Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Aisha Wright, Petitioner v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
Supreme Court briefJul 21, 2023
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
filed
JUL 2 J 2023
Z*
fcj
SUPREEM°FmtJF^L|^K |
Noi
In The
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Aisha Wright, Pro Se
Petitioner
Versus
Union Pacific Railroad,
Respondent
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States
United States Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit
District Court of Appeals for the Southern District of Texas
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WITH
APPENDIX
Aisha Wright, Pro Se,
P.O.Box 11826
Houston, TX 77293
(903)-630-0916
Aishawright6 8 @gmail. com
RECEIVED
JUL 2 5 2023
1
fflBEfirasgflr
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED
The Petitioner Aisha Wright conducted an overall review of my case record and
Concluded newly substantial evidence that was not supported by the
Administrative Law of preponderance evidence. In the case of Cannon v.
Jacobs Field Services North America, IncNo. 15-20127 (frth Cir.
1/13/2016). In this Case; After Finding new factual documents of evidence of
violation of dereliction of Judicial Judge misconduct with the intend of illegal
malpractice of lawyers/ ineffectiveness of counsels knowingly and willfully
disregarded and failed to impose the Applicable laws of violations of 28 U.S.C.
453-Oath of justices and judges, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Rule 16, Rule 2.9,
U.S.C 455, Rule 60, 59(e), 56,11, 42 USC 2000e, 2 USC code 1311, and cal. R. Ct.
Canon 1 and 3 of statutory causes of action of factual elements of legal remedy for
to
a reconsideration of this case for a relief for a summary judgment put aside
be void, whereas; the lower court abuses its judicial discretion of notwithstanding
the Federal Rules by law in contrast, connotes the instrumental use of law as a tool
for self-interest to have the petitioner Aisha Wright case to be maliciously and
prejudicial dismissed.
Note; Whereas the Petitioner raise question did all four parties received some type of financial
gain from this case to be dismissed in favor of Respondent?
Questions,
1.Since the Lower District Court perjure oneself-interest of “No transcript and
No Hearing”, See Appendix. G. H, which would have an effect on this newly
findings, which lead the petitioner believing of no such documents, until March
2023 and April 2023, if this would had been presented to the Appeal of the Fifth
District in the beginning from the Lower District Court, would this have been
sufficient enough to survive proper consideration of the Petitioner Retaliation
claim?
see, Griffin and Eskridge, they were entitled to a transcript in order to appeal, a pointless
contention if, by so stating the argument, they meant to waive the right to have the State
Supreme Court consider some or possibly all the underlying allegations of error.
2. By the new factual documents see Appendix K, Docket: “No transcript and
No Hearing”, does this constitute a violation form the Lower District court violate
2
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of Rule 2.9, Rule 60, Rule 59(e) and Cannon
1,3 permits to bring action to recover losses, fraud, newly discovered evidence
with misrepresentation by the Lower District Court Judge and illegal
malpractice or ineffectiveness of counsels by erroneous Barred of hearings?
3. Did the Lower District Court violated The Federal Rules of Civil Procedures
with Statutory provisions of Rule 2.2 impartial and fairness, Rule 2.3, Rule 2.6,
Rule 2.11, Rule 8.4 and U.S.C 455 and cannon 1, 3 provides in a Civil action may
be brought by the Plaintiff to obtain other appropriate equitable relief to
redress violations of the statute of the Petitioner Retaliation Case?
4. Whether the Lower District Court failed to give the correct action of the
plaintiff of being deprive as a human person had the opportunity to be properly
be heard, instead a “P Wright” as The Client”, see Appendix I&J is a violation of
Substantive Due process rights of subversive under the Fourteenth
Amendment and Articles with the intentional violation of fraud to deceive the
Court in favor of the Respondent to bring test in question of a decision of
Supreme Court Justices?
5. Whether a plaintiff asserts a claim of retaliatory discrimination with the
Continuance Violation Doctrine form working in hostile work environment from
2016 lawsuit in violation of Title VII of Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
2000e 2(a) 3(a) and violation 2 U.S. Code § 1311 - Rights and protections under
title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964, Age Discrimination in Employment Act of
1967, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and title I of Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990, must show that the plaintiff suffered materially adverse employment
action?
6. Whether the Lower District Court and Appeal for the Fifth Circuit Court District
erred the plaintiff case by violating the Collective bargaining agreement of free of
being discipline of wanting union representation from a Continue Violation
Doctrine from working in hostile work environment, which is guaranteed by the
Due Process clause as present of statutory construction whether section 100.001 of
labor code provides private sector employees represented by a labor organization
with rights equivalent to so called Weingarten rights, per the policy and procedure
and the Constitution Bylaws to have waiver and conference when rendering aid in
emergency of unethical discriminatory practices of conspiracy of retaliation?
3
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
AND RULE 29 STATEMENT
Petitioners is Aisha Wright, Pro Se Plaintiff. Petitioners were the plaintiff s
appellants at the court of appeals. Petitioners Amicus Brief from Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission.Gov. Respondents are Union Pacific
Railroad. Respondents were the defendant’s Appellees.
RULE 29 STATEMENT
A corporate disclosure statement is not required under Supreme Court
Rule 29.6 because petitioner is not a corporation.
RELATED CASES
Aisha Wright v. Union Pacific Railroad, 4:19-cv-00203 U.S District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.
Aisha Wright v. Union Pacific Railroad, No. 20-20344, The United States Court of
Appeals For the Fifth Circuit.
Aisha Wright v. Union Pacific Railroad 4:16 -cv-02802 U. S District court for the
Southern District of Texas.
Aisha Wright V. Transportation Communication Union/IAM, 4:21-cv-03174, U.S
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Pending as of 2023.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2,3
QUESTION PRESENTED.............................
4
LIST OF PARTIES AND RELATED CASES
4
TABLE OF CONTENT...................................
5,6
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...........................
6
OPINIONS BELOW.......................................
6
JURISDICTION.............................................
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATURORY PROVISION INVOVED.. .7
8
STATEMEENT OF THE CASE................
17
FACTUAL BACKGROUND......... ..........
35
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT
4
i
Certiorari is appropriated to resolve a conflict among the Lower District
Court alongside with the Appeal Court of the Fifth Circuit erred and to
35
decide an important Questions of Federal LAW
37
CONCLUSION.......................................................
1A
APPENDIX............................................................
APPENDIX
A. Denied, for Rehearing and Rehearing EN Banc, United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit, February 23, 2023.
B. Judgement, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit IS AFFIRMED,
granting Union Pacific Summary Judgement January 25, 2023.
C. Judgement issued as mandate a court’s opinion, March 03, 2023
D. U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, Conclusion Aisha Wright will take
nothing from Union Pacific Railroad company, May 31, 2022.
E. U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, Conclusion, Aisha Wright case will
be dismissed, June 1, 2020.
F. Conclusion, AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED, United
States Court of appeals for the Fifth Circuit, March 5, 2021.
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED
PAGE#
CASES
National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002).passim
Passim
Harris V. Forklift System Inc, 510 U.S. 17 (1993
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53
Passim
(2006),............................................ ..................................
31
Gilbert, vs Union Pacific company, 19-804.....................
22,35
Smith, vs evening New Association,371 U.S. 195 (1962)
18,20
Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337 (1997)............
Wooddell v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 502 U.S. (1991)...22
Passim
City of Round Rock V. Rodriguez, 399 S.W. 3d 130 (2013) ..,
Passim
Gilbert Olerud, ET AL. v. DR. Walter M. Morgan, III, ET AL
Panagiota Heath v. Southern University System Fdn„ No. 16-30625 (5th Cir.
29
2017)
5
Goldberg v. Kelly, 3,97 U.S. 254 (1970)...........................
Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009)
United States of America v. Joseph Fiorelli, Appellant...
35
Passim
11
STATUTES AND RULES
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq,
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.................................................
