Carolyn Hicks Washington

3613 Lime Hill Road

Lauderhill, Florida 33319
chwash20031@yahoo.com

November 17, 2017

Mr. Michael Farrell, Director

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Miami District Office
100 S.E. 2nd Street, Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33131

RE: Carolyn Washington v. Housing Authority of the City of Fort Lauderdale,

Florida, EEOC Charge No. 510-2016-02801

Dear Mr. Farrell,

For the following reasons discussed below, I am writing to ask the EEOC to: (1.) dismiss
Mr. Michael Serlo Mathelier as an investigator to this case due to bias and his failure to
abide by the procedural rules set forth by the EEOC, (2.) vacate his decision dismissing
my claims and (3.) to allow for discovery and a hearing before an Administrative Judge
(AJ), so that an impartial, written decision that applies the law to the facts of this case can
be rendered.

I. Addressing Procedural Concerns with Mr. Michael Mathelier’s Investigation

and “Final Decision”

On November 13, 2015, I was terminated by my former employer the Housing Authority
of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida (“HACFL”) and its CEO Tam English and CFO Michael
Tadros (both white men). I originally filed my complaint with the EEOC on April 19, 2016.
My complaint included claims of individual disparate treatment, wrongful termination and
failure to re-hire in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”). I alleged that my termination (as well
as my Supervisor Veronica Lopez) and the HACFL’s refusal to rehire me was due to my
race, color, national origin, gender and/or age. Each one of these protected characteristics,
individually and/or collectively, played a “motivating factor” in Mr. English and Mr. Tadro’s
decision to terminate the employment of two extremely qualified women of color over the
age of 40 who’d provided the HACFL with exceptional service for more than a decade. The
EEOC originally assigned Mrs. Katherine Gonzalez as the investigator to the case although
she was later replaced by Mr. Michael Mathelier.

Unaware of all of the facts and circumstances of my case, Mr. Mathelier decided to narrow
my claims to age discrimination on April 25, 2016. Although the Respondent’s attorney
Daniel Eric Gonzalez filed the HACFL’s oppositional pleading to my complaint on February

[1]
2, 2017, Mr. Mathelier forwarded it to me on May 15, 2017 and told me I had until June
5, 2017 to respond. The Respondent argued: “The Charging Party had a harsh
management style that created a difficult and uncomfortable work environment, increased
workplace stress, and decreased employee morale. The Charging’s Party harsh
management style drove many employees away over the years. The Charging Party’s
department had extreme levels of employee turnovers and resulting instability. The
Respondent terminated the Charging Party in order to improve its work environment and
maintain a stable workforce.”

In my June 5, 2017 response, I reiterated that my claims are not limited to age
discrimination and explained that English and the HACFL’s recent decision to hire Mrs.
Barbara Baer – a white woman with a criminal record and reported 100% turnover rate at
her previous place of employment – supported my claims that the termination of Mrs.
Lopez and I constituted disparate treatment in terms and conditions based on race and/or
color and showed that the Respondent’s arguments were pretextual.

On August 24, 2017, Mr. Mathelier stated that he had not received my reply and asked me
to answer a number of questions. On that same day, I forwarded the original e-mail to him
and responded that all questioned had been answered in my response and earlier
submissions.

On October 19, 2017, I received an e-mail from Mr. Mathelier. In the body of the e-mail,
he stated that after conducting his own investigation, he concluded that I had not been
discriminated against because of my age. Included as an attachment to the e-mail was a
response provided by the Respondent, which was also dated October 19, 2017.

As all parties are aware, I am the only one who has no legal experience. Thus, I am the
only party that is unfamiliar with the EEOC’s procedural rules when it comes to
investigating and resolving a complaint. Luckily, the EEOC provides this information on
their website.

