“Pounding the law:”
- Argue the facts;
- Argue the law; or
- Know the judge and contribute to a re-election campaign.
Fill in the blank pleading
Have an argument with your boss? You can’t fire me, I quit! Do what many disgruntled employees do: Sue for discrimination. With legal software, it is easy to fill in the blanks:
- Religious Discrimination, Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a;
- Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, amended Title VII;
- Discrimination, Retaliation, 42 U.S.C. §1983;
- Interference, Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. §2617; and
- Retaliation, Family Medical Leave Act.
Minaz Mukhi-Skees filed her Complaint against her former employer: Seminole County’s two agencies: The Tax Collector, and Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller. The Geller Report earlier chronicled this case’s details.
The Tax Collector filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses, to name one: “Defendant affirmatively asserts that plaintiff was discharged for legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory business reasons.”
“Officials with the tax collector’s office wouldn’t comment on pending litigation, but did provide WESH 2 News with the response it gave to EEOC after the Charge of Discrimination she filed last year. The office suggested there was a, sic ‘negative attitude exhibited toward both her colleagues and her supervisors,’ and that she was, ‘difficult to work with and was often uncooperative.’”
The Court Clerk filed an Amended Motion to Dismiss. “As with all employees, Plaintiff was an at-will employee and was hired into a ninety (90) day probationary period. Very soon after Plaintiff’s employment began, Plaintiff exhibited various performance problems. For example, Plaintiff criticized the Clerk’s Office’s procedures and the personal knowledge of other team members. Plaintiff’s actions created a significant amount of ill-will and discord among her peers and team members. Because of these, and other problems, the Clerk’s Office terminated Plaintiff’s employment within the probationary period.”
Facts and law can be twisted like pretzels, but when that fails, what is a Muslim woman to do?
Throw Sharia mud
Minaz Mukhi-Skees filed her Amended Complaint to cure errors of pleading, but she failed to delete her ridiculous premise: Islamophobia is employment discrimination ¶20: “Joel Greenberg has had a history of posting several anti-Muslim posts on social media.”
“A very simple question… Name just ONE society in the developed world that has benefited in ANY WAY from the introduction of more Muslims. Just one,” Joel Greenberg posted. “Asking for a friend.”
On social media, observe the absence of any serious answer. Instead, inquiring minds want to complain about the question, and attack anyone who dares to pose the question for public discourse. Robert Spencer is an expert on Islam. Neal Boortz is a retired host of a talk show on radio. Joel Greenberg is the Tax Collector for Seminole County, Florida. So what? The question was posed by Boortz and Greenberg as individuals, not as an official inquiry by a government official. Geller Report
Muslims and Democrats have protested for the resignation or removal of Joel Greenberg as Tax Collector for Seminole County, Florida.
“This is Islamophobic,” said Rasha Mubarak, a Muslim activist, who criticized Greenberg individually Orlando Sentinel; and Greenberg as a politician WESH-TV. Rasha Mubarak was the “Orlando Regional Coordinator for the Council on American Islamic Relations Florida.” In-other-words, a spokesperson for CAIR-Florida, until July, 2018, according to her page on Facebook. CAIR was named a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates in 2014 Fox News. Rasha Mubarak now is the President of Young Democrats of Orange County, Florida.
Florida law recognizes an “at-will” relationship between employer and employee. Absent an employment contract, either party can terminate the employment for any reason.
Rules of procedure, generally, require a complaint to plead “ultimate facts.” However, a fill in the blank complaint should not be “bald” on relevant facts. The Amended Complaint fails to specify any evidence of actual discrimination allegedly committed by defendants.
Instead, Plaintiff, a Muslim woman, throws Sharia mud to libel the character of defendants. By using this tactic, Minaz Mukhi-Skees effectively admits that she does not have a case.
The Amended Complaint’s causes of action, wrapped in legalese, are actually Sharia law. Islamic jargon may not be used in court, but the message is clear: Criticism of Islam is blasphemy. That conclusion is subjective and based on whether an individual Muslim is offended.
Under American law, in this civil case, the penalty is money.
Sharia law is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights.
As an attorney and U.S. citizen, I am ashamed of our legal system and attorneys’ advancement of Sharia law in the United States.
Read this case’s pleadings:
- Tax Collector’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses;
- Clerk of Court’s Amended Motion to Dismiss;
- Clerk of Court’s Exhibit A;
- Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint; and
- Plaintiff’s Exhibits A-C.
Article posted with permission from Pamela Geller.