(Editor note: around January 12, 2020 leading up to the March 3, 2020 citywide general election, Holman church advertised on social media and co-sponsored a “candidate forum”. The event organizers refused to allow all qualified candidates to participate on an equal basis. The co-sponsors made the distinction and discrimination that qualified write-in candidates would not be allowed to participate. This resulted in the filing of the Unruh act discrimination complaint against the co-sponsors of the event. The original intake and complaint was filed February 7, 2020. The communications below are between the DFEH and also with city Los Angeles government employees. Holman Church provided the facility, chairs, tables, microphones, and publicity for the event. Investigators for the Department of Fair Employment and Housing have been described as “racist”.)
Pictured church members
June 10, 2021
Subject: Appeal of Case Closure re Racists at Los Angeles Holman Church – DFEH case Number 202003-09557910
From: GJohnson
To: appeals@dfeh.ca.gov
Cc: holman@holmanumc.com; pastorsauls@holmanumc.com; info@lwvlosangeles.org; ed@lwvlosangeles.org; attorneygeneral@dojca.gov; mayor.garcetti@lacity.org; empowerla@lacity.org; gavin@gavinnewsom.com; cityclerk@lacity.org; clerk.election@lacity.org; ethics.commission@lacity.org; councilmember.ridley- thomas@lacity.org; councilmember.harris-dawson@lacity.org; councilmember.martinez@lacity.org; paul.koretz@lacity.org; councilmember.rodriguez@lacity.org; councilmember.blumenfield@lacity.org; councilmember.cedillo@lacity.org; councilmember.buscaino@lacity.org; councilmember.huizar@lacity.org; councilmember.lee@lacity.org; councilmember.price@lacity.org; councilmember.deleon@lacity.org; senator.chang@senate.ca.gov
Date: Thursday, June 10, 2021, 08:06 PM PDT
DFEH case numbers 202003-09557910; 202004-09810703; 202105-13536712; and related intakes against ECWA, MINC, OPNC, SORO, WCKNC, Leimert Club, Beverly Hills NAACP et al.
Dear DFEH/ Unruh Act Violations by Los Angeles Holman Church re qualified candidates denied full and equal participation at a candidate forum January 2020:
I hereby respond to the DFEH “response to submission of additional information” and the June 2, 2021 “Notice of Case Closure”.
“James Byrd Jr. (May 2, 1949 – June 7, 1998) was an African- American man who was murdered by three white
supremacists in Jasper, Texas, on June 7, 1998. Shawn Berry, Lawrence Brewer, and John King dragged him for three miles (five kilometers) behind a pickup truck along an asphalt road. Byrd, who remained conscious for much of his ordeal, was killed about halfway through the dragging when his body hit the edge of a culvert, severing his right arm and head. The murderers drove on for another 1+ 1⁄2 miles (2.5 kilometers) before dumping his torso in front of a black church.”
“(Re Emmett Till). Several nights after the incident in the store, Bryant’s husband Roy and his half-brother J.W. Milam were armed when they went to Till’s great-uncle’s house and abducted Emmett. They took him away and beat and mutilated him, before shooting him in the head and sinking his body in the Tallahatchie River. Three days later, Till’s body was discovered and retrieved from the river.”
“There was some kind of scuffle two hundred yards down the street, again strangely noiseless, and a huddled knot of men opened up to reveal two brawlers being separated and pulled away from their fight. What I saw next gave me a fright: in the farther distance, beyond the listless crowd, the body of a lynched man dangling from a tree. The body was slender, dressed from head to toe in black, reflecting no light. It soon resolved itself, however, into a less ominous thing: dark canvas sheeting on a construction scaffold, twirling in the wind.”― Teju Cole, Open City
The state of California government cannot afford to have discrimination complaints such as this adjudicated by state employees who are themselves racially biased, as is the case of employee Steve Lopez.
DFEH employees accused
of being racist
I disagree with your (Lopez) statement that there is insufficient evidence. As a racist person, you failed to comprehend the issues presented to you in emails dated: May 23, 2021 (5:22 pm), May 23 (9:45 pm), May 24 (12:16 pm), May 28 (12:14 pm), May 29 (8:46 pm). Your letter mentions evidence you received May 23 and May 29, but you failed to mention the other emails of evidence noted above (May 24 and May 28). You failed to mention them because you are a racist and you are not able to comprehend English; because you are a racist, it does not matter how much evidence I supplied, you would still act in an arbitrary, unjust, capricious, and racist manner. The department failed to conduct a thorough investigation.
