SYED JAWAID V. DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY : * PRESIDENT OBAMA, TO HIS CREDIT, HAS SHOWN NO INDICATIONS OF ADOPTING OR IMPLEMENTING A "TRUMP" PHILOSOHY IN DEALING WITH MUSLIMS; BUT, THERE IS A SIGN THAT A SEGMENT OF HIS ADMINISTRATION, HOMELAND SECURITY, HAS EXHIBITED SOME DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MUSLIMS

Los Angeles, California


May 10, 2016
(Today's Date)

February 12, 2016
(Original Date)

*Denotes a change in the original blog, either addition or deletion

**UPDATE (Denotes NEW information or material added after publishing of the original blog)


Much has been said about Donald Trump's statement and position that all Muslims should be banned or barred from the United States. "Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump called Monday for barring all Muslims from entering the United States." CNNPolitics.com, December 8, 2015 (Jeremy Diamond, CNN). "'Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on,' a campaign press release said.'" Id. "Trump, who previously called for surveillance against mosques and said he was open to establishing a database for all Muslims living in the U.S., made his latest controversial call in a news release." Id. For those readers who are unaware of the fact, Donald Trump is a Republican candidate for President of the United States.


*Again, Obama, instead of calling for "surveillance" against mosques, has visited a mosque. So, Obama hasn't been "Trump" in his perception of Muslims; and he has not called for mass mistreatment of Muslims. Nevertheless, his Administration cannot be said to be completely free of any discrimination against Muslims.

Syed Jawaid was a 65 year-old male who brought an employment discrimination action against the Department of Homeland Security in 2009-2010. In his Complaint, Jawaid charged the Agency (Homeland Security and/or CIS--Citizens and Immigration Services) with harassment, and discriminating against him on the basis of, among other grounds, race, religion (Muslim) and retaliation, which are the focus of this blog. Jawaid is now deceased, but his wife, Rafaia, is substituting for him in his litigation against the government.

Mr. Jawaid charged that CIS employees (or co-workers) discriminated against him on the basis of race and religion (Muslim) by calling him names such as raghead, camel jockey, Saddam Hussein, Chemical Ali, Nazi, and weird Asian." He charged that he was harassed by co-workers between 2006 and 2008, and that when calling him these names, the co-workers "hid their faces".

He charged the supervisors with "verbal abuse", e.g., shouting and screaming at Jawaid for no apparent reason, during the same time period.

He also charged that the CIS retaliated against him regarding certain matters, and especially for the purpose of this blog, regarding a negative performance review.


Mr. Jawaid's case is now in the administrative stage, which means that it can still be resolved by the Obama Administration itself, rather than forcing the family to undergo formal court proceedings. And the record in this case suggests that the matter should be resolved administratively rather than judicially.


During the administrative hearing, Jawaid proved his case, especially regarding the harassment, and most especially regarding supervisory harassment, i.e., verbal abuse, and the retaliation, most especially regarding the negative performance review. Because Jawaid was deceased at the time of his hearing, he, through counsel, relied upon his Affidavits (made under oath) for some of his evidence. But, there was also eyewitness testimony of other independent witnesses that supported his case. For example, see below under "The Discrimination".

Yet, the Administrative Judge (AJ) found that "Complainant's allegations in this case are unsupported by the record and that any constructive discharge claim therefore fails. Accordingly, I hereby find in favor of the Agency in the instant complaints".

However, even if the case had failed on the merits of Jawaid's claims, the AJ's decision should have been reversed on appeal to the Commission based on AJ bias. Jawaid, through counsel , cited multiple instances of bias throughout the hearing.


THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL

Mr. Jawaid appealed the Agency-AJ decision to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.


THE DISCRIMINATION

*The Discrimination discussed here, but certainly not in depth, will be harassment (based on race and religion) and disability discrimination, particularly regarding failure to accommodate.



The Harassment

Mr. Jawaid was Indian and Muslim.

And, he asserted that "The co-workers knew (he) was of a dark-skin race, e.g., Indian- Asian, African, or Hispanic-Latino. He did not 'look like a European, African American, or Asian (as in yellow-skinned Asians).'" "He 'was the only East Indian Muslim officer(Immigration Services Officer) among a majority of Filipino and Chinese officers.'" He asserted that "'85% of East Indian has dark skin', 'they have typical accent', and his 'distinct East Indian color. . .can be recognized among a crowd.'"

In his brief, Mr. Jawaid, relying on the overall Record, was more specific in his complaints of discrimination:

He pointed out to the Commission, based upon the evidence, that the harassment he suffered "was continuous harassment which started in 2006 through the last day of (his) work at USCIS(November 5, 2010)."

Mr. Jawaid stated that he "was harassed by various co-workers, between 2006 and 2008, such as Jessie F., Joselito G., and Gregg W. Jawaid stated "The co-workers did such things as pass by in front of Jawaid's work station, 'hiding their faces', and making comments by using racial and religious slurs such as 'Raghead, Camel Jockey, Saddam Hussein, Chemical Ali, Nazi, and weird Asian.'"

He stated that he was also harassed by several supervisors, including Anthony L., Sany A., Russell K., Charnae D., Slyvia W., and David D.. He asserted that "All the Managers, Supervisors and Officers were aware that I have a typical Muslim name." And that, "nobody was harassed like me in our team." "I was the only East Indian Muslim officer among a majority of Filipino and Chinese officers." "Islam is not a popular religion in the west." "I believed that my civil rights were violated and not protected like other minorities. It seemed like I was found guilty without due process. I was (treated) unfairly, knowing that I could not protect myself, being only very few employees belonging to the Muslim faith who worked at USCIS in Los Angeles, California."

