute complaint filed with the Minnesota Department of Labor (PA-3).

16. After making a wage compensation adjustment for said wage dispute, on the 8/8/2008 pay

period, the Defendant did reduce the weekly hours of Plaintiff to (2) or (3) hours per week,

from the date of 8/9/2008 to the date of 11/28/2008.

17. On the 18th day of August, 2008, Plaintiff sent an email complaint to Domino’s Corporate

Headquarters , and Plaintiff did complaint about the theft of driver tip-money stolen from the

money lock-box of Plaintiff.

18. During the months of September and October, 2008, the Defendant began to hire additional

delivery drivers, who were of the Caucasian race, and these newly hired employees

immediately began to work (20) to (30) hours per week.

19. In January, 2009, the Defendant hired an assistant manager, named Jennifer Lang, who is of

the Caucasian race.

20. On 2/21/2009 and 2/27/2009, Asst. Mgr., Jennifer Lang, and senior employee, Keith West,

did falsely blame Plaintiff for a customer order delivery failure, and after Plaintiff did advise

Defendant, Jeff Pierson, that said delivery failure was a set-up, Plaintiff did send an email

complaint to Domino’s Corporate Headquarters, on 2/28/2009.

21. On 3/6/2009, Plaintiff did inform Domino’s Corporate Headquarters, Carla Thompson, that

Plaintiff has suffered race discrimination in employment, harassment from the employees and
 assistant managers of the Defendant; that Plaintiff suffered a theft of his driver tip-money,

suffered retaliation for opposing race discrimination, and that Defendant did reduce the hours

and wages of Plaintiff after each attempt to seek corrective opportunity from Defendant.

22. Thereafter, Defendant did not schedule Plaintiff for any wage hours or for any wage earnings

during the week of 3/22/2009 to 3/28/2009.

23. Furthermore, the Defendant did reduce the hours and wages of Plaintiff to 1.5 to 2.5 hours

per week, at an average wage of $11.50 per week, for the time period of (9) months, which

began on date 3/15/2009 and did end on date 11/27/2009.

24. During the time period from 4/19/2009 to the date of 9/14/2009, and from the time of

9/28/2009 to the date of 8/7/2010, the employment of Plaintiff was exclusively with the

Defendant, for all purpose of a wage claim and expense reimbursement.

25. On 11/27/2009, Plaintiff again sent an email complaint to Domino’s Corporate Headquarters

to complain about an incident of criminal damage to his automobile, which additionally

caused a second-degree burn on the finger of Plaintiff.

26. On 12/11/2009, Plaintiff did inform Defendant, Jeff Pierson, of the police report filed as a

result of criminal damage to the automobile of Plaintiff; at this time, Plaintiff again did

discuss the harassment that has escalated into criminal activity, and Plaintiff did give

Defendant a copy of Shakopee Police Report No. 09-17128.

27. On 1/22/2010, Plaintiff discovered that Defendant allows any and all of the white Caucasian

employees, of Pierson Pizza, to take home the Domino’s electric-light illuminated car-topper

that delivery drivers must use, in the course of employment.

28. On 2/16/2010, after sending another email complaint to Domino’s Corporate Headquarters,

Plaintiff did inform, “Loren,” a Domino’s Headquarters Representative, that Jennifer Lang,

Anthony Bruce, Justin Murphy, and Chris Dresen were all engaged in actions of retaliation,

reprisal, harassment, workplace bullying, and intimidation against Plaintiff.

29. During this telephone call with Loren, on 2/16/2010, Plaintiff specifically informed Loren

that reprisals taken against Plaintiff was unlawful retaliation for seeking corrective

opportunity from Carla Thompson, on 3/6/2009, and that Jeff Pierson did retaliate against

Plaintiff by reducing the hours and wages of Plaintiff for (9) months after Plaintiff sought

corrective opportunity from Carla Thompson; and, that Plaintiff suffered unsafe driving

conditions created by an electrical system burnout that caused heat and smoke, which caused

plastic accessory equipment to melt and burn the finger of Plaintiff, and which caused

electric fuses to blow-out causing the cigarette-lighter-DC-outlet to become inoperable.

30. From the month of March 2010, to August 2010, Plaintiff did report his “BARRIER TO

EMPLOYMENT” on the Minnesota Unemployment website, and Plaintiff did disclose the

workplace bullying, the criminal damage to automobile, the deprivation of employment

wages, and the practice of Defendant to evade the “rightful-place” of Plaintiff in “seniority;”

because, said adverse action is created by Defendant as a “BARRIER” to employment.

31. On 4/1/2010, Plaintiff was compelled to appeal tax changes, made by the Minnesota

Department of Revenue (MDR), which held Plaintiff responsible for the inaccurate tax report

of Defendant, Jeff Pierson; and, Plaintiff made a disclosure of information to MDR

demonstrating that Defendant is to collect taxes at the source of income, but that Defendant

failed to properly report taxes collected.

32. On Friday, 4/9/2010, the Defendant, Jeff Pierson, [for the very first time] did discuss the

prior complaints made by Plaintiff to Domino’s Corporate Headquarters, and Defendant did

acknowledge that he received the (3) complaint summaries drafted by Loren and Carla

Thompson. In addition, during said discussion, Plaintiff did discuss all issues of

discrimination, reprisal, and repeated incidents of harassment with the Defendant.

33. At this time, on 4/9/2010, Plaintiff did oppose the practice of retaliation made unlawful by

Minnesota Human Rights Act; Plaintiff did oppose the discrimination against his “rightful-

place” in “seniority;” Plaintiff did inform Jeff Pierson that Plaintiff did disclose information

to Minnesota Unemployment because the reprisals are a “BARRIER” to employment; and

Plaintiff did refuse to accept unlawful discrimination as his conditions of employment.

34. Thereafter, Defendant again reduced the hours and wages of Plaintiff to (3) hours per week,

for (2) weeks, from 4/2/2010 to the date of 4/16/2010.

35. On 4/12/2010 Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights.

36. On 7/6/2010 Plaintiff did received the RESPONSE of Defendant to the CHARGE OF

DISCRIMINATION, drafted by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR), and

Plaintiff did file his REBUTTAL to the RESPONSE, on the 20th day of July, 2010.

37. On date 7/9/2010, during another meeting, the Defendant, Jeff Pierson, did admit to creating

the electric volt-watt overload in the automobile of Plaintiff; and, the Defendant did admit

that Defendant decided to use a higher volt-watt capacity light bulb system inside the

Domino’s car-topper, used by Plaintiff, and Defendant did express his dislike for having to

pay legal expenses to defend against said MDHR Discrimination Charge.

38. On the 7th day of August, 2010, Plaintiff suffered a vehicular breakdown, in the course of

employment, and Plaintiff was compelled to pay his own $70 towing cost.

39. On the 9th day of August, 2010, Plaintiff did inform Defendant of his prior $140.00 and

$168.00 auto repair, and the Plaintiff did inform Defendant that the 8/7/2010 auto breakdown

repair, was $1,108.00.

40. On 7/9/2010, Defendant, Jeff Pierson, did inform Plaintiff that he would remove Plaintiff

from the weekly work schedule, and Defendant informed Plaintiff to advise Defendant when

Plaintiff either obtained another working vehicle or did repair his vehicular breakdown.

41. On 10/15/2010, Plaintiff was compelled to appeal a Quit Determination made by Minnesota

Unemployment; because, Defendant claimed that Plaintiff quit employment; however,

Plaintiff testified that he did not quit employment, and the Defendant testified that Plaintiff

never informed Defendant of any quit, and that the Defendant did not discharge Plaintiff.

42. During the Unemployment Appeal Hearing, Plaintiff was compelled to disclose information

to the Minnesota Unemployment Law Judge, and Plaintiff did disclose that Defendant has

failed to reimburse Plaintiff for pizza delivery travel expenses; that Plaintiff was paid $1 out

of the $1.50 delivery charge, and that since the Defendant is required to pay Plaintiff the

Federal Minimum Wage “free and clear” of obligations to the Employer, the Defendant’s

failure to reimburse delivery travel expenses did cause the automobile of Plaintiff to slowly

deteriorate until a vehicular breakdown did occur; and, that when deducting the pizza

delivery expenses from the wages paid, the delivery expenses did cause the wages of Plaintiff

to fall below the Federal Minimum Wage.

43. After the Minnesota Unemployment Judge did reverse the Ineligible-Determination, and did

grant Unemployment Benefits, the Plaintiff later received notice, on 11/18/2010, that his

vehicle was unlawfully determined to be abandoned, that the vehicle of Plaintiff was

unlawfully impounded and stored for a fee, and then the vehicle of Plaintiff was later

dismantled and demolished, and unlawfully sold for parts and for its scrap metal price.

Count 1.
(Tort, Constructive Discharge)

44. To establish a prima facie tort for constructive discharge, it must be established that (1)

Defendant engaged in an intentional unlawful act to harm the Plaintiff; that (2) Defendant

intended to harm the Plaintiff; that, (3) the unlawful act did cause injury to Plaintiff; and (4)

that there was no justification for Defendant’s unlawful action Bersch v. Rgnonti &

Associates Inc., (MN App.1998) 584 N.W.2d 783, 786.