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)...........................................
Federal Rule60(d)(3) b........................................................ .........
Federal Rule of civil procedure 56................................................
Federal Rule of civil procedure 59................................................
28 U.S. Code § 1254.....................................................................
.Passim
..Passim
. Passim
. Passim
.Passim
Passim
6
OPINIONS BELOW
The Decision of the United States Court of Appeal for the Fifth District is
unpublished. The Petitioner filed for Rehearing and Rehearing EN BANC
was denied. The decision by the United States District Court Southern District
of Texas is published.
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied the Petitioners request in a
Rehearing in a timely matter dated February 23, 2023. Jurisdiction in this
court has the right to review an Appeal Court is proper per Tile 28 USC,
Section 1254 as the Supreme court has the right to review an Appeal Court
Ruling via a Writ of Certiorari.
CONSITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISION INVOLVED
A Due Process Clause appears in both the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. These provide that nobody may be deprived
of life, liberty, or property without due process of law: First, procedural due
process involves the steps that must be taken before someone is deprived of an
6
interest involving life, liberty, or property. Whereas include notice and an
opportunity to be heard, as well as an unbiased decision-make, also may entail a
right to present evidence, a right to cross-examine opposing witnesses, and an
opportunity to be represented by an illegal malpractice lawyer/ ineffective counsel,
among other protections.
i
Section 2- Federal Rules Governing the Performance of judicial duties and
unethical misconduct of an illegal malpractice of counsels that was misleading and
Misrepresentation as follow:
Rule 2.2- impartiality and fairness
Rule 2.3 Bias, Prejudice
Rule 2.5 Competence, Diligence, and Cooperation
Rule 2.6 Ensuring the Right to be heard
Rule 2.9 Ex Parte communications
Rule 2.11 Disqualification
Rule 59 New Trail; Altering or Amending a Judgement
Rule 60 Relief from a judgment or Order
Rule 8.4 Misconduct comments
28U.S.C, 455; 144
/
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Aisha Wright, the Petitioner, had filed two lawsuits in the Southern District Court
of Texas in the Southern District Federal Court and was erroneously dismissed in
her case on June 1, 2020, and May 31, 2022, by the Lower District Court for
failure to state retaliation claims. I want to start out the first statement of this case
of Relief from a judgement or order or proceeding, I Aisha Wright petitioner, is
addressing the law at hand 28 U.S.C. 453-Oath of justices and judges, Rule 60 (b)
(3) the violation from the Lower District Court of the Judge Judicial Misconduct
and failed from the Petitioner former lawyer and Opposing counsel for
misrepresentation and misleading of statements, conflict of interest, fraud and
deception from the very beginning of the Petitioner case raise question of withheld
materials without my consent Rule 11, deprived the movant of full and fair
7
opportunity to present the Petitioner Case Rule 56 and Rule 59, Whereas
maliciously prejudicial of dismissing the Petitioner case. For one, the Lower
District Court under Rule 60 (b) (3), (5) had Extrinsic Fraud with the act of
deception of misrepresentation outside the event itself of self-interest, which
deprive the Petitioner of privy material information or participation without
knowledge nor consent, (1) the Appeal Court of the Fifth Circuit Remand and
Reversed the petitioner case back the Lower District Court for further proceeding
for retaliation and the Lower District Court failed to apply to Applicable Law. (2)
failed to submit all my evidence. (3) Failed to disclose my Medical Condition from
working in hostile work environment cause to be disable (4) failed to invoke my
right and Barred to the testimonial at a hearing raise question by my new findings
of the two transcripts. (5) Could the two transcripts have been redacted without my
presence of being Barred from? (6) The Opposing party and the Petitioner former
attorney knew the Lower District Court Judge was privy to shares of stocks with
Union Pacific Railroad to protect the Lower District Court Judge financial gain,
due to non-consent disclosure to my newly finding on March of 2023, of a
Protective Order, see Appendix L to protect his shares of stock, of stating this court
“doesn’t own stock” , see Appendix N raise questions of deception of
collaboration of conspiracy among themselves to continue to retaliate against my
case. Whereas the Petitioner raise question and want to know did all four parties received some
type of financial gain from this case to be dismissed in favor of Respondent? The Lower
District Court, the Petitioner former attorney and opposing counsel violated the
Due Process clauses of the United States Constitution require the Petitioner Human
Equal Rights, wherein question of these violation could have been raise or request
during court proceedings for violating Rule 46 and Rule 36(a), Rule 1.16 to file
motions to recusal the Lower District Court judge, to file motions and request to
have the Petitioner former lawyer terminated for being incompetent, failed to
8
elucidation, and failed the petitioner to file a Rule 59 motion with the Appeal Court
of the Fifth Circuit due to the newly findings of evidence. In two situations: (1)
Where the judge has a financial interest in the case’ outcome. (2) where there is
otherwise a strong possibility that the judge’s decision will be biased, The
Supreme Court addressed recusal in the 2009 case Caperton v. A. T. Massey
Coal Co. (08-22). The Respondent and the Petitioner former counsel showed
deception of the Lower District Court Judge has stock, instead, the three counsels
knew all along and cover it up during court proceeding Docket see. Appendix, O,
P, O, the Respondent, stating they made a mistake to cover it up that is was
another judge that has stock, which I believe with intentional misconduct of
misrepresentation violation, Rule 1.4: Communication, promptly inform the client
of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client's informed
consent, as defined in Rule 1.0(e), Rule 1.3 (requiring a lawyer to act with
reasonable diligence in representing a client), 1.4(a)(4) (requiring a lawyer to
comply as soon as practicable with reasonable requests for information from the
client), 8.1(a) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly making a false statement of
material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter), and 8.4(c) (prohibiting a
lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation) that they cover it up to protect the Respondent in favor for
summary judgment and the Lower District Court judge to protect his financial
gains that the Lower District Court Judge contributed from his Financial Discloser
Report, see, The Supreme Court addressed recusal in the 2009 case Caperton v. A. T.
I
Massey Coal Co. (08-22).see Appendix P & O, See Gov. Bar R, V(13~)(C)(1), (3), (4), and 6.
The intrinsic fraud whereas, the Petitioner former attorney, the Lower
District Court Judge and Opposing Counsel intentionally mishandle and
misrepresented, see, Pour Le Babe, Inc. v. Guess? Inc. the petitioner case by being
9
deceptive of contradicting, and willful disregarded the disputed issue of facts from
enforcing the petitioner legal rights of retaliation Under the Civil Right Act of
1964, 42 U.C.S. 2000e et seq during court proceedings and no opportunity to
address the deception of the new findings that was never presented, see. He is in
trouble with the Fifth Circuit, again. In Pulse Network v. Visa, Inc.,
No. 18-2066Q (sth Cir.L the court of appeals removed Judge
Hughes from this suit, provided, at the time of the court proceedings of
omitting and neglect to bring out the identity of the Lower District Court judge and
finding of newly evidence of the Two Transcript from the Petitioner of being
barred. The hearing and omission of dockets without the Petitioner consent of a
violation of Rule 52, 59, 56, Rule 2.2 Impartiality and Fairness, a judge shall
uphold and apply the law and shall perform all duties of a judicial office
impartially and fairly, whereas the Two Transcript see. Appendix, G&H, the
Lower District Court was being bias with the Petitioner case in favorable to the
Respondent Union pacific Railroad and prejudice implies as an unfavorable
opinion of contradicting of deception of cases, whereas to protect the Lower Court
District Judge stocks and shares with Union Pacific Railroad for his financial gain
and being notorious for erroneous of legal errors handling of employment
discrimination cases, of being bias, whereas the Court of Appeal of the Fifth
Circuit, following 2017’s McCoy v. Energy XXI GOM. LLC and 2021 ’s Miller v,
Sam Houston State University. “It is “deia vu all over again.” the 5^ Circuit said,
quoting Yogi Berra. “And we reverse. Again. But we trust that the district court
will heed the Federal Rules and the mandates of our precedent.”, see Appendix, P,
Q. The Lower District Court violated 2.9 Ex Parte of being one sided, whereas the
petitioner new finding of facts of the false documents after the fact of mislead
statement entries generally being outside the scope without the petitioner Aisha
Wright knowledge nor consent and wasn’t never given the opportunity to address
10
the petitioner remedies law options make know to what was taking place at the
time of two hearing and transcripts that was deceitful and non-disclosure from the
Lower District Court Docket “No Transcript and No Hearing, case dismissed,” see
Appendix, G,H&K, violation of Rule 59, whereas, the petitioner could apply all
the remedies that the petitioner could have gravitate to at the time of litigation with
the Petitioner circumstantial evidence that was already given to my former Lawyer
to prove my case and would have objective to this misrepresented conduct, and
would have asked for a new counsel and a new judge, due to the unforeseen
dockets and mislead statements being made and misrepresentation from the Lower
district, whereas I the petitioner could have address these new finding to the
Appeal Court of the fifth Circuit under Rule 56(c), Rule 59. The newly findings
documents the Lower District Court, former counsel and opposing counsel
violated; whereas. Section 473 - Mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable
neglect (a) (1) The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be
proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking
out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a
mistake in by the ineffective counsel and the lower district court judge.