He stated "Mr. K. is nice to everyone else on our team, most of whom are Filipino, Korean, and Chinese. I think there are only two white persons on the team, the rest are minorities. Mr. K. is Chinese American. . . .no disability. There is a brotherhood kind of thing in the office and they support each other. I have to support myself because there are no other Indian employees." "Mr. K. yelled and screamed at me in front of Ms. D., and she did not say a word."

He stated "Ms. W. would spend five hours in front of my cubicle, harassing and taking difficult cases from other officers and giving them to me for interviews. The same thing happened with Mr. L.; he would call me in his office every 30 minutes and interrupt my work schedule on daily basis. Mr. L. would not sign my sick or annual leave and he always yelled and screamed at me for no reason."

Supervisor, Anthony L., harassed Jawaid through verbal abuse. Jawaid asserted, "Anthony L. singled me out and was responsible for verbal abuse. His shouting and screaming at me, without any reason, created a hostile work environment for me. Section Chief Robin P. could hear his loud verbal abuse towards me, but never uttered a word." "I was accused of various things that were not true and even though I reported to supervisor and section manager as well as to District Director that I am not treated like any other officer. . . no body was telling me what I was doing wrong." "Anytime I come out of the cubicle, section manager would come out in a speed to confront me."

Mr. Jawaid's assertions, especially those assertions of verbal abuse by supervisors were supported by eyewitness testimony from a fellow Immigration Services Officer (ISO), C.B. :

Q. : Did you ever witness Mr. L. yelling at Mr. Jawaid in a loud or angry manner?

ANS: Yes, I did.


Mr. Jawaid stated "I told Ms. P. about Mr. L.--that he singled me out and was screaming and yelling at me without any reason." But, "No action was taken."

Also from C.B.: "I had also reported to Robin P., which was actually the manager before M.R., about L. several times."

Q. : Was any action taken after you reported it?

ANS: None, none.



Disability Discrimination

After Mr. Jawaid returned from surgery for a brain tumor, he developed "Systemic Scerosis"(SS), a disabling disease which causes loss of muscle control. It is permanent and progressive. Joint pain and muscle problems can be managed with medication, message, and exercise, but there is no definitive medicine for SS on the market at this time.

The Agency did not contest the fact of the disability.

Based on his disabilities, Mr. Jawaid was placed on certain restrictions by his doctors, such as not carrying files that weigh 15 pounds or more or conducting interviews for more than an hour. But, notwithstanding the restrictions, Mr. Jawaid testified that, "I began receiving these assignments right after I told Mr. K. that I had a medical condition." That is, Mr. Jawaid stated that after he presented the doctor's notice to Mr. K., "The same week that (he) submitted this doctor letter to his first line supervisor Mr. K., he was given two (2) Immigration Judges (IJ) marital fraud cases that lasted over four (4) hours."

Mr. Jawaid stated that he "was exhausted because of his condition and these extremely long interviews and he went to sleep on his lunch break in his office. Management did not accommodate (his) disability."

Finally, Mr. Jawaid testified that "Mr D. (another supervisor) knew that (he) could not lift more than 15 pounds and that he could not interview more than an hour. However, management had (him) picking up immigration files and bringing them to his desk. Many times these files weigh over 15 pounds and (he) was not able to carry them. . . . Also (he) was given several IJ cases weighing more than 15 pounds each. These files were left in his office during the months of November and December, after being brought to Mr. K.'s attention that they were too heavy for Mr. Jawaid to handle. Management did not accommodate (his) disability."


THE COMMISSION'S DECISION

The Commission, in its initial decision, basically,* *seem to *overlook the harassment by the supervisors, whose misconduct was corroborated by eyewitness testimony. Rather, the Commission's decision attributed co-worker conduct to the supervisors, and thereafter, discounted the co-worker conduct by not crediting Mr. Jawaid's testimony and not counting or considering a witness that the AJ erroneously would not allow to testify on Mr. Jawaid's behalf.

*But, the most glaring error that I perceive in the Commission's initial decision was its failure to review Mr. Jawaid's claim of "retaliation", especially the retaliation claim based on a negative performance review. The Commission's decision made no mention of the retaliation claim(s). Hopefully, it will change its course, *with a closer look.



MR. JAWAID'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Mr. Jawaid's family has now filed a motion for reconsideration with the Commission, relying heavily, though not wholly, on the Commission's failure to address Mr. Jawaid's claim of "retaliation", especially regarding the negative performance review.

*Mr. Jawaid received a negative performance review from Mr. K.

*From Mr. Jawaid: "Ever since I have been working for the USCIS, I have never received
any rating less than outstanding." *(Since 1997)


THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS

Basically, the decision in Mr. Jawaid's case, at this stage, lies with the Obama Administration. *There should be another "beer summit", to resolve the matter administratively. And, indeed, that is the purpose of the administrative process, to provide the Agency (Homeland Security/CIS)(and the Obama Administration) an opportunity to correct any mistakes and resolve the matter administratively before proceeding to federal court, especially when the merits of the case clearly favor the Complainant, as in the case at bar.

If the Administration wishes to portray to the public that it does not discriminate against Muslims, or, if discrimination has been shown to be exercised by its agencies, that it will correct that discrimination through the appropriate relief, it should reconsider this case and proceed appropriately in rendering administrative relief.

Then, the Administration can reasonably declare that it differs from the Trump philosophy of indiscriminate discrimination against all Muslims as a general principle; rather, it will take steps to correct or eviscerate any notions of discrimination against Muslims when the facts and circumstances dictate that it should be done. And, in this case, the facts and circumstances so dictate.


UPDATE--April 23, 2016

There has been some changes made to the original blog at *.



**UPDATE--May 10, 2016

There have been more changes made to the original blog.