45. To establish that Defendant engaged in an intentional unlawful act to harm Plaintiff, the

aforesaid allegations demonstrate that Defendant did have imputed knowledge that Plaintiff

opposed the unlawful discrimination of Keith West; and, that Defendant was aware that

Plaintiff opposed the practice of harassment, adverse employment action, and the reprisal that

violate the following prohibitions of the Minnesota Human Rights Act:

Minn. Stat. 363A.08(2)(3) Unfair Discriminatory Practices Relating To

Employment or Unfair Employment Practice. (2) Except when based upon a bona
fide occupational qualification, it is an unfair employment practice for an employer,
because of race, *** to: (3) discriminate against a person with respect to **
compensation, terms, conditions, ** or privileges of employment.
Minn. Stat, 363A.15(1) Reprisals. It is an unfair discriminatory practice for any
individual who participated in an alleged discrimination as an ** employer *** or
employee or agent thereof to intentionally engage in any reprisal against any person
because that person: (1) opposed a practice forbidden under this chapter *** .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A reprisal includes, but is not limited to, any form of intimidation, retaliation, or
harassment. It is a reprisal for an employer to do any of the following with respect to
an individual because that individual has engaged in the activities listed in clause (1)
or (2): *** depart from any customary employment practice; transfer or assign the
 individual to a lesser position in terms of wages, hours, job classification, job
security, or other employment status; or inform another employer that the individual
has engaged in the activities listed in clause (1) or (2).

46. To establish that Defendant intended to harm Plaintiff, the aforesaid allegations demonstrate

that Defendant did have imputed knowledge of the unlawful discrimination and only

escalated and perpetuated the unlawful retaliation, the Defendant escalated its reprisals to

include criminal damage to property, which created unsafe driving conditions, and Defendant

did deprive Plaintiff of expense reimbursement for auto repair and maintenance.

47. To establish that Defendant did cause injury to Plaintiff, the aforesaid allegations

demonstrate that the “rightful-place” of Plaintiff in “seniority” was discriminated against, in

violation of the following provision under the Minnesota Human Rights Act:

Minn. Stat. 363A.20(5) Seniority System. The provisions of 363A.08 do not

apply to the operation of a bona fide seniority system which mandates
differences in such things as wages, hiring priorities, layoff priorities, vacation
credit, and job assignments based on seniority, so long as the operation of the
system is not a subterfuge to evade the provisions of this chapter.

That Plaintiff suffered an extreme reduction in wages without just cause, that Plaintiff was

denied the fair employment practice of delivery travel expenses, which cause his motor

vehicle to deteriorate and breakdown; that Plaintiff was deprived of the $1.50 delivery charge

that Plaintiff is entitled to for each delivery; that Plaintiff suffered repeated electrical volt

overload to his automobile, and that Plaintiff suffered a burn-injury to his finger resulting

from the Defendant’s decision to use a higher capacity volt-watt light bulb system.

48. To establish that there was no justification for the Defendant’s unlawful actions, the

Defendant did not discipline the Plaintiff for any wrongdoing, for any job indifference, and to

this day no disciplinary action was initiated against Plaintiff.

49. Moreover, to establish a constructive discharge from employment, Plaintiff must set forth

facts demonstrating that (1) Plaintiff resigned or quit employment; that (2) Plaintiff resigned

or quit employment because of intolerable working conditions; that (3) the intolerable

working conditions resulted from illegal discrimination; that (4) a reasonable person would

have found the conditions intolerable; and that (5) the Employer-Defendant intended to force

the Employee-Plaintiff to quit, or the employee resignation was a reasonably foreseeable

consequence of the employers actions Waag v. Thomas Pontiac, Buick, GMC., (U. S. Dist.

MN. 1996) 930 F. Supp. 393, 406-407.

50. To establish that Plaintiff resigned or quit employment, the aforesaid allegations demonstrate

that Plaintiff did not inform the Defendant of any quit from employment; that Defendant did

not inform Plaintiff of any discharge from employment; and that Defendant made an

involuntary-quit legal argument (without any proof) to the Minnesota Unemployment Law

Judge so as to justify its assertion that Plaintiff quit employment.

51. To establish that Plaintiff resigned or quit employment because of intolerable work

conditions, the aforesaid allegations demonstrate that Plaintiff endured a constellation of

adverse employment actions to reduce his weekly wages without just cause; that Plaintiff was

deprived of the terms, conditions, and privileges of employment when double and triple

driver deliveries were awarded to the white delivery drivers while Plaintiff was given only

one delivery; that Plaintiff was harassed by creation of numerous delivery failures, by giving

Plaintiff the wrong address, by giving Plaintiff the wrong food item to deliver, and by the

theft of driver tip-gratuity from the money lock-box of Plaintiff; that Plaintiff was denied his

entitlement to the $1.50 delivery charge, and denied any and all pizza delivery travel

expenses, which worked to cause the motor vehicle of Plaintiff to deteriorate and breakdown;
 and as a result of said denial of delivery travel expenses, the Defendant is in violation of the

Federal Minimum Wage; because, when deducting the travel expenses from the wages paid,

the wages did fall below the Federal Minimum Wage, in violation of the following

Minnesota Fair Labor Standard:

Minn. Stat. 177.24(4)(4)(5) Unreimbursed Expenses Deducted. No

deductions, direct or indirect may be made for the items listed below which when
subtracted from the wages would reduce the wages below the minimum wage.
(4) Travel expenses in the course of employment.
Minn. Stat. 177.24(5) Expense Reimbursement. An employer, at the
termination of employment, must reimburse the full amount deducted, directly or
indirectly, for any of the items listed in subdivision (4).
(Subdivision 4)(4) Travel expenses in the course of employment.

52. To establish that intolerable work conditions are the result of illegal discrimination, the

aforesaid allegations demonstrate that 363A.08 and 363A.20(5) of the Minnesota Human

Rights Act forbids race discrimination against the “rightful-place” of Plaintiff in “seniority;”

and 363A.15 forbids any reprisal against an employee who oppose discrimination.

Furthermore, because 181.932 of the Employee Disclosure Of Information Act does forbid

discrimination and retaliation against an employee for disclosure of information to Minnesota

Department of Labor (MDOL), to Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR), to

Minnesota Unemployment (MU), and to the Shakopee Police Department, the reprisals of

Defendant do violate the following Employee Disclosure of Information prohibition:

Minn. Stat. 181.932(1)(2) Disclosure of information by employees. (1)

Prohibited action. An employer shall not discharge, discipline, threaten, or
otherwise discriminate against, or penalize an employee regarding the
employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of
employment because: (1) the employee *** in good faith, reports a violation ***
of any federal or state law *** to an employer or to any governmental body or
law enforcement official. (2) the employee is requested by a public body or
office to participate in an investigation, hearing, or inquiry.
Minn. Stat. 181.935(b) Individual Remedies, Penalty. An employer who
failed to notify, as required under section 181.933 or 181.934, an employee
injured by a violation of section 181.932 is subject to a civil penalty of $25 per
day per injured employee not to exceed $750 per injured employee.
53. To demonstrate that a reasonable person would find the aforesaid employment condition as

intolerable, the Defendant did escalate and perpetuate its adverse action against Plaintiff after

imputed knowledge of protected activity was obtained; therefore, the Defendant intended to

dissuade any reasonable worker from making a charge of discrimination, the Defendant

intended to dissuade a reasonable worker from engaging in statutorily protected activity, and

the aforesaid conditions of employment were imposed to deter a reasonable employee away

from engaging in statutorily protected conduct.

54. To demonstrate that the Defendant intended to force Plaintiff to quit employment, the

aforesaid allegations demonstrate the Defendant did have imputed knowledge that Plaintiff

sought corrective opportunity from the Defendant, and from Domino’s Corporate

Headquarters, and that Defendant had imputed knowledge that Plaintiff engaged in statutorily

protected conduct; however, the response of Defendant was to refuse any correction of

matters complained of, and to escalate and perpetuate the adverse conditions.

55. Furthermore, to establish retaliation for statutorily protected conduct, Plaintiff must establish

that (1) he engaged in statutorily protected conduct, that (2) the employer is aware of the

protected conduct and took adverse employment action against Plaintiff soon thereafter, and

that there (3) is a casual connection between the protected conduct and the adverse action

Nelson v. Productive Alternatives Inc., (MN S. Ct. 2006) 715 N.W.2d 452, 455-456.

56. To establish Plaintiff engaged in statutorily protected conduct, the aforesaid allegations

demonstrate that Plaintiff opposed the race discrimination of Keith West, on 1/11/2008, and

then Plaintiff sought corrective opportunity from Domino’s Corporate Headquarters, and that

such corrective opportunity is protected by 363A.08 and 363A.15 of the MHRA; that
 Plaintiff disclosed information to the Minnesota Department of Labor during a wage dispute

with the Defendant, and such disclosure is protected by 181.932 of the Employee Disclosure

of Information Act; that Plaintiff disclosed information to Minnesota Unemployment, and

such disclosure is protected conduct by authority of 181.932 of the Employee Disclosure of

Information Act; and Plaintiff disclosed information to Minnesota Department of Revenue

under the following statute:

Minn. Stat. 268.044(1)(a) Wage Detail Report. Each employer must submit,
*** a quarterly wage detail report, by electronic transmission, in a format
prescribed by the commissioner. The report must include for each employee in
covered employment during the calendar quarter, the employee’s name, social
security number, the total wages paid to the employee, and the total number of
paid hours worked.

and, that such disclosure is protected by Minn. Stat. 181.932.

