SUBJECT: Racist Appeal Determination of DFEH Case Number 202003-09710825 Johnson/Mark Ridley-Thomas (“MRT”)
From: GJohnson
To: selena.wong@dfeh.ca.gov; james.cortes@dfeh.ca.gov; gavin@gavinnewsom.com; contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov; maria.gonzalez@dfeh.ca.gov; elizabeth.reyes@dfeh.ca.gov; colleen.janatpour@dfeh.ca.gov; nai.saechao@dfeh.ca.gov; julia.araneta@dfeh.ca.gov; karina.arabolaza@dfeh.ca.gov; noah.frigault@dfeh.ca.gov; teri.houston@dfeh.ca.gov; susia.parra@dfeh.ca.gov; camilla.asuncion@dfeh.ca.gov; adele.cox@dfeh.ca.gov; gilbert.aragon@dfeh.ca.gov; kenady.hunley@dfeh.ca.gov
Cc: mayor.garcetti@lacity.org; councilmember.wesson@lacity.org; empowerla@lacity.org; askdoj@usdoj.gov; answers@hud.gov
Date: Friday, September 18, 2020, 10:31 AM PDT
September 18, 2020
Newsom-Kish DFEH Ok’s
Lynching of Negroes by LA county
supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas
Dear DFEH:
I disagree with the appeal denial concerning this matter. It is not acceptable as a resolution. I will be filing another complaint against Mark Ridley Thomas on the grounds your decision is biased, arbitrary, capricious, and unjust and does not comply with the legal provisions of the Unruh Act.
The complaint Respondent Mark Ridley Thomas (“MRT”), is a county of Los Angeles government employee, under strict requirements to comply with the county Ethics code and all civil rights laws. The Mark Ridley-Thomas aided candidate forums where the publicity and participation was not provided to all candidates alike.
The Unruh Act protects “all persons”. Although many in America may think that I am only 2/3 a person, it would not be true. Unruh protects me as a person and as a Black American, medium color, over aged 66, male, who has the personal belief that I was a legally qualified political candidate around January 6, 2020.
You indicated in your denial letter at least three racists in the employ of the State government: yourself, the intake interviewer, and the supervisor.
Under the state Unruh Act, a personal rights law, as a person I am “entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.”
Pausing here for a second, did the Respondent Mark Ridley Thomas provide me with “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” ? No, he did not, thus this provides one of the elements necessary for the DFEH to investigate. MRT did not seek to recuse himself from any of the candidate forums.
Pausing again, the DFEH has consistently taken the position in Unruh cases that a violation is actionable if the respondent acted “because of” a person’s protected characteristics. For those DFEH employees in the English comprehension class, that is not what Unruh says. Unruh says was a person provided full and equal etc. “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”. The phrase “no matter what” is not defined the same as “because of”. Did Mark Ridley Thomas violate the Unruh Act in this regard? Yes, thus this provides one of the elements necessary for the DFEH to investigate.
The link has clearly been established here between the basis —my protected categories—- and the harm —-denial of full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever” “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”—— denial of publicity and participation at the Mark Ridley Thomas forum.
LET’S EXAMINE PRIMA FACIE AND
TEST THE DFEH ON ENGLISH COMPREHENSION
The standard of proof required in Unruh Act cases is the same as that used in 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000(a) cases. See Green v. Rancho Santa Margarita Mortgage Co., 28 Cal. App. 4th 686, 694-95 (1994).
The requisite degree of proof necessary to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on summary judgment is minimal and does not even need to rise to the level of a preponderance of the evidence. Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 1994); (emphasizing the low threshold for a prima facie case and holding that even an employee’s self-assessment is relevant evidence). A plaintiff needs only to offer evidence which “gives rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.” Lowe v. City of Monrovia, 775 F.2d 998, 1005 (9th Cir. 1983);
“With all inferences made in the light most favorable to plaintiffs and the minimal showing necessary at the prima facie stage, the Court concludes that plaintiffs have presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to permit an inference of a discriminatory motive based on their allegations that defendant subjected them to treatment different from that accorded a similarly situated white passenger on their flight. Accordingly, plaintiffs have established a prima facie case of discrimination. “TRIGUEROS v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES | Civil No. O5-CV- 2256-L(AJB). | S.D. Cal. | Judgment |
The DFEH appeal denial states as Prima Facie:
(1) the complainant is a member of a protected class
(2) the complainant sustained an act of harm and
(3) establish linking evidence between harm and basis (e.g. direct or circumstantial)
My response:
1. I have established that I am a member of a protected class
2. I sustained an act of harm denial of full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever
3. I have established linking evidence between the harm and the basis
RELATED LAWS ON POLITICAL CANDIDATE DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED
The Mark Ridley Thomas candidate forum was sponsored using local government monies. The Mark Ridley Thomas forum was co-sponsored with a Church. Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
Under GC 82007, I was considered to be a legally qualified candidate, as of January 5, 2020. Under CFR below, I was a legally qualified candidate on January 5, 2020. Under the Communications act of 1934 below, and as the Mark Ridley Thomas event was being videotaped by the media, discrimination between candidates is prohibited.
