2. Phone: (513) 575-7167 or (513) 794-0400/(888) 556-7526
County: Hamilton County, Ohio
**Ohio Office Having 50+ employees
Messina Staffing/Messina Management Systems
Attn: Vince Messina (President)
11811 Mason-Montgomery Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45249
(513) 774-9187
COMES NOW Complainant Vogel Denise Newsome (“Newsome”) and submits this, her
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL AND NOTICE OF
RIGHTS, NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
VIOLATIONS, REQUEST FOR EEOC’S “WRITTEN” DETERMINATION –
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW, REQUEST FOR “WRITTEN”
TITLE VII INTERPRETATION/OPINION, REQUEST FOR DEFERRAL TO THE
OHIO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, REQUEST FOR STATUS OF
COMMISSION CHARGE TO ISSUE; OBJECTIONS TO EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION’S MAY 31, 2012 DISMISSAL AND NOTICE OF
RIGHTS; RESPONSE TO OHIO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION’S LETTER
DATED MAY 9, 2012 REGARDING “YOUR INQUIRY REGARDING
POTENTIAL CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION;” and 2ND REQUEST TO BE
ADVISED OF ALL “CONFLICT-OF-INTERESTS” (hereinafter “RFROD&NOR. . .”) in
regards to the:
“OFFICIAL COMPLAINT/CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION
FILED OF AND AGAINST THE GARRETSON FIRM
RESOLUTION GROUP INC. AND/OR MESSINA
STAFFING/MESSINA MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS WITH
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR - UNITED
STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION – CINCINNATI AREA OFFICE and OHIO CIVIL
Page 2 of 59

3. RIGHTS COMMISSION – CENTRAL OFFICE; AND REQUEST
FOR COMMISSIONER CHARGE TO BE ISSUED SUBMITTED
FOR FILING ON APRIL 30, 2012” (hereinafter “Official
Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination”)
In support thereof, and without waiving the protected rights preserved herein, Newsome states the
following in PRESERVATION of issues raised in “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination”
and those set forth in this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .”:
I. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL AND NOTICE OF RIGHTS
Gonzalez v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 610 F.2d 241 (1980) - [2]
EEOC may issue a second 90-day right-to-sue notice upon
completion of a discretionary reconsideration of prior determination
provided it has given notice to both parties of its decision to
reconsider within 90-day period provided by initial notice of right to
sue. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(e) as amended 42 U.S.C.A. §
2000e-5(f)(1).
29 CFR § 1601.18 DISMISSAL: PROCEDURE AND AUTHORITY:
(a) Where a charge on its face, or as amplified by the statements of the person claiming
to be aggrieved discloses, or where after investigation the Commission determines,
that the charge and every portion thereof is not timely filed, or otherwise fails to state
a claim under title VII, the ADA, or GINA, the Commission shall dismiss the charge.
..
(b) Written notice of disposition, pursuant to this section, shall be issued to the person
claiming to be aggrieved and to the person making the charge on behalf of such person,
where applicable; in the case of a Commissioner charge, to all persons specified in
§1601.28(b)(2); and to the respondent. Appropriate notices of right to sue shall be
issued pursuant to §1601.28.
(c) The Commission hereby delegates authority to District Directors; the Director of
the Office of Field Programs, or upon delegation, the Director of Field Management
Programs, as appropriate, to dismiss charges, as limited by §1601.21(d). The
Commission hereby delegates authority to Field Directors, Area Directors and Local
Directors to dismiss charges pursuant to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this section, as
limited by §1601.21(d). The authority of the Commission to reconsider decisions and
determinations as set forth in §1601.21 (b) and (d) shall be applicable to this section.
29 CFR § 1601.19 No cause determinations: Procedure and authority.
(a) Where the Commission completes its investigation of a charge and finds that there
is not reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice has occurred
or is occurring as to all issues addressed in the determination, the Commission shall
issue a letter of determination to all parties to the charge indicating the finding. The
Commission's letter of determination shall be the final determination of the
Commission. The letter of determination shall inform the person claiming to be
aggrieved or the person on whose behalf a charge was filed of the right to sue in
Page 3 of 59

4. Federal district court within 90 days of receipt of the letter of determination. . .
(b) The Commission may on its own initiative reconsider a final determination of no
reasonable cause and an issuing director may, on his or her own initiative reconsider
his or her final determination of no reasonable cause. If the Commission or an issuing
director decides to reconsider a final no cause determination, a notice of intent to
reconsider shall promptly issue to all parties to the charge. If such notice of intent to
reconsider is issued within 90 days of receipt of the final no cause determination, and
the person claiming to be aggrieved or the person on whose behalf a charge was filed
has not filed suit and did not request and receive a notice of right to sue pursuant to
§1601.28(a) (1) or (2), the notice of intent to reconsider shall vacate the letter of
determination and shall revoke the charging party's right to bring suit within 90 days.
If the 90 day suit period has expired, the charging party has filed suit, or the charging
party had requested a notice of right to sue pursuant to §1601.28(a) (1) or (2), the
notice of intent to reconsider shall vacate the letter of determination, but shall not
revoke the charging party's right to sue in 90 days. After reconsideration, the
Commission or issuing director shall issue a new determination. In those
circumstances where the charging party's right to bring suit in 90 days was revoked,
the determination shall include notice that a new 90 day suit period shall begin upon
the charging party's receipt of the determination. Where a member of the Commission
has filed a Commissioner charge, he or she shall abstain from making a
determination in that case.
29 CFR § 1601.21 REASONABLE CAUSE DETERMINATION: PROCEDURE AND AUTHORITY.
(a) After completing its investigation, where the Commission has not settled or
dismissed a charge or made a no cause finding as to every allegation addressed in the
determination under §1601.19, the Commission shall issue a determination that
reasonable cause exists to believe that an unlawful employment practice has occurred
or is occurring under title VII, the ADA, or GINA. A determination finding reasonable
cause is based on, and limited to, evidence obtained by the Commission and does not
reflect any judgment on the merits of allegations not addressed in the determination.
(b) The Commission shall provide prompt notification of its determination under
paragraph (a) of this section to the person claiming to be aggrieved, the person making
the charge on behalf of such person, if any, and the respondent, or in the case of a
Commissioner charge, the person named in the charge or identified by the Commission
in the third party certificate, if any, and the respondent. The Commission may,
however, on its own initiative reconsider its decision or the determination of any of its
designated officers who have authority to issue Letters of Determination, Except that
the Commission will not reconsider determinations of reasonable cause previously
issued against a government, governmental entity or political subdivision after a failure
of conciliation as set forth in §1601.25.
(1) In cases where the Commission decides to reconsider a dismissal or a
determination finding reasonable cause to believe a charge is true, a notice of intent
to reconsider will promptly issue. If such notice of intent to reconsider is issued within
90 days from receipt of a notice of right to sue and the charging party has not filed suit
and did not receive a notice of right to sue pursuant to §1601.28(a)(1) or (2), the
notice of intent to reconsider will vacate the dismissal or letter of determination and
revoke the notice of right to sue. If the 90 day period has expired, the charging party
has filed suit, or the charging party had requested a notice of right to sue pursuant to
§1601.28(a)(1) or (2), the notice of intent to reconsider will vacate the dismissal or
letter of determination, but will not revoke the notice of right to sue. After
reconsideration the Commission will issue a determination anew. In those
circumstances where the notice of right to sue has been revoked, the Commission will,
in accordance with §1601.28, issue a notice of right to sue anew which will provide the
Page 4 of 59