In one area of the EEOC’s website titled “Federal EEO Complaint Processing Procedures,”1
it states in Section F titled “Investigations”: “Investigations are conducted by the
respondent agency. The agency must develop an impartial and appropriate factual record
upon which to make findings on the claims raised by the complaint. An appropriate
factual record is defined in the regulations as one that allows a reasonable fact finder to
draw conclusions as to whether discrimination occurred.” (emphasis added) It also states,
“A copy of the investigative file must be provided to the complainant, along with a
notification that, within 30 days of receipt of the file, the complainant has the right to
request a hearing and a decision from an EEOC [Administrative Judge] or may request
an immediate final decision from the agency.” (emphasis added) In the section titled
“Requesting a Hearing,” it discusses the complainant “receiv[ing] notice from the agency
about your hearing rights” “as soon as [the agency] has finished its investigation.”

In another area of the EEOC’s website, in the section titled “Filing A Complaint,”2 it states
in a subsection titled “Role Of An Investigator”: “The role of the agency investigator is to

1 https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/fedprocess.cfm
2 https://www.eeoc.gov/federal/fed_employees/filing_complaint.cfm

[2]
gather information related to your complaint. Agency investigators do not decide your
case. Instead, they are responsible for gathering the evidence needed to decide whether
you were discriminated against.” (emphasis added)

In the subsection titled “Overview On How A Hearing Works,” it states: “The purpose of a
hearing is to make a full and accurate record of the events you raised in your complaint.
The EEOC Administrative Judge will then use this record to decide whether discrimination
occurred.” In the section titled “Scenario After A Hearing Is Complete,” it states:

“After the hearing, the Administrative Judge will send you a decision and order
any relief. The decision should be sent to you within 180 days from the day you
asked for a hearing. The Administrative Judge will send both you and the agency a
copy of the decision, along with the transcript of what was said at the hearing.
Once the EEOC Administrative Judge hands down a decision, the agency will
then have 40 days to issue a final order, which either accepts or rejects the decision
of the Administrative Judge. The agency’s final order will also contain information
about your right to appeal to EEOC, your right to file a civil action in federal
district court, and the deadline for filing both an appeal and a civil action. It also
will tell you if the agency will grant the relief ordered by the Administrative Judge.
If the agency does not accept the decision or disagrees with any part of the
decision of the Administrative Judge, the agency must file an appeal with the
EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations.” (emphasis added)

The EEOC’s website also states in Section H, titled “Final Action By Agency”3: “When an
AJ has issued a decision (either a dismissal, a summary judgment decision or a decision
following a hearing), the agency must take final action on the complaint by issuing a final
order within 40 days of receipt of the hearing file and the AJ's decision.”

Based on the language provided above, it appears that Mr. Mathelier’s abrupt termination
of my complaint has violated my right to due process. I never received a copy of the
investigative file from Mr. Mathelier, which meant that he never told me that I had thirty
days to request a hearing and decision from an AJ or request an immediate final decision
from the EEOC. Mr. Mathelier concluded his investigation on the same day the
Respondent’s lawyer submitted their response. I was never allowed the opportunity to see
their answers, nor was I provided any information regarding who Mr. Mathelier spoke to or
what additional evidence he found during his own investigation. I should have been made
aware of this information and given the opportunity to respond, especially since any lawyer
representing me would have been privy to this information before a final decision was
rendered. Most importantly, since Mr. Mathelier is not an EEOC Administrative Judge, he
did not have the authority or jurisdiction to make a determination as to the merits of my
claims – that is a decision that should be made by the Administrative Judge.

Although Mr. Mathelier issued a “final decision” without jurisdiction, I am appalled to find
it written in the body of an e-mail, with no summary of the facts of the case, no citation of
pertinent case law to support the conclusion reached and not even a signature. Since I’ve
spent a considerable amount of time awaiting a decision from the EEOC on this matter, I
always wanted a hearing and I wanted to receive a written determination from an

3
https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/fedprocess.cfm

[3]
Administrative Judge as to why or why not the adverse employment decisions made by the
HACFL against me with regards to my employment and termination, have violated our
nation’s antidiscrimination laws. As of today, Mr. Mathelier has still not provided me with
any information regarding my right to an appeal, nor has he provided me with a Right to
Sue letter. Mr. Mathelier’s procedural errors are not accidental and are indicative of bias
in favor of the Respondent.