Furthermore, the ineffective counsel raised question. As I researched yes an
ineffective counsel is notorious for criminal cases, but can it be used in a civil case
which I would like to address as an act of Congress of the law to question
argument as to Illegal Malpractice of a lawyer conduct and ineffective counsel
with the similarities? When it’s similarities of an ineffective counsel in a civil case;
for instance, see United States of America V. Joseph Fiorelli, 2003, “As the court
said in Fiorelli, supra at 338, Rule 59 (e) is a “device to relitigate the original
issue decided by the Lower District Court used to allege error” due to dereliction
of duty that gives rise to a cause of action for violation of the right”, “we will
therefore vacate the District Court Dismissal and remand for the appropriate
li
factual findings, which in the petitioner Aisha Wright case of my former lawyer
illegal malpractice of knowingly and willingly disregarded and violated Rule 803,
Rule 37, and Rule Hand Constitutional Right Fourteenth Amendment, Due
Process, but rather a list of procedures that might be claimed in a “due process”
argument, roughly in order of their perceived importance, the Petitioner Medical
condition of evidence which former lawyer failed to raise during the Hearing, see
two transcript Appendix G & H, see,, ludge Henry Friendly, see Appendix, V, of
evidence of being disable, financial Hardship and Homeless as present to this day
from working in Hostile work environment of retaliation caused by the Respondent
of continue Actions, see, Burlington Northern & Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway Co. v. White, 548
u.s. 53 (2006). The Petitioner Aisha Wright was deceived by the misrepresenting,
and misleading statements, barred to appear in court for hearings and court dates
via the Lower Court Judge stated, “didn’t want me there”, see Appendix K of
phone record, see, Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015), whereas the
Lower District Court Judge Barred the Petitioner from his court Room. Failed to
object to objectionable evidence or testimony, failed to apply the applicable law to
the case, failed to report conflicts of interest as being Ex Parte Rule 2.9, failed to
bring forth witness or to investigate potential defense, failed to consult the
petitioner when decision were being made during court proceedings, failed to enlist
necessary experts to challenge the Respondent theory and misrepresenting the
consequences refusing to represent a client for political or professional motives,
false or misleading statements, hiding evidence, abandoning a client, failed to
disclose all relevant facts, arguing a position while in court proceedings would
have made a difference, “Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). See
Appendix G&H, Transcript,
12
Actual improprieties include violations Rule 1.3.109: communications of the law
court rules or provision of this code. The test of impropriety is whether the conduct
would create in reasonable minds a perception the Lower District Court violated
this code or engaged in other conduct that reflects adversely on the judge honesty,
impartiality, temperament or fitness to serve as a judge. Rule 1.3 states that it is
improper for a judge to use or attempt to use his/her position to gain personal
advantage or deferential treatment of any kind, whereas the Lower District court
Judge stock and shareholder of Union Pacific Railroad, following the two
transcripts you can see as being one sided in favor of the respondent Union Pacific
Railroad to protect his financial gain, in question? see Appendix P&Q, whereas to
the petitioner finding of other resided, see. Appendix, AA; case with the Union
Pacific Railroad, there is no telling how many other people that have been
erroneous illegal errors from the Lower District Court had done this too
maliciously Prejudicial dismissed their case of the deception of owning shares of
stock; Rule 2.2 states that a judge must be objective and open-minded to ensure
impartiality and fairness to all parties, as you can see from the two transcripts, The
Petitioner was not to able to object nor to defend myself per Docket case instead a
Client P. Wright was there.’ See Appendix I & J. Rule 2.3 a Judge who manifest
bias or prejudice in a proceeding impairs the fairness of the proceeding an brings
the judiciary into disrepute, the Lower District Court willful disregard the decision
of the proceeding with the regard to the administrative matters which this case
connect to a Continuance violation Doctrine of working in hostile work
environment caused the petitioner suffered Medical condition, On Duty Incident
Report, see Appendix, V, to be harmed from the physical intimidation and falsify
statements of the petitioner of being defame by having known for bad reputation of
having bad history with Union Pacific railroad of being terroristic threaten by
Union Member Officials, sexually harassed ,damaging my health, restricting my
13
Seniority, and failed to promote which it “connect” according to the transcript
which was being dismissive of the infliction that I was suffering during the two
court proceedings which all parties failed to mention as a Continuance Violation
Doctrine from working hostile work environment. Rule 2.5 provides that in
disposing of matters promptly and efficiently a judge must demonstrate due regard
for the rights of the parties to be heard and to have issue resolved without
unnecessary cost or delay, by this the Petitioner was barred from court hearing.
Rule 2.8 that a duty to hear all proceedings with patience and courtesy is not
inconsistent with the duty imposed in Rule 2.5 to dispose promptly of the business
of the court, whereas four officials were being heard somewhere without my
knowledge to be there at the hearing of being dismissive from the Lower
District Court, once again the petitioner was Barred. Whereas the Lower District
Court Judge refused to be in a court room opening of presided cases and barring
the petitioner from court hearing, see. Rodriguez V. United States. 575 U.S.