5. charging party with 90 days within which to bring suit.
(2) The Commission shall provide prompt notification of its intent to reconsider,
which is effective upon issuance, and its final decision after reconsideration to the
person claiming to be aggrieved, the person making the charge on behalf of such
person, if any, and the respondent, or in the case of a Commissioner charge, the person
named in the charge or identified by the Commissioner in the third-party certificate, if
any, and the respondent.
(c) Where a member of the Commission has filed a Commissioner charge, he or she
shall abstain from making a determination in that case.
(d) The Commission hereby delegates to District Directors, or upon delegation, Field
Directors, Area Directors or Local Directors; and the Director of the Office of Field
Programs, or upon delegation, the Director of Field Management Programs, the
authority, except in those cases involving issues currently designated by the
Commission for priority review, upon completion of an investigation, to make a
determination finding reasonable cause, issue a cause letter of determination and serve
a copy of the determination upon the parties. Each determination issued under this
section is final when the letter of determination is issued. However, the Director of the
Office of Field Programs, or upon delegation, the Director of Field Management
Programs; each District Director; each Field Director; each Area Director and each
Local Director, for the determinations issued by his or her office, may on his or her
own initiative reconsider such determinations, except that such directors may not
reconsider determinations of reasonable cause previously issued against a government,
governmental agency or political subdivision after a failure of conciliation as set forth
in §1601.25.
(1) In cases where the issuing Director decides to reconsider a dismissal or a
determination finding reasonable cause to believe a charge is true, a notice of intent to
reconsider will promptly issue. If such notice of intent to reconsider is issued within 90
days from receipt of a notice of right to sue and the charging party has not filed suit
and did not request a notice of right to sue pursuant to §1601.28(a)(1) or (2), the notice
of intent to reconsider will vacate the dismissal or letter of determination and revoke
the notice of right to sue. If the 90 day period has expired, the charging party has filed
suit, or the charging party had received a notice of right to sue pursuant to
§1601.28(a)(1) or (2), the notice of intent to reconsider will vacate the dismissal or
letter of determination, but will not revoke the notice of right to sue. After
reconsideration the issuing Director will issue a determination anew. In those
circumstances where the notice of right to sue has been revoked, the issuing Director
will, in accordance with §1601.28, issue a notice of right to sue anew which will
provide the charging party with 90 days within which to bring suit.
(2) When the issuing Director does reconsider, he or she shall provide prompt
notification of his or her intent to reconsider, which is effective upon issuance, and
final decision after reconsideration to the person claiming to be aggrieved, the person
making the charge on behalf of such person, if any, and the respondent, or in the
charge or identified by the Commissioner in the third party certificate, if any, and the
respondent.
(e) In making a determination as to whether reasonable cause exists, substantial
weight shall be accorded final findings and orders made by designated FEP agencies
to which the Commission defers charges pursuant to §1601.13. For the purposes of
this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) “Final findings and orders” shall mean:
Page 5 of 59

6. (i) The findings of fact and order incident thereto issued by a FEP agency on the
merits of a charge; or
(ii) The consent order or consent decree entered into by the FEP agency on the merits
of a charge.
Provided, however, That no findings and order of a FEP agency shall be considered
final for purposes of this section unless the FEP agency shall have served a copy of
such findings and order upon the Commission and upon the person claiming to be
aggrieved and shall have informed such person of his or her rights of appeal or to
request reconsideration, or rehearing or similar rights; and the time for such appeal,
reconsideration, or rehearing request shall have expired or the issues of such appeal,
reconsideration or rehearing shall have been determined.
(2) “Substantial weight” shall mean that such full and careful consideration shall be
accorded to final findings and orders, as defined above, as is appropriate in light of the
facts supporting them when they meet all of the prerequisites set forth below:
(i) The proceedings were fair and regular; and
(ii) The practices prohibited by the State or local law are comparable in scope to the
practices prohibited by Federal law; and
(iii) The final findings and order serve the interest of the effective enforcement of title
VII, the ADA, or GINA: Provided, That giving substantial weight to final findings and
orders of a FEP agency does not include according weight, for purposes of applying
Federal law, to such Agency's conclusions of law.
1. In the interest of justice and preservation of protected statutory rights,
Newsome objects to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's violations of
laws which have deprived her rights secured under Title VII, Code of Federal
Regulations, Administrative Procedure Act, United States Constitution, Ohio Civil
Rights, and other statutes/laws of Ohio and United States of America governing said
matters.
2. Newsome hereby request RECONSIDERATION of Dismissal and Notice
of Rights, in that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has committed
ERROR in the handling of this Charge and has DEPRIVED Newsome of rights
statutorily guaranteed under the laws of Ohio and United States of America. Copies of
May 31, 2012 Letter with the Dismissals and Notices of Rights for Respondents The
Garretson Firm Resolution Group Inc. and Messina Staffing/Messina Management
Systems are respectively attached hereto as EXHIBITS “A” and “B” and are
incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.
3. On or about April 30, 2012, Newsome submitted her “Official
Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” which consisted of approximately 196 Pages
and 86 Exhibits - a copy of which may be viewed/received at:
http://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a70628a5b6271a86f9f
4. Newsome's “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” consisted of
approximately 109 NUMBERED Issues Raised and include Sections entitled: (I)
Page 6 of 59

7. Violation of Statute, (II) Purpose of Title VII, (III) Pattern Of Discrimination, (IV)
Unlawful Employment Termination/Wrongful Discharge, (V) Harassment, (VI) Hostile,
(VII) Retaliation, (VIII) Pretext/Bad Faith, (IX) Statistics/Disparate Treatment, (X)
Employment-At-Will/Protected Activity, (XI) Public Policy, (XII) Pretext, (XIII)
Conspiracy, (XIV) Systematic Discrimination, (XV) Employer Liability, and (XVI)
Relief Sought.
5. Newsome's “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” on its face
and/or amplified by the statements contained therein is supported by facts, evidence
and legal conclusions to sustain the charges made therein as well as the relief sought for
the injuries/harm sustained by Newsome.
6. Newsome's “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” meets the
pleading requirements as required by statutes/laws governing said matters and,
therefore, state claims upon which the relief sought by Newsome is to be GRANTED!
However, based upon the arbitrary and capricious acts of the Equal Employment
Commission and the Ohio Civil Rights Commission in the handling of Newsome's
“Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” thus far, have subjected Newsome to
irreparable injury/harm and is attempting to deprive her of statutory rights
GUARANTEED under the laws of the State of Ohio as well as United States of
America.
7. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ERRED in its dismissal
of Newsome's “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” and issuance of
"Dismissal and Notice of Rights."
8. The Ohio Civil Rights Commission ERRED in its FAILURE to receive
and prosecute Newsome's “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” alleging
that it was UNTIMELY filed - i.e. in that it was TIMELY filed in accordance with the
statutes/laws governing said matters. Newsome having submitted her “Official
Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission with 240
days permissible under the laws for Charges filed in a "DEFERRAL" state as Ohio.
9. At the time Newsome submitted her “Official Complaint/Charge Of
Discrimination” she timely, properly and adequately requested that COMMISSIONER
Charge to issue.
10. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ERRED in committed
UNLAWFUL/ILLEGAL acts when its submitted Newsome with "Charges of
Discrimination" in that a reasonable person/mind, based upon the actions taken may
conclude that the EEOC drafted "Charges of Discrimination" with WILLFUL,
MALICIOUS and WANTON intent to evade having to address the ISSUES raised in
Newsome's “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination.” Nevertheless, the EEOC
was disappointed when Newsome made the CRITICAL and NECESSARY corrections
to Charges of Discrimination INCORPORATING her “Official Complaint/Charge Of
Discrimination” which CLEARLY preserved her rights as well as ADEQUATELY
supports what ISSUES were before the EEOC at the time of issuance of "Dismissal and
Notice of Rights." For further, purposes of preserving ISSUES, evidence and concerns
of the EEOC's engagement in SYSTEMATIC CRIMINAL/CIVIL wrongs leveled
AGAINST Newsome in the handling of “Official Complaint/Charge Of
Page 7 of 59

8. Discrimination” Newsome incorporates by reference as if set forth in full herein, her
April 30, 2012 Cover Letter accompanying “Official Complaint/Charge Of
Discrimination” http://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a70628a5b6271a86f9f
as well as Newsome's May 24, 2012 "Response To Letter of May 8, 2012 From
Derwin E. Jamison" which is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full
herein and may be obtained from: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/052412-response-
to-eeoc-letter-of-050812
11. The EEOC has statutory authority to reconsider its "Dismissal and Notice
of Rights" issued in this matter and to assure that it has been issued in good faith and
not for ILL purposes/motives.
12. Pursuant to the statutes/laws governing said matters, the EEOC failed to
perform a MANDATORY ministerial duties OWED under statute(s) to address ALL
issues raised in “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” and subsequent
"Response To Letter of May 8, 2012 From Derwin E. Jamison." Therefore, a
reasonable person/mind may conclude that the EEOC's acts are arbitrary and
capricious.
13. The EEOC ERRED in its FAILURE to issue a "Letter of
Determination" setting forth the findings of fact and conclusion of law required by
STATUTE(s) governing said matters. Therefore, through this instant pleading,
Newsome OBJECTS to said failure and is DEMANDING that the EEOC issue "Letter
of Determination" in accordance with the statutes/laws governing said matters (i.e.
which FIRST requires deferral of matter to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission). In
other words, the EEOC was WITHOUT authority to issue the "Dismissal and Notice of
Rights" in that it with DELIBERATE, MALICIOUS and CRIMINAL intent FAILED
to defer Newsome's “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” to the Ohio Civil
Rights Commission as MANDATORILY required by STATUTE!
14. While the EEOC's Director may act on his/her own initiative to
RECONSIDER his/her final determination of no reasonable cause, Newsome submits
this instant pleading in that the record evidence as well as the EEOC's SYSTEMATIC
discriminatory practices and PATTERN-OF-DISCRIMINATORY practices in the
handling of charges brought by Newsome warranted Newsome taking the
NECESSARY steps in the PRESERVATION of the issues raised and
PRESERVATION of Newsome's rights secured and guaranteed by STATUTES/LAWS
governing said matters.
15. In accordance with the Statutes/Laws governing said matters, Newsome
request that the EEOC issue the REQUIRED "Notice of Intent to Reconsider"
promptly!
16. Newsome believes that a reasonable mind may conclude that the
EEOC's/Wilma Javey with DELIBERATE, MALICIOUS and CRIMINAL intent
FAILED to file the REQUIRED Commissioner Charge requested by Newsome which
would clearly PRECLUDE the issuance of the "Dismissal and Notice of Rights"
executed. In so doing, the EEOC DEPRIVED Newsome of protected rights
secured/guaranteed by statutes/laws governing said matters.
Page 8 of 59