Mr. Mathelier refused to comply with the EEOC’s rules of procedure. This is disheartening
because I’ve spent more than a year seeking a resolution through this adjudicative forum.
His decision is clearly erroneous because it is obviously based on a mistake about the facts
of the case or the law applied to the facts. At the least, I am owed an explanation by the
EEOC as to how it reached its determination.

II. Charging Party’s Response to Factual Inaccuracies Contained In

Respondents’ October 19, 2017 Letter

Each response below will directly address in chronological order the misleading statements
and false claims made in the Respondent’s October 19, 2017 letter to Mr. Mathelier.

1. Was the Housing Authority Department understaffed due to budget cuts during
the relevant period?

Respondent’s Response: “No. The Respondent was understaffed due to the company’s
inability to find enough qualified applicants to fill vacancies before others left. A “budget
cut.” In any event, would be expected to create over-staffing, if anything. Staff levels
typically reflect the budget, and a cut in budget would be expected to lead to a staffing
cut.”

Charging Party’s Response: It is the role of Human Resources – headed by Andrea

Ayala – to find enough “qualified applicants to fill vacancies before others left.”

3. When was the decision to upgrade the department to go paperless made?

Respondent’s Response: “The decision to begin scanning files was made in about
2010 or 2011. Staff finally began to scan new intake files in 2014, but that ended when
the intake coordinator quit and remaining staff did not have time or direction to continue.”

Charging Party’s Response: I am not aware of the date the HACFL’s decisionmakers
decided to go paperless, however, I must respond to the Respondent’s additional
statements. The initial scanning of documents began in the Accounting department,
which was managed by CFO Mr. Tadros. Myrnell Brown, an employee of Mr. Tadros,
began scanning Intake files for the Section 8 Department in 2014. She was
provided a cubicle and access to the Section 8 copy machine until a desk scanner
was purchased for her to increase efficiency due to other Section 8 staff having to
use the copy machine. I would provide her with a list of names of Intake clients who
initially leased-up in the Section 8 department. She would pull the file from the
cabinet and begin to scan all the documents according to the categories listed in
the TenDocs database. Once the list was completed, I would have her sign the
bottom of the list and provide her with a new set of names to pull the files and scan

[4]
 the documents. This process continued until she resigned in 2015 (refer to Human
Resources for specific date exited the agency), thus the Respondent is incorrect in
stating that scanning new files “ended when the intake coordinator quit.” In or
around the same time, the Intake team received scanners and they began scanning
all Intake files. Due to a HUD review of the Section Eight Management Assessment
Program (SEMAP), it was determined in or around April 2015, that the HACFL was
granted additional housing choice vouchers in 2014, which Mr. Tadros was the
administrator. As a result, we had to lease-up more clients which delayed the Intake
team from continuing the scanning process.

4. Did the Respondent achieve the paperless goal?

Respondent’s Response: “At the end of 2016, 95% of the files were scanned. The
balance will be scanned during 2017 as files come up for recertification.”

Charging Party’s Response: No comment.

5. If so, when? Name of Director/Assistant director, was charging Party a part of the
transition and working during the relevant point in transitioning to paperless?

Respondent’s Response: “Respondent’s Chief Financial Officer, Mike Tadros, and

former Director of Assisted Housing, Veronica Lopez, were leading the effort. Mr. Tadros
provided general overview of the transition to paperless. Mrs. Lopez supervised the day-
to-day activities in the transition. Charging Party sat in on a few meetings regarding the
transition to paperless, but Respondent is not aware that she played any formal role in the
transition beyond attending a few meetings. Ms. Lopez may have assigned Charging
Party tasks in the transition. Ms. Lopez is no longer employed by Respondent.”