MORE FROM THE DFEH DENIAL
First, on my DFEH intake, the most recent date of harm was stated as January 12, 2020, not December 16, 2019. Documentation with the Intake showed email correspondence between the Respondent and myself as January 9, 2020 to January 11, 2020. The candidate event was held on January 12, 2020. There is no mention in this email exchange of the December 16, 2019 date.
Second, the denial of participation that I alleged, as a legally qualified Black candidate, concerned the events that occurred January 6 thru January 12, 2020 and the fact I appeared at the event to request full and equal advantages, at which time I was denied “full and equal etc.”. The laws and regulations below show that by January 6, 2020, I was a legally qualified candidate and entitled to “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.” At the point of January 6, 2020 to January 12, 2020, the Mark Ridley Thomas was prohibited by law from aiding in discriminating against me.
The DFEH also has jurisdiction over intentional discrimination, arbitrary discrimination, and practices such as Mark Ridley Thomas where all persons (myself) were not treated in a full and equal manner “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”. “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).) The DFEH fails to mention this in their denial.
That the Mark Ridley Thomas aided in a decision on December 16, 2020 did not give him the right to violate the Unruh Act between January 6 and January 11, 2020. As of January 6, 2020, I was on the city authorized list of legally qualified write-in candidates and entitled to be treated in accordance with the state Unruh act, as well as other applicable civil rights laws. The DFEH, as proof of its systemic, intractable racial bias as government employees, completely ignores the evidence presented to them that I was a candidate on January 6, 2020.
I ask that HUD overturn the appeal denial on the basis stated herein, notwithstanding that I will file a new complaint.
Please forward me the name of the supervisor in this case. I hereby ask the Governor Newsom to terminate from employment Gilbert Aragon and the investigator and supervisor in this case based on their racial animosity towards me and due to the fact said employees do not comprehend English.
In summary, the Newsom-Kish-Aragon-Hal the Computer pattern and practice decision dated September 3, 2020 but postmarked September 15, 2020, has no merit and is not acceptable as a resolution. My appeal to you was dated September 3, 2020, so obviously there was no intent or attempt by the DFEH to read and respond to my appeal. It is sad and ironic that government employees who are Latino, Asian, and Black are the ones largely responsible for the continuing denial of civil rights protections to Black Americans. I foresee another 100 years of Middle Ages slavery.
As a Black American, I am entitled to “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services” “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”.
Since Unruh is a personal rights law, there is no section under Unruh that because other Blacks like Mark Ridley-Thomas and two other Blacks appeared on the forum, that that would disqualify other Blacks from “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services” “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”, as the DFEH decision states. Your decision intentionally ignores and fails to diligently enforce the intent and letter of the Unruh law.
The Unruh law also prohibits arbitrary discrimination, discrimination as in here where all candidates were not treated alike, and Unruh requires that “all persons” are full and equal; all this is ignored in your DFEH Hal Computer decision of September 3.
Were such services available to similarly situated persons outside my protected class who received full benefits or were treated better? Yes, namely Aura Vasquez, and Grace Yoo, females and Latino and Asian, as told to the DFEH. Your decision to deny the appeal, ignores this. Your decision does not comply with the Unruh Act.
Did MRT aid in denial of “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services” “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” on dates January 11, 12, and 25? Yes.
Did MRT aid in unlawful arbitrary discrimination on January 11, 12, and 25, 2020? Yes.
Did MRT aid in aid in an unlawful discrimination practices on January 11, 12, and 25 that did not treat all person alike? Yes.
All this has been ignored by the DFEH, clear evidence that the DFEH itself is pattern and practice, institutionalized, systemic racism.
As I have asked the DFEH employees numerous times before, which persons do you feel are entitled to “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services” “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” ?
This is a matter of Public Interest and will be posted to the worldwide web.
People who are racist must be identified, one by one. Racism in America can be eliminated.
All rights reserved.
Geary Juan Johnson
1522 Hi Point St 9
Los Angeles CA 90035
Phone (redacted)
cc: Los Angeles Department of Neighborhood Empowerment via EmpowerLA@LACity.org; HUD; DOJ
The High-Tech Lynching
“And from my standpoint as a black American, as far as I’m concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. — U.S. Senate, rather than hung from a tree.” Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
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)
What are “equal opportunities”?