Sufficient evidence has been provided and on that basis I appeal. I ask that the Governor supply an investigator or appeal employee who is not racist and who is able to comprehend English.
Your letters make reference to the statute of limitation in a housing case as two years, however since this is not a housing case, the statute of limitations is 3 years. GC 12980 (h) states “The (DFEH) notice shall also indicate, unless the department has determined that no civil action will be brought, that the person claiming to be aggrieved has the option of continuing to seek redress for the alleged discrimination through the procedures of the department if the person does not desire to file a civil action.” I elect to to continue to seek redress thru the department rather than civil action.
Your letter of closure is unlawful in that it describes this case as a “housing case”. It is not a housing case. As this is a case brought under the Unruh Act CC 51, your letter claiming this is a housing case under GC 12980 is without weight and proves you have not closed the case under CC 51.
As told to the DFEH May 23 email at 9:45 pm:
Did respondent HOLMAN deny, aid, incite, discriminate, or make distinction that denied full and equal accommodations, advantages , facilities , privileges, or services to plaintiff?
Yes.
Was the actions of the respondent intentional?Yes. Without HOLMAN’S participation, the discrimination to claimant would not have occurred at that location.
In this instant matter, the complaint and exhibits show “each and every offense” occurred from January 6, 2020, thru the date of the election or March 3, 2020. That would be statutory damages of $4,000 for each day between January 6 – March 3, 2020. 60 days x $4,000 = $240,000.
For this appeal, I further disagree with the decision because the record shows that the complaint and evidence I submitted was ignored and never considered by the DFEH investigator.
Please forward me a copy of the entire file on this matter per GC 12980 (g) below.
All rights reserved.
Geary Juan Johnson
re: Holman Church Pastor Rev. Dr. Ken Walden
GC 12980: (g) Upon the conclusion of each investigation, the department shall prepare a final investigative report containing all of the following:
(1) The names of any witnesses and the dates of any contacts with those witnesses.
(2) A summary of the dates of any correspondence or other contacts with the aggrieved persons or the respondent.
(3) A summary of witness statements.
(4) Answers to interrogatories.
(5) A summary description of other pertinent records.
May 28, 2021
Subject: DFEH case numbers 202003-09557910; 202004-09810703; 202105-13536712; and related intakes against ECWA, MINC, OPNC, SORO, WCKNC, Leimert Club, Beverly Hills NAACP et al.
From: G Johnson
To: steve.lopez@dfeh.ca.gov; robin.blackwell@dfeh.ca.gov; contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov Date: Friday, May 28, 2021, 08:58 AM PDT
Attached is the Los Angeles city clerk document that shows I met the criteria qualifications and became a certified candidate. The documents are dated Jan. 6, 2020.
Such notification at the time appeared on the city clerk’s Public website under the election and candidates page.
“Under the Unruh Act, a Plaintiff is entitled to recover actual damages and an amount up to three times the actual damages for each violation of the Unruh Act, “but in no case less than $4,000…” for each and every offense (Cal. Civ. Code § 52(a); Munson v. Del Taco,
Inc. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 661, 667.)”
“In order to maintain an action for these statutory minimum damages, “an individual must… [establish] that he or she was denied full and equal access on a particular occasion.” (Donald v. Cafe Royale Inc. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 168, 183.)”
“The Plaintiff need not establish that he was wholly excluded from enjoying the Defendant’s services, only that he was denied full and equal access (Hubbard v. Twin Oaks Health and Rehabilitation Center. (2004) 408 F.Supp.2d 923, 932.)”
In this instant matter, the complaint and exhibits show “each and every offense” occurred from January 6, 2020, thru the date of the election or March 3, 2020.
That would be statutory damages of $4,000 for each day between January 6 – March 3, 2020. 60 days x $4,000 = $240,000.
All rights reserved.
Geary Johnson
May 24, 2021
Subject: DFEH case numbers 202003-09557910; 202004-09810703; 202105-13536712; and related intakes against ECWA, MINC, OPNC, SORO, WCKNC, Leimert Club, Beverly Hills NAACP et al.