Charging Party’s Response: I was part of the transition and worked during the
transition to go paperless from the beginning. I helped review formats, forms,
categories, etc., to ensure all data scanned went into a category or field in TenDocs.
It was a team effort. Mrs. Lopez and I had to ensure Myrnell Brown followed the
proper procedures because she was not experienced with the different types of
forms used in the Section 8 Department, nor was she familiar with the categories
the data would be scanned to.

11. Provide the name of all employees for Housing Authority during the Relevant
period. Name, Date of Birth, Sex, Date of Hire, Job Title, Department.

Respondent's Response: "The reference to "relevant period" in this request is not

defined. Respondent will provide the requested information for all employees who were
employed by the Respondent in November 2015, which was the month that the Charging
Party was terminated. A spreadsheet with such information is attached at Exhibit C."

Charging Party’s Response: According to Exhibit C, Anita Flores — the current

Intake Coordinator (who is under the age of 40) — began working on November 16,
2015. She was hired prior to date above since the Intake Coordinator position was
not advertised internally or externally. Flores had quit twice before and during her
second resignation, she deleted data to prevent the HACFL from completing our

[5]
 intake assessments of applicants. Mrs. Lopez submitted a letter to Mr. English, Mr.
Tadros and HR about this incident and it should still be in her personnel file. Flores
is one of the two employees (according to Exhibit D) that had given me a poor rating
in their exit interview.

15. Did the extra heavy workload cause employees to leave the department?

Respondent’s Response: “Ms. Raquel Brutus-Thomas reported a burdensome work

environment due to high turnover as a reason for leaving. She also reported a poor
supervisor as a reason for leaving. Her Exit Interview Form is attached at Exhibit D. Her
supervisor was the Charging Party. Respondent is unaware of any other employees who
left after reporting an extra heavy workload as a reason for leaving.”

Charging Party’s Response: Ms. Brutus-Thomas, the Occupancy Specialist

Supervisor, did report a “burdensome work environment due to high turnover as a
reason for leaving.” Mrs. Lopez and I were discharged on November 13, 2015 and
Ms. Brutus-Thomas quit on December 28, 2015 (45 days later). Thus, I was not her
supervisor during the time she filled out her Exit Interview Form. Was her exit due
to the Interim Manager who was hired on December 1, 2015? If I were the true
reason for Ms. Brutus-Thomas wanting to quit, then she would have stayed with the
HACFL after I was terminated. Or did she quit as a result of what became a
disorganized Section 8 Department, which has now become a chaotic organization
managed by CEO English and CFO Tadro after discharging two effective and efficient
women of color who were over the age of 40? I would also add that the
“burdensome” workload was the result of Ms. Brutus-Thomas’ behavior towards the
employees under her supervision, which resulted in them quitting, leaving and/or
resigning within the 15 months prior to Mrs. Lopez and I being discharged.
In addition to Ms. Brutus-Thomas, there were a number of other employees
who complained about having a burdensome workload. Since I’ve never been privy
to the exit interviews of HACFL’s former employees, I do not know if those
employees explicitly listed this as a reason for their resignation, but below, I’ve
included a list of additional employees who resigned after hearing them personally
complain of a having burdensome workload:

Name Supervisor Date Hired Exit Date

Aretha Cruickshank Raquel Brutus-Thomas 10/28/2013 09/08/2014
Hermetha Hope Raquel Brutus-Thomas 6/1/2009 11/7/2014
Harold Noel Raquel Brutus-Thomas 10/13/2014 02/12/2015
Dawn Jamont Raquel Brutus-Thomas 12/1/2014 3/2/2015
Sade Lee Willie Mosley 2/23/2015 6/22/2015
Shawnta Moss Willie Mosley 09/06/2011 09/09/2015
Ashyea Thompson Carolyn Hicks Washington 5/18/2015 10/6/2015

The workload increase that resulted from Ms. Brutus-Thomas’ team being
understaffed resulted in employees from other departments to assist her. These
employees worked overtime to process files each month, including myself. On
several occasions, Human Resources, Andrea Ayala and CEO English were informed
of the behavior shown to the employees by Ms. Brutus-Thomas and the employees

[6]
 shared their concerns with Human Resources. No actions were taken against Ms.
Brutus-Thomas.

