RickMK:

sillyme:

You are exactly right about the 3 sides to every story here. That is why I was remaining neutral on my position just by watching/listening to the video the tenants posted on youtube.

My post stands by Oregon law. I am a law student so I know the terms very well. Should the tenant have notified the owner that the pellets were hitting there house? Yes. Should the owner be responsible for the pellets that they shot? Yes.

BTW...no emotion here....I have never been accused of wearing my neart on my sleeve...just the facts (or 1/3 of em).

I saw your video.....with the delay between the shots fired and the time you can hear the pellets hit, it appears that there is the possibility that the landlord was shooting into the air. Obviously the deputy's and the D.A. think you were getting carried away with your complaint.

Don't you think that pulling the race card every time you think you have been wronged is getting a little old? I don't put much stock in it anymore.

The video on YouTube shows nothing. There's the sound of what could be a few bits of gravel falling on the area. It could also be a few shotgun pellets, I suppose, but there's no proof of that. Even if they are falling shotgun pellets, they don't pose any danger if they're just falling, unless you look up into the sky and catch one falling into your eye.

When I was in high school I shot trap and skeet. The classes were held at a shooting school that had three skeet courses back to back. On station #8 people shoot up at an angle ranging from about 70 to 90 degrees. When the other ranges were active we would occasionally get hit by their falling pellets and vice versa. The falling pellets don't even hurt, though we were always required to wear glasses to protect our eyes just in case.

I wouldn't want somebody raining shotgun pellets on my house, or somebody elses's house that I was living in, but I wouldn't claim that were shooting AT me either. It's not Reckless Endangering either. In fact, it's neither reckless nor endangering. By now the statute of limitations must have passed, as it sounds as if all this played out back in 2004.

Here's how I look at it. If there is any substance to any of this it will be uncovered by the FBI and they'll quickly take the case. If they don't take the case, soon, we'll know this was all hogwash, just like the shotgun exaggerations.

After reviewing the history of all the same allegations being covered several years ago under a different screen name, I think "Halo" is probably right. If there was any substance to the shooting allegation the case would have gone forward and if there was any substance to the whole racism angle the media would have been all over it, like they always are.

“I wouldn't want somebody raining shotgun pellets on my house, or somebody elses's house that I was living in, but I wouldn't claim that were shooting AT me either”

 

Maybe you should re-read a bit more carefully. The landlord had been making threatening remarks, captured on 911 tapes, had attempted to force his way into our home, also on 911 tape, had lied to law enforcement officers twice about where and why he was shooting, and his attorney has sent us an email admitting that he was shooting at us but “couldn’t conceive it would reach us.”  I guess what is important is whether it was directed at you. That is the meaning of racism, if it’s not me I can bend over backwards to explain it away.

If you take your high school analogy suppose that a student had been harassing you for over a year, had recently tried to break into your house while threatening violence, had lied to the teacher that he was shooting at skeet when there were no skeet being launched and then sends a text message to you that he was shooting at you. Would it still be wrong only if it was you?

 

Reading your other posts, I see that you agree with Halo in that given the situation in Lane County, Oregon raising taxes will solve the Law enforcement problem. We have a group of 5 County commissioners who control the county budget. They have shown that they are not responsible with the people’s money. So the solution is to just give them more money. That wouldn’t make sense to even a high school student.

 

Do you see any possibility that whether laws are enforced may be tied to which people are involved? Faye Stewart is on the board of directors of the not for profit that was trying to force us off the property in question. He is on the Board of County Commissioners that controls the budget of the DA’s office that refuses to prosecute a person that admits to shooting at his tenants.   

http://community.kmtr.com/forums/post/2251993.aspx
“ARMs deal
A few years back the Community Foundation of Oregon lost 39%. The Adjustable Rate Mortgage collapse will make a similar dent in their portfolio. So look forward to more aggressive fund raising and lots more school walk-a-thons.”
12-06-2007, 4:35 PM   foundation trilogy
Seems like this current situation was being mentioned by “foundation trilogy” back in 2007.

Banks borrow money from the Federal Reserve based on the value of their assets. Real estate is an asset that they can control the price/value. By systematically leapfrogging the value of real estate they get to increase their borrowing limit with the Federal Reserve. It is a variation of a ponzi scheme. The point most people fail to see is, “I’m loaning this person $1,000 for a house, over 30 years he will pay me back $3,000 in principal, interest, fees, penalties