From: G Johnson
To: contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov; gavin@gavinnewsom.com; steve.lopez@dfeh.ca.gov; robin.blackwell@dfeh.ca.gov; askdoj@usdoj.gov
Date: Monday, May 24, 2021, 12:16 PM PDT
The lies of Holman Church
The DFEH investigator has told me that Holman Church denies participating in the candidate forum that they co-sponsored on Jan. 12, 2020; that they deny any knowledge that they aided and incited the discrimination that I experienced as a Black political candidate.
I believe the representative from Holman Church is engaged in fraud.
The event was videotaped by numerous news groups, either major or other media. I have pictures of those in attendance which included many church members and officials and I believe the pastor. There are numerous videos.
I share with you one of the videos that is still playing on Youtube. You can see church officials and co-sponsors. At time 16:00 you can see me asserting my rights to be heard (freedom of speech is a constitutional right) and see how I am assaulted by church paid security guards.
The person at the podium is telling the crowd I am not a qualified candidate; I do not have a microphone so I speak louder to be heard telling her that I am a qualified candidate.
I also attach a picture of the podium and a picture of church members in participation.
I suggest the DFEH ask the church to supply other videos of the event and also the written approval that the Church gave to other co-sponsors of the event.
Video of CD 10 held Jan 12, 2020- (Youtube) LA City Council District 10 Candidates Forum at Holman
“LA City Council District 10 Candidates Forum at Holman”- posted Jan 13, 2020. See 16:00
Geary J. Johnson
(This email above has been redacted)
May 23, 2021 at 9:45 pm
Re: Johnson / Holman United Methodist Church — 202003-09557910
From: G Johnson
To: steve.lopez@dfeh.ca.gov
Sunday, May 23, 2021, 09:45 PM PDT
Response to Closure Letter re Holman Church – Case 202003-09557910
I am responding this day May 23, 2021 to the May 21 closure determination of the DFEH.
Charities, Churches and Politics- IRS
The ban on political campaign activity by charities and churches was created by Congress more than a half century ago. The Internal Revenue Service administers the tax laws written by Congress and has enforcement authority over tax- exempt organizations. Here is some background information on the political campaign activity ban and the latest IRS enforcement statistics regarding its administration of this congressional ban.
Currently, the law prohibits political campaign activity by charities and churches by defining a 501(c)(3) organization as one “which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.
A definitive court case on the issue of free speech and political expression is Branch Ministries Inc. versus Rossotti (PDF). In that case, the court upheld the constitutionality of the ban on political activity. The court rejected the plaintiff church’s allegations that it was being selectively prosecuted because of its conservative views and that its First Amendment right to free speech was being infringed.
The court wrote: “The government has a compelling interest in maintaining the integrity of the tax system and in not subsidizing partisan political activity, and Section 501(c)(3) is the least restrictive means of accomplishing that purpose.” Providing a forum for candidates is not, in and of itself, prohibited political activity. See Rev. Rul. 74- 574, 1974-2 C.B. 160 (organization operating a broadcast station is not participating in political campaigns on behalf of public candidates by providing reasonable amounts of air time equally available to all legally qualified candidates for election to public office in compliance with the reasonable access provisions of the Communications Act of 1934). However, a forum for candidates could be operated in a manner that would show a bias or preference for or against a particular candidate. This could be done, for example, through biased questioning procedures. On the other hand, a forum held for the purpose of educating and informing the voters, which provides fair and impartial treatment of candidates, and which does not promote or advance one candidate over another, would not constitute participation or intervention in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. (IRS section 501)
Churches liable under certain laws like Age Discrimination
https://www.churchlawcenter.com/church-law/which-federal-employment-laws-apply-to- churches/
1. A stated above, Holman Church has a duty under the IRS regulations, such duty preceding the Jan. 12 date, to not show a bias for or against a particular candidate, and to provide fair and impartial treatment if it “provided” a candidate forum and which did not promote one candidate over another. In this instant case, the Respondent provided a candidate forum that showed a bias against myself as a candidate, and such forum did not provide fair and impartial treatment of me as a candidate. This all happened up to and including January 12 based on what was posted on the Church’s own social media.