9. 17. The EEOC ERRED in USURPATION of authority as well as ABUSE of
Authority in the handling of Newsome's “Official Complaint/Charge Of
Discrimination.” Furthermore, the record evidence supports that the EEOC FAILED
to provide "finding as to every allegation addressed in Newsome's “Official
Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” and subsequent "Response To Letter of May
8, 2012 From Derwin E. Jamison."
29 CFR § 1601.8 WHERE TO MAKE A CHARGE:
A charge may be made in person or by mail at any office of the Commission or with
any designated representative of the Commission . . .
29 CFR § 1601.9 FORM OF CHARGE:
A charge shall be in writing and signed and shall be verified.
29 CFR § 1601.12 CONTENTS OF CHARGE; AMENDMENT OF CHARGE:
(a) Each charge should contain the following:
(1) The full name, address and telephone number of the person making the charge
except as provided in §1601.7;
(2) The full name and address of the person against whom the charge is made, if
known (hereinafter referred to as the respondent);
(3) A clear and concise statement of the facts, including pertinent dates, constituting
the alleged unlawful employment practices: See §1601.15(b);
(4) If known, the approximate number of employees of the respondent employer or the
approximate number of members of the respondent labor organization, as the case may
be; and
(5) A statement disclosing whether proceedings involving the alleged unlawful
employment practice have been commenced before a State or local agency charged
with the enforcement of fair employment practice laws and, if so, the date of such
commencement and the name of the agency.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, a charge is
sufficient when the Commission receives from the person making the charge a written
statement sufficiently precise to identify the parties, and to describe generally the
action or practices complained of. A charge may be amended to cure technical defects
or omissions, including failure to verify the charge, or to clarify and amplify
allegations made therein. Such amendments and amendments alleging additional acts
which constitute unlawful employment practices related to or growing out of the
subject matter of the original charge will relate back to the date the charge was first
received. A charge that has been so amended shall not be required to be redeferred.
18. The record evidence will support that Newsome submitted TIMELY
filing of “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” to the Equal Employment
Page 9 of 59

10. Opportunity Commission and Ohio Civil Rights Commission. Therefore, meeting the
pleading requirements as to "WHERE TO MAKE A CHARGE."
19. Newsome's “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” CLEARLY
meets the pleading requirements for "FORM OF CHARGE" and present ISSUES,
provides facts, evidence and legal conclusions to sustain the Complaint/Charge and was
presented in "TYPEWRITTEN" form.
20. Newsome's “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” meets the
pleading requirements for the "CONTENTS OF CHARGE" in that in contains: (1) The
full name, address and telephone number of the person making the charge; (2) The full
name and address of the person against whom the charge is made, if known; (3) A clear
and concise statement of the facts, including pertinent dates, constituting the alleged
unlawful employment practices; (4) If known, the approximate number of employees of
the respondent employer or the approximate number of members of the respondent; and
(5) A statement disclosing whether proceedings involving the alleged unlawful
employment practice have been commenced before a State or local agency charged
with the enforcement of fair employment practice laws and, if so, the date of such
commencement and the name of the agency.
21. Newsome’s “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” clearly set
forth belief that “DISCRIMINATION BASED ON: (1) Race; (2) Age; (3) Retaliation;
(4) Other – knowledge of engagement in protected activity(s); and (5) Systematic
Discrimination” – See Page 2.
22. On or about May 8, 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission provided Newsome with a “CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION” for each
of the Respondents (i.e. The Garretson Firm Resolution Group, Inc. and Messina
Staffing/Messina Management Systems).
23. On or about May 9, 2012, the Ohio Civil Rights Commission provided
Newsome with correspondence entitled, “Your Inquiry Regarding Potential Charge of
Discrimination” which stated in part:
"We are in receipt of your letter and voluminous documentation
regarding a potential charge of discrimination against your former
employer, The Garretson Firm Resolution Group, Inc. and Messina
Staffing. As we understand your documentation, you were terminated
from employment on October 21, 2011. We received your
documentation May 2, 2012. The Ohio Civil Rights Act, Ohio Revised
Code Chapter requires that a charge of
4112,
discrimination be filed within six months of the
date of harm and therefore the charge is deemed
untimely for us to pursue.
Your letter to us indicates both the Ohio Civil Rights Commission
and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission received
identical documentation. Charges may be filed with the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 300 days
Page 10 of 59

11. from the date of harm and therefore could be considered timely with
them.
Our agency, the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, is the state
administrative law enforcement agency that administers the Ohio Civil
Rights Act, Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4112, and we are
RESPONSIBLE for INVESTIGATING charges
of race, color, sex, national origin, military status,
disability, age and religion discrimination in the
areas of employment, housing, public accommodation. . .
Although we have NO jurisdictional authority to investigate this
matter, we do want you to know we received and carefully read the
materials you provided.
If in the future you believe that you are a victim of discrimination that
falls under our jurisdiction, please contact us and ask to speak to an
investigator. . . "
executed by Sandra R. Aukeman/Constituent Services and acting on behalf and with
the APPROVAL of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission’s Executive Director G.
Michael Payton. A copy of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission May 9, 2012 letter is
attached hereto and incorporated by reference as EXHIBIT “B.”
24. As EVIDENCED, the Ohio Civil Rights Commission CONFIRMS its
KNOWLEDGE of Newsome’s submittal of “Official Complaint/Charge Of
Discrimination” to both the OCRC and the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission. Under the STATUTES/LAWS governing said matters, Newsome having
approximately 240 days, instead of the 180 days asserted by the OCRC to file her
State Charge.
Alsup v. International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen of
Toledo, Ohio, Local Union No. 3, 679 F.Supp. 716 (N.D. Ohio W. Div.
1987) - In “deferral states” such as Ohio, where the EEOC defers to
the state agency established to investigate charges of discrimination, an
EEOC charge must be filed within 300 days after the alleged unlawful
act. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(e), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §
2000e-5(f)(1). . .
When a charge of discrimination is submitted to both the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and state agency in a
“deferral state,” the EEOC will not formally file its charge of
discrimination until after the state agency has terminated its
proceedings . . . therefore, state administrative charge of discrimination
must generally be filed within 240 days of the alleged unlawful
practice in order to preserve claimant's right to file a Title VII lawsuit
in federal court. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(e), as amended, 42
U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(f)(1). . . Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807,
814 n. 16, 100 S.Ct. 2486, 2491 n. 16, 65 L.Ed.2d 532 (1980).
Therefore, the OCRC has ERRED in its handling of Newsome’s “Official
Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” and the EEOC is to DEFER this matter to the
Ohio Civil Rights Commission. Furthermore, the EEOC ERRED in its issuance of
“Dismissal and Notice of Rights” in that said failure to defer matter to the OCRC
Page 11 of 59

12. PRECLUDED/PREVENTED the EEOC from issuing “Dismissal and Notice of
Rights.”
25. Ohio Civil Rights Commission (“OCRC”) Executive Director G.
Michael Payton is an ATTORNEY/LAWYER, therefore, Newsome believes that a
reasonable person/mind may conclude that based upon facts, evidence and legal
conclusions presented in this instant pleading as well as “Official Complaint/Charge
Of Discrimination” KNEW and/or should have known that the OCR may have acted
with DELIBERATE, WILLFUL and MALICIOUS intent to provide Newsome with
FALSE and/or MISLEADING information advising that her “Official
Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” filed with the OCRC was UNTIMELY filed.
The laws are clear and/or well settled on said matters regarding TIMELINESS for
bringing actions and what constitutes a rebuttal and WAIVER to claims as that of the
OCRC:
Weise v. Syracuse University, 522 F.2d 524 (2nd Cir. 1975), 33
BNA FEP Cas 544 - Court’s dismissal of complaint based on EEOC’s
dismissal of charge because of supposed untimeliness of
charge was ERROR, since District Court was not bound to
accept EEOC’s determination on question as binding and contrary
holding would make meaningless the right to sue after dismissal by
Commission; while EEOC’s findings are ordinarily entitled to great
weight, it seemed to have MISREAD charge, which clearly alleged
CONTINUING discrimination (which would
make filing TIMELY).
American Finance System, Inc. vs. Harlow, 65 FRD 94 (1974)
– NINETY-Day limitation period is INAPPLICABLE if alleged
discrimination CONTINUES until date claim is brought before the
EEOC; acts of past discrimination can be carried forward by
PRESENT pattern of conduct, but only where
unlawful practices have present and recurring
effect on plaintiff-class representative.
Grohal vs. Stauffer Chemical Co., 385 F.Supp 1267 (1974), 10
BNA FEP Cas 785 – If discrimination complained of is
ONGOING or CONTINUING, statutory time
periods are WAIVED; plaintiff claiming such waiver
should allege some instances of CONTINUING
discrimination in her complaint.
Tyson vs. Sun Refining & Marketing Co, 599 F.Supp 136, 36
EXCEPTION to 180 day
BNA FEP Cas 875 (1984) –
limitations period is made for “CONTINUING
VIOLATION” under which theory plaintiffs
MUST SHOW SERIES of RELATED acts, one
or more of which falls within limitations period, or
Page 12 of 59