57. To establish that the Defendant is aware of the statutorily protected conduct, the aforesaid

facts demonstrate that Plaintiff had a face to face discussion, with Defendant, where imputed

knowledge was obtained about the race discriminatory practices of Keith West, and about the

driver delivery discrimination and driver gratuity money theft; that Plaintiff had a face to face

discussion with Defendant where imputed knowledge was obtained about a wage dispute

complaint that Plaintiff filed with the Minn. Dept. of Labor; that Plaintiff had a face to face

discussion with Defendant where imputed knowledge was obtained regarding the Police

report for criminal damage to the automobile of Plaintiff; that Plaintiff had a face to face

discussion with Defendant where imputed knowledge was obtained about discrimination

complaints made to Domino’s Corporate Headquarters, and where imputed knowledge was

obtained about Plaintiff’s disclosure of information to Minnesota Unemployment; and,

Plaintiff had a face to face discussion with Defendant where imputed knowledge was

obtained about the Charge of Discrimination filed with the MDHR.

58. To establish that Defendant took adverse action soon thereafter, the aforesaid facts

demonstrate that after the 1/11/2008 race discrimination report, the Defendant reduced the

weekly wages and hours of employment during the next following work week; that after

disclosure of information to Minn. Dept. of Labor, on 8/2/2008, the Defendant reduced the

weekly wages and hours of employment during the next following work week; that after

disclosure of information to Domino’s Corporate Headquarters, on 3/6/2009, the Defendant

did not allow Plaintiff to earn any wage during the next following work week, and then

Defendant severely reduced the wages and hours of Plaintiff for (9) months thereafter, and

then created the electrical volt overload in the automobile of Plaintiff; that after disclosure of

information to Minnesota Unemployment and Minn. Dept. of Human Rights, the Defendant

escalated harassment actions, escalated workplace bullying tactics, and repeated the electrical

volt overload that did burn-out 20-Amp auto fuses within one minute of use; and that after

Plaintiff did file his REBUTTAL to the response of Defendant, on 7/20/2010, before the

Minn. Dept. of Human Rights, the Defendant did refuse to reimburse Plaintiff for delivery

travel expenses, did refuse to allow Plaintiff to work in a non-driver employment capacity,

and then Defendant did claim that Plaintiff quit employment.

59. To establish a casual connection, (or motive) or nexus, between the statutorily protected

activity and the adverse employment action, the aforesaid facts demonstrate that Defendant

took immediate action, during the next following work week, where the wages of Plaintiff

were severely reduced; that Defendant refused to schedule Plaintiff to work the next

following work week of 3/22/2009 after a disclosure of information to Dominos Corporate

Headquarters, on 3/6/2009, and then Defendant reduced the wages and weekly hours of

Plaintiff for (9) months thereafter; that Defendant reduced the work hours of Plaintiff to 1.5
 to 2.5 hours per week, at an average weekly wage of $11.50, only after Plaintiff sought

corrective opportunity from Dominos Corporate Headquarters; that Defendant refused to

reimburse Plaintiff for delivery travel expenses, on 8/9/2010, after Plaintiff filed his

REBUTTAL with the Minn. Dept. of Human Rights, on 7/20/2010; and that Plaintiff

received notice, on 11/18/2010, that his broken down vehicle was unlawfully impounded,

and said notice was received (3) days after disclosure of information to a Minnesota

Unemployment Law Judge, on 11/15/2010.

RELIEF

60. Wherefore, Plaintiff pleads with the Court to award $42,000 in unpaid wages that result from

a malicious constructive discharge, that result from reprisal for disclosure of information to

Minnesota State Agencies, that result from a deprivation of $1,958.00 in delivery travel

expense reimbursements, which did reduce the wages paid to Plaintiff to below that of the

mandatory Federal Minimum Wage. In addition, since the personal property loss of Plaintiff

is $2,846.00, and since the actions of Defendant are particularly egregious, a treble damage

assessment of actual damages becomes $134, 538.00. Moreover, a $25,000 assessment of

Punitive damages should be assessed against the Defendant, and this court is entitled to

$50,000 and $750 in civil penalties.

By: ____________________________________
Joshua J. Israel / Plaintiff
P. O. Box xxx
Sxxxxxxx, MN xxxxx
(952) xxx-xxxx
STATE OF MINNESOTA FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COUNTY OF SCOTT DISTRICT COURT

_____________________________________________________________________________
Case type: Civil

JOSHUA J. ISRAEL,
Plaintiff, Case No. 70-CV-11-186

vs. COMPLAINT

PIERSON PIZZA, dba DOMINO’s Tort, Constructive Discharge

Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________________

AFFIDAVIT OF JOSHUA J. ISRAEL

STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )

Plaintiff, Joshua J. Israel, have read this document. To the best of my knowledge, information,
and belief, the information contained in this document is well grounded in fact and is warranted
by existing law, and there is no issue of military service as to any of the parties.

I have not been determined by any court in Minnesota, or in any other state to be a frivolous
litigant, and I am not a subject of an Order precluding me from serving or filing this document.

I am not serving this document for any improper purpose, such as to harass the other party, or to
cause delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation, or to commit fraud on the Court.

I understand that if I am not telling the truth, or if I am misleading or deceiving the Court, or if I
am serving this default or filing this summary judgment for an improper purpose, the Court can
order me to pay money to the other party, including the reasonable expenses incurred by the
other party because of the serving or the filing of this application for default and summary
judgment, court costs, and reasonable attorney fees.

Dated: _______________________ __________________________________

Joshua J. Israel / Plaintiff
Subscribed and sworn to before me
on this 3rd day of January, 2011

______________________________
Notary Public
207-39-0/347097
 JOSHUA J. ISRAEL
P. O. Box xxx, Sxxxxxxx, MN xxxxx
(952) xxx-xxxx

To: Southside Towing Inc.

7700 Highway 101 East
Shakopee MN 55379
(952) 445-8928

Attention Brian:

Attached herewith is a copy of your towing and storage billing statement, and attached herewith
is a copy of the legal proceeding before the Minnesota Department of Labor that involves the
Red Toyota, Paseo, VIN #JT 2EL45F3N0105763, with plates MYR844. As a result, you are
hereby notified that a legal proceeding for reimbursement of travel expenses is commenced, by
authority of Minn. Stat. 177.24(4)(5), and you are to cease and desist from all activity for an
abandoned vehicle, because this vehicle was NOT abandoned, as defined by Minn. Stat.
168B.011(2)(2)(d). For your information, this vehicle was towed to Goodyear Tire for repair,
since I refused the legally required expense reimbursement, Nick, at Goodyear Tire, entered into
an agreement with myself to tow the vehicle to my place of residence. Thereafter, said
Agreement was BREACHED, in violation of Minn. Stat. 168B.055, and your possession of this
vehicle is unauthorized, because Nick, at Goodyear Tire, failed to give 5 days notice, by certified
mail, before you were called upon to tow the vehicle away. Therefore, the employer, Pierson
Pizza dba DOMINO’s, desire for retaliation against myself, is the reason that you have seized
and impounded this vehicle, and have made a claim for services owed for your unauthorized
possession to seizure and impound this vehicle. Furthermore, since I am on welfare and food
stamps, I do retain the right to reclaim the contents of the vehicle, “without charge,” by authority
of Minn. Stat. 168B.07(3)(2)(c).

Thank You For Your Attention to this matter,

__________________________________
Joshua J. Israel
11/29/2010

Proof of Service
Joshua J. Israel, hereby certifies that he did place this notice in an envelope addressed to
Southside Towing Inc., at the address of 7700 Highway 101 East, Shakopee, MN 55379, and that
this notice was delivered by First Class mail delivery, through the U. S. Postal service, on the 1st
day of December, 2010. Moreover, this service is the only method available because I am on
welfare and food stamp benefits.

