This is a petition in support of granting certiorari to Supreme Court petition 25-47 placed on the docket on July 15, 2025 and to be decided if it should proceed on the docket in less than two weeks on August 15, 2025.  Please sign and forward this petition to your co workers, join the Equal Employment Protection advocates facebook page for updates and enjoy the benefits and protections provided by the Equal Employment Protection Union of talented professionals and advocates.

In the case at hand, The Petitioner, a black male  claims "he was over forty years old deserving ADEA protection and after approximately 4.5 years of excellent service and transferring from the Audit to the Accounting department, he reported a newly hired white male manager for discrimination and started written and verbal requests of transfers and (Title VII) protections from HR while applying for promotions and jobs in other departments. 

The petitioner "had 8-10 prior years' experience performing A133 government compliance audits and Accounting services reporting any inconsistent findings before working at SCDOT and great character references.  As a SCDOT Contract Assurance and Compliance Auditor IV, he received 3.8 years of specialized AASHTO financial reporting training; completed 80+ CPE hrs and had 4 yrs all pass performance reports from SCDOT managers per reference letters of great character and getting along with coworkers from May 2014 to June 2017.  Therefore, the petitioner alleged he ... "is somewhat an expert in government legal compliance auditing and reporting on legal policies and procedures.  This helps to form an opinion … (knowledgeable) employees or supervisors can be experts Id. At 14a. A. KING v. D. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 4th circuit case No. 03-197."

On 01/24/2018 the petitioner had a completely clean work conduct record until he complained of discrimination, harassment and unequal pay experienced from his supervisor(s). 

But, instead the petitioner alleges, instead of the government agency SCDOT providing Title VII protections, it willingly participated and violated its own policies and turned a blind eye assisting the newly hired white male supervisor in collusion and committed approximately 37 weekly/monthly total independent adverse actions, reprimands, threats of job interference over the next year and prepared a internally produced salary study based on prior experience that contained errors related to the petitioners prior experience. 

SCDOT’s salary study is based on the comparators prior experience but ignores the petitioners prior experience and current superior performance duties of having to write a training manual for the whole SCDOT accounting department without increased pay due in only 1.5 months just 3 months after being hired.  

Per law, Prior pay, alone or in combination with other factors, is not a job-related “factor other than sex” that can be used to justify a difference in pay under the Equal Pay Act (EPA), a majority of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held again. Rizo v. Yovino, No. 16-15372 (Feb. 27, 2020).  

The "Petitioner also faced retaliation and was fired exactly one year after on O2/21/2019 after a the white male supervisor injected himself into a email thread between the petitioner and a black female supervisor and denied promised instructions, he then asked 8-12 compound, leading, argumentative questions forcing a reply from the petitioner whom replied honestly and transparently while answering his supervisors  questions and indicating his protected activities were violated and that his supervisors conduct and interference was “unwelcomed” in the email reply" and subsequent 02/27/2019 meeting where he also stated his terms, conditions, privileges and benefits of employment changed due to the white male supervisors discrimination, harassment and retaliation so he filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint. 

In retaliation, the white male supervisor took this simple email reply, falsely characterized the petitioners reply as insubordinate, threatening and combative, prepared a reprimand and submitted it to a disgruntled HR assistant for approval, whom he also made previous false claims to leading to a 5 day suspension meeting on 02/27/2019 where the SCDOT HR representative stated the petitioner would only be suspended for the email reply only not for any conjured or stated conduct related issues in the meeting or before the 02/21/2019 email that caused the 02/27/2019 meeting. 

The very next day on 02/28/2019 the white male supervisor stated the petitioner was again insubordinate, threatening and combative in the 02/27/19 meeting and described the petitioners EEOC complaint as “an aggressive EEOC complaint” which shows his disregard for the EEOC process proving it was a material genuine issue of major concern that potentially caused the petitioner to be fired just six days later on 03/05/2019.  