13. maintenance of discriminatory system both before
and during limitations period.
Marinelli vs. Chao, 222 F.Supp 2d 402 (2002) – Supreme Court has
abrogated continuing violation doctrine in context of discrimination
claims brought pursuant to Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
USCS §§ 2000e et seq., employing reasoning that would seem to apply
equally to Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Rehabilitation
Act claims.
Austion v. City of Clarksville, 244 Fed.Appx. 639 (C.A. 6, 2007) - The
“continuing violations theory” is a specific equitable doctrine that tolls
300-day filing period for discrimination charge. Civil Rights Act of
1964, § 706(e)(1), 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(e)(1).
Newsome’s “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” clearly sets forth
CONTINUING discriminatory/retaliatory practices leveled against her by
Respondents. See Pages 26, 38, 58, 64 66, 69, 105, 135 and 189 supporting Newsome
addressing CONTINUED practices of Respondent(s). Moreover, Pages 12, 28, 55,
68, 74, 79, 81, 116 – 118, 120, 129, 136 and 138 addressing the February 3, 2012
MALICIOUS RETALIATORY Lawsuit filed by The Garretson Firm Resolution
Group, Inc. attempting to deprive Newsome of PROTECTED Rights. A copy of the
Docket Sheet can be viewed/received at:
http://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a70628a5b6271a86f9f
Conspirator becomes the agent of the other conspirator (s), and any act
done by one of the combination is regarded under the law as the act of
both or all. In other words, what one does, if there is this combination,
becomes the act of both or all of them, no matter which individual may
have done it. This is true as to each member of the conspiracy, even
those whose involvement was limited to a minor role in the unlawful
transaction, and it makes no difference whether or not such individual
shared in the profits of the actions. (Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice
Forms, Conspiracy § 9). TACIT AGREEMENT - Occurs when two or
more persons pursue by their acts the same object by the same means.
One person performing one part and the other another part, so that
upon completion they have obtained the object pursued. Regardless
whether each person knew of the details or what part each was to
perform, the end results being they obtained the object pursued.
Agreement is implied or inferred from actions or statements.
26. Newsome’s “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” not only
alleges SYSTEMATIC or SERIAL VIOLATIONS but provides facts, EVIDENCE
and legal conclusions to support same:
Moore vs. San Jose, 615 F.2d 1265 (1980), 22 BNA FEP Cas 1053 –
Pervasive policy of SYSTEMATIC discrimination is CONTINUING
so that charge which alleges
violation of Title VII,
presence of such policy is NOT time-barred.
Kassaye vs. Bryant College, 999 F.2d 603 (1993), 62 BNA FEP Cas
724 - There are two kinds of CONTINUING violations, systematic
and SERIAL; serial violation is number of discriminatory acts
Page 13 of 59

14. emanating from same discriminatory animus, each act constituting
separate wrong actionable under Title VII.
Moore v. City of San Jose, 615 F.2d 1265 (1980) - [18] A pervasive
policy of systematic discrimination is a continuing violation of Title
VII. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 701 et seq. as amended 42 U.S.C.A. §
2000e et seq.
[19] When there has been a pervasive policy of systematic
discrimination, the period of limitations on a suit under Title VII does
not start to run until the time when the policy is discontinued. Civil
Rights Act of 1964, § 706 as amended 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5.
See Paragraphs Nos. 7, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 29, 33, 37, 38, 55, 63, 71, 73, 76, 87, 96, 99, 100;
moreover, Section “XIV. SYSTEMATIC DISCRIMINATION” of “Official Complaint/
Charge Of Discrimination.” http://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a70628a5b6271a86f9f
29 CFR § 1601.28 (3) NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE: PROCEDURE AND AUTHORITY :
. . . (3) Issuance of a notice of right to sue shall terminate further proceeding of any
charge that is not a Commissioner charge unless the District Director; Field
Director; Area Director; Local Director; Director of the Office of Field Programs or
upon delegation, the Director of Field Management Programs; or the General Counsel,
determines at that time or at a later time that it would effectuate the purpose of title
VII, the ADA, or GINA to further process the charge. Issuance of a notice of right to
sue shall not terminate the processing of a Commissioner charge.
(4) The issuance of a notice of right to sue does not preclude the Commission from
offering such assistance to a person issued such notice as the Commission deems
necessary or appropriate.
27. Newsome hereby OBJECTS to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission’s UNLAWFUL/ILLEGAL practices in FAILING to issue the
Commissioner Charge demanded in the “Official Complaint/ Charge Of
Discrimination.”
28. Newsome through this instant filing DEMANDS that the Equal
Employment Opportunity provide her with documentation supporting that Commission
Charge has issued and, if not, why the EEOC has FAILED and/or OBSTRUCTED the
Administration of Justice in the handling of Newsome’s request for Commission
Charge to issue.
29. The RECORD evidence will support that while the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission did KNOWINGLY, WILLINGLY, DELIBERATELY and
MALICIOUSLY attempt to keep Newsome’s “Official Complaint/ Charge Of
Discrimination” out of the “Charges of Discrimination” it provided her, Newsome
made the NECESSARY/CRITICAL corrections and submitted noting reference to
typewritten Complaint/Charge submitted as well as NOTING “SYSTEMATIC”
Discriminatory practices involved. See Newsome’s May 24, 2012 "Response To
Letter of May 8, 2012 From Derwin E. Jamison" – which is incorporated by reference
as if set forth in full herein: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/052412-response-to-
eeoc-letter-of-050812
Page 14 of 59

15. 30. Newsome’s request for Commission Charge to issue does NOT preclude
the Ohio Civil Rights Commission’s duty to perform the ministerial obligations owed
Newsome in the processing and handling of “Official Complaint/ Charge Of
Discrimination.”
II. NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT VIOLATIONS
Morris v. Kaiser Engineers, Inc., 471 N.E.2d 471 (Ohio,1984) - State
filing is a mandatory prerequisite to Age Discrimination in
Employment Act action. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967, § 14, 29 U.S.C.A. § 633.
Piecuch v. Gulf & Western Mfg. Co., 626 F.Supp. 65
(N.D.Ohio.E.Div.,1985) - District court lacked jurisdiction over age
discrimination action, where plaintiff had not filed his charge with
Ohio Civil Rights Commission. Age Discrimination in Employment
Act of 1967, § 14(b), 29 U.S.C.A. § 633(b).
31. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's issuance of
"Dismissal and Notice of Right" WITHOUT deferring Newsome's “Official
Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission has
resulted in Newsome being INJURED/HARMED and deprived rights
secured/guaranteed under the STATUTES/LAWS governing said matters.
32. Newsome's “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” alleges
"AGE" Discrimination; therefore, it is MANDATORY that her Complaint/Charge be
deferred to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission for handling/processing.
33. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ERRED in its issuance
of "Dismissal and Notice of Rights" which asserts that Newsome has 90-Days bring
action in federal court. As a DIRECT and PROXIMATE result and the WILLFUL,
MALICIOUS and WANTON acts of the EEOC to defer matter to the Ohio Civil Rights
Commission, the District Court "LACKS JURISDICTION" to address matter due to the
"AGE" Discrimination issue raised in “Official Complaint/ Charge Of
Discrimination.” Moreover, the OCRC, as a matter of statute/law is
MANDATORILY required to handle/process Newsome's Complaint/Charge. The
OCRC's May 9, 2012, ACKNOWLEDGES receipt of Newsome's “Official Complaint/
Charge Of Discrimination.”
Ramirez v. National Distillers and Chemical Corp., 586 F.2d 1315
(1978) - [4] Where EEOC has failed to refer employment
discrimination charge to state agency as required by Title VII, district
court should retain jurisdiction for period of time sufficient to allow
EEOC to notify appropriate state agency and to allow that agency
statutory deferral period in which to act. Civil Rights Act of 1964, §
706(d) as amended 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(e).
. . .This court has held repeatedly that “where the EEOC has
failed to follow section 2000e-5(c), the district court should retain
jurisdiction for a period of time sufficient to allow the EEOC to notify
the appropriate state agency and to allow that agency the statutory
deferral period in which to act.” (Gallego v. Arthur G. McKee & Co.
Page 15 of 59