(2015). Rule 2.9. Ex Parte Communication extent reasonably possible, all parties
or their lawyers shall be included in communication with a judge, once again with
the Rules and regulation of the Federal Law the petitioner Aisha Wright wasn’t
privy to these Rules until aftermath of researching and investigation of the
deception from Docket “No Transcripts or No hearing, case dismissed June 1,
2020, and May 31, 2022”; of the petitioner being Barred, whereas the petitioner
former lawyer signed a No hearing DKT 13 of being deception without my
presence and knowledge of see Appendix, K. Aisha Wright sued former
employer, Union Pacific Railroad company, that Union Pacific Railroad violated
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 of retaliation. After a great victory in
appellate court. I know Judge Lynn Hughes of the lower court has ultimately
ignored the petitioner whole cases with the intention judicial misconduct. Per
Respondent of Union Pacific Railroad company’s response to Clerk Letter from
|
14
the Lower court regarding Judge Lynn Hughes ownership of stock in Union Pacific
corporation, and then the county court clerk states she made a mistake, and then
judge Lynn clarification order addressed intentional judicial misconduct of being
Maliciously prejudicial saying that the court doesn’t own stock which is known
fact from the lower district Court Clarification Order signed by the Judge, see
Appendix, N, The Lower District Court which appears of his financial disclosure
of stock and being protective of Union Pacific Railroad to validate in their favor of
dismissing my case intentionally from being retaliated. On trying to have Judge
Lynn Hughes review my case he informed me I’m fishing and being too vague and
I need to stop being improper for asking documents from Union Pacific Railroad
company, whereas, of my emails were presented and wanted documents of emails
of evidence from the Union Pacific Railroad of conversation from all upper
management and the Transportation Communication Union/IAM, officials that was
asked throughout the court proceeding, whereas, the Respondent were saying the
petitioner is be too vague of asking for requesting during interrogation all these
evidence and the Lower District Court Judge sided with the Respondent ruled my
interrogation questions of materials of being dismissive and improper per docket,
and the petitioner needs to stop “fishing” in favor of the Respondent to grant a
summary judgement from violation Rule 8 General Rules of Pleading. Due to my
numerous of complaints of the past, present, and medical condition incident of a
Continue Violation Doctrine from working in hostile work environment is being
willful disregarded and used against the petitioner to erroneously friable offense of
insubordination and bad work performance from 2015 to 2021 to terminate
petitioner’s employment permanent. This is the reason of known facts the Lower
District Court Judge was being bias of violation of 28 U.S.C. 453-Oath of j ustices
and judges, 28 USC Code 455&144 and Rule 60 from all four parties in this
case. Since then, Judge Lynn Hughes from Lower District Court has no
15
correspondence to me and my former attorney which I no longer have legal
representation, without reviewing my documents of merits and his Opinion on
summary judgement states Summary as follow which “Aisha Wright will take
nothing from Union Pacific Railroad”; which the Lower District Court Judge
delimits his own opinion and not following the Applicable Laws. I’m asking for an
appeal and a trail and new judge to review my case. I have extensive evident,
current employees and other witnesses supporting my claim. I’m 100% homeless
and disable of fighting my truth of my case as we speak, see All of Appendix la.
The Union Pacific Railroad company is continuing retaliate and noncompliance of
the laws as a union paying member in good standing with the violations of my civil
rights act 1964 of retaliation and the collective Bargaining Agreement between the
Union Pacific railroad and the Transportation communication Union/IAM,
Constitutional Bylaws and all federal laws and rules of regulation under
government agency and Policy and procedures that was not adhere by maliciously
terminated petitioner employment permanently. Furthermore, As I newly
discovered on March 27, 2023, from the Lower Court District that my former
attorney along with Respondent attorney and the Lower District Court Judge were
in an agreement of a Protective order as use of being fraud without my knowledge
nor consent to protect his shares of Stocks, for the judge financial gain, see.
Appendix. L, The next day March 28, 2023 I newly discovered to hearing
conference transcripts on August 5, 2019 of which my former Attorney Marjorie
Murphy called and told me that I can’t come because the lower District Court
Judge “didn’t want me there”, now, that explain the reasoning of everything, and
didn’t understand at that time what was going on of the deception of my former
attorney, Opposing counsel and the Lower District Court Judge, see Appendix K,
of phone records the day of the hearing, as I continue to research my case, I newly
discovered another court hearing took place without my knowledge on June 28,
16
2020.1 discovered Transcripts from the two hearing and now it makes sense
without my present to have a fair hearing which explain from the court hearing
Docket as P. Wright instead of Aisha Wright of violation of Rule 2.2, Rule 2.3,
Rule 2.5, rule 2.9 and Rule 8.4. The point of this case was deceitful of falsification
of fact without my knowledge and consent, having improper discussion one sided,
Rule 2.9 and information presented without my consent my right to be present
instead of the petitioner was being violated by Civil Rights Act of 1964 to have fair
and impartial hearing and didn’t know nothing about these documents to have my
case erroneously dismissed.
FACTUAL BACKROUND
I Aisha Wright 25+ years of service, hired on October 11, 1994, with the Southern
Pacific Lines and then later merged in 1997 Union Pacific railroad as a Union
Member with the Transportation Communication Union/IAM, of which I loved
and enjoyed my clerical position to fulfill my retirement. I filed Internal EEO
complaints and then filed a charge of discrimination and retaliation against Union
Pacific Railroad with the EEOC and cross-filed with another defendant, The
Transportation Communication Union/IAM. see. Appendix, T, U. GG, Wright
alleged that during the time period approximately June 2004, and January 2015 to
July 2021 from filing a sexual Harassment and retaliation from working in Hostile
Work environment whereas on August 21, 2015 the Petitioner collapsed at work
and was ambulance to the Palestine Regional emergency room and filled out an
Union Pacific Railroad Report of Personal Injury or Occupational illness report
from the petitioner injury of illness of the Acute Coronary Syndrome and all
medical condition reports, see Appendix V, of the continue of action by the
Respondent of consistently being harassed and disciplined more harshly than other
employees on account of her sex, race, gender, color, and disability. Whereas
17
evidence was given to the petitioner by different employees of similarities of job
performance and wanting Union Official Representation wasn’t terminated from
Union Pacific Railroad. See Appendix, Y. The U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission issued Notice of Right to Sue; in May 2016, October
2018, October 2019 and June 2021. Wright filed this lawsuit on October 2018 as a
Continuance of Action from working in Hostile work environment of retaliation,
see Appendix, U, While some of the allegedly discriminatory acts about which
Wright complained occurred within 300 days of the time, as the Lower District
court and appeal Fifth Circuit of Appeal stated” it’s too remote”, the Lower
District Court stated, “the connect” is not within the Statutory Limit”, the
petitioner was still working while this case was ongoing and pending, See,
Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337 (1997L raise a question of negative
behavior and attitude of which the Lower District Court and the Petitioner former
attorney maliciously failed to willful disregard the Continue Violation Doctrine
that this is continuance from working in Hostile working environment which raise
question of the “connect” from the transcript. Attached is the filed Government
EEOC see Appendix U, Union Pacific railroad filed a motion, arguing, that they
are entitled to summary judgment, on all incidents that occurred more than 300
days before the filing of Wright EEOC charge which the Respondent and the
Lower District Court along with the Petitioner former attorney violated Federal
Rule 52 for failure to address the findings of facts and conclusion of evidences
whereas, the summary judgment for the respondent could have be denied due to
the supporting facts or Rule 52 (a) that was dismissive throughout this case. The
Appeal Court of the Fifth Circuit and Lower District Court granted summary
judgment to Union Pacific Railroad, holding that the company could not be liable
for conduct occurring before May of 2016 as being too remote, because that
conduct fell outside of the 300-day filing period. The court employed a test
18
established by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
circuit in Galloway v. General Motors Service Parts Operations, 78 F. 3d 1164
(1996): A “plaintiff may not base the suit on conduct that occurred outside the
statute of limitations unless it would have been unreasonable to expect the plaintiff
to sue before the statute ran on that conduct, as in a case in which the conduct
could constitute, or be recognized, as actionable harassment only in the light of
events that occurred later, within the period of the statute of limitations Id., at
1167. The District Court held that because Wright believed that she was being
discriminated against at the time that all these acts occurred as ab ongoing
Continue Action of working in Hostile Work Environment, it would not be
unreasonable to expect that Wright should not go silence of the intentional
discriminatory practices that she was mentally fear of enduring of her past
incidents, have filed an EEOC charge on these acts before the limitations period on
these claims ran. Ref; National Railroad Passenger corporation v, Morgan. 536.
U.S. (2002). Wright Appeal raised questions of the newly findings of facts of
documents, violation of Rule 59, whereas; The United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit denied and grant summary Judgement for the Respondent. The
Petitioner is relying on its previous articulation of the Continuing Violation
Doctrine, which allows courts to consider conduct that would ordinarily be time
barred or too remote ‘as long as the untimely incidents represent an ongoing
unlawful employment practice; 232 F. 3d 1008. 1014 (2000)
quoting Anderson v. Reno, 190 F. 3d 930, 936 (CA9 1999). Contrary to both the
Seventh Circuit & test, used by the District Court, and a similar test employed by
the Fifth Circuit, [3] the Ninth Circuit held that its precedent “precludes such a
notice limitation on the continuing violation doctrine”; 232 F.3d, at 1015.
