Blagojevich's Illinois Department of Employment Security: Supplement to Appeal

Update: October 3, 2006

I talked to Ms. Efia Goosby, Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES) Supervisor on October 2, 2006 requesting she recuse herself from judging my IDES Appeal. Ms. Goosby refuses to include the Illinois Department of Corrections in my appeal, even though I have persisted in requesting their inclusion because they locked me out from my employment, and that they are the "indirect employer" in this matter. I have also left a message with Ms. Goosby's supervisor Hilda Whittington.

I informed Ms. Goosby one of her line items for discussion in my pre-hearing of September 28, 2006 was "Whether the Administrative Law Judge, Efia Goosby, must disqualify herself from hearing this matter." Ms. Goosby informed me on October 2, 2006 that this issue will be discussed on October 12, 2006 at my "hearing." This is absurd.

Update: September 21, 2006

September 21, 2006

State of Illinois Department of Employment Security
Administrative Hearings
Ms. Efia Goosby, Supervisor
33 South State Street, 8th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60605

Re: Scheduled Pre-Hearing Conference on Docket #DL 59719

Ms. Goosby:

On or about September 18, 2006 I called you regarding the pre-hearing on September 28, 2006 requesting a call back to discuss the consolidation of my case with the individuals who participated in the strike against Gateway Foundation (Gateway), and my bi-weekly unemployment certification.

On September 21, 2006, at approximately 3:35 pm, I called Ms. Hilda Whittington reporting I had not received a call back from you. Ms. Whittington called me back. You called me a few minutes later. You informed me the pre-hearing on September 28, 2006 at 4:00 pm would be a pre-hearing conference to discuss the items to be considered listed on my paperwork. I spoke to you about two issues.

First, about the pre-hearing conference where it is reported my case may be consolidated with the other appeals, which are not similarly situated to my issue, and second, my bi-weekly certification.

On the first issue you informed me you could not speak about the issues being discussed at the conference. I informed you I strongly object to a consolidated hearing with individuals who voluntarily went on strike against Gateway. We are not similarly situated. These individuals participated in a strike where they “voluntarily” walked off their jobs.

According to IDES’ language in their decision denying my unemployment benefits, these individuals are “participating” employees of the strike at Sheridan Correctional Center (Sheridan). Additionally, IDES’ language reports I am a “non-participating” employee locked out from my employment. I was “intentionally” locked out from my employment at Sheridan. Therefore, we are not similarly situated.

In addition, pursuant to the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act (IUIA), §604-Voluntary Leaving, “an individual shall be ineligible for benefits for the week in which he has left work voluntarily….” The individuals who participated in the strike against Gateway walked off their jobs voluntarily. Pursuant to IUIA, §604-Labor Dispute, “For the purpose of disqualification under this Section the term “labor dispute” does not include a lockout by an employer, and no individual shall be denied benefits by reason of a lockout, provided that no individual shall be eligible for benefits during a lockout who is ineligible for benefits under another Section of this Act…This Section shall not apply if it is shown that (A) the individual is not participating in….”

Sections’ 601 and 604 defines and discusses ineligibility. Individual’s who participated in the strike, whether they were locked out or left work voluntarily, are not eligible for unemployment benefits pursuant to Sections’ 601 and 604. I did not voluntarily leave work. I did not a participant in the strike. I was locked out from employment by the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC).

Therefore, my case should not be consolidated with the strikers/participants in the strike.

On the second issue you suggested I wait until the outcome of the hearing. I disagree. On September 11, 2006 I called in to certify for unemployment benefits. This certification was for the weeks covering August 27, 2006 through September 9, 2006. I attempted to challenge the prompts stating I went back to work on September 7, 2006. The prompts would take my request. Therefore, I called my local unemployment office twice on September 11, 2006 and September 12, 2006, leaving a message regarding this issue. I have not received a call back. I informed you I had no other recourse but to alert you to this issue. You informed me you did not know who I should contact other than my local office.

Nevertheless, to avoid the appearance of fraud this is my formal notice to IDES that I am certifying for unemployment benefits for the period of August 27, 2006 through September 6, 2006. You informed me there is no fraud because I have not received any benefits. Therefore, we agreed the issue of fraud is a non-issue because I have not received any benefits.