16. (9th Cir. 1977) 550 F.2d 456, 457. Cf. EEOC v. Wah Chang Albany
Corp. (9th Cir. 1974) 499 F.2d 187, 189 n.3 (“deferral is not a
jurisdictional fact in the sense that its absence deprives the court of
power to act”).) Moreover, it is doubtful that a procedural error
committed by the EEOC could bar a plaintiff's right to pursue a Title
VII claim. (See Miller v. International Paper Co. (5th Cir. 1969) 408
F.2d 283, 291 (“The action or inaction of the EEOC cannot affect the
grievant's substantive rights under the statute.”); Cf. Gates v. Georgia-
Pacific Corp. (9th Cir. 1974) 492 F.2d 292, 295.) Because the EEOC
eventually did refer Ramirez's amended charge to the appropriate state
agency, the district court erred in dismissing on jurisdictional grounds
the Title VII claim with respect to the 1974 layoff.
Judulang v. Holder, 132 S.Ct. 476 (2011) - When reviewing an agency
action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a court must
assess, among other matters, whether the decision was based on a
consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a
clear error of judgment, which involves examining the reasons for the
agency's decisions or the absence of such reasons. 5 U.S.C.A. §
706(2)(A).
34. A CLEAR error of judgment and issuance of the "Dismissal and Notice of
Rights" which further requires EXAMINATION of the unlawful/illegal practices of the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Moreover, requirement of
COMMISSIONER Charge to ISSUE!
N. L. R. B. v. Enterprise Ass'n of Steam, Hot Water, Hydraulic
Sprinkler, Pneumatic Tube, Ice Mach. and General Pipefitters of New
York and Vicinity, Local Union No. 638, 97 S.Ct. 891 (1977) - When
administrative agency has made error of law, duty of court is to
correct error of law committed by that body and after doing so to
remand case to the agency so as to afford it opportunity of examining
evidence and finding facts as required by law.
Federal Power Commission v. Idaho Power Co., 73 S.Ct. 85 (1952) -
On review of order of Federal Power Commission, the function of the
reviewing court ends when an error of law is laid bare and at that point
the matter once more goes to the Commission for reconsideration.
Federal Power Act, § 313(b), as amended, 16 U.S.C.A. § 825 l(b).
35. Newsome further PRESERVES issues and EVIDENCE of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission's and Ohio Civil Rights Commission's
KNOWLEDGE of their ERRORS being timely, properly and adequately brought to
their attention.
36. Newsome further PRESERVES through the filing of this instant pleading
the ISSUES raised herein. Moreover, that under the statutes/laws governing said
matters, Newsome hereby TIMELY, PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY make known
that rulings from the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission contain FINDINGS OF FACT and CONCLUSION OF LAW
to support the decisions rendered. Moreover, to support that ALL issues raised in
“Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” have been addressed.
Page 16 of 59

17. 37. Newsome believes that the RECORD evidence will support that
NEITHER the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission NOR the Ohio Civil
Rights Commission handled Newsome's “Official Complaint/ Charge Of
Discrimination” in compliance with the statutes/laws governing said matters and,
therefore, as a direct and proximate result of said FAILURE have subjected Newsome
to injury/harm and deprived her rights secured/guaranteed under the statutes/laws
governing said matters.
38. Newsome believes that the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission's handling of Newsome's “Official Complaint/
Charge Of Discrimination” will support ARBITRARY and CAPRICIOUS acts for ill
purposes and to cause her injury/harm PROHIBITED by statutes/laws governing said
matters.
39. Newsome believes that the record evidence will support "CLEAR and
PREJUDICIAL violation of applicable statutes and regulations" by the Ohio Civil
Rights Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the
handling of Newsome's “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination.”
40. Newsome believes that the record EVIDENCE supports that she has been
INJURED/HARM by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's FAILURE to
defer matter to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission as well as provide "Findings of Fact
and Conclusion of Law" to support the "Dismissal and Notice of Rights;" moreover, the
EEOC's FAILURE to request the COMMISSIONER Charge to ISSUE as demanded in
Newsome's “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” and subsequent May 24,
2012 "Response To Letter of May 8, 2012 From Derwin E. Jamison."
41. Newsome believes that the record EVIDENCE supports her INTERESTS
that sought to be vindicated are arguably WITHIN "ZONE of INTEREST" and are
ISSUES and rights PROTECTED by statutes/laws in question and set forth in “Official
Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” and subsequent "Response To Letter of May
8, 2012 From Derwin E. Jamison."
Kroger Co. v. Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson
County, 286 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2002) - Under the arbitrary or
capricious standard of review under the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA), the party challenging the agency's action must show that the
action had no rational basis or that it involved a clear and prejudicial
violation of applicable statutes or regulations, and if there is any
evidence to support the agency's decision, the agency's determination is
not arbitrary or capricious. 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 701 et seq., 706(2)(A).
Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Dept. of Labor
v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co., 115 S.Ct. 1278
(U.S.,1995) - Litigant challenging agency action is required to show, at
outset of case, that he is injured in fact by agency action and that
interest he seeks to vindicate is arguably within zone of interests to be
protected by statute in question. 5 U.S.C.A. § 702.
Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 110 S.Ct. 3177 (1990) - In order
to obtain judicial review under the general review provisions of the
Administrative Procedure Act, the person claiming right to sue must
identify some agency action that affects him in specified fashion and
Page 17 of 59

18. must show that he has suffered legal wrong because of the challenged
agency action or is adversely affected or aggrieved by that action
within the meaning of a relevant statute. 5 U.S.C.A. § 702.
Center For Biological Diversity v. Lueckel, 417 F.3d 532 (6th Cir.
2005) - To obtain judicial review under Administrative Procedure Act
(APA), plaintiff's complaint must relate to agency action or failure to
act, and plaintiff must have suffered either legal wrong or injury falling
within zone of interests sought to be protected by statute on which
complaint is based. 5 U.S.C.A. § 551 et seq.
Federal Power Com'n v. Colorado Interstate Gas Co., 75 S.Ct. 467
(1955) - Section of Administrative Procedure Act defining scope of
review applies only to situations where question at issue has been
properly presented. Administrative Procedure Act, § 10(e), 5 U.S.C.A.
§ 1009(e).
42. Newsome believes as a direct and proximate result of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission’s FAILURE to comply with the statutes/laws
governing the handling of “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination,” the
EEOC deprived her the MANDATORY deferral of Complaint/Charge to the Ohio Civil
Rights Commission and, therefore, in said deprivation was subjected to BIAS,
DISCRIMINATORY, PREJUDICIAL, and UNLAWFUL/ILLEGAL processing and
handling of her claim. Furthermore, unlawfully/illegally DEPRIVED Newsome of a
STATUTORY right to have matter presented and investigated by the Ohio Civil Rights
Commission. As a direct and proximate result of the EEOC's unlawful/illegal handling
of Newsome's “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” she has suffered and
continues to suffer legal wrongs and SYSTEMATIC discriminatory practices by the
EEOC and those with whom it CONSPIRES to deprive Newsome rights
secured/guaranteed and provided by statutes/laws governing said matters.
43. Newsome believes that as a direct and proximate result of the Ohio Civil
Rights Commission's unlawful/illegal handling of Newsome's “Official Complaint/
Charge Of Discrimination” she has suffered and continues to suffer legal wrongs and
SYSTEMATIC discriminatory practices in the handling of Complaint/Charge by the
OCRC and those with whom it CONSPIRES to deprive Newsome rights
secured/guaranteed and provided by statutes/laws governing said matters.
44. The Ohio Civil Rights Commission FAILURE to handle and prosecute
Newsome's “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” under the
FALSE/FRIVOLOUS argument alleging it was untimely filed: (a) is an injury/harm
rendered by the OCRC AGAINST Newsome which is concrete and particularized in
that Newsome having approximately 240 days to file Complaint/Charge and her
“Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” submitted to the OCRC is well
within the statute of limitations to file. (b) The record evidence supports that there is a
CONNECTION between the action taken by the OCRC and the EEOC to cause
Newsome the injury/harm sustained in efforts of depriving her protected rights that are
within the "zone of interest" for the relief sought. Furthermore, there is a WELL-
ESTABLISHED systematic discriminatory practice by the EEOC in the handling of
Complaints/Charges brought by Newsome. It appears that once the EEOC received
correspondence from the OCRC alleging that Newsome's “Official Complaint/ Charge
Of Discrimination” was untimely filed, the EEOC thought that Newsome would be
Page 18 of 59