__________________________________
 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

MINNESOTA
Issue ID No. 26247477 - 2

JOSHUA J. ISRAEL, ) Appeal From Quit Determination Made

Applicant, ) By Minnesota Unemployment Agents.
v. )
) Appeal Hearing, on November 15, 2010
PIERSON PIZZA, dba DOMINO’S, ) Hearing Time, 02:15 PM
Employer. ) UI Judge, Richard Croft

------------------------------------------------------------

Issue 1). Applicant, Joshua J. Israel, objects to the Exhibits of the Employer, PIERSON PIZZA,
and Moves to STRIKE the Dismissal-Decision made by MDHR Commissioner, James
Kirkpatrick, because the Employer, PIERSON PIZZA, is aware that the MDHR-Dismissal is
EXEMPT from this proceeding due to being a civil-action for review before a Scott County
district court judge, and the Employer has only introduced this Decision to PREJUDICE the
mind, of the Judge, against the Applicant. (2nd) Moreover, I move to Strike the attached
MEMORANDUM, in reference to Case #56365, for being an unsigned and unverified statement;
therefore, this unsigned and unverified Memorandum cannot be considered for the TRUTH of
any matter asserted. (3rd) I also must move to Strike the Test 1 – Orientation and Safe Driving –
Questionnaire(s), due to being an unsigned and unverified Test-Result that cannot be considered
for the TRUTH of any matter asserted. I also move to Strike all of the aforesaid documents for
being IRRELEVANT and IMMATERIAL to sustain the Burden of Proof of the Employer,
because none of said documents are proof of a quit from employment.

Issue 2). I must also move to VACATE the UI Determination, because the on-line questionnaire
was designed to reject my [ No ] answer, and when I relied upon the 2 two step process to first
(review) before the (submit) of the questionnaire, the on-line system skipped the review, and
immediately forwarded the questionnaire to the UI Decision makers. Therefore, the [yes] answer
was unfairly coerced and was unfairly adduced to SUSTAIN the Employer’s burden of proof;
because, this [ yes ] answer was acquired by computer malfunction, or by program deceit, which
demonstrates a biased and partisan proceeding. [Play Recording].
Issue 3). The Employer has claimed that I voluntarily quit employment, and since I deny a quit
from employment, the Employer must produce evidence of a quit; however, since I was advised
that I could return to work after I did repair my broken-down automobile, or did obtain another
vehicle, the Employer’s burden of proof has failed, and proof is now established that I have been
constructively terminated from employment Marz v. Dept. of Economic Services, (MN S. Ct.
1977) 256 N.W2d 287, 289-290. [ wait for Jeff to deny, Play Recording ]

Issue 4). Since the Employer has determined myself to be unfit to perform other job duties at the
place of employment, (in its Answer to Complaint #56365), it is the decision of the Employer not
to allow myself to work in the capacity of a Food Handler, or in Telephone Customer Service, or
to train to be an Assistant Manager at his Franchise Business. Therefore, I am unemployed due
to no fault of my own.

Issue 5). The Employer additionally claims that my automobile breakdown is a quit from
employment; because, I no longer have a working vehicle. However, public transportation is
available to the Employer, and since the Employer has refused OTHER available work, I am
unemployed due to no fault of my own.

Issue 6). Since I do have available public transportation to the Employer, I also have available
public transportation throughout the labor market, and I am using public transportation to
conduct my job search for other employment The Work Connection v. Bui, (Minn. App. 2008)
749 N.W.2d 63, 70-73.

Issue 7). I no longer have a working vehicle because I was NOT adequately reimbursed for my
delivery travel expenses, and because I was refused adequate weekly work hours and wages for
over 1½ years. Consequently, under Minn. Stat. 177.24(4), it is the Employer’s responsibility to
pay the Federal Minimum Wage to its drivers, “free and clear” of obligations to the Employer,
and Minn. Stat. 177.24(4) has set forth the following standard for expense reimbursement:

Minn. Stat. 177.24(4)(4) Unreimbursed Expenses deducted. No deductions,

direct or indirect may be made for the items listed below which when subtracted
from wages would reduce the wages below the minimum wage. (4) travel
expenses in the course of employment ***.
Therefore, since the date of 4/19/2009, the Employer did engage in adverse employment action
to construct my termination or discharge. During the past 1½ years, my weekly hours were
reduced to 1½ to 2½ hours per week, these reduced hours continued for (9) nine months, where
my average wage was only $11.50 per week. During these 9 months, I only worked the busiest
day of the week, and I only worked the RUSH-Hour delivery time-period, which did cause my
vehicle to deteriorate requiring $646.00 in repairs, and which caused my wages ($670.90) to fall
below the Federal Minimum Wage. When the $1,108.00 breakdown did occur, on 8/7/2010, my
delivery expenses did again reduce my wages ($1,283.34) below the Federal Minimum Wage.
Therefore, the Employer’s false claim that I quit employment is in violation of the MFLSA,
which sets forth the following standard of labor law protections:

Minn. Stat. 177.24(5) Expenses Reimbursement. An employer, at the

termination of employment, must reimburse the full amount deducted, directly or
indirectly, for any of the items listed in Subdivision 4. [MFLSA 177.24(4)] (4)
travel expenses in the course of employment, ***.

Issue 8). Since I was making a pizza delivery for the Employer, at the time of the vehicular
breakdown, since the Employer required myself to pay for my own ($70) towing, the Employer
falsely reported that my breakdown occurred at the-end of the work day; however, Towing
Receipt No. 152371, from Shakopee Towing, Inc., at (952) 445-0030, did record that my vehicle
was towed at 5:45 PM; in addition to that record, the Shakopee Police Officers did call for a
Shakopee Towing driver at 5:30 PM, and 5:30 PM is the beginning of Saturday RUSH-hour
deliveries, and the RUSH of driver deliveries starts at 5:00 PM, and ends at 7:30 PM.

Issue 9). Wherefore, I am deprived of a working vehicle because the Employer is in violation of
Minn. Stat. 177.24(4)(5) by refusing reimbursement for delivery travel expenses, after the
Employer constructed my termination from employment; because, said delivery expense did
occur in the course of employment. Since the Employer has falsely claimed that I quit
employment, this action by the Employer is intended to CHEAT myself out of my travel expense
reimbursement, and my Unemployment Benefits Luiken v Domino’s Pizza, (U. S. Dist. MN
2009) 654 F. Supp.2d 973, 977-979; Supplement Memorandum, June 21, 2010, Discussion.

The Self Help and Work Search Plan program has been deactivated, on my UI Benefits account,
my prior reporting activity has been deleted, and this deactivation has prevented myself from
reporting my current job search activity, and barriers to employment.
Issue 10). My will to quit employment was subdued by a threatening and coercive machination
from both the Employer and the Minnesota Unemployment agents, which sought to cheat myself
out of eligibility for unemployment benefits. Since a denial of unemployment benefits would
seriously affect my future welfare, and since other employers have refused to hire myself, no
other choice was afforded myself but to stay in an abusive continuance of involuntary servitude
Unite States v. Veerapol, (9th Cir. 2002) 312 F.3d 1128, 1132; United States v. Shackey, (2nd Cir.
1964) 333 F.2d 475, 487; Zavala v. Walmart Stores Inc., (U. S. Dist. 2005) 393 F. Supp. 295,
310-311.

______________________________________
Joshua J. Israel / Applicant

Counsel For Employer In All Legal and Illegal Actions:

Fafinski Mark & Johnson Law Firm
Edward E. Beckmann & Shannon M. McDonough
Attorneys At Law
Flagship Corporate Center
775 Prairie Center Drive, Suite #400
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
(952) 995-9500
 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN RIGHTS
July19, 2010
MDHR: Ref: 56365
EEOC: 26E-2010-00287
Charging Party’s’ Joshua J. Israel
Demonstration of Pretext vs.
PIERSON PIZZA, DBA, Domino’s

PRETEXT FOR DISCRIMINATION

By authority of Minnesota Rule 5000.0300, MN-RCP Rule 26.02, and Minn. Evidence, Rule
401, the CHARGING PARTY, Joshua J. Israel, Moves To SUPPRESS the www.scribd.com
documents for being collateral matters that are unconnected to any allegation in the charge; for
being irrelevant immaterial matters, without foundation, which are intended to bring prejudice
this proceeding; and for being matters exempt due to being the work-product privilege of
Charging Party. In addition, since Respondent, PIERSON PIZZA, has failed to produce
evidence of a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for discriminating against the “rightful-place”
of Charging Party, in seniority, the Charging Party will illuminate evidence demonstrating that
Respondent’s seniority discrimination is an on-going standard operational procedure; Charging
Party will move to suppress the www.scribd.com documents where no doctrine of incorporation
by reference, or basis of knowledge, does permit said documents to be considered, and to Object,
to Suppress, and to demonstrate Pretext, Charging Party states as follows:

1. To establish a prima facie case of race discrimination, Charging Party must demonstrate that
(1) he is a Black American Citizen, (2) that he is qualified to be a pizza delivery driver, (3)
that his “rightful-place” in seniority was discriminated against, and (4) that he was deprived
of the weekly hours and wages that less senior white employee earned. After establishing
this prima facie case, Respondent denied any and all allegations of discrimination; however,
no evidence has been introduced demonstrating that Respondent communicated the essential
terms and conditions of his seniority system to Charging Party; no evidence has been
introduced to identify any written seniority policy, or practice, or procedure that is free from
any illegal purpose; and no evidence has been introduced demonstrating that Respondent’s
seniority practice is rational and in conformity with industry standards. In fact, there is no
existence of any seniority policy at Respondent’s place of business Police Officers v. City of
Columbus, 644 F. Supp. 393, 407, 435. Therefore, it is undisputed that the “rightful-place”
of Charging Party has been discriminated against, and the seniority discrimination alleged is
now undisputed direct evidence of race discrimination Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Minn.
Dept. of Human Rights, (MN. S. Ct. 1975), 229 N.W.2d 3, 10-11.