16. Identify all employees who transferred from CP’s Department to another
department.

Respondent’s Response: “There is no time period associated with this request.

Respondent will provide a list of employees who transferred from the Charging Party’s
department, Section 8 to another department, in the last several years.”

Charging Party’s Response: This question can result in an answer that is

misleading or supports the Respondent’s argument that I “exhibited a poor
leadership style that resulted in a difficult work environment and employee
resignations.” In the chart provided by the Respondent, they name three individuals
who transferred from my department to another department. What the Respondent
doesn’t explain, is that the first two individuals list in the chart – Pamela Jamel and
Ruth Ramos – were transferred to another department because they applied for jobs
that were a “step-up” from their current positions and were received as promotions.
The third individual named in Respondent’s chart – Laura Valdes – did not
work in my department. During this period Valdes was the Intake Coordinator under
a different department even though she managed the Section 8 waiting list, she was
supervised by Andrea (Walen) Ayala, also during the Transfer to Community
Manager. In September 2010, CP and Mrs. Lopez began managing the Intake
Coordinator, Public Housing Community Managers and FSS Coordinators and the
title changed to Assisted Housing Department from the Section 8 Department.

18. Were there any employees who quit because of being overwhelmed by the workload?

Respondent’s Response: “See response to question #15.”

Charging Party’s Response: See response to question #15

19. Did anyone complain about the department being understaffed? — was the
understaff the cause of Ms. Washington’s poor leadership style? Provide evidence
to support that theory?

Respondent’s Response: “Respondent did not receive any written complaints about the
department being understaffed, but Respondent’s Human Resources Coordinator, Ms.
Andrea Ayala, generally recalls comments and conversations in the workplace between
employees in which employees complained about vacant positions and the additional
workload caused by understaffing. The understaffing was due to constant staff turnover
caused by poor leadership of the department’s managers, including the Charging Party.
The Respondent was constantly understaffed by 2-3 employees because of the Charging
Party, not any budgeting issues.
Respondent cannot speculate about the cause of the Charging Party’s poor
leadership style. Respondent knows only the Charging party exhibited a poor leadership
style that resulted in a difficult work environment and employee resignations. See exit
interviews attached at Exhibit D.”

[7]
 Charging Party’s Response: It is preposterous to suggest and/or state to the finder
of fact that I was solely responsible for the department’s high turnover. See chart
provided in question #15, which shows the number of employees who resigned/quit
(left without notice) within a 15-month period under the supervision Ms. Brutus-
Thomas and her poor style of leadership. If I truly exhibited a poor leadership style
that resulted in a difficult work environment and employee resignations,” why would
the HACFL employ me for 10 years, give me mostly positive evaluations each year
and increase my salary each year?
Also, the Respondent provided the exit Interview of Anita Flores in their
Exhibit D. In July 2013, Flores transferred from the Community Manager position
to the Intake Coordinator position until she resigned on 1/29/2015. Ms. Flores’
original hire date was December 3, 2001. Ms. Flores’ previous supervisors also
included Mrs. Lopez, CFO Tadros and Andrea (Walen) Ayala. They also experienced
Ms. Flores’ poor attitude and behavior even though she was an efficient
employee. The Human Resource Coordinator, Andrea Ayala, witnessed
inappropriate behaviors between Ms. Flores and CEO, Mike Tadros during the
company’s 2014 Holiday Christmas bowling event. Prior to this event, Ms. Ayala
and Mrs. Lopez were informed by myself of the same inappropriate behavior
between Tadros and Flores while attending a Tenmast Conference in 2014. No
discussions were held with either party. Is this one of the reasons Ms. Flores
changed her behavior towards myself or was it due to the denial of a substantial
salary increase by CEO English around August 2014? I informed Human Resources
on several occasions about the behavior shown towards me from Flores and Brutus-
Thomas. I met with both Ms. Flores and Ms. Brutus-Thomas separately with Human
Resource Coordinator and it was concluded that I was innocent of all alleged
infractions.
In total, the Respondents provided four exit interviews to support their
defense that my management style was “harsh” and that I was a “poor” leader. Over
the course of a ten-year period, that would constitute an average of one complaint
every two and half years. Even less if one considers that some issues with these
colleagues were investigated by HR and no action was taken against me. I loved
my job and took it seriously. My leadership style was based on the direction of my
supervisors, Mrs. Lopez and CEO English, in addition to the numerous workshops
and seminars attended. Since I had the responsibility of ensuring that all HUD
reports had a lease-up rate of 95% or better, this meant that I had to regularly
follow-up with staff to ensure that the work was being done correctly, as well as
assisting in the completion of those assignments. I can remember attending
workshops in which speakers stated that it was okay to be upset about a worker’s
unproductive behavior, and not the worker him/herself. Had I not stayed on top of
my colleagues, I ultimately would have been blamed for the company not meeting
its goals and my job would have been jeopardized. No matter how you look at it, I
am being punished for trying to do my job well.