19. IGNORANT of the laws and not aware of the CRIMINAL and CIVIL wrongs in the
handling and processing of her Complaint/Charge. To the OCRC's and the EEOC's
disappointment, Newsome sets forth and EXPOSES their DISCRIMINATORY, BIAS
and PREJUDICIAL handling of her “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination.”
(c) Newsome believes that the record evidence will support the likelihood that the
injury/harm she has sustained and continues to sustain in the OCRC's and the EEOC's
handling of Complaint/Charge will be REDRESSED by a FAVORABLE decision of a
court WITHOUT ties/connections and personal/financial/business INTEREST to the
Respondents and those with whom they have conspired to get the EEOC and OCRC to
engage in the unlawful/illegal practices in the handling of Newsome's “Official
Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination.”
Courtney v. Smith, 297 F.3d 455 (6th Cir. Ohio,2002) - For purposes of
judicial review under Administrative Procedure Act (APA), party
cannot be “adversely affected...within the meaning of a relevant
statute” unless the party is within the zone of interest sought to be
protected by that statute. 5 U.S.C.A. § 702. . . .
[4] To satisfy Article III's case-or-controversy requirement,
plaintiff must establish three elements: (1) an injury in fact that is
concrete and particularized; (2) a connection between the injury and the
conduct at issue, in that the injury must be fairly traceable to
defendant's action; and (3) a likelihood that the injury would be
redressed by a favorable decision of the court. U.S.C.A.Const. 3, § 2,
cl. 1
[5] [6] Section 10(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) permits injured parties to obtain judicial review of agency
actions that allegedly violate federal statutes. 5 U.S.C. § 702 (“A
person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely
affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a
relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof.”). A plaintiff
seeking judicial review of agency action under the APA, however,
must not only meet the constitutional requirements of standing, but
must also demonstrate prudential standing. Nat'l Credit Union Admin.
v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 522 U.S. 479, 488, 118 S.Ct. 927, 140
L.Ed.2d 1 (1998) ( NCUA ) (“We have interpreted § 10(a) of the APA
to impose a prudential standing requirement in addition to the
requirement, imposed by Article III of the Constitution, that a plaintiff
have suffered a sufficient injury in fact.”). Prudential standing exists if
the interest that the plaintiff seeks to protect is “arguably within the
zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute ... in
question.” Id. (ellipsis in original) (quoting Ass'n of Data Processing
Serv. Orgs., Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 153, 90 S.Ct. 827, 25 L.Ed.2d
184 (1970)).
Bunten v. Bunten, 710 N.E.2d 757 (Ohio.App.3.Dist.,1998) - Judgment
entry may be general; where findings of fact and conclusions of law
were not specifically requested by party, regularity of proceedings at
trial level will be presumed. Rules Civ.Proc., Rule 52.
Ng Yip Yee v. Barber, 267 F.2d 206 (9th Cir. 1959) - A court may
vacate the findings of an administrative body if not supported by the
evidence or if upon the record as a whole it appears that a mistake
has been made.
Page 19 of 59

20. 45. Newsome believes that the record EVIDENCE further supports and
maintains that this instant pleading as well as “Official Complaint/ Charge Of
Discrimination” and subsequent May 24, 2012 "Response To Letter of May 8, 2012
From Derwin E. Jamison" meets the Constitutional standing, but also demonstrates
"PRUDENTIAL" standing supported by the facts, evidence and legal conclusions
presented in Newsome's pleadings.
46. PRUDENTIAL standing exists in that the interest Newsome seeks to
protect is arguably within the zone of interest to be protected and is regulated by
statutes/laws governing said matters.
47. For purposes of PRESERVATION of the issues set forth in this instant
pleading as well as Newsome's “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” and
subsequent May 24, 2012 "Response To Letter of May 8, 2012 From Derwin E.
Jamison," she is SPECIFICALLY requesting that decisions rendered by the Ohio Civil
Rights Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission be supported
by documented "Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law" as to the issues raised in her
Complaint/Charge and her subsequent filings.
48. Newsome timely, properly and adequately asserts her OBJECTION to the
EEOC's "Dismissal and Notice of Rights" in that it INFRINGES upon Newsome's
rights secured/guaranteed by statutes/laws governing said matters. Moreover, that the
OCRC and the EEOC have ERRED in the handling of Newsome's “Official
Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination.”
49. Because the State of Ohio is a "DEFERRAL" State, the EEOC was
PRECLUDED from rendering its "Dismissal and Notice of Rights." Therefore,
Newsome, timely, properly and adequately OBJECTS to the unlawful/illegal acts of the
EEOC and its efforts to deprive her of rights MANDATED by STATUTE to defer this
matter to the OCRC for handling and processing.
50. The EEOC has ERRED in its unlawful/illegal handling of Newsome's
request to have COMMISSIONER Charge to ISSUE.
51. Newsome through the filing of this instant pleading as well as “Official
Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” and subsequent May 24, 2012 "Response To
Letter of May 8, 2012 From Derwin E. Jamison," PRESERVES the ISSUES
contained within these pleadings/documents. ALL Issues which as required by
statute/law MUST be addressed.
III. REQUEST FOR EEOC’S “WRITTEN” DETERMINATION – FINDINGS OF
FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW, REQUEST FOR “WRITTEN” TITLE VII
INTERPRETATION/OPINION
Page 20 of 59

21. Cleveland v. Posner, 2011 -Ohio- 1370 (Ohio.App.8.Dist., 2011) - For
purposes of determining whether an administrative agency's decision is
supported by substantial, reliable, and probative evidence, “reliable
evidence” is dependable; that is, it can be confidently trusted.
Sarr v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 354 (6th Cir. 2007) - Court of Appeals must
sustain an administrative decision if that determination is supported by
reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record
considered as a whole.
Coalition for Government Procurement v. Federal Prison Industries,
Inc., 365 F.3d 435 (6th Cir. 2004) - If there is any evidence to support
agency's decision, agency's determination is not arbitrary or
capricious. . . .
Deferential judicial review of agency action under
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) does not relieve agency of its
obligation to develop evidentiary basis for its findings. 5 U.S.C.A. §
551 et seq.
52. This instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” is presented for purposes of
PRESERVING the issues raised in Newsome's “Official Complaint/ Charge Of
Discrimination” and subsequent May 24, 2012 "Response To Letter of May 8, 2012
From Derwin E. Jamison."
53. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has ERRED in the
handling of Newsome's “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” and
subsequent May 24, 2012 "Response To Letter of May 8, 2012 From Derwin E.
Jamison."
54. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has ERRED in its
FAILURE to defer Newsome's “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” to
the Ohio Civil Rights Commission.
55. Through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” Newsome TIMELY,
PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY presents and PRESERVES the ISSUE that the
decision(s) by the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission MUST be supported by substantial, reliable and probative
EVIDENCE.
56. The STATUTES/LAWS governing said matters will support that the
Ohio Civil Rights Commission has JURISDICTION to handle and process Newsome's
“Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination.” Furthermore, the OCRC
ACKNOWLEDGES receipt of Newsome's “Official Complaint/ Charge Of
Discrimination” which may save COSTS/EXPENSES in having to reproduce what the
OCRC has addressed as "VOLUMINOUS."
57. The Ohio Civil Rights Commission advised Newsome that it is in receipt
of, "letter and voluminous documentation regarding a potential charge of discrimination
against your former employer, The Garretson Firm Resolution Group, Inc. and Messina Staffing."
Therefore, a reasonable person/mind may conclude that Newsome's Official Complaint/ Charge
Of Discrimination” is supported by substantial, reliable and probative EVIDENCE!
Page 21 of 59

22. 58. The record evidence further supports that the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission's unlawful/illegal and BIAS, PREJUDICIAL, and
DISCRIMINATORY handling of Newsome's Official Complaint/ Charge Of
Discrimination.”
59. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's handling of
Newsome's Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” is arbitrary and
capricious.
60. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's FAILURE to defer
Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission
as MANDATORILY required by statute/law is arbitrary and capricious.
61. The Ohio Civil Rights Commission's in failure to handle and process
Newsome's Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” alleging it was untimely
filed is ARBITRARY and CAPRICIOUS! Newsome's Complaint/Charge was filed
WELL within the 240 Days required to bring action with the Ohio Civil Rights
Commission.
62. The Ohio Civil Rights Commission FAILED to present any evidence that
Newsome's Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” was untimely filed
although it ACKNOWLEDGES, "Your letter to us indicates both the Ohio Civil Rights
Commission and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission received
identical documentation." See EXHIBIT "C" attached hereto and incorporated by
reference as if set forth in full herein.
29 CFR § 1601.15(b) INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY:
(a) The investigation of a charge shall be made by the Commission, its investigators, or
any other representative designated by the Commission. During the course of such
investigation, the Commission may utilize the services of State and local agencies
which are charged with the administration of fair employment practice laws or
appropriate Federal agencies, and may utilize the information gathered by such
authorities or agencies. As part of each investigation, the Commission will accept any
statement of position or evidence with respect to the allegations of the charge which
the person claiming to be aggrieved, the person making the charge on behalf of such
person, if any, or the respondent wishes to submit.
(b) As part of the Commission's investigation, the Commission may require the person
claiming to be aggrieved to provide a statement which includes:
(1) A statement of each specific harm that the person has suffered and the date on
which each harm occurred;
(2) For each harm, a statement specifying the act, policy or practice which is alleged
to be unlawful;
(3) For each act, policy, or practice alleged to have harmed the person claiming to be
aggrieved, a statement of the facts which lead the person claiming to be aggrieved to
believe that the act, policy or practice is discriminatory.
Page 22 of 59