19
Reference; In the Ninth Circuit; s view, a plaintiff can establish a continuing violation that allows
recovery for claims filed outside of the statutory period in one of two ways. First, a plaintiff may
show a series of related acts one or more of which are within the limitations period.; Ibid. Such a;
serial violation is established if the evidence indicates that the alleged acts of discrimination
occurring prior to the limitations period are sufficiently related to those occurring within the
limitations period; Ibid. The alleged incidents, however, cannot be isolated, sporadic, or
discrete.; Ibid. Second, a plaintiff may establish a continuing violation if he shows a systematic
policy or practice of discrimination that operated, in part, within the limitations period—a systemic
violation.id., at 1015-1016. Whereas the continue action of harassment and other violation of
ongoing acts see, appendix. T, U, V. X.
To survive summary judgment under this test, the Petitioner had to raise a genuine
issue of disputed fact as to (1) the existence of a continuing violation—be it serial
or systemic and (2) the continuation of the violation into the limitations
period. Id., at 1016. Because the Petitioner alleged three types of Title VII claims,
namely, discrimination, hostile environment, and retaliation, whereas; the Court of
Appeals oT the Fifth Circuit never questioned nor wanted to discuss when
i - £ 4 i , i
•
■
#
,
»
» i % ■ ; .
y * * *■
'
presented the lawsuit from 2016 which would raise questions how everything
started from the beginning of this case, while lawsuit was going on see: Robinson
v. SheH Oil Co.. 519 U.S. 337 (1997), as a current employee, with this reference I
believe could constitute of being negative intentional misconduct as well as bad
attitude due to the petitioner complaints against the Respondent which are from
prior to present incidents and complaints of Continue Action to consider the
allegations with respect to each category of claim separately and found that the
pre-limitations conduct was sufficiently related to the post limitations conduct to
invoke the continuing violation doctrine for all three. Therefore, considering the
relatedness of being sexually harassed, collapsed at work, see Appendix. T, V,
Terroristic threat by the Union official member filling a police report, see
Appendix, T, X, incidents of being off Medical Leave of Absences and
terminated, see Appendix, CC, at the same time, Termination of insurances, see
Appendix, FF. the Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit found that Wright had
20
non-sufficiently presented a genuine issue of disputed fact as to whether a
continuing violation existed. Because the Lower District Court should have
allowed events occurring in the pre-limitations period to be; “presented at a
hearing or jury merely as background information, but also for purposes of
liability. See. National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan, 536 U.S.
101 (2002 . The Lower District Court denied Rule 56 (c) procedure, Failing to
Properly Support or Address the facts of the Petitioner evidence that was never
presented and never put forth to display as evident during the court Proceeding,
whereas; the lower Court District failed to apply the applicable Laws in these
terms, the Judicial misconduct that occurred without my present or consent to have
at a fair hearing, whereas my documents of evidence which was not performed nor
question or visibly ascertain throughout court proceedings which raise suspicious
of me just findings new facts of evidence of which I never had a opportunity to
address in a court room instead the Petitioner was barred. Per transcript of
everything be excluded and barred two times at the hearing in August of 2019 and
June of 2021. The Lower District Court intentionally willful disregard my health
condition and disability which was important factor of my case from working in
Hostile Work environment. The Lower District Court Judge, the petitioner
incompetent Lawyer and opposing lawyers Agreed to a Protective Order without
my knowledge according to the docket see Appendix, L, without the petitioner
consent, see Appendix, M, whereas the Policy and Procedure Form 9, it states
“signed in presence of Attorney”, I would have never agreed to a Protected
Order to protect his financial gain shares of stock with Union Pacific
Railroad. The Docket, Clarification Order was Cleary a deception to cover up the
misrepresentation by the petitioner former incompetent attorney failed to bring this
important acknowledgement to my attention instead all parties willful disregard
and violated 28 U.S.C. 453-Oath of justices and judges, Rule 60, Rule 56, Rule
21
59, Rule 2.9 during the court proceedings. This would raise question to whether
how many cases have the Lower district judge got away with handling suit by the
Union Pacific Railroad and how many other cases the judge had dismissed
maliciously and prejudicial to protect the judge financial gain of stocks and shares
with Union Pacific Railroad. Due to the petitioner reporting terroristic threats
from the union official and sole purpose of displacing the Union officials with
more seniority instead seniority was restricted? See, Appendix, X, HH. see also
United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of America, 770 F.3d at 852
(observing that union’s failure to follow internal policies is “strong evidence of
bad faith”). The Petitioner is a protective Union Member of the Transportation
Communication Union/IAM that was always given Union Representation
throughout my 25+ years of services. See, Smith, vs, evening New Association,
371 U.S. 195 (1962,) the employer had violated a clause in the contract of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement prohibiting discrimination against any employee
because of his membership or activity in the union. See, Appeal record states: The
Appeal Court of Fifth Circuit and The District Lower court mention from the
transcript “The Union frankly is not going to help her” and “if she’s wanting a
Union representative it’s her responsibility to ask”, and the Appeal Court of the
Fifth Circuit stated collective bargaining agreement is Minor dispute. This brings
questions and should have been addressed and privy to the information at the time
of the petitioner court proceeding, and not being Barred from the court, not
addressing the union rights and the Constitution Bylaws which governed under the
provision of protection of any discriminatory practices followed by the Labor
Management Relation Act 301 (29 U.S.C. 185) Federal in the workplace
environment, see, Wooddell v. International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers 502 U.S. (1991) Among other things, Wooddell sought injunctive relief,
22
lost wages and benefits, and damages, see Appendix, R S, of the Constitution
Bylaws as an paying Union protected member rights.
The policy and Procedures and the Collective Bargaining Agreement is to insure
and enforce Union Member to have a conference and waiver to diffuse any
allegation before a hearing investigation or termination, this wasn’t given,
whereas; the Respondent abused their own personal authority by going against the
company policy and procedure, and TCU Constitution BYLAWS of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement to establish a motive to friable offense, see Appendix, S,
Under these circumstances with the governed provision by the Constitution
Bylaws, I the Petitioner followed the Policy and Procedures of asking, see
Appendix, R, I reported to the internal EEO, Human Resources, see Appendix, T,
and submitted all information’s of evidence to my Union Transportation
Communication Union/IAM, from January 2015 to 2021, for them to render in my
Aid as emergency, see Appendix, S instead the union member officials choose to
conspire with the Respondent and Deprive the petitioner of Union Rights, to vote
not help me of which they failed to do their fiduciary duties to protect the
petitioner, instead the Respondent and the Transportation Communication Union
officials protected their own fellow local chairman and All upper Management
Team, due to me filing a complaints against the Transportation Communication
Union/IAM and all of the Union Members Official whom are all male of which
one of the Local Chairman threaten the petitioner, See Conkle v. Jeong, 73 F.3d
909, 916 (9th Cir. 1995) (including personal animus as basis for finding of bad
faith), the petitioner filed a police report, see, Appendix, T,W,X, regarding the
terroristic threats and working in hostile work environment to the Police
Department in Palestine, TX and the Union Pacific Police Department of the
threats in fear of my job whereas the Transportation Communication Union/IAM,
willful disregard to enforce the agreement to protect my union rights as an union
23
paying member. The Respondent and the Transportation Communication
Union/IAM collaborated within themselves as self-dealing to conspire to protect
their own and protecting the local chairman, which is the sole purpose of
petitioner seniority rights to displace the local chairman Dennis Williams as
being Junior to the Petitioner but instead The Union officials conspired with the
Respondent to terminate my clerical job Out of Palestine, TX for falsifying
statements of bad work performance and restrict my seniority to displaced the
i
!