2. During time period preceding Jan. 12, of which I was in contact by email with co-sponsors of the event, the Church had a duty under IRS regulations not to “provide” a forum that was biased to any candidate.
3. The Holman church cannot that duty.
4. My original signed complaint totaled 34 pages with exhibits and was submitted to the DFEH February 14, 2020. Those 34 pages are incorporated herein by reference.
5. Exhibits show that on Jan. 12, 2020, on the event social media page, I posted a Jan. 9 email protesting the event. Respondent would have seen the email and been given fair notice of the unfairness of the candidate forum.
6. As of today, I learned from DFEH employee Robin Blackwell, that the Respondent Church was a co-sponsor of the event.
7. At the event, I did say hello to the Church pastor Rev. James Lawson. Rev. Lawson and Rev.Dr. Kebn Walden were in the room during the candidate forum. I spoke with numerous other church members in attendance, I would say about 25 or more church members participated in the forum. As I yelled out to the crowd to let them know I was a candidate, I asserted my rights under the Unruh act and federal law to be heard. I informed church members and forum organizers that they were violating my rights under Unruh.
8. The Repondent/Co-sponsors (like League of Women Voters) has admitted to the DFEH that they felt I was creating a disturbance, thus the Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge at the event that I was qualified candidate who was entitled to participate and that they were engaged in a violation of the Unruh act, because that is what I told the pastor and
9. The July 6, 2020 signed complaint says also “because of my actual or perceived: other” which means because I had the personal belief I was a qualified candidate and because I was a write-in candidate. Courts have ruled that the series of protected categories are meant to be read together; that candidate and write-in candidate are protected categories because the act list of protected categories is meant to be illustrative, not restrictive.
10. The Respondent is charged with “arbitrary discriminatory”, aiding and inciting (Several aspects of the foregoing language point to an emphasis on intentional discrimination. The references to “aiding” and “inciting” denial of access to public accommodations, to making discriminations and restrictions, and to the commission of an “offense” imply willful, affirmative misconduct on the part of those who violate the Act. (Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV (1991) – [No. S011367. Feb 28, 1991.); intentional discrimination (page 8 of the exhibits); “This section shall not be construed to confer any right or privilege on a person … that is applicable alike to persons” regardless of sex, sexual orientation, medical condition, and other classes. (Civ. Code, § 51, subd. (c) [emphasis added].) Thus, “[a] policy that is neutral on its face is not actionable under the Unruh Act, even when it has a disproportionate impact on a protected class.” (Turner, 167 Cal.App.4th at 1408 [emphasis added].)
11. The practice of the Respondent, intentional as they have admitted, is not applicable alike to persons regardless of the enumerated and non-enumerated classes. Therefore the practice of excluding myself from the benefits of the candidate forum, violated Unruh.
11. The DFEH has a duty to question and ascertain which church members by name participated in the Jan. 12 event.
12. As co-sponsor of the event, and in attendance at the event, Holman was aware of the exclusion (which the Church filmed for TV cameras) and as co-sponsors, the Church aided in the exclusion, which they knew was in violation of the IRS regulations and the Unruh Act.
13. The records I submitted show the event was held on church property showing that the church knew the circumstances of the event and by Jan. 9 and 12, were told directly thru social media and in person that the event was in violation of IRS regulations and the Unruh Act.
14. The respondent provided the social media advertising that excluded me from the event; the Respondent provided the physical location, chairs, tables, and electronic equipment. The Respondent was in attendance at the event and used their own security guards to physically assault me, and did assault me, to intimidate me from speaking. The Respondent prevented me from speaking by their direct action.
15. The Respondent gave approval for the event to be held at their facility, an event that the Respondent knew in advance would have to comply with strict IRS guidelines that prohibited biased treatment of candidates and prohibited unfair treatment of candidates.
ARBITRARY DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED
The Act’s “fundamental purpose” is “to secure to all persons equal access to public accommodations ‘no matter’ ” their personal characteristics. (Harris, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 1169.) To accomplish this purpose, the Act prohibits “arbitrary discrimination by business establishments.” (In re Cox (1970) 3 Cal.3d 205, 216 (Cox); Sargoy, supra, 8 Cal.App.4th at p. 1043 [the Act renders unlawful “arbitrary, invidious or unreasonable discrimination”].)
