EEOC Claim

EEOC Narrative

Exhibit #1 is the letter read to management on May 3, 2021. Present were the store manager, HR representative, two Assistant Store Managers (ASM) and the Front End Supervisor (FES) my departmental boss. It outlines what had been done to me. Emily is a Head cashier (HC) under the FES and appears in the poem as Bo Peep. Store manager receives the name Bean Counter. Chris is  Chris Sullins an ASM. John is John Sanchez another store ASM. Melanie is HR and April is FES. When finished I asked were there any questions and did anyone disagree with the timeline. No one did nor were there any questions.

Subsequently, the company denied that there was such a position available at that time and that only one position had been listed earlier. I encouraged an employee to apply for that position and it had already been filled prior to the second one becoming available. The company backfilled and misrepresented later. Why would anyone put somebody up for a job and then compete against them? The management team simply purged the record and moved forward. Not an unusual occurrence at Depot for sure.

Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3 represent contact with EEOC and their response and action. Exhibit 4 is Depot’s response. Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 6 are my bifurcated responses. Mercedes Ricardo was the appointed investigator. She had surgery and was on leave until October of 2021 and informed me she was soon retiring when she returned to work. She also indicated my case was easy to win. No correspondence or updates were provided until I finally requested status the following January.

One step the EEOC takes is to see if the parities can reach an accord. I offered my terms through them to Depot. It is a letter of apology Exhibit 7. It was rejected and EEOC agreed that since admitting guilt was not allowed in mediation they had to proceed to a full investigation. They decided my case was meritorious.

When I inquired of Mercedes in January of 2022, she determined the case would not move forward and would be closed. Exhibit 8 is the notice of that action. Interesting that I contacted Mercedes on January 24th and one day letter the letter was sent to me. Begs the question if that would have happened if I had not stimulated the employee with an inquiry.

EEOC has everyone provide files in their system. I had done so. When the letter was received, I found my responses to the Depot interrogatory were missing. I had Part A filed twice to correct a typo and both of these files were absent along with Part B. No other file was missing. I inquired and was told they were moving to a new system. I asked for access to see my files. Never provided. I asked why only these files were missing from the old site. No answer. I concluded that it appeared the EEOC had scrubbed the files and accepted Home Depot’s response in to. Based on the evidence available and conduct received such a conclusion is both reasonable and prudent.

Mercedes retired and I corresponded with Mr. Bradley Anderson. It was not pleasant. Exhibit 9 is a letter I sent. The exchange includes his two letters to me Exhibit 10. Scroll down as the Exhibit includes both letters sent by him to me on different dates. Exhibit 11 is my one response. It was my response to his first letter on Exhibit 10 located at the bottom of that pdf file. The first letter in that file is his second and last letter to me and I did not respond.

To conclude, a case that was deemed by their employee as easy to win did not move forward. Not one person was ever contacted, nor any additional inquiries made of me. The case was summarily closed and all documentation that may have warranted investigation came up missing and scrubbed.

Maybe it was moved to another file and actually exists. Read the documents Decide for yourself. It appears that EEOC is under some form of corporate capture by Home Depot. Or is it simply expedient to close a case by deleting fact and evidence? Your tax dollars at work, right? You decide.