local chairman which was the purpose for the TCU official members violated the
agreement intentionally, with the physical intimidation and use their intentional
misconduct of action animosity of hostility and maliciously to use the Respondent,
Bulletin Clerk Donna Calendar, see Appendix, HH, in favor with Transportation
Communication Union/IAM, to terminated my clerical as a whole along with labor
Relation manger Marques Houston and Jim Esile to conspire to retaliate against me
to protect the Union Local official seniority within the claims department in
Palestine, TX to maliciously terminate the Petitioner Clerical Position permanent,
which terminated and illegally force the Petitioner to a demoted lower paying and
heavy manual labor department in Houston, TX, to the Houston Warehouse supply
Department which they use my work performance as a decoy to terminate my
i
employment out of Palestine, TX Claims Department Clerical Job., see, PullmanStandard v. Swint: 456 U.S. 273 (1982), Rule 52(a), under § 703(h) was a
finding of ultimate fact”; that the court would review by making” an
independent determination of fthel allegations of discrimination, though
bound by findings of subsidiary fact which are themselves not clearly
erroneous, “see Appendix, S, See also United Bhd. of Carpenters Joiners of
America, 770 F.3d at 852 (observing that union’s failure to follow internal
policies is “strong evidence of bad faith”), whereas as Transportation
communication Union denied my rights to have a conference and waiver to a
24
charge that was dismissed and purposely falsify the Investigation Hearing
Transcript in favor of the Respondent Defense, whereas as the two employees
Hearing Officer from Union Pacific Railroad, Jimmie Carter and Larry Vogel
have been terminated by falsifying Investigation Hearings which included the
Petitioner. Law there’s decision on the Constitutional issue was informed by the
U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915), which
struck down a state statute prohibiting discrimination against employees for union
membership on grounds that it violated employers’ liberty of contract guaranteed
by the Due Process clause. Coppage itself was later overruled: by 1941, the
Supreme Court noted that Coppage had been “completely sapped” of its
authority. Phelps Dodge Corp. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 177,187 (1941). Prior, upon
arrival at the Houston Supply Warehouse Department of April 2016, the Plaintiff
was at a very low impact of my life of the constant hostility and the retaliatory
practices from working in Hostile Work Environment from falling out and
collapsed at work in August 2015 and was ambulance from work to the Palestine
Regional Medical Center emergency room, which lead by my Doctor to be off
work until December 2015, with not financial help, see, Burlington Northern & Santa
Fe (BNSF) Railway Co. v. White. 548 U.S. 53 (2006),. The petitioner filed an on-duty
Incident Report, which cause to have a medical condition, see Appendix, T V, the
Petitioner was continually be retaliated for reporting to Internal EEO, see
Appendix, T, V,W for help and want to be remove from the hostile manager
Damian Veasa, Local chairman Dennis Williams and Duane Merchant. See Harris
V. Forklift System., 510 U.S. 17 (1993). The Petitioner complained to Human
Resources of trying to fight my clerical seniority, cried out to the CEO, Lance
Fritz of Union Pacific Railroad, of the violations that the petitioner was enduring,
see Appendix, BB, asking the CEO President for help. I lost everything with no
financial help, my health was deteriorated, I was being evicted, homeless and
25
repossession of my car. The on duty injury incident report that was being willful
disregarded by the Respondent, and the Transportation communication
Union/IAM, Officials from the On duty Injury, continually being mentally duress,
scared in fear of my life and health of the Continuance Violation Doctrine of being
harassed by malicious intentional falsifying statements of write up from the
Respondent to make me quit my job by retaliating the petitioner with an attendance
Alert write up in 2016 of Continue Action of retaliation, see, Appendix, T,
U,W,Z; The Petitioner mental mind of distress of driving 3 hours one way back
and forth from Palestine, TX to Houston, TX, sleeping in my car at various gas
station and washing up as well to secure my job towards my retirement. Instead,
they continue to violate the petitioner to find any means necessary to provoke and
poked me mentally and physically intimidation of duress that I the petitioner was
already enduring from January 2015 to terminate the petitioner permanently in
2021. see, Burlington Northern & Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway Co♦ v. White, 548
U.S. 53 (2006).
I the petitioner Aisha Wright reached out to the Transportation
Communication Union/IAM, official according to the Policy and Procedures and
Constitution Bylaws to enforce for help, instead the Transportation
Communication Union/IAM, deprived me of render in my Aid in emergency and
other remedies that the Petitioner is entitle to, as Union Paying member, violation
Union rights, see Appendix, S, instead they used their intentional misconduct
willfully and knowingly that the TCU failure to do their fiduciary duties to follow
internal policies is “strong” evidence of bad faith, see also United Bhd. of
Carpenters & Joiners of America, 770 F.3d at 852 (observing that union’s
failure to follow internal policies is “strong evidence of bad faith”), for the
discriminatory practices of retaliation by the Respondent and the Transportation
Communication Union/IAM Union Officials, due to my internal EEO complaints
and complaints against the Transportation Communication Union/IAM, reported
26
complaints to National Labor Relation Board while trying to get help mentally and
physically see Appendix, T, GG. I was working during the lawsuit of 2016 and
other incident occurred whereas the Respondent wrote me up for an Attendance
Alert again which was still being retaliated of which the Respondent supervisor
knew from the very beginning of the lawsuit. See, Transcript the Respondent all
management knew of their conduct, The Petitioner emails in regard to Attendance
Alert and note from the Respondent, that they were out to get the Petitioner, see
Appendix, WZ & EE, of the continuance of retaliation from working in hostile
work environment caused me to be in fear and scared with no help from the TCU
to diffuse these allegations and was never given by agreement, see Appendix, S,
T,E, V,W; see, Harris V. Forklift Systems Inc, 510, U.S.17 (1993), whereas, the
Petitioner suffer serious of psychological Injury, see Appendix,T V, from the
Respondent poor support of abusive hostility, workplace bullying and harassment
of retaliation from January 2015 to 2021. The petitioner was not fully getting pay
from her 40 hours and would had to ask numerous of time about my pay of full
hours and overtime, whereas, I had to hunt the Respondent supervisor down and
email the Respondent to pay me, I was denied lunch towards the end of my shift
because I haven’t taken lunch trying and during the course of the shift the
Respondent told me to talk and Union representative from California of which I
did and the Union Official couldn’t not help me because she wasn’t in the
jurisdiction and stated to the petitioner from my recording that if she’s doesn’t
give you a postponement until your Local become available then let the
Respondent insubordinate the petitioner. See Appendix, W, S. Approximately
14:15 on July 20, 2018, after talking and relaying the conversation back to the
Respondent supervisor, she told me to do my aisle first which was close to quitting
time because the Petitioner working hours was from 7 am to 3 pm, I stated to the
Respondent supervisor I have already started my assigned aisle and I will continue
27
to finish it. I stated to the Respondent supervisor, since” I didn’t have lunch or
breaks yet can I take my lunch that’s when the Respondent Supervisor said no
because other people haven’t taking lunch and I haven’t had a lunch nor breaks
because of the Respondent supervisor series of physical intimidation and
harassment, I asked and stated to the Respondent supervisor I was hot and dizzy
per recording, see Appendix, W, T, I was called a “Nigger” by Respondent and
reported it to the Internal EEO during the lawsuit, and nothing was done, I wanted
to place a bumped back to Omaha Nebraska to Crew Management Service and
seniority was still being restricted again and was told by the Labor Relation
Manager Jim Eisle I can’t, all while working during the lawsuit of Continue
Action enduring a Hostile Work environment of retaliation, the Respondent
still not adhering to the Policy and Procedure and Contract Agreement, in violation
of the Petitioner Seniority Rights see, appendix, R, S. The Respondent conduct
see, Harris V. Forklift Systems Inc, 510, U.S.17 (1993), caused me to have a
panic on July 19, 2018, see Appendix, DP, of physical intimidation of hostility by
the Respondent because I asked for union Representation an reporting the incident
to the Internal EEO, which is normal procedure as union member and once again, I
had asked for Union representation throughout my 25+ years of service of my
Railroad Career, because the Respondent was discipline, see City of Round Rock
V. Rodriguez. 399 S.W, 3d 130 (2013). the Petitioner for items that the petitioner
never lost and caused my mental duress condition of being in fear, incompetent,
scared and being ridicule and defaming and slander my character was left for dead
with no help from the Transportation Communication Union/IAM because of the
Respondent supervisor intentional misconduct behavior of physically intimidating
factor, bullying me along with all upper management team and union member
official, whereas the Respondent stated they were out to get me fireda see_
Panagiota Heath v. Southern University System Fdn„ No. 16-30625 (5th Cir.