All candidates for the same office must be treated in an equal manner. This rule – known as the “equal opportunities” or “equal time” rule – applies to both federal and non-federal (i.e., state and local) candidates; it is not restricted to a limited period of time before the election. The rule is triggered by a “use” of a station by a legally qualified candidate. Once a legally qualified candidate for a given office makes a “use” of a station, all other legally qualified candidates for the same office are entitled to the opportunity to make equal use of the station. That is, the station must make the same amount and kind of time available at the same cost.
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.
Newsom-Kish DFEH Ok’s
Lynching of Negroes by LA county
supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas
(Excerpted complaint below received by the DFEH)
1522 Hi Point St 9
Los Angeles CA 90035
(Phone)
August 31, 2020
Complaint of Discrimination Under the Provisions of the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act
RE UNRUH
and Governor Gavin Newsom
DFEH NUMBER HUD NUMBER
PROPERTY TYPE NO.OF UNITS
ELECTION CAMPAIGN
I ALLEGE THAT I EXPERIENCED DISCRIMINATION
ON OR BEFORE JANUARY 12, 2020
BECAUSE OF MY ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED AGE, RACE
AS A RESULT, I WAS DENIED FULL AND EQUAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS; DENIED EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AS POLITICAL CANDIDATE
THE POLITICS OF EXCLUSION
THE NAZI STORM TROOPER TACTICS OF EXCLUSION
Complaint for Denial of Equal Opportunity by Church and Neighborhood Councils- Civil Right Act of 1964
Complaint for Violation of the California Unruh Act, CC 51 et seq.
Complaint for Abuse of City Tax Dollars by Neighborhood Councils
Complaint for Violation of IRS regulations regarding Churches and Political Candidates
Complaint for damages by county employee Mark Ridley-Thomas for abuse of tax dollars used to participate in denial of equal opportunity of candidate G. Juan Johnson
Defamatory statements
Unfair Interference with the Election Process as to make the election results null and void
Intentional misrepresentation by Neighborhood Councils
Violation City Code of Ethics and (County Code of Ethics) sections II, XII, XIII, XIV.
Violation Los Angeles County Code of Ethics
Against respondent
MARK RIDLEY THOMAS @LA County Board of Supervisors (“MRT”)
500 W Temple St Ste 383
Los Angeles CA 90012
Phone 213-974-1411
This is an Unruh Complaint regarding state and city
funded candidate forums
AGAINST RESPONDENT MARK RIDLEY THOMAS (“MRT”)
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)
My position, as expressed, is that the Unruh Act protects “personal rights” and entitles “all persons” to “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services”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”.
There is no disparate impact or disparate treatment requirement under Unruh CC 51. Therefore it is not relevant to allege there was no discrimination due to race since some Black candidates were allowed a turn at the podium; that distinction does not appear under Unruh because the Unruh Act protects “all persons” meaning all Black candidates, meaning “all candidates” should have received full and equal advance social media publicity and a turn at the podium, “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.”
I was a Black, male, aged 66, color medium, qualified candidate who did not receive from RESPONDENT (“MRT”) full and equal privileges and services, and that is actionable no matter how many other Blacks were provided the privilege.
The MRT knew or perceived my protected characteristics prior to the date of the publicity for the candidate forum and prior to the date of the forum.
Summary The law
The Unruh act requires that:
1. “All” persons are free and equal.
2. “All” persons are entitled to “full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services”
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”.
3. “This section shall not be construed to confer any right or privilege on a person that is conditioned or limited by law or that is applicable alike to persons of every sex, color, race, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status, or to persons regardless of their genetic information.” (Emphasis added)
4. “Sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status” includes a perception that the person has any particular characteristic or characteristics within the listed categories or that the person is associated with a person who has, or is perceived to have, any particular characteristic or characteristics within the listed categories.”
5. 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.)
6. 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”].)
Summary of Facts
Claimant (myself) was a certified as qualified political candidate. That was my belief as expressed to the Respondent via email on or before January 19, 2020, and on January 19. However, as of Jan. 8 2020 Respondent would have had actual and constructive knowledge of my status as a legally qualified political candidate.
Respondent (thru others it participated with on January 12 2020) claimed I was being denied full and equal accommodations because I was not a qualified candidate. Since claimant was a qualified candidate, whose designation “write-in” candidate would appear on the ballot, I feel the reason of the Respondent was pretextual. The real reason I was intentionally denied full and equal privileges was because of my race Black, color medium, sex male, age 66, and my personal beliefs.
I note here that under an Unruh violation, no showing of disparate treatment/impact is needed because Unruh protects “all persons” and “all persons” are entitled to full and equal accommodations.