23. (c) The Commission may require a fact-finding conference with the parties prior to a
determination on a charge of discrimination. The conference is primarily an
investigative forum intended to define the issues, to determine which elements are
undisputed, to resolve those issues that can be resolved and to ascertain whether there
is a basis for negotiated settlement of the charge.
(d) The Commission's authority to investigate a charge is not limited to the procedures
outlined in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section.
63. The record evidence will support that Newsome's “Official Complaint/
Charge Of Discrimination” and subsequent May 24, 2012 "Response To Letter of
May 8, 2012 From Derwin E. Jamison" present ISSUES and are supported by
STATEMENT of EACH specific harm asserted by Newsome. Therefore, Newsome is
demanding that the decision(s) of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission contain “Findings of Fact and Conclusion of
Law” to sustain ruling/decision.
64. Newsome's “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” and
subsequent May 24, 2012 "Response To Letter of May 8, 2012 From Derwin E.
Jamison" raises the ISSUES and provides STATEMENTS specifying the act, policy or
practice which is alleged to be unlawful. Moreover, act, policy or practice with
supports Newsome's “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” and subsequent
May 24, 2012 "Response To Letter of May 8, 2012 From Derwin E. Jamison."
65. Newsome's “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” sets forth
the "FACTS OF THIS COMPLAINT" which supports the relief she seeks therein.
66. Through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” pursuant to the Fourteenth
Amendment of the Constitution, ,Newsome DEMANDS and REQUIRE that the Ohio
Civil Rights Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity provide her a copy
of Respondents' ANSWER to “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” so that
she can exercise her right to CONTEST and/or RESPOND in rebuttal (if elected to do
so).
67. Newsome through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” OBJECTS to the
unlawful/illegal, BIAS, PREJUDICIAL and DISCRIMINATORY handling of the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s handling of “Official Complaint/
Charge Of Discrimination.”
68. While the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission/Wilma Javey
advised Newsome regarding Charges filed against Respondents - The Garretson Firm
Resolution Group Inc. and Messina Staffing/Messina Management Systems – which
stated in part:
“We have completed a careful review of the charge of employment
discrimination that you filed against The Garretson Firm
Resolution Group, Inc. (Charge No. 473-2012-00832). Our review
included the assessment of all the information you offered.
As a result of our careful review of the charge you filed, we have
decided to STOP PROCESSING the charge. Our review of the
available evidence reflects that your age and race had no bearing on
Page 23 of 59

24. your termination. There is also NO evidence that indicates you were
retaliated against. There is NO indication that further investigation
will result in a finding of a violation. . . .”
“We have completed a careful review of the charge of employment
discrimination that you filed against Messina Staffing & Messina
Management Systems (Charge No. 473-2012-00837). Our review
included the assessment of all the information you offered.
As a result of our careful review of the charge you filed, we have
decided to STOP PROCESSING the charge. Our review of the
available evidence reflects that your age and race had no bearing on
your termination. There is also NO evidence that indicates you were
retaliated against. There is NO indication that further investigation
will result in a finding of a violation. . . .”
and provided Dismissal and Notice of Rights which states in part:
DISMISSAL AND NOTICE OF RIGHTS: “The EEOC issues the
following determination: Based upon its investigation, the EEOC is
unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes
violations of the statutes. This does NOT certify that the respondent
is in compliance with the statutes. NO finding is made as to ANY
other issues that might be construed as having been raised by this
charge.”
UNMARKED Box: “The EEOC has adopted the findings of the
state or local fair employment practices agency that investigated this
charge.”
this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” is hereby served on the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission and Ohio Civil Rights Commission for providing
EVIDENCE of the PRESERVATION of the issues contained herein and those raised
in “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” and subsequent May 24, 2012
"Response To Letter of May 8, 2012 From Derwin E. Jamison."
Newsome believes that the DELIBERATE and WILLFUL act of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission’s FAILURE to mark the Box stating, “The
EEOC has adopted the findings of the state or local fair employment practices
agency that investigated this charge” further supports that it KNEW and/or should
have KNOWN of the MANDATORY requirement and/or statute to defer “Official
Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission.
69. Newsome through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” TIMELY,
PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY presents her OBJECTIONS to the unlawful/illegal
handling and processing of “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” by the
Ohio Civil Rights Commissions and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
70. There is NO probative EVIDENCE to support the Ohio Civil Rights
Commission’s assertion that Newsome’s “Official Complaint/ Charge Of
Discrimination” was untimely filed.
Page 24 of 59

25. Gladieux v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 728 N.E.2d 459 (Ohio.App.10.Dist.
1999) - “Probative evidence” in support of determination by
administrative agency is evidence that tends to prove the issue in
question, and is relevant.
71. There is NO probative EVIDENCE to support the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission’s FAILURE to defer matter to the Ohio Civil Rights
Commission as MANDATORILY required by STATUTES/LAWS governing said
matters.
72. Newsome through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” hereby requires that
the Ohio Civil Rights Commission perform the MINISTERIAL duties owed Newsome
in the handling, processing and investigation of her “Official Complaint/ Charge Of
Discrimination.” Moreover, provide Newsome with its “Findings of Fact and
Conclusion of Law” with any/all decisions rendered in this matter.
Dayton Tavern, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 732 N.E.2d 465
(Ohio.App.2.Dist. 1999) - In reviewing an administrative order,
common pleas court must defer to administrative agency's findings of
fact unless the court finds they are internally inconsistent, impeached
by evidence of a prior inconsistent statement, rest on improper
inferences, or are otherwise unsupportable.
73. In PRESERVATION of Newsome’s rights and PRESERVATION of
ISSUES, this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” is hereby submitted to the Ohio Civil Rights
Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
74. In PRESERVATION OF Newsome’s rights and PRESERVATION of
ISSUES, Newsome states that there is NO credible evidence to support the decision of
the Ohio Civil Rights Commission’s failure to prosecute Newsome’s “Official
Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” alleging it was untimely filed. Therefore,
supporting that there is a CLEAR ERROR in judgment by the OCRC!
Wurzelbacher v. Colerain Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 663 N.E.2d 713
(Ohio.App.1.Dist.Hamilton.Co.,1995) - When party claims that
evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support administrative
decision, Court of Appeals is . . . to determine whether there is any
competent, credible evidence to support administrative decision.
L.P. Cavett Co. v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 892 F.Supp. 973
(S.D.Ohio.W.Div.,1995) - Court reviewing agency decision should
examine whether decision was based on consideration of relevant
factors and whether there has been clear error of judgment. 5 U.S.C.A.
§ 706(2)(A).
Conley v. National Mines Corp., 595 F.3d 297 (6th Cir. 2010) - . . .
factual determinations must be upheld if they are supported by
substantial evidence in the administrative record, and the decision as a
whole must be affirmed if the . . . decision was rational, supported by
substantial evidence in the record, and consistent with controlling law.
75. Newsome through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” timely, properly and
adequately request that the Ohio Civil Rights Commission provide her with its
Page 25 of 59

26. “Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law” to support that Newsome’s “Official
Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” was untimely filed. MERE
“verbal/typewritten” assertion of untimely filing is NOT sufficient in that Newsome
has presented facts, evidence and legal conclusion to sustain the acts of the Ohio Civil
Rights Commission being arbitrary and/or capricious.
76. Newsome through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” timely, properly and
adequately request that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission provide
provide her with its “Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law” to support its
“FAILURE to defer ‘Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination’ to the Ohio
Civil Rights Commission.” Newsome further believes that the facts, evidence and
legal conclusion supporting this instant filing sustains the EEOC’s handling of
“Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” is arbitrary and capricious.
Moreover, in keeping of its SYSTEMATIC discriminatory and SYSTEMATIC
criminal/civil violations leveled against Newsome.
National Cotton Council of America v. U.S. E.P.A., 553 F.3d 927 (6th
Cir. 2009) - When conducting review under the Administrative
Procedure Act's (APA) “arbitrary and capricious” standard, the
reviewing court ensures that the agency examined the relevant data
and articulated a satisfactory explanation for its action including a
rational connection between the facts and the choice made. 5
U.S.C.A. § 706(2)(A).
77. This instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” is submitted for purposes of preserving
the ISSUES of Newsome’s “Request for EEOC's 'WRITTEN' Determination -
Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law and Request for 'WRITTEN' Title VII
Interpretation/Opinion” as well as her formal/official request that the Ohio Civil
Rights Commission provide its “Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law” that it relied
upon and alleging that Newsome’s “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination”
was untimely filed.
Alliance for Community Media v. F.C.C., 529 F.3d 763 (6th Cir. 2008) -
Courts deem agency action to be arbitrary and capricious if the agency
has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider,
entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered
an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before
the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a
difference in view or the product of agency expertise. . .
Agency action is not in accordance with the law when it is in
conflict with the language of the statute relied upon by the agency. . . .
Pursuant to arbitrary-and-capricious review of agency action,
a court must canvass the record to determine whether there exists a
rational connection between the facts found and the choice made; upon
conducting this searching inquiry, the court is required to grant
controlling weight to the agency's regulatory activity unless it is plainly
erroneous or inconsistent with the underlying statute.
Rapier v. Philpot, 130 S.W.3d 560 (2004) - The filing of exceptions to
a agency's findings of fact and recommendation provides the means for
preserving and identifying issues for review by the agency head; in
turn, filing exceptions is necessary to preserve issues for further judicial
review. . . .
When a party in an administrative hearing fails to file
exceptions to the hearing officer's findings of fact and recommendation,
Page 26 of 59