2. In an attempt to demonstrate that reducing the wages and hours of Charging Party was
necessary for the safe and efficient operation of his business, the Respondent only asserts
that he has a policy against discrimination and harassment (Respondent’s Ex. A), but fails to
demonstrate a practical enforcement of his anti-discrimination policy. In addition, the
Respondent has failed to set forth an employee handbook, workplace rules, or any bona fide
 seniority system that is based upon rational judgment or industry standards. Therefore,
direct evidence demonstrating seniority discrimination is standard operating procedure, is
hereby undisputed, and the four questions used to evaluate the discriminatory impact in
Respondent’s seniority practice is set forth in James v. Stockham Valves & Fittings Co., 559
F.2d 310, 317-318, 323-328, 347-359.

3. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation and reprisal for engaging in the employers
corrective opportunities, the Charging Party must demonstrate that he (1) engaged in
statutorily protected conduct, (2) that he suffered a reduction in hours, a reduction in wages,
and suffered adverse employment action, and (3) that a short interval of time does exist
between the protected activity and the adverse actions Hoover v. Northwest Mortgage
Banking, (MN. S. Ct. 2001) 632 N.W.2d 534, 548. To answer this prima facie case, the
Respondent’s Motion To Dismiss does ADMIT the allegations in the charge, but claims that
the charge has no merit, and cannot be sustained when the facts are adjudicated in a court of
law Nelson v. Productive Alternatives, (Minn. S. Ct . 2006) 715 N.W.2d 452, 454.

4. The Respondent additionally denies that Charging Party availed himself of corrective
opportunities afforded by Respondent, denied taking any reprisal against the Charging Party,
denies that Charging Party ever worked a 22 hour week, and additionally claims that
Charging Party only worked a consistent range of 2 to 10 hours per week; and, that even
though Charging is considered a bad employee, the Respondent did not discipline Charging
Party for unsatisfactory job performance or employee conduct infractions. Therefore, since
the Respondent cannot produce any evidence of disciplinary action, no legitimate non-
discriminatory reason to reduce the wages and hours of Charging Party does exist, and direct
evidence of a discriminatory motive is now affirmed Griffith v. City of Des Moines, (8th Cir.
2004) 387 F.3d 733, 743-747.

5. Since Respondent has claimed that Charging Party consistently worked 2 to 10 hours per
week, the pay check stubs of Charging Party (A-1b and A-1c) clearly demonstrate the falsity
of Respondent’s ANSWER, because Charging Party worked 22.75 hours on the pay period
ending 1/6/08, and 20 hours on 3/2/08, and 3/16/08. However, after availing himself of the
Respondents corrective opportunity, in prior months, and after engaging in protected activity
with MN Dept. of Labor, on 7/30/08 (A-1), the Charging Party suffered an adverse reduction
in hours and wages down to 2.5 hours per week (A-1c and A-1d), and no evidence has been
introduced to dispute or contradict said paycheck statements. Therefore, a discriminatory
motive is undisputed and un-contradicted, and is now direct evidence of retaliation Griffith
v. City of Des Moines, (8th Cir. 2004) 387 F.3d 733, 743-747.

6. After Respondent failed to initiate corrective measures, the Charging Party did seek
corrective opportunity from Domino’s National Headquarters, which resulted in a (9) month
time-period where his hours were reduced to 1.5 to 2.5 hours per week (A-2 to A-2b). As a
result, the Respondent failed to demonstrate a business necessity requiring less-senior white
employees to enjoy an increase of 20+ work hours per week, while Charging Party was
decreased to 2.5 hours per week (A-1b and A-1c). Therefore, undisputed evidence of a
discriminatory motive for seeking corrective opportunity from Domino’s National
Headquarters is now affirmed Hoover v. Northwest Mortgage Banking, (MN. S. Ct. 2001)
632 N.W.2d 534, 547-549.
7. To prove that an effort was made to avail himself of Respondent’s corrective measures,
Charging Party procured the witness of Carla Thompson, who will confirm that a report of
race discrimination was made to her, on 3/16/09 (conversation recorded), (R. Exhibit B).

8. Moreover, since discrimination only escalated, Charging Party procured the witness of
Loren, at Domino’s National Headquarters, on 2/16/10, and Loren will confirm that
Charging Party did report that he was retaliated against for his previous report of
discrimination to Carla Thompson, that his wages and work hours were reduced for (9) nine
months, and that criminal damage to his automobile did occur, on 11/27/10, thereafter
(conversation recorded), (R. Exhibit B).

9. Furthermore, since retaliation escalated, Charging Party began to file weekly reports to
Minnesota Unemployment; because, Charging Party is to report all barriers to employment (
A-7 to A-15). To evade false claims of disharmony and creating an uncomfortable work
environment, Charging did refrain from chit-chat with co-workers, and no longer discussed
any harassment, or any cheating practices that deprived Charging Party of wages that white
employees earned. Instead, Charging Party reported these incidents to Minnesota
Unemployment (A. 7-15); however, Charging Party did converse with co-workers on the
job-task, and on work-related issues, as they arose (Respondent’s Ex. B).

10. Contrary to the Respondent’s ANSWER, the Charging Party was NEVER advised of any
diagnosis, or the actual problem, that caused his car’s cigarette lighter, DC electrical outlet,
to over heat, burn his finger, melt the plastic cigarette lighter electrical plug-in, and blow-out
auto fuses. However, when this repeated criminal damage incident did occur (A-14), on
5/28/10, the Charging Party did remove the bottom cover screws, and did observe that a
higher volt capacity light bulb system that had been installed in the Car-Topper, in question.

11. To prove the Respondent acted in conformity with further discrimination against Charging
Party, on 3/29/10, the Charging Party filed a report to Minnesota Unemployment (A-7)
demonstrating retaliation for seeking corrective opportunity from Domino’s National
Headquarters, (on 2/16/10), and later did suffer retaliation for engaging in protected activity
to MN-DHR in case #56365 (A-7a); on 4/3/10, Charging Party filed a report to Minnesota
Unemployment-(MUI) demonstrating retaliation from Jennifer Lang (A-8); on 4/5/10,
Charging Party filed a report with MUI demonstrating retaliation for making a report to
MUI (A-9); on 4/9/10, Charging Party filed a report with MUI demonstrating seniority
discrimination (A-10); on 5/6/10, Charging Party filed a report to MUI demonstrating wage
earnings and seniority discrimination (A-11 to A-12); on 5/15/10, Charging Party filed a
report to MUI demonstrating retaliation for protected activity with the MN-DHR (A-13); on
6/17/10, Charging Party filed a report to MUI demonstrating retaliation from Brooks
Rogers, Zach Krepela, and Brennen Knispel for protected activity to MN-DHR Case
#56365; and on 7/12/10, Charging Party filed a report with MUI demonstrating attempts to
manufacture false evidence, by Anthony Bruce and Liebhard Riley, in retaliation for
protected activity to MN-DHR Case #56365 (A-15a). As a result, this perpetuation of
retaliation in conformity with seniority discrimination is proof of pretext, and proves that
employment with the Respondent is no longer suitable employment Fannon v. Federal
Cartridge Corp., (Minn. S. Ct. 1945) 18 N.W.2d 249, 252-253.
12. Charging Party denies the assertion made by Respondent that he created a hostile and
uncomfortable work environment, and was verbally abusive to co-workers.

13. Charging Party denies Respondent’s claims alleging that Charging Party does not have the
ability to work late hours, cannot take customer orders, and has difficulty completing and
taking customer orders; and denies that Charging Party cannot multi-task, and is unable to
learn and accomplish necessary job duties. To demonstrate Pretext, during the period of
time when Charging Party was only working 1.5 to 2.5 hours per week, Respondent made
many changes to the customer telephone order Kiosk system, and then failed to teach or
train Charging Party, or advise Charging party of the new changes made. Since Charging
Party exerted the effort to learn by trial and error, it cannot be said that Charging Party is
unwilling and unable to learn. Therefore, Respondent created said intolerable working
conditions for the purpose of constructive discharge Hoover v. Northwest Mortgage
Banking, (MN. S. Ct. 2001) 632 N.W.2d 534, 547-549.

14. The Charging Party denies that he take’s excessive time on pizza deliveries, and that these
situations are created and set-up as a trap for Charging Party to fall into. Jeff Pierson has on
many occasion dispatched Charging Party to new city streets that were not even listed on an
updated street map; and, Anthony Bruce double-dispatched two pizza deliveries to the same
residential address where the access road was closed, requiring a longer detour route, and
Robert Berg was dispatched to the same address with a duplicate pizza delivery (#084320).