The statute expressly provides that it does not apply to facially neutral policies: “This section shall not be construed to confer any right or privilege on a person … that is applicable alike to persons” regardless of sex, sexual orientation, medical condition, and other classes. (Civ. Code, § 51, subd. (c) [emphasis added].) Thus, “[a] policy that is neutral on its face is not actionable under the Unruh Act, even when it has a disproportionate impact on a protected class.” (Turner, 167 Cal.App.4th at 1408 [emphasis added].)
The practice of the LWV, intentional as they have admitted, is not applicable alike to persons regardless of the enumerated and non-enumerated classes. Therefore the practice of excluding myself from the benefits of the candidate forum, violated Unruh.
The Unruh Act Bars Intentional Discrimination
The central principle of the Unruh Act is a prohibition of intentional discrimination based on certain characteristics. The California Supreme Court has explained: “the language and history of the Unruh Act indicate that the legislative object was to prohibit intentional discrimination …. [A] plaintiff must … plead and prove a case of intentional discrimination to recover under the Act.”
(Harris, 52 Cal.3d at 1149 [rejecting Unruh claim on demurrer; italics in original, bold added].)22 The statute requires an allegation that a defendant adopted or applied its policy for the purpose of accomplishing discrimination or as a disguised device to accomplish discrimination. (Koebke, 36 Cal.4th at 854. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19- 1135/141465/20200413114040349_Dignity%20Health%20Brief.pdf )
“100 years, says the LWV”
INTENTIONAL ACT ESTABLISHED
April 2, 2020 signed complaint- p. 8
“The actions stated herein were done with malice, with the intent to cause harm to the Claimant. This is a claim/complaint for continuing damages. “
Section 73.1940 [47 CFR §73.1940]
Legally qualified candidates for public office
(a) A legally qualified candidate for public office is any person who:
(1) Has publicly announced his or her intention to run for nomination or office;
(2) Is qualified under the applicable local, State or Federal law to hold the office for which he or she is a candidate; and (3) Has met the qualifications set forth in either paragraph (b), (c), (d), or (e) of this section.
(b) A person seeking election to any public office including that of President or Vice President of the United States, or nomination for any public office except that of President or Vice President, by means of a primary, general or special election, shall be considered a legally qualified candidate if, in addition to meeting the criteria set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, that person: (1) Has qualified for a place on the ballot; or (2) Has publicly committed himself or herself to seeking election by the write-in method and is eligible under applicable law to be voted for by sticker, by writing in his or her name on the ballot or by other method, and makes a substantial showing that he or she is a bona de candidate for nomination or office
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Title 47 United States Code)
“A legally qualified candidate for public office is any person who….
Has publicly committed himself or herself to seeking election by the write-in method and is eligible under applicable law to be voted for by sticker, by writing in his or her name on the ballot or by other method” 47 CFR §73.1940
“Discrimination between candidates. In making time available to candidates for public office, no licensee shall make any discrimination between candidates in practices, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with the service rendered pursuant to this part, or make or give any preference to any candidate for public office or subject any such candidate to any prejudice or disadvantage; nor shall any licensee make any contract or other agreement which shall have the effect of permitting any legally qualified candidate for any public office to broadcast to the exclusion of other legally qualified candidates for the same public office.” Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Title 47 United States Code)
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE – GOV
TITLE 9. POLITICAL REFORM [81000 – 91014] ( Title 9 added June 4, 1974, by initiative Proposition 9. )
CHAPTER 2. Definitions [82000 – 82054]
( Chapter 2 added June 4, 1974, by initiative Proposition 9. )
82007.
(a) “Candidate” means any of the following:
(1) Anyone who is listed on a ballot or is qualified to have write-in votes cast on their behalf counted by elections officials for nomination or election to any elective office.
(2) Anyone who receives a contribution, makes an expenditure, or gives their consent for another person to receive a contribution or make an expenditure, to bring about the person’s nomination or election to an elective office, even if any of the following apply: (A) The specific elective office for which the person will seek nomination or election is unknown at the time the contribution is received or the expenditure is made. (B) The person has not announced the candidacy or filed a declaration of candidacy.
(3) An elected officer, including any elected officer who is the subject of a recall.