27. the issues the party can raise on judicial review are limited to those
findings and conclusions contained in the agency head's final order that
differ from those contained in the hearing officer's recommended order.
Gashgai v. Board of Registration in Medicine, 390 A.2d 1080 (1978) -
Courts need to know what an agency has really determined in order to
know even what to review.
78. This instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” further supports that Newsome has
timely, properly and adequately submitted her OBJECTIONS to the Ohio Civil Rights
Commission’s failure to handle and prosecute “Official Complaint/ Charge Of
Discrimination” alleging untimely filing as well as Newsome’s OBJECTIONS to the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s ERROR in failing to defer matter to the
Ohio Civil Rights Commission and VERIFICATION/PROOF of Newsome’s request
for “Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law” to support ALL decisions rendered in
this matter by both the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and EEOC.
Stevens v. Highland Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2005 -Ohio- 2338
(Ohio.App.4.Dist.,2005) - Trial court did not have duty to elaborate as
to how it arrived at decision . . . where state employee did not make
request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. R.C. § 2315.19;
Rules Civ.Proc., Rule 52.
U.S. v. L. A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc., 73 S.Ct. 67 (1952) - Generally,
court should not topple over administrative decisions unless the
administrative body not only has erred but has erred against objection
made at the time appropriate under its practice.
LeBlanc v. E.P.A., 310 Fed.Appx. 770 (6th 2009) - A reviewing court
may not consider arguments that were not previously raised before an
administrative agency under the doctrine of issue exhaustion or the
administrative waiver doctrine.
Wilson Air Center, LLC v. F.A.A., 372 F.3d 807 (6th Cir. 2004) - The
administrative waiver doctrine, commonly referred to as issue
exhaustion, provides that it is inappropriate for courts reviewing
agency decisions to consider arguments not raised before the
administrative agency involved.
Stauffer Laboratories, Inc. v. F.T.C., 343 F.2d 75 (9th Cir. 1965) - [8]
Findings which would satisfy requirements of Federal Rule of
Procedure relating to findings by court in case tried without jury
would satisfy requirements of section of Administrative Procedure Act
requiring that findings of administrative commission include
statement of findings and conclusions as well as reasons or basis
therefor upon all material issues of fact. Administrative Procedure
Act, § 8(b), 5 U.S.C.A. § 1007(b); Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 52, 28
U.S.C.A.
Brown v. Rock Creek Min. Co., Inc., 996 F.2d 812 (6th Cir. 1993) -
Administrative law judge is statutorily obliged to consider all of the
evidence and make findings of fact and conclusions of law which
adequately set forth factual and legal basis for his decision.
Page 27 of 59

28. Brae Corp. v. U.S., 740 F.2d 1023 (1984) - [2] Administrative agency
must consider all critical aspects of problem before it, and must
articulate reasoned explanation for its action, including rational
connection between facts found and choice made.
Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Dept. of
Labor vs. Georgia Congleton, 743 F.2d 428 (6th Cir. 1984) - [1] It is
critical to the appellate review process that administrative law judge
clearly set forth rationale for his findings of fact and conclusions of
law. 5 U.S.C.A. § 557(c)(3)(A).
. . . [1] The ALJ found that the miner worked “well over
twenty-five years” in the coal mines. This finding of fact can be upheld
only if it is supported by substantial evidence. Haywood v. Secretary,
699 F.2d 277 (6th Cir.1983). However, it is critical to the appellate
review process that the ALJ clearly set forth the rationale for his
findings of fact and conclusions of law. Section 557(c)(3)(A) of the
Administrative Procedures Act mandates that “... all decisions shall
include a statement of-(A) findings and conclusions, and the reasons or
basis therefore, on all the material issues of fact, law or discretion
presented on the record ...” (emphasis added). The courts have
respected this requirement by remanding cases where the reasoning for
the ALJ's conclusion is lacking and therefore presents inadequate
information to accommodate a thorough review. See, e.g., Maxey v.
Califano, 598 F.2d 874, 875, 876 (4th Cir.1979); Schaaf v. Mathews,
574 F.2d 157 (3rd Cir.1978); Arnold v. Secretary, 567 F.2d 258 (4th
Cir.1977).
Brown v. Rock Creek Min. Co., Inc., 996 F.2d 812 (6th Cir. 1993) - [4]
Administrative law judge is statutorily obliged to consider all of the
evidence and make findings of fact and conclusions of law which
adequately set forth factual and legal basis for his decision.
. . . In light of this conclusion, we find that we must remand
the case . . An administrative . . . is statutorily obliged “to consider all
of the evidence and make findings of fact and conclusions of law which
adequately set forth the factual and legal basis for his decision.”
Director, OWCP v. Rowe, 710 F.2d 251, 254-55 (6th Cir.1983).FN2
(Emphasis supplied). (Citations omitted).
FN2. See 5 U.S.C. § 557(c)(3)(A) (1977) (The Administrative
Procedure Act requires that an administrative . . . decision be
accompanied by “findings and conclusions, and the reasons or basis
therefor, on all material issues of fact, law or discretion presented on
the record.”) (Emphasis added.); see also 20 C.F.R. § 725.477(b)
(1992); Director, OWCP v. Congleton, 743 F.2d 428, 429 (6th
Cir.1984).
79. Newsome through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” further
request/demand that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission provide her with
documentation setting forth information for Claimants to APPEAL the EEOC’s
“Dismissal and Notice of Rights” when issued in ERROR and/or when Claimants may
want to challenge the EEOC decision. Newsome did NOT receive APPEAL
information advising her of what her rights are to APPEAL the EEOC’s “Dismissal
and Notice of Rights” through the Appeal process. This request is made in GOOD
FAITH and in PRESERVATION of this ISSUE:
29 CFR § 1601.91 REQUEST FOR TITLE VII INTERPRETATION OR OPINION:
Any interested person desiring a written title VII interpretation or opinion
Page 28 of 59

29. from the Commission may make such a request. . . .
29 CFR § 1601.92 CONTENTS OF REQUEST: WHERE TO FILE:
A request for an “opinion letter” shall be in writing, signed by the person
making the request, addressed to the Chairman, Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street, NE., Washington, DC 20507 and
shall contain:
(a) The names and addresses of the person making the request and of other
interested persons.
(b) A statement of all known relevant facts.
(c) A statement of reasons why the Title VII interpretation or opinion
should be issued.
IV. REQUEST FOR DEFERRAL TO THE OHIO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION
Newsome through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” Request for Deferral to the Ohio Civil
Rights Commission sets forth the following:
Alsup v. International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen of
Toledo, Ohio, Local Union No. 3, 679 F.Supp. 716 (N.D. Ohio W. Div.
1987) - In “deferral states” such as Ohio, where the EEOC defers to
the state agency established to investigate charges of discrimination, an
EEOC charge must be filed within 300 days after the alleged unlawful
act. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(e), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §
2000e-5(f)(1). . .
When a charge of discrimination is submitted to both the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and state agency in a
“deferral state,” the EEOC will not formally file its charge of
discrimination until after the state agency has terminated its
proceedings . . . therefore, state administrative charge of discrimination
must generally be filed within 240 days of the alleged unlawful
practice in order to preserve claimant's right to file a Title VII lawsuit
in federal court. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(e), as amended, 42
U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(f)(1). . . Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807,
814 n. 16, 100 S.Ct. 2486, 2491 n. 16, 65 L.Ed.2d 532 (1980).
Perazzo v. Top Value Enterprises, Inc., 590 F.Supp. 428
(S.D.Ohio.W.Div.,1984) - Ohio qualified as a deferral state under the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act and, accordingly, 300-day
statutory period would be applied in analyzing timeliness of filing of
complaint. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, §§ 7(d),
14(b), 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 626(d), 633(b).
29 CFR § 1601.13 FILING; DEFERRALS TO STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES
Page 29 of 59