15. Respondent also claims that Charging Party cannot perform his duties as a Food Employee
as well as being a Delivery Driver, and that Charging Party is expected to make the pizza,
prepare pizza ingredients, and to operate the oven; as a result, this expectation does place
Charging Party in violation of the Food Code of Minnesota. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 28A.02,
all food handlers and food employees are required to comply with all rules adopted by the
Commissioner of Public Health. Therefore, pursuant to Food Employee Rule 4626.0100,
when moving from his driver delivery duties to work the oven or become a food handler, the
Food Code requires Charging Party to change clothing or to put-on a clean outer garment
that will cover his body and that has sleeves down to the wrist; pursuant to Food Employee
Rule 4626.0075, Charging Party is required to wash his hands, and under his nails, before
handling any food ingredient; and additionally, after Charging Party returns from an outside
delivery, Food Employee Rule 4626.0115 requires Charging Party to wear a hair net and
beard net, before preparing any food ingredient and handling food utensils; moreover,
pursuant to Food Employee Rule 4626.0030, the person in charge shall demonstrate a plan
and practice for compliance with the Food Code. As a result, Charging has been witness to
a contamination of pizza ingredient preparations by every delivery driver at Respondent’s
Fast Food Restaurant, which Charging Party has refrained from doing Nelson v. Productive
Alternatives Inc., (Minn. S. Ct. 2006) 715 N.W.2d 452, 454-456.

16. To contaminate food preparation, Charging Party has witnessed delivery drivers Keith West
(who has a beard), Robert Berg (who has long hair), Kris Wolf, Brooks Rogers, Dan Braun,
and Liebhard Riley violate the Food Code by not changing to a clean outer garment when
returning from an outside delivery, by not putting on a hair and beard net, when handling
and preparing food ingredients, and by not washing their hands (Keith) when returning from
an outside pizza delivery (Minn. Rules 4426.0030). In further violation of the Food Code,
 the Respondent does not supply delivery drivers with clean outer garments to put-on, and
Respondent does not supply delivery drivers with a hair or beard net covers. Therefore, to
compel Charging Party to multi-task between a delivery driver and a food employee, in
violation of the Food Code, is an unlawful practice that endangers the public health Nelson
v. Productive Alternatives Inc., (Minn. S. Ct. 2006) 715 N.W.2d 452, 454-456.

17. In addition, the Charging Party is also witness to the employees of Respondent being in
violation of the Designated-Areas for eating, drinking, and smoking cigarettes, in violation
of MN Rule 4626.1500. The employees of Respondent do eat food and do drink soda-pop
at the same place where pizza ingredients are prepared and cooked; because, the Respondent
has no designated areas, and the possibility for food contamination is high. Therefore, if the
Charging Party is not engaged in behavior that would jeopardize the public health, Charging
Party is alone in his compliance with the Food Code Nelson v. Productive Alternatives Inc.,
(Minn. S. Ct. 2006) 715 N.W.2d 452, 454-456.

18. Furthermore, since Charging Party must not only prove the falsity of Respondent’s
ANSWER, but also must prove an intent to treat Charging Party less favorably than white
employees is the true reason for discrimination. Such proof is brought forth by a W-2 wage
detail report prepared and filed by the Respondent (A-16 to A-19). The Respondent’s W-2
wage detail report did prompt Charging Party to appeal a tax evasion liability accessed
against Charging Party (Case #1728016). The appeal clearly demonstrates that the
Respondent did classify Charging Party as an exempt employee, that Respondent did deduct
and did withhold taxes but did not report taxes collected, and that Respondent treated
Charging Party less favorably than white employees; because, Respondent deliberately set-
up liability against Charging Party for a tax evasion that Respondent is solely accountable
for (A. 18-18a); therefore, since tax evasion is not a legitimate business practice, direct
evidence of discrimination and retaliation against Charging Party is hereby affirmed United
States v. Sotelo, (S. Ct. 1978) 436 U.S. 268, 279-282.

19. After being served with this prima facie case, the Respondent was to produce evidence
demonstrating a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for disregarding the “rightful-place”
of the Charging Party, in seniority, and was to produce a legitimate reason for reducing the
hours and wages of the Charging Party. Since Respondent’s Motion To Dismiss, does
ADMIT the allegations in the charge, the Respondent has discovered, located, and
downloaded documents from www.scribd.com, and has introduced said documents as his
reasons why this charge must be dismissed (Respondent’s Ex. C -to- Q).

20. These www.scribd.com documents are claimed to be evidence of a past employment

litigation-history, and a past history of police witness reports made by Charging Party;
however, the doctrine requirements for “incorporation by reference,” or judicial notice,” or a
“basis of knowledge” cannot support the introduction of www.scribd.com documents.
Hence, said documents are without foundation, and are only introduced to bring prejudice to
this proceeding Oppenheimer Fund v. Sanders, 437 (S. Ct. 1978) U.S. 340, 351-355.

21. As a consequence, the veracity of these documents have NOT been sustained in
Respondent’s ANSWER, the Respondent has not claimed that any www.scribd.com
document was ever known by himself, or by co-workers, and Respondent has not claimed
 that any of said documents were introduced at his place of employment. As a result, the
(unidentified) person who learned the existence of said documents, the (unidentified) person
who discovered said documents, or the (unidentified) person who located said documents
have not submitted a basis for its foundation, and no affidavit of veracity demonstrating the
means learned, or acquired, or to locate said ww.scribd.com documents; in addition, since
no affidavit of veracity, and no affidavit detailing a foundation or basis of knowledge has
been submitted to certify that said documents were not altered, edited, or re-composed to
support the purposes of Respondent’s defense, these documents cannot be considered
because they were not “generally known” by Respondent, and because they are not capable
of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose “basis of knowledge” cannot
be reasonably questioned United States v. Ritchie, (9th Cir. 2003) 342 F.3d 903, 906-909.
Illinois v. Gates, (S.Ct. 1983) 462 U.S. 213, 228-230; Franks v. Delaware, (S. Ct. 1978) 438
U.S. 154, 158-160, 164-165.

22. Moreover, since these documents are collateral matters that are irrelevant to this case, these
documents cannot illuminate any legitimate reason for seniority discrimination or hours and
wages discrimination. Consequently, these documents have caused unnecessary expense,
and delay, and are introduced to prejudice the mind of the Commissioner, and Case Support
personnel. Therefore, Charging Party Moves To SUPPRESS [ R-Exhibits C -to- Q ] for
being irrelevant collateral documents that are unconnected to any material allegation in this
charge, and for being without foundation or relevance to this proceeding Roadway Express
Inc., v. Piper (S.Ct. 1980) 100 S. Ct. 2455, 2462.

23. Since the Commissioner, the Investigator, or Case Support may not consider any
www.scribd.com document that is beyond the allegations in the charge, the ANSWER of
Respondent becomes a “bare-denial” that is void of evidentiary support, which fails to set
forth any genuine issue for adjudication. By introducing documents that are unwarranted by
existing law, the Respondent is now subjected to SANCTIONS for his willful disrespect for
the law, for his abuse of judicial process and procedure, and for bad faith involved in this
proceeding Roadway Express Inc., v. Piper (S.Ct. 1980) 100 S. Ct. 2455, 2462.

24. Wherefore, to demonstrate Pretext, the Respondent’s www.scribd.com documents must be

Suppressed, and since Respondent’s Motion To Dismiss does ADMIT allegations in the
charge, the prima facie case, and the evidentiary materials, brought forth by Charging Party
is now undisputed direct evidence of discrimination against the “rightful-place” of Charging
Party in seniority, based on race, where conclusive allegations and conclusive evidence
gives rise to judgment in favor of Charging Party.

Respectfully Submitted By,

________________________________________
Joshua J. Israel, CHARGING PARTY
P. O. Box xxx
Sxxxxx MN, xxxxx
(952) xxxx-xxxxx
MINNESOTA Department of Revenue
Tax Operations Division Appeal of Tax Decision
Social Security Number xxx-xx-xxxx Account Number – 1728016
WAGE-EARNER, Joshua J. Israel, Tax Year – 2009
P. O. Box xxx, Sxxxxxxx, MN xxxxx-xxxx

Appeal of Changes to Individual Income Tax

This appeal is brought forth by authority of Minn. Stat. 268.044(1)(a); 26 USCA 3402(a)(1); and
United States v. Sotelo, (S. Ct. 1978) 436 U. S. 268, 279-282 to object to an inequity that holds this
WAGE-EARNER, Joshua J. Israel, liable for Employer, PIERSON PIZZA, DBA Domino’s, willful
refusal to deduct federal taxes, state taxes, social security and medicare withholdings, at the source of
employment income.

1. On the 24th day of February, 2010, Minnesota Revenue changed the results of Wage-Earner’s 2009
income tax, and determined that this Wage-Earner owed $37.00 in due taxes; however, this finding
excluded the notice and exhibits attached to his M1 Tax Form.

2. That the attached notice to Form M1 did set forth 26 USCA 3404(a)(1); and, the attached exhibits
did demonstrate that Employer has refused to deduct and withhold the required taxes, and said
statute does set forth the following responsibility for tax deduction, at the source:

26 USCA 24(3402)(a)(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer

making payment of wages, shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in
accordance with tables or computational procedures prescribed by the Secretary.

3. The said exhibits demonstrate the previous practices of Employer to deduct and withholding taxes in
the year 2007; however, in the year 2009, the Employer did knowingly fail to deduct and withhold
taxes at the source of income and wages paid (A-1). Therefore, the Employer has discriminated
against this Wage-Earner in violation of Minn. Stat. 363A.15.