28
I
2017)., see Appendix, EE, the petitioner had suffer harm from all of their falsify
statements of trying to get rid of the petitioner . I was mentally and physically
scared, the Respondent was bullying the petitioner so bad, said I better get my butt
in her office and being sarcasm of reference of wanting Union representation with
her mockery voice “Oh you want me to call Dennis Williams”, towards the end of
shift of to bring charges against me. whereas the Respondent supervisor is
notorious for this towards the end of shift to discipline employees of which another
employee did the same thing and the employee wasn’t terminated for asking for
Union representation and the Respondent supervisor behavior. See Appendix, Y.
On July 20, 2018, around 6 am, the Petitioner called the Internal EEO to report the
incident of what was going on. The Respondent used my Panic attack against me
In fact, the Respondent supervisor on July 20, 2018, stated “since you went there
!
yesterday I’m going to escalate it and said do you need to see the nurse”, see
Appendix, W, I told the Respondent supervisor I’m waiting for Local chairman
Jeff Egnsoke to call me back as to what to do because I constantly kept telling the
Respondent supervisor among other things I want to bring all allegations of
retaliation to light as well, at that time I couldn’t talk and started heavy breathing
from all being scared and I needed The Transportation communication Union
Official member in emergency to render Aid was rushed to Kingwood
emergency room from working in a continuance violation doctrine hostile
work environment being stress, scared and mentally duress, see Appendix,
S,V, whereas the TCU never call back regarding what to do. whereas I stated this
to the Respondent supervisor of asking for union representation is the policy and
procedure if you want union representation you need to ask, which the petitioner
did, once again, because the Petitioner wanted to address all the allegations that the
petitioner was enduring while working in a Hostile work environment, but was
intentionally being willful disregarded and dismissive by both Defendant’s the
29
Union Pacific Railroad and the Transportation Communication Union Officials see
Appendix, R, S. Due to my internal complaints and prior complaints of which the
Respondent supervisor was aware from beginning, she stated that she has mouth to
feed, see Appendix, W, which, I read between the Respondent superior line of
talking, that she wasn’t losing her job behind the petitioner due to the petitioner of
filing numerous complaints out of Palestine, TX, Claims Department of which the
Respondent supervisor out of Houston, TX was aware from the other managers
from the Claims Department out of Palestine, TX and from the Upper management
to finds ways to exit my employment due to my numerous complaints, from which
the Respondent stated they were out to get me, see Appendix, T, V, EE. The
Respondent supervisor used her own authority motive to establish to retaliate and
used a friable offense to get rid of my employment. See Gilbert, vs Union
Pacific company, 19-804, like Gilbert case of reported his od injury
complaints and Union pacific Railroad denied the knowing of this with the
similarities of happening to me and from the beginning, from all upper
management department involve and TCU union official attitudes has
changed towards me due to my incidents and the next working day on July 23,
2018,1 received a Union Pacific Rule 1.6 for insubordination and was told to
leave the premise which caused me to dismiss. After being pulled out of service
for asking for Union Representation Help, the Transportation Communication
Union/IAM Official called the Petitioner on July 24, 2018, see Appendix, W after
I was pulled out service and told the petitioner to show up for work (as if I was
being put back to service for work) for a conference on July 25, 2018 at 8 a.m. to
have a conference with the Respondent supervisor and when I showed-up no
one was there and I was scared because I could have been arrested after
Terminated me from the premises of Union Pacific Railroad, see Appendix, W, I
recorded the conversation for my safety and knew right then and there I ‘v been
30
railroaded and I wasn’t ever going to be reinstated back to my job. See Gilbert, vs
Union Pacific company, 19-804. As gilbert of reported his on duty injury See 49
U.S.C. § 20109(a)(4) (“A railroad carrier .. may not discharge, demote, suspend,
reprimand, or in any other way discriminate against an employee if such
discrimination is due, in whole or in part, to the employee; s lawful, good faith act
done, to notify ... the railroad carrier ... of a work-related personal injury.”). To
establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the FRSA, a plaintiff “must show
that: (1) he made an injury complaint in good faith (i.e., engaged in a protected
activity); (2) the rail carrier knew of the complaint; (3) he suffered an adverse
employment action; and (4) the complaint was a contributing factor in the adverse
action.” Armstrong v. BNSF Rv. Co.. 880 F.3d 377. 381 (7th Cir. 2018). “Once that showing is made, the rail carrier can still escape liability if it can show, by
clear and convincing evidence, that it would have taken the same action absent the
protected activity.” Ibid. Whereas, the Constitutional Bylaws protect employees
from Prima Facie case, see Appendix, S. Furthermore, the Union Pacific
Railroad, Respondent stated that no one knew about my reported incident, whereas
the transcript from the Lower District Court states “why wouldn’t they have known
for that everyone knew of my reported incident the day of my panic attack and also
reported to the Union Pacific railroad internal EEO, once again the Respondent
supervisor attitude had changed, whereas my evidence of my od duty injury all of
my medical reports, Medical Leave of absence and Panic attack, see. Appendix, T,
V, W, DP that was reported to the Respondent and given to the Transportation
communication Union/IAM as “Evidence which may indicate a link between the
protected activity and the allegedly adverse actions include ... a change in the
employer’s attitude toward the complainant after he or she engages in protected
activity.” Cyrus v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.. 2015 WL 5675073. at *11 (N.D. Ill. Sept.
24. 2015). which a change that alone is sufficient evidence of pretext to survive
31
summary judgment. See ibid, (holding that a “change in the employer’s attitude
toward the complainant after he or she engages in protected activity” provides
evidence of pretext).
Whether an Asserts a claim of retaliatory discrimination with the continuance
violation doctrine form working in hostile work environment from 2016
lawsuit in violation of Title VII of civil rights acts of 1964, 42 U.S.C.2000e 2(a)
3(a) and violation 2 U.S. Code § 1311 - Rights and protections under title VII
of Civil Rights Act of 1964, Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967,
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and title I of Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990,, must show that the plaintiff suffered materially adverse employment
action?.
Under the Section 215(a)(3) of the Fair Labor Standard Act, the petitioner filed a
written oral and written complaints, within the Internal EEO of Union Pacific
Railroad and Government EEOC outside complaint that was within statutory
limited of 300 days of working in Hostile Work Environment. The Petitioner was
violated for reporting these allegation and disputes in the workplace to raise the
petitioner grievances without fear of retaliation. Congress enacted Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 to “assure equality of employment opportunities and to
eliminate discriminatory practices and devices” in the workplace. McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 800 (1973). This case involves “Title
VII’s core antidiscrimination provision,” Section 703(a)(1). Burlington N.
& Santa Fe Rv. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53. 61 (2006). Section 703(a)(1)
makes it unlawful for a private employer or a state or local government “to fail or
refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against
any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, working conditions, or
privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, age, sex,
gender, and disability. 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(l); see 42 U.S.C. 2000e(a)-(b). Title
32
VII includes several other relevant provisions. Section 703(a)(2) makes it unlawful
for a private employer or a state or local government “to limit, segregate, or
classify employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive
or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or 3 otherwise
adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color,
age sex, gender, and disability.” 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(2). Section 704(a) prohibits
retaliation by a private employer or a state or local government against employees
or applicants for engaging in conduct protected by Title VII. 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a).