20. Provide the following:

List of Employees who replaced Charging Party (CP) either on a temporary capacity
or permanently during the Relevant period to current date. Provide a statement of
the service provided to Respondent (R) after CP was terminated. If a Contract
vendor was hired to assist Respondent to identify a Problem that existed during

[8]
 CP’s tenure, please submit a summary statement of the solution the contractor
provided.

Respondent’s Response: “The Charging Party’s position, Assistant Director of

Assisted Housing, was not replaced. The position was eliminated when the Charging
Party was terminated. The Director of Assisted Housing, Ms. Veronica Lopez, was
also terminated at about the same time the Charging Party was terminated. The
Respondent then hired a single “Director of Housing Choice Voucher Program” to
take over the head management duties of the Respondent’s Section 8 department.
The following individuals have been employed as the “Director of Housing
Choice Voucher Program”:
1. Beatriz Cuenca-Barberio…
2. Medina Johnson….
3. Barbara Baer….
In 2014, Respondent hired Quadel Consulting and Training, LLC, to review the
Respondent’s Housing Choice Voucher Program. Quadel performed a thorough
review of the program to identify areas of improvement and proposed
recommendations for streamlining processes, including, for example, revising the
Respondent’s administrative procedures, changing the timing of unit inspections,
using online applications for the Housing Choice Voucher Program to cut down on
paper handling, creating new scanning procedures, amongst other
recommendations.”

Charging Party’s Response: The Assisted Director of Assisted Housing included

the following positions: (1.) Intake Coordinator and (2.) Public Housing Director.
The chart below includes additional names who replaced me in the roles I managed:

Job Title: Replacement Date

Intake Coordinator Anita Flores 11/16/2015

Public Housing Director Trina Cook Date unknown.

The Respondent eliminated the Assistant Director of Assisted Housing position on

November 13, 2015 although those duties were still carried out by creating
additional positions, which I managed within the title of Assistant Director of
Assisted Housing.
I applied for the Director of Housing Choice Voucher position on November
23, 2015 and March 5, 2017 and was not allowed the opportunity to interview after
working within the agency for ten (10) years.
The Respondent refused to hire and/or offer me the position of Intake
Coordinator or Director of Housing Choice Voucher based on the false accusations
of being a poor leader. Instead, Mrs. Lopez and I were terminated and Anita Flores,
a black woman under the age of 40 was rehired (for the third time) to assume the
position of Intake Coordinator on November 16, 2015 (this position was not
advertised internally or externally). The reason their claims are pretextual, is due to
the fact that the Respondent replaced Mrs. Lopez and I with three inexperienced
Section 8 Housing Directors, one — a white woman named Barbara Baer — who

[9]
 has a history of misusing federal funds and had a 100% turnover rate in her former
role as the Executive Director of the Hot Springs Housing Authority.