4. Since Minnesota Revenue statutes have been repealed, concerning payroll wage deductions and tax
collection at its source, it is an IRS cooperation policy of the Minnesota Department of Revenue
(MDOR), and the Minnesota Unemployment Insurance Program (UIMN), and the Minnesota
Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED), to hold the Employer solely
responsible for deduction and withholding and reporting federal and state taxes, social security and
Medicare deductions at the source wages earned (A-2b). As a result, Minn. Stat. 268.044(1)(a) sets
forth the following duty of every employer in the State of Minnesota:

Minn. Stat. 268.044(1) Wage Detail Report. (a) Each employer must submit, ***, a
quarterly wage detail report, by electronic transmission, in a format prescribed by the
commissioner. The report must include for each employee in covered employment during
the calendar quarter, the employee’s name, Social Security number, the total wages paid to
the employee, and the total number of paid hours worked.

5. Therefore, because this Wage Earner is not an exempt employee, the Employer has discriminated
against this Wage-Earner, in violation of Minn. Stat, 363A.15, because said Employer has caused
criminal damage to the property of Wage-Earner, has caused personal injuries to Wage-Earner, has
subjected Wage-Earner to theft, and has unfairly reduced the hours of Wage-Earner, to less than
 $500 per quarter, for the purpose of employment constructive discharge and evading unemployment
liability and tax evasion Public Health of Dakota County v. Freeman, 340 N.W.2d 344, 345.

6. Therefore, since the Employer has refused to deduct and withhold the required tax deduction, this
wage earner was unable to calculate, adjust, and file his 2009 Income Tax information.

7. In addition, pursuant to the Hastings Business Law Journal (A-3), in 2007, the IRS had a deficit of
$282 Billion dollars in unpaid payroll taxes due from employers, who collected taxes and
deductions, and then failed to forward these monies to the IRS.

8. Pursuant to the mandate of the U. S. Supreme Court in U. S. v. Sotelo, (S. Ct. 1978) 436 U.S. 268,
279-282, the Supreme Court observed that an inequity would arise from holding an individual
employee liable for a tax owed by an employer, that such a policy or practice was unfairly
discriminatory against an individual employee, and additionally, that 26 USCA 3403 alleviated this
kind of arbitrary discrimination in liability for tax evasion.

9. Furthermore, pursuant to United States v. May, (6th Cir. 2006) 174 Fed Appx. 877, 879, the Sixth
Circuit affirmed that an employer is guilty of tax evasion, under 26 USCA 3102(a) & 3402(a) when
the employer does deduct and withhold taxes and then fail to remit taxes to the IRS, or fails to deduct
and withhold payroll taxes and then fails to pay over to the IRS the taxes due (A-4).

10. Therefore, it is clear that Employer, Pierson Pizza, has engaged in actions of tax evasion, and has
made this Wage-Earner liable for the Employer’s duty, under Minn. Stat. 268.044(1)(a) and also
under 26 USCA 3403 which sets forth the following public policy for tax liability:

26 USCA 3403 – Liability for tax. The employer shall be liable for the payment of the
tax required to be deducted and withheld under this chapter, ***

11. Wherefore, this Wage-Earner urges Minnesota Revenue to investigate these facts, and to pursue and
collect the $37.00, and other unpaid taxes from Employer, Pierson Pizza; this Wage-Earner
additionally urges Minnesota Revenue to compel said Employer to comply with its duty to deduct
and withhold the required taxes; because at present, said Employer still refuses his duty, under Minn.
Stat. 268.044 and 26 USCA 3402(a)(1), and does continue to subject this Wage-Earner to retaliation
for Federally Protected Activity, in violation of 18 USCA 245(a)(1)(b)(5).

12. These statements and these evidences are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief;
and I do declare that this appeal information is true, correct, and complete to the best of my
knowledge and belief; and that I am also aware that 18 USCA 1001 makes it a criminal offense for
knowingly making a false statement to an agency funded and supported by the federal government.

By: _____________________________________
Joshua J. Israel / Wage Earner
P. O. Box xxx
Sxxxxxx, MN xxxxx
(952) xxx-xxxx

_________________________________ Date: ________________

Notary Republic

Priority Mail No. 0308 2040 0001 7887 3506

 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN RIGHTS
David Castledine, MN-DHR
190 East 5th Street, Suite #700,
St. Paul, MN 55101
----------
April 12, 2010

Joshua J. Israel v. Pierson Pizza, DBA – Domino’s

COMPLAINT OF RACE DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION

The Charging Party, Joshua J. Israel, is a Black American Citizen, and Charging Party brings
forth this complaint of race discrimination, of retaliation for opposing race discrimination, and of
retaliation for engaging in the Employer’s corrective opportunity, which has deprived the
Charging Party of the terms, conditions, benefits, and the wages of employment that white
employees enjoy. The Employer is JEFF PIERSON, of Pierson Pizza, DBA-Domino’s, who
employs an all-white staff, with Charging Party being the only employee of the Black Race.
This Charging Party is currently the subject of a continued practice of wage discrimination, that
dates back to a time between January and March, 2008. The first opposition to wage earning
discrimination was made, by Charging Party, in January, 2008, and a disparity in seniority and
wage earnings began to accrue since said time, and up to this current day. Therefore, to
demonstrate the $35,000.00 in denied wage earnings that result from a pattern and practice of
wage discrimination, complainant states as follows:

25. After several discussions with Employer, Jeff Pierson, concerning the theft and cheating
practices of Keith West, Chris Dresen, Justin Murphy, and other unidentified white
employees, during January to March 2008, said Employer allowed said white employees to
continue this theft of wage earning opportunity, and Charging Party was compelled to obtain
a full-time job assignment, at a temporary employment agency, but the Charging Party did
maintain his driver delivery job, with said Employer, on a part-time basis.

26. During the year 2008, the Charging was working 4 days per week, and would work up to 22
hours per week, as a part time employee, for said Employer (Appendix, (A-1b).

27. Each time the Charging Party would complain about Keith West and Chris Dresen stealing
deliveries, the Employer would reduce the weekly hours of the Charging Party.

28. During the spring of 2008, an assistant manager, named Mike Krepella, would use his
manager’s key to unlock the driver money box, of the Charging Party, and steal three or four
dollars for himself.

29. Each time the Charging Party would report this money theft to said Employer, the Employer
would reduce the work hours of the Charging Party to 2 days per week.

30. In July, 2008, the Charging Party engaged in protected activity to Minnesota Department of
Labor, over a wage dispute, with said Employer (Appendix, A-1). At this time, the
 Charging Party was working 17 hours per week, and to settle the dispute, the Employer
added a (special) 2.80 hours to the earnings of the Charging Party, on 8/8/08 (A-1c).

31. Thereafter, said Employer retaliated against Charging Party for said protected activity to
MN Dept. of Labor, and again reduced the work hours of the Charging Party to (2) two
hours per week, on 8/22/08 (A-1c).

32. During the summer of 2008, an employee named Justin Murphy engaged in a practice of
workplace bullying, by taking and using the Domino’s Car-Topper that is modified to fit the
automobile of the Charging Party, and the Charging Party was deprived of Domino’s
representation when performing deliveries to the home residence of customers. Each time
the Car-Topper issue was addressed, Justin Murphy would become hostile, aggressive, and
argumentative with the Charging Party.

33. Each time Justin Murphy deprived the Charging Party of the Car-Topper, an Assistant
Manager, named Anthony (?), would further aggravate the situation by dispatching a double
or triple delivery order to the white employees, and would dispatch a single delivery to the
Charging Party; in addition, while Charging Party was out making a delivery, and since
Anthony had the key to the driver money lock-boxes, Anthony would unlock the driver
lock-box, of the Charging Party, and take money ($6 on 8/16/08) from the Charging Party.

34. After the Charging Party did discover how his money was being stolen, the Charging Party
did report this theft to Jeff Pierson, on 8/22/08, who again reduced the work hours of the
Charging Party to 2 hours per week. Therefore, the Charging Party did avail himself to the
Employer’s preventative or corrective opportunities Watson v. City of Topeka, (U. S. Dist.,
2002) 241 F.Supp.2d 1223, 1234-1237.

35. On Monday, 8/18/2008, the Charging Party sent an e-mail complaint to the Domino’s
International Corporate Office, and did detail the aforesaid theft of money. Thereafter,
Charging Party was contacted by Carla Thompson, who advised the money theft would be
investigated, and to contact her (at 734-930-3871) if it became necessary.

36. To retaliate against the Charging Party, said Employer began to hire new white-male adult
delivery drivers, Charging Party was permanently reduced to working 2 ½ hours per week
(A-1d) while the newly-hired white delivery-drivers began to work 20 hours per week.
Therefore, said reduction in work hours is not a business necessity for safe or efficient
business operations, and the Employer has deprived Charging Party of his “rightful-place,”
in employment seniority Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Minn. Dept. of Human Rights, (MN S.
Ct. 1975) 229 N.W.2d 3, 10-11; Minn. Stat. 363A.20(5).