You also stated you have received my phone number for the telephone pre-hearing conference on September 28, 2006 at 4:00 pm and would be calling me at the designated time. I asked you if I could tape record the pre-hearing conference. You informed me you would be taping the proceedings but I could not. I requested you send me a copy of the legal citations stating I could not tape record the proceedings. You agreed to send me the necessary legal citations before the pre-hearing.

Wherefore, this written statement shall be deemed a part of my discussion scheduled for September 28, 2006 at 4:00 pm. This statement shall hold all the requirements of a lawful and valid statement and shall be construed as a part of the record for September 28, 2006.

I certify that the foregoing writing/statement is true and accurate to best my knowledge.

Respectfully submitted,

Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, MA, CADC, NCRS

cc: Ms. Hilda Whittington (fax only) http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/

September 7, 2006

STATE OF ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY
LABOR DISPUTE DETERMINATION
U.I. PROGRAM SUPPORT DIVISION, LABOR DISPUTE SECTION
33 SOUTH STATE STREET, 9TH FLOOR
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60603

APPEAL OF DETERMINATION
Supplement to Appeal

September 7, 2006

Ms. Efia Goosby, Supervisor
Administrative Hearings Department
33 South State Street
Chicago, Illinois 60603

Ms. Goosby:

I, Fred L Nance Jr., am supplementing my appeal with the following. On September 7, 2006 I returned to work at Sheridan Correctional Center (Sheridan). Sheridan has decided Gateway Foundation (Gateway) staff returning to work from the strike must go through cycle training. Sheridan has determined the time, place and curricula for this demand.

Upon entering Sheridan, I spoke to the Director of Gateway/Sheridan, Mr. Gregg Dockins. Mr. Dockins informed me Gateway has no knowledge of why the staff has to go through the cycle training. Gateway had nothing to do with the scheduling or the curricula. The Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) and Sheridan has decided I must take this training again. I completed this training in May of 2006.

As stated in the original appeal, IDOC/Sheridan is my de facto or indirect employer. “Indirect liability results when the defendant employer "so far control[s] the plaintiff's employment relationship that it [is] appropriate to regard the defendant as the de facto or indirect employer of the plaintiff . . . ." E.E.O.C., supra, 69 F.3d at 169. In other words, "[d]e facto or indirect employer liability depends on the amount of the control a putative Title VII defendant exerts over the plaintiff's employment." Kerr, supra, 229 F. Supp. 2d at 886. It "addresses the situation where a formal employment relationship may be absent, but the putative defendant is so extensively involved with the plaintiff's day to day employment that the putative defendant is the 'real' employer for all intents and purposes, including Title VII liability." Ibid.; see E.E.O.C., supra, 69 F.3d at 171 (explaining how entities that "pull the strings in the background", and retain employment decision making power, are de facto employers pursuant to Title VII).

In addition, on September 7, 2006 I talked to you requesting information on my administrative hearing date. You informed me you could not talk about my case because AFSCME was IDES’s employees’ union. This is interesting information. When I challenged this answer stating you could not be a unionized employee because you are a supervisor/manager, you informed me you might have to handle my case.

Ms. Goosby, you cannot handle this case because I have discussed this case with you over the phone before you gave me the information you gave me today, September 7, 2006. This case must be handled by a non-union employee. You should have informed me in the beginning there might be a conflict of interest. My rights may have been violated by IDES.

It appears there is a conflict of interest in my case. Who worked on my case from the beginning? Along with Ms. Cheryl Howard, what AFSCME employee worked with her to determine my ineligibility? This may be why IDES ruled against me. The language in IDES’s response to my request for unemployment benefits is tainted with biases and prejudices that may have come from a pro-union belief and standard.

Therefore, I respectfully request an immediate administrative hearing date. IDES has purposely and maliciously ruled against me. I filed my appeal in this matter on or about August 10, 2006. This purposeful delay is further evidence of the biases and prejudices of IDES toward my eligibility for unemployment benefits.

Respectfully submitted,

Fred L Nance Jr., ABD, M.A., CADC, NCRS

cc: Ms. Hilda Whittingham, Supervisor
Ms. Cheryl Howard
http://clickforjusticeandequality.blogspot.com/
http://clickforjusticeandequality2.blogspot.com/
Ms. Brenda Russell, Director IDES