As demonstrated above, most of the information provided by the Respondent was not
derived from the HACFL’s personnel files due to the inconsistencies shown above.

Zealous advocacy does not mean providing false and misleading information to the finder
of fact with an intent to deceive – as attorney Gonzalez has done. This is unethical and
violative of the Rules of Professional Conduct. It is extremely rare for an employer to admit
guilt to claims of employment discrimination. A tried and true go-to defense for many
employers in these types of cases, is to attack the character of the former employee. This
is what the HACFL decided to do, but I have demonstrated that the Respondent and its
attorney are not credible and that the proffered reasons argued by the Respondent are
pretextual.

According the EEOC Compliance Manual, “The credibility of the employer’s explanation is
key and must be judged in light of all the evidence obtained during the investigation.” 4 See
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 147 (2000) (“Proof that the
defendant’s explanation is unworthy of credence is simply one form of circumstantial
evidence that is probative of intentional discrimination, and it may be quite persuasive.
Proving the employer’s reason false becomes part of (and often considerably assists) the
greater enterprise of proving that the real reason was intentional discrimination. In
appropriate circumstances, the trier of fact can reasonably infer from the falsity of the
explanation that the employer is dissembling to cover up a discriminatory purpose.”)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

If the HACFL can be allowed the opportunity to ruin my reputation and damage my
character, I have to be allowed due process to show that their arguments are not true and
are a pretext for their unlawful conduct. Since EEOC allows for discovery,5 I believe the
HACFL should produce various documents, including all of my evaluations, as well as
information regarding all employees who left the company and/or were fired after I was
unlawfully terminated.

III. The HACFL’s Recent Hiring of Mrs. Barbara Baer Further Supports Mrs.
Washington’s Claims of Discrimination Based on Race and/or Color

Unfortunately, racism is relentlessly relevant and so pervasive in this country, that in many
instances, it operates unconsciously and out of the sight of consciousness. While Mr.
English’s explicit statements to me that I was getting old and would soon be replaced
supported my claims of age discrimination, the HACFL’s recent hiring of Mrs. Barbara Baer
further buttressed my claims that my race and/or color played a “motivating factor” in my

4
https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/race-color.html
5
In section G of the EEOC’s “Federal EEO Complaint Processing Procedures,” it states: “Prior to the
hearing, the parties may conduct discovery. The purpose of discovery is to enable a party to obtain relevant
information for preparation of the party's case. Each party initially bears their own costs for discovery, unless
the AJ requires the agency to bear the costs for the complainant to obtain depositions or any other discovery
because the agency has failed to complete its investigation in a timely manner or has failed to adequately
investigate the allegations.” https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/fedprocess.cfm.

[10]
termination since it is well documented that Mrs. Baer had a 100% rate of turnover at her
previous place of employment, in additional to being found guilty of engaging in criminal
activity while acting at the Executive Director of Hot Springs Housing Authority in
Arkansas.6

Although attorney Gonzalez and the HACFL argued to the EEOC that I ‘had a harsh
management style that created a difficult and uncomfortable work environment, increased
workplace stress, and decreased employee morale,” the company’s decision to hire Mrs.
Baer casts considerable doubt to the truthfulness of their statement. Furthermore, the
HACFL’s appointment of Mrs. Cuenca-Barberio and Mrs. Johnson – two women of color –
does not weaken my claims that my race and/or color played a “motivating factor” in
English, Tadros and the HACFL’s adverse employment decisions taken against me. It must
be kept in mind that after being terminated, I immediately gave the HACFL and CEO
English notice that I believed that my termination violated Title VII and the ADEA. The
HACFL immediately notified their legal counsel and it’s possible that a person of color was
hired to give the impression that the company did not harbor any racial bias. It must be
noted that when the HACFL hired Mrs. Johnson, she had little to no relevant work
experience in Section 8, so it was only a matter of time before she quit and/or was fired.