37. In January 2009, the Employer hired Jennifer Lang, a white-female-adult, as his assistant
manager. Thereafter, Jennifer Lang began to dispatch deliveries to the wrong address, began
to create customer service failures, and did dispatch single delivery orders to the Charging
Party, while the white delivery drivers were dispatched on double and triple delivery orders.

38. On Saturday, 2/21/09, Keith West and Jennifer Lang created another customer delivery
failure; and on Friday, 2/27/09, Jennifer Lang created another customer delivery failure.
39. In response, the Charging Party sent another e-mail to the Domino’s Corporate Office, on
2/27/2009, did receive an email reply, on 2/28/2009 (A-2), and did receive a case number of
(610314). Thereafter the Charging Party returned the call of Carla Thompson, (734-930-
3871), and did participate in Domino’s Corporate Office corrective measures by giving
Carla a complete history of the aforesaid discrimination in delivery dispatch disparity and
service failures; a history of theft of money from driver money boxes; and the history of
reduced weekly work hours that deprive the Charging Party of wage earnings that less
seniority white-employees now earn. However, after Carla Thompson did agree that
Charging Party was being treated unfairly, Carla refused to believe that Charging Party was
a victim of race discrimination, and concluded the call interview in that manner.

40. Thereafter, and for the subsequent (7) seven months that followed the report to Carla
Thompson, on 3/6/09, said Employer did retaliate against the Charging Party for his
protected activity to seek corrective actions from Domino’s Corporate Office, and said
Employer took adverse action against the Charging Party (A-2b), did reduce the work hours
of Charging Party to [1.5] hours per week (A-2a, A-2b), and the total wages earned by the
Charging Party, in the year 2009, was only $671.00 (A-2a).

41. On Friday, 11/27/09, Jennifer Lang was again in charge, and while the Charging Party was
making his first delivery, Charging Party heard a frying noise and saw smoke coming from
the cigarette lighter outlet, in his car, where the electric Car-Topper was plugged in. When
immediately removing this plug-in from cigarette lighter outlet, this plug-in was so-hot that
it burned the finger of the Charging Party, this plug was warped from the heat, and did begin
to melt. Furthermore, this shocking surprise caused a major distraction while driving in
traffic, and did endanger the safety of the public and the Charging Party; and, Jennifer
Lang’s criminal accountability has never been acknowledged (A-3).

42. Thereafter, the electric accessories in Charging Party’s automobile ceased to function, and
were without power. Since the Charging Party could not diagnose the problem, the
Charging Party did file an official police report, for said criminal damage (A-3).

43. On 11/27/09, after sending an e-mail to Domino’s Corporate Office (A-4), which detailed
the continued race hate disparity suffered that now has become a crime perpetrated against
federally protected activity, the Charging Party additionally filed a report to Minnesota
Unemployment, on 11/30/2009, because, it is the duty of the Charging Party to report all
barriers to employment.

44. On 12/11/09 the Charging Party did give Employer, Jeff Pierson, a copy of his police report
on said criminal damage to his automobile (A-3), did report that the electrical system in his
car is not operational, and Charging Party did inform Jeff Pierson that Minnesota
Unemployment has been advised of this criminal damage to his car, used in employment.

45. Thereafter, on 1/22/2010, the Charging Party did over-hear Keith West when Keith did
admit that he does take-home a Domino’s Car-Topper, at the end of his shift, and that driver
Robert Berg also does take home a Domino’s Car-Topper (A-5). Therefore, the opportunity
to manipulate electrical components, or wires, in the Car-Topper used by Charging Party,
could have been made by Keith West or Robert Berg or Jennifer Lang.
46. After said Employer did advise that said Car-Topper was repaired, employee Justin Murphy
again initiated his workplace bullying tactic of taking and using the Car-Topper modified to
fit the automobile of the Charging Party, on 1/24/2010. When Justin Murphy was asked if
he wanted the Charging Party to drive without the Domino’s sign on his car, Justin Murphy
replied, “Yes!” Moreover, Justin Murphy also maintained a practice of throwing objects
into the direction of the Charging Party, so as to create hostility and intimidation (A-5), and
these events were also reported to the Domino’s Corporate Office (A-5), by e-mail.

47. On 2/13/2010, employee Chris Dresen engaged in workplace bullying, did refuse to use an
available Domino’s Car-Topper, and did inform the Charging Party that he will be using the
Car-Topper that the Charging Party needs to use. Since Chris Dresen has a past history of
workplace violence and workplace bullying, the Charging Party filed another e-mail
complaint to the Domino’s Corporate Office (A-6), and did receive a case number of
(730263). The Charging Party also reported the bullying of Chris Dresen to Minnesota
Unemployment, because said actions are a barrier to employment.

48. On 2/16/2010, the Charging Party did return the call of Loren from Domino’s Corporate
Office (734-930-3871); the Charging Party did inform Loren that, on 2/13/2010, Jennifer
Lang again initiated her discriminatory dispatch of driver deliveries; that Jennifer Lang did
again dispatch double and triple delivery orders to the white employees and dispatched a
single delivery to Charging Party that was less that (1) one city block away from the store;
that Chris Dresen engaged in the aforesaid said workplace bullying; that Chris Dresen had
assaulted and battered a white female employee in the past, that Chris is now focusing his
workplace bullying toward the Charging Party; and that Employer, Jeff Pierson, had already
retaliated against the Charging Party for opposing said workplace bullying and said
discriminatory dispatch because Jeff has already reduced the work hours of the Charging
Party for this week (A-6a)-ending on 2/28/2010. Furthermore, the Charging Party did
advise Loren that Domino’s Corporate Office and Minnesota Unemployment are witnesses
to this discrimination and said retaliation, because Jeff Pierson has deprived Charging Party
of (1) one year of wages after a complete disclosure of discrimination, retaliation, and wage
disparity was made to Carla Thompson, on date 2/2709, the prior year.

49. Thereafter, on 2/25/2010, Jennifer Lang and a white female employee named Amelia
orchestrated a delivery to an address on an Indian Reservation, [ Order No. 073322; Brewer;
3119 Little Crow Drive, Shakopee, MN ] where the Charging Party was subjected to being
attacked by 4 pit-bull dogs, running-at-large, this scheme would deprive Charging Party of
City, County, or State Police jurisdiction or assistance, if an incident or injury did occur.

50. On March 26, 2010, an assistant manager named Anthony, did report Keith West as having
returned from his delivery, while Keith was still out making the delivery, and when Keith
did return to the store, Keith was dispatched on a delivery [ Order No. 76300 ], which was
suppose to be the delivery of the Charging Party. Therefore, this continuing and on-going
discrimination does cheat and steal wage earnings from the Charging Party, the Domino’s
Corporate Office, and the Employer, have refused preventative or corrective action that
Charging Party did avail himself to, and the aforesaid theft, cheating, stealing, criminal
damage to property, workplace bullying, and intimidation has created a work environment
 that interferes with the job performance of any reasonable person, in violation of federally
protected right to employment, and the benefits thereof.

51. Finally, on 3/3/2010 at 520 PM, Jennifer Lang did again initiate her aforesaid discriminatory
dispatch of driver deliveries, and only dispatched Charging Party to a single delivery that
was 3 blocks away from the store [ Order No. 277276 ]. Then to create an intentional
service failure, Jennifer Lang wrongfully obtained the secret driver dispatch code of
Charging Party, and did dispatch Charging Party on 3 delivery orders without any advisory
or information on said deliveries. Thereafter, Asst. Mgr. Anthony did use his access code to
advise Charging Party of the three deliveries that Jennifer dispatched for delivery.

52. After advising Jennifer Lang that her actions were race hate discrimination, on 4/3/2010,
Jeff Pierson reduced the work hours of Charging party to one work-day, and to only work
during the rush-hour of deliveries, on Friday 4/9/2010.

53. Therefore, the aforesaid pattern and practice that deprived Charging Party of wage earnings
that white employees earn, and depriving Charging Party of terms and conditions of
employment that white employees enjoy, is racial discrimination; because, the Charging
Party is treated less favorably that all of the white employees in all terms, conditions,
privileges, and wages in employment. Moreover, when opposing racial discrimination in
wage earning opportunity, and when requesting corrective action from the Employer and
from Domino’s Corporate Office, both the Employer and Domino’s Corporate Office
permitted retaliation, by allowing a disparity in wage earnings to escalate and perpetuate,
and by allowing the “rightful place” of Charging Party’s seniority to be discriminated
against, in violation of Minn. Stat. 363A.02(1)(1) and 363A.15(1); Bassett v. City of
Minneapolis, 211 F.3d 1097, 1104-1107; Minn. Stat. 363A.20 (5).

54. These statements these evidences are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief, I am aware the 18 USCA 1001 make it a criminal offense for any person to make
false statements to an agency funded and supported by the federal government.

By: ___________________________________
Joshua J. Israel / Charging Party
P. O. Box xxx
Sxxxxx, MN xxxxx
(952) xxx-xxxx

_________________________________ ___________
Notary Public Date

Priority Mail No. 0308 2040 0001 7886 5044