That the respondent provided services of social media advertising and candidates speaking on the podium, such action that denied full and equal treatment to myself as a Black, aged 66, color medium, male, who held the personal belief that I was a person and qualified candidate.
I was associated with the other qualified candidates because I was also a qualified candidate no matter my “sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status”‘ but respondent [discriminated and made a distinction and ] prohibited me from associating with the advertising and candidate forum provided to other candidates.
Discriminated against due to
Race, Black
Sex, male
Age, 66
Color, medium
Black male medium color aged 66, qualified political candidate
Personal beliefs that I was a legally qualified candidate
Proven Violations committed by Respondent
Intentional discrimination
Unreasonable and invidious conduct
Arbitrary treatment
Did deny, incite/aid in denying full and equal accommodations or making a distinction
Unequal treatment due to business practice – the policy of exclusion to political candidates was not applicable alike no matter what a person’s sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status
Discrimination due to personal belief of Black, aged 66, color medium, qualified write-in candidate
Discrimination due to association with other candidates who were Black, write-in, aged 66, and color medium and qualified and held the personal belief that they were qualified candidates (there were at least 12 other qualified write-in candidates and for the entire county wide race about 250 qualified write-in candidates)
All rights reserved.
Did respondent MRT 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 MRT intentional?
Yes. Without MRT’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 MRT 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 MRT 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 MRT location and by appearance revealed his protected status to the respondent. Claimant announced numerous times to the ORGANIZERS 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. MRT 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.
Were such services available to similarly situated persons outside his or her protected class who received full benefits or were treated better?
Yes. Two females, who were Latino of light color, Asian of light color, and both under age 66. Aura Vasquez and Grace Yoo.
Has it been proven that a certified “write-in” candidate was a legally qualified candidate?
Yes.
Did respondent give any reason why a Black, medium color, aged 66, male, legally qualified candidate should be denied full benefits or enjoyment of a public accommodation?
No.
Was there circumstantial evidence that the MRT 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.
Respondent violated the Unruh Act because of my personal beliefs
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.
Discriminated against due to
Race, Black
Sex, male
Age, 66
Color, medium
Black male medium color aged 66, qualified political candidate
Personal beliefs
Respondent violated the Unruh Act because of unequal treatment; this is actionable under Unruh as prohibited discrimination
The evidence proves that the practice of Respondent MRT —acting in concert with others to deny, incite/aid in denying full and equal accommodations or making a distinction— has excluded all write-in candidates from full and equal accommodations; and unequal treatment is the result of MRT ‘s practice. MRT has practiced unequal treatment to the class of qualified write-in candidates who are Black, medium color, male, and aged 66.
“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)
I ALLEGE THAT THE RESPONDENT TOOK THE FOLLOWING ADVERSE ACTIONS AGAINST THE
COMPLAINANT
Complainant was denied full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services by a business establishment of one or more Fair Employment and Housing Act (which incorporates Civil Code 51) protected basis.
ON OR BEFORE
1/25/2020 12:00:00 AM
BECAUSE OF MY ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED
Color;Race;Sex/Gender;Age; Personal Beliefs
AS A RESULT, I WAS SUBJECTED TO
Denied Full or Equal Accommodations, Advantages, Facilities, Privileges, or Services by a Business Establishment – Including both Private and Public Entities
PARTICULARS
On January 25, I believe I was denied full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges and services by a business establishment based on my race (African American), color medium , gender (male), age 66, and personal belief that I was a legally qualified candidate
Specifically, on January 6, 2020, I became a formal political candidate by the City and County Election Clerk and on January 6, 2020 appeared on the City Clerk website as a qualified candidate. I became aware of a candidate forum event at FIRST AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH to be held January 25, 2020 and emailed the listed contacts on January 19, 2020, stating that I wanted to participate. I did not receive any response from the sponsors of the event. The event was held January 25, 2020 at MRT church. At a similar sponsored event by some of the same sponsors of this forum, I had been told by email and in person that I would not be allowed to participate in a full and equal manner as other person candidates who were allowed to participate.
Respondent Mark Ridley-Thomas was a public county employee at the time of all three candidate forums. Respondent was responsible in his position as a county supervisor, for the operation of the election process thru the County Board of Supervisors. Respondent did aid the practice of the candidate forums that excluded Claimant from full and equal advantages and services.
All rights reserved.
August 31, 2020.
Geary Juan Johnson
1522 Hi Point St 9
Los Angeles CA 90035
Phone (redacted)
EMAIL: (redacted)
This is an Unruh Complaint regarding state and city funded candidate forums
reference: FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION re crimes by Los Angeles city government employees
LA Rent Control (RAC) and Permits (LADBS) 