It is also important to note that Mrs. Baer had been on the HACFL’s radar during my
employment. Mrs. Baer had applied for a position within the company and Mrs. Lopez and
I interviewed her. She ultimately was not hired, but it appears that was always the goal of
Mr. English to have Mrs. Baer assume this position and achieve an all-white management
team. Since English and Tadros regularly undermined the policies of the HACFL, Baer was
a perfect candidate because she had a history of violating company policy and engaging
in criminal activity while purportedly serving communities that were mostly of color. Out
of all of the qualified individuals in the job market, Baer was not the most qualified
candidate for this job and this is just another example of white privilege showing its ugly
face. When I asked English for the reason for my termination, he responded that the
company was going in “another direction.” This new direction has resulted in three
directors in less than two years, contradicting any statement made by the Respondent,
that they terminated me “in order to improve [their] work environment and maintain a
stable workforce.”

In or around October 30, 2017, I received information from an anonymous source that
Mrs. Baer was terminated by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and is no longer
working with the HACFL. I had also been told that Mrs. Baer had problems with Anita
Flores. On November 7, 2017, I e-mailed attorney Gonzalez to confirm this information
and to provide the details surrounding Mrs. Baer’s termination. As of today, Gonzalez has
not provided me with a response. The EEOC should compel the HACFL to provide records
of all of the employees who left the company and/or were terminated after my termination
until present.

The cumulative evidence supports that had I been a white woman over the age of 40, I
would not have been abruptly terminated without cause and refused to be rehired for
another position commensurate with my qualifications and experience. To suggest, after
ten years of dedicated service to the HACFL, that my behavior was so bad that I was solely

6
https://www.hudoig.gov/newsroom/news/ex-housing-chiefs-restitution-5500

[11]
responsible for the department’s high turnover rate is defamatory and an insult to my
character. If Mrs. Baer was hired with a 100% turnover rate at her previous place of
employment, then this should not have precluded me from being considered for other
positions within the company – especially since the company regularly created and/or
transferred employees to other open positions whenever public housing units were
demolished or shut down.

I’ve spent the last 30 years working for the Housing Authority throughout various cities in
the United States. This job was my life because it gave me the opportunity to serve the
public. I have demonstrated that I was a team player and received mostly positive
evaluations over the course of a decade. Not once have I been terminated by my employer,
nor have I ever been accused of exhibiting a poor leadership style.7 This experience has
ruined my future employability and resulted in a loss of enjoyment of life due to the
humiliation and embarrassment I’ve experienced. The 30 years I dedicated to this industry
has been wiped away. I am currently making $30,000 less with my new job than I did with
the HACFL, as well as lost out on retirement benefits and suffered increases in healthcare
costs. I was 10 years away from retirement and probably would have continued working
for the HACFL like English and many of my former colleagues have done. At the end of the
day, it is the citizens of Broward county (as well as out of state) who are in need of housing
assistance – mostly people of color – that will ultimately suffer in the long run due to the
unconscionable and unlawful employment decisions of the HACFL, English and Tadros

Conclusion

I don’t mind receiving an unfavorable verdict from the EEOC. No matter of the outcome, I
respectfully ask that the finder of fact provide an impartial decision which uses the
prevailing law to explain why my termination and the HACFL’s refusal to rehire me does
not constitute discrimination based on race, color, sex and/or age in violation of pertinent
federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment.
Based on the following reasons discussed above, I respectfully ask the EEOC to: (1.)
dismiss Mr. Michael Mathelier as an investigator to this case due to bias and his failure to
abide by the procedural rules set forth by the EEOC, (2.) vacate his decision dismissing
my claims and (3.) to allow for discovery and a hearing before an Administrative Judge
(AJ), so that an impartial, written decision that applies the law to the facts of this case can
be rendered.

Date: November 17, 2017 By: ___________________________________

Carolyn Hicks-Washington

7
I hold numerous leadership positions with the Girl Scouts of America, my sorority Alpha Kappa Alpha
Sorority, Inc. and my church, First Baptist Church Piney Grove.

[12]