(b) Anyone who becomes a candidate retains candidate status until that status is terminated under Section 84214. (c) “Candidate” does not include any candidate, as defined in Section 30101(2) of Title 52 of the United States Code, for federal office, as to the person’s activities related to seeking nomination or election to that federal office.
HOLMAN ENGAGED IN UNEQUAL TREATMENT, PROHIBITED UNDER UNRUH
“The Act applies not merely in situations where businesses exclude individuals altogether, but also “where unequal treatment is the result of a business practice.” (Koire v. Metro Car Wash (1985) 40 Cal.3d 24, 29 (Koire).) “Unequal treatment includes offering price discounts on an arbitrary basis to certain classes of individuals.” (Pizarro, supra, 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 1174; Koire, at p. 29.)” (Source: Google Tinder case)
The Unruh Act protects “personal beliefs” and traits fundamental to a person’s identity; this is actionable under Unruh as prohibited discrimination.
Nevertheless, the enumerated categories, bearing the “common element” of being “personal” characteristics of an individual, necessarily confine the Act’s reach to forms of discrimination based on characteristics similar to the statutory classifications—such as “a person’s geographical origin, physical attributes, and personal beliefs.” (Harris, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 1160.)
The “personal characteristics” protected by the Act are not defined by “immutability, since some are, while others are not [immutable], but that they represent traits, conditions, decisions, or choices fundamental to a person’s identity, beliefs and self- definition.” (Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club (2005) 36 Cal.4th 824, 842–843 (Koebke).)
In this instant case, the evidence shows that it was my personal belief that I was a legally qualified write-in candidate that should be associated with other legally qualified Black candidates and other legally qualified candidates who received full and equal treatment and privileges. The evidence shows that the Respondent used “write-in candidate” as its proffered reason for denying me full and equal accommodations; this is further proof that the Respondent violated the Unruh Act by denying me full and equal accommodations because of my personal beliefs.
The complaint indicates it was my belief that I was a qualified candidate.
Did respondent HOLMAN deny, aid, incite, discriminate, or make distinction that denied full and equal accommodations, advantages , facilities , privileges, or services to plaintiff?
Yes.
Was the actions of the respondent intentional?
Yes. Without HOLMAN’S participation, the discrimination to claimant would not have occurred at that location.
Is it proven that a substantial motivating reason for the defendant’s conduct was the defendant’s perception of the plaintiff’s protected basis under the Unruh Act; or that the protected basis of a person whom the plaintiff was associated with was a substantial motivating reason for the defendant’s conduct ?
Yes. The HOLMAN response, in concert, that claimant was not a qualified candidate, was pretextual. The real reason claimant was excluded was due to his race, Black, color medium, sex male, and age 66. Circumstantial evidence. The HOLMAN had actual and constructive knowledge in advance of January 12, 2020, that claimant was African American Black, male, aged 66, and color medium. On January 12, 2020, claimant appeared at the HOLMAN location and by appearance revealed his protected status to the respondent. Claimant announced numerous times to the HOLMAN and others in attendance on January 12, 2020 that he was a qualified candidate and would like to speak on the podium but such full and equal opportunity was repeatedly denied by those in charge. HOLMAN had admitted by its conduct that its motivating reason for its conduct was the claimant’s association with other Black, male, female, Asian, and Latinos persons who were candidates. (Associated with others in protected classes.)
Had claimant attempted to contract for services and afford himself of the full benefits and enjoyment of a public accommodation ?
Yes.
Has it been proven that a certified “write-in” candidate was a legally qualified candidate?
Yes.
Was there circumstantial evidence that the HOLMAN denied claimant association with other Blacks at the candidate forum?
Yes.
Has claimant proven the acts of the respondent were intentional (planned in advance, not accidental) to discriminate against claimant ?
Yes.
Was the respondent practice of providing full and equal accommodations, up to and including the January 12, 2020 candidate publicity and forum, applicable alike to all persons regardless of race, color, sex, or religion, etc?
No.