And Section 717(a) provides that federal sector “personnel actions shall be made
free from any discrimination based on race, color, age, sex, gender, and disability.”
42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(a) Any form of discrimination, including race, age, sexual
orientation, gender, disability, religion or marital status, as well as any form of
harassment, retaliation for reporting the discrimination or harassment, or retaliation
for whistleblowing can constitute a hostile work environment and is illegal under
Federal law. The harassment is so severe or pervasive that it interferes with the
employee’s ability to perform their work or changes the terms and conditions of
their employment. The harassment is related to the employee’s membership or
perceived membership in a protected group, such as their race or gender and
disability. Bad Faith in Collective Bargaining; It Is also an unfair labor practice
for an employer to refuse to be involved in good-faith collective bargaining.
Employers are supposed to negotiate with a union before making alterations to
wages hours or working conditions of a bargaining union unless the union prevents
the agreement from being reached or there are economic exigencies requiring
speedy action, whereas the Petitioner was deprived from rendering aid in
emergency, see Appendix. S,W,Z. CC.DD.HH, They are supposed to meet with
unions at reasonable times and should not modify any collective bargaining
agreement without union consent. Statutory Violations: A union may also commit
33
unfair labor practices by violating rights provided by statute. The Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute guards’ federal employees’ collective
bargaining, participation, and organizing rights, and a union that violates any of
these rights may commit an unfair labor practice. A union would commit an unfair
labor practice if it refused to process a grievance because an employee in the
bargaining unit is not a union member and it would commit an unfair labor practice
if it refused to negotiate in good faith. Case, Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254
(1970), in accordance with a due process of full administrative remedies of
such Aid that was not enforced before a hearing which was not built around
my entitlements as a union member with benefits and remedies for the
employee to diffuse any allegations and having protection by Due Process under
Title I of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959
(LMRDA), 73 Stat. 519, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 401 et seq., is entitled to a jury
trial, and whether under § 301(a) of the Labor- Management Relations Act, 1947
(LMRA), 61 Stat. 156, 29 U. S. C., see. Smith, vs evening New Association, 371
U.S. 195 (1962), 185(a), Statute: § 7114. Representation rights and duties, Statute:
§7116. Unfair labor practices, 29 U.S. Code § 158 - Unfair labor practices and 29
U.S. Code §160 - Prevention of unfair labor practices by organization of union
member not adhering to the guidelines of the Collective Bargaining Agreement,
governed by Constitution Bylaws and the Policy and Procedures, clause from the
Fifth Amendment and the Fourteen Amendment to the U.S constitution that
nobody may be deprive of life under provision of the Constitution Bylaws see
Appendix, S, it states
see. City of Round Rock V. Rodriguez. 399 S.W. 3d
130 (2013), The right to union representation in an investigatory interview
derives from the United States Supreme Court decision in NLRB v.
Weingarten, 420 U.S. 251, 95 S.Ct. 959 (1975), the seminal case regarding
private-sector employee representation rights. In that case, an employer challenged
34
the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) determination that Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) granted private-sector employees the right to
have a union representative present at an investigatory interview when the
employee reasonably believes that the interview could result in disciplinary
action. Id. at 260, 95 S.Ct. 959. Following Weingarten, Congress extended the
representation right to federal public-sector employees. 5 U.S.C. $ 7101(b). Thus,
the right to union representation during investigatory interviews currently
applies nationally to all private-sector employees and federal public-sector
employees.
REASON FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
The reason for granting the petition Due to the Deception of Continue Action of
Working Hostile Work Environment of retaliation and to bring justice to the abuse
of Judicial discretion of Judicial Misconduct Disability from the Lower District
Court Judge and Federal Rules of being willful disregarded that raises questions
from the Lower District Court Judge and Parties of counsel. The Lower District
Court Judge used his own discretion of allying with the respondent in the very
beginning of the petitioner of being dismissed in June 2020 and May 2022 when
brought to Federal Court of the Southern Texas District Court in 2019. The Lower
District Court mistakes include not allowing an important witness to testify,
making improper comments that might influence a jury, showing bias, or making
rulings on evidence that deny a person a chance to tell his or her side of the matter.
Whereas the lower district court furthermore; refusing, without good cause shown,
to cooperate in the investigation of a judicial misconduct conduct or disability
complaint or not enforcement of a decision under the Rules 2.9 and all other
Rules which is applicable to this case; and engaging in improper Ex Parte
communications with parties or counsel for one side in this case. The Appeal Court
35
of the Fifth District had remanded and reversed the petitioner case back to the
Lower court whereas the Judge essentially disregarded the petitioner reversal and
repeated his erroneous ruling and cursory reasoning, violation of Rule 59. whereas,
If I would have known in the beginning, once again, I would have asked for quite
of few motions from this deception of the Petitioner case for a removal from this
judge due to the mistakes, misleading and misrepresentation by an in effective
counsel. The Lower District Court Deception of the two transcript without the
Petitioner knowledge to present to the Appeal Court of the Fifth Circuit, as Newly
facts of evidence that I petitioner newly discovered would have been able to
produce due to my newly circumstantial evidences to the court. The Lower
District Court Judge is notorious of being reprimanded of failure to follow the
Federal Law of Rules and Regulation from the Appeal Court of the Fifth
Circuit, see, the 5th Circuit reassigned a Judge Hughes case after reversing a
summary judgment ruling. U.S. ex rel. Little v. Shell Exploration. 602 Fed.
Appx. 959 (5th Cir. 2015). The lower District Court has failed the petitioner to be
barred from the court Hearing, instead according to the documents once again^
who is P wright as the client at both hearing, which raise suspicious of
deception. The transcripts being contradicting as one sided and establishing a
motive to grant summary in favor of the Respondent to protect his financial gain of
shares of stock with Union Pacific Railroad, whereas the judge was being deceitful
by signing a docket of a clarification Order under Oath stating “this court
doesn’t own Stock” as being a violation, 28 U.S.C. 453-Oath of justices and
judges, to deceive the court in favor of the Respondent, see Appendix, N,
furthermore, the Judicial misconduct of the Lower District Court judge, per the
Appeal Court of the Fifth Circuit has remand and reversed many cases that was
maliciously prejudicial bias from the Lower District Court Judge to abide by with
Rules and Statutory of civil case which the judge took upon self-interest not too.
36
Due to the Lower District Court judge erroneous bias of prejudicial conduct
whereas he resided on numerous cases that was Remanded and Reversed by the
Appeal Court of the Fifth Circuit for issuing ruling with legal errors and the most
intemperate Judge, see. This Federal Jurist Is Raising Eyebrows;” Law.com
(Feb. 3, 2021): see. In Miller v. Sam Houston State University. 4:15-CV-2824.
4:15-CV-2927 (Jan. 29. 2021). the 5th Circuit reversed and reassigned the case
to a new judge based on Judge Hughes “imperious and & biased conduct that
evidenced a “prejudgment” of the plaintiff claims., As I previously mention
from all these cases the Lower District Court presided on and discovered of
Judicial Misconduct of not being fair and impartial. For this reason, due to the
Lower District Court not applying the Applicable Laws, with the intentional of the
Petitioner Being Barred and due to other similar findings of cases of illegal errors.
I Pray and asking for the Petitioner Judgement to be Vacate and Remand and
Reversed with a New docket and New judge and Trail.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner Aisha Wright respectfully requests that
this Supreme Court issue a Writ of Certiorari to review the judgment of the Appeal
Court of the Fifth Circuit.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/Aisha Wright, Pro Se,
P.O. Box 11826
Houston, TX 77293
(903)-630-0916
Aishawright6 8 @gmail. com
37
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.