Per Google AI Overview 1. The term “aggressive” used by the manager to describe the EEOC complaint could imply: While a manager’s description of an EEOC complaint as “aggressive” might not be, in itself, a violation of the law, it could potentially be indicative of retaliatory behavior.  The manager’s comment could be considered as part of a pattern of behavior designed to deter or punish the employee. If the manager’s comment is followed by actions that negatively impact the employee’s job or create a hostile work environment, it could strengthen a claim of retaliation. In summary: While the term “aggressive” itself might be subjective, the context in which it’s used and any subsequent actions taken by the employer need careful consideration. 

Other courts have concluded that the discharge of an employee (or adverse action) soon after the employee engages in protected activity is strongly suggestive of retaliatory motive, thus indirect proof of causation. , e.g., Oliver v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 103, 110 (1st Cir.1988).  

Retaliation is easier to prove than discrimination. Hubbell v. FedEx, No. 18-1373 (6th Cir. 2019).   Subsequently.  In Faragher (1998) and Burlington Indus. (1998), The Court held: An employer is subject to vicarious liability to a victimized employee for an actionable hostile environment created by a supervisor with immediate (or successively higher) authority over the employee. Harassment is a theory of discrimination which allows an employee to establish harm without proof of an adverse employment action such as discipline or ...Sep 18, 2020.  Finally, the Court in Oncale reiterated that "harassing conduct need not be motivated by race;  In the case at hand the petitioner contends no new hire white employees experienced harassment or unequal pay, ONLY black employees.  

Per the magistrate, (“Plaintiff has provided direct evidence that SCDOT’s employee relations manager observed the Plaintiff’s perceived mental anguish in this same meeting around 01/30/2019 one year after he filed discrimination complaint on 01/24/2018 and experienced (multiple) disabling independent adverse actions like the appalling conduct alleged in Meritor, and the reference in that case to environments " `so heavily polluted with discrimination as to destroy completely the emotional and psychological stability of minority group workers,' " supra, at 66, quoting Rogers v. EEOC, 454 F. 2d 234, 238 (CA5 1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 957 (1972).  Per the Petitioner, "The 4th Circuit Courts below formulated errors that I have to correct causing the whole system to look corrupt and justice to be clearly denied, is earth shattering, the substance of things hoped for, faith in the system."

My story is not unique, and it highlights a systemic issue in how public and government agencies handle discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and unequal pay cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

This issue is highlighted even more with case in Alexander vs. South Carolina Department of Transportation (23-1781 and 25-47), currently on the docket at the Supreme Court, set to be decided on August 15, 2025.

______________________________________________________________________________

The outcomes of these cases may set new precedents for how similar cases are managed, but status quo handling has often been inadequate and unjust.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was enacted to prohibit employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. However, the enforcement of these protections often falls short, especially when agencies tasked with upholding these laws are unable to act impartially or effectively. Government and public agencies must be committed to adjudicating justice without bias or influence from internal hierarchies, ensuring that victims who come forward are protected rather than being subjected to retribution, retaliation or reprisal in any form.

According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, nearly 70% of employees who report discrimination face some form of retaliation. This statistic is alarming and calls for urgent reform in the policies and practices of how discrimination and retaliation cases are handled.  Employees without jobs may have home, cars a little savings and should not be required to sell those things in order to hire council because they have a few assets and are over the free legal assistance poverty threshold or they may have started the case themselves. 

But in the case at hand the petitioner was blessed with some skills, scholarship and he persevered the errored legal process and provided direct concrete evidence and facts and requirements the Petitioner Alexander has poured out involves implementing stricter oversight of agency processes, enhanced transparency in case evaluations, and stronger protections for whistleblowers trying to uplift manhood.

It's crucial that government bodies institute mandatory training for all personnel involved in Title VII investigations, as well as create external INDEPENDENT committees like the Equal Employment Protection Advocates to review the outcomes of significant cases, ensuring that fairness and justice prevail.

Join me in urging changes that will fortify Title VII protections and improve the processes for handling discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and unequal pay cases in public and governmental settings. It's time for our voices to be heard and for justice to be accessible and equitable for all.

Please Sign this petition to demand action from our legislators and ensure that justice under Title VII is not just a statutory promise but a living reality for every American worker and specifically in this case South Carolinians in the 4th Circuit.