6/23/2020 “Protected Class” and the 6th Circuit – Labor and Employment Law Blog – Laborand Employment Law
“The court indicated it did not have to review whether summary judgment was appropriate on plaintiff’s direct evidence claim because it found plaintiff had presented circumstantial evidence to establish a prima facie case and rebutted the nondiscriminatory reason offered by the defendant. The court stated that it was clear plaintiff was replaced by someone outside of her racial class. With respect to the sex discrimination claim, the court noted that it could not be “untangled” from her race discrimination claim. The two characteristics do not exist in isolation. The court stated, “African American women are subjected to unique stereotypes that neither African American men nor white women must endure. (citation omitted) And Title VII does not permit plaintiffs to fall between two stools when their claim rests on multiple protected grounds” The court went on to state that if a female African American plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, a defendant cannot undermine it by showing that white women and African American men received the same treatment. The court stated, “The realities of the workplace, let alone Title VII, will not allow such an artificial approach.” http://www.michbar.org/file/opinions/us_appeals/2014/021914/56493.pdf
WRITE-IN CANDIDATE IS SPECIFIED IN ATTACHMENTS TO THE COMPLAINT- ENTITLED “Complaint of Discrimination Under the Provisions of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act RE UNRUH and Governor Gavin Newsom – DATED AND SIGNED APRIL 2, 2020. The phrase “write-in candidate” is mentioned eight times.
All rights reserved.
Geary J. Johnson
Hello Mr. Johnson:
I attached a copy of your closure letter for your review. Please pay close attention to the mentioned date.
Thank you
Steve Lopez
Department of Fair Employment and Housing
Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100, Elk Grove, California 95758
Steve.Lopez@dfeh.ca.gov Telephone: 916.585.7086 Toll Free: 800.884.1684
May 23, 2021
Subject: DFEH case number 202003-09557910 Johnson/Holman Church- Your decisions are biased and not in compliance with Unruh.
From: G Johnson
To: steve.lopez@dfeh.ca.gov; gavin@gavinnewsom.com
Cc: attorneygeneral@dojca.gov
Date: Sunday, May 23, 2021, 05:22 PM PDT
Your decision restricts me from protection under Unruh. Your decision is unlawful.
“California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act provides that “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” Cal. Civ. Code § 51(b). The California Supreme Court has held that the “identification of particular bases of discrimination – color, race, religion, ancestry and national origin – [in the current version of the act] . . . is illustrative rather than restrictive.” Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson, 30 Cal. 3d 721, 725 (1982) (quoting In re Cox, 8 WHITE V. SQUARE, INC. 3 Cal. 3d 205, 216 (1970)). In other words, “the protection against discrimination afforded by the Unruh Act applies to ‘all persons,’ and is not reserved for restricted categories of prohibited discrimination.” Id. at 736. In this vein, Marina Point cited opinions of the California Attorney General as establishing that the Act applied to “exclusionary policies” directed against members of a “particular occupation.” Id. (citing 58 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 608, 613 (1975)). California Courts of Appeal have interpreted this reference to mean that the Unruh Act prohibits arbitrary occupational discrimination. Sisemore v. Master Fin., Inc., 151 Cal. App. 4th 1386, 1405–06 (2007); Long v. Valentino, 216 Cal. App. 3d 1287, 1297 (1989).” (emphasis added)
Robert White v. Square, Inc. | Ninth Circuit | 06-07-2018 | http://www.anylaw.com
Your decisions are biased and not in compliance with Unruh. You have unjustly denied me protection under Unruh as a
Black political candidate. Good reason why Newsom needs to go.
all rights reserved.
Geary J. Johnson
(redacted)
May 18, 2021
From: G Johnson
To: steve.lopez@dfeh.ca.gov
Date: Tuesday, May 18, 2021, 02:29 PM PDT
Mr. Lopez:
Thanks for the interview today.
I memorialize that we were able to identify that Holman aided sponsors of the candidate forum on January 12, 2020, by giving approval to the event, advertising on the church social media Facebook page, and providing church equipment: chairs, podium, and security. I communicated with the Holman church via Facebook on January 23, 2020.
On page 32, of the attachments supplied to you, I wrote Holman church by “cc” at holman@holmanumc.com and got no response.
January 19, 2020.
On page 23, I wrote Holman on January 15, 2020.
This proves that Holman knew about the violations of the Unruh act allegations before they received the complaint from the DFEH.
Holman in aiding the sponsors of the candidate forum did violate section 52(a) of the Unruh Act.
Geary Juan Johnson
(address and phone redacted)
LA Rent Control (RAC) and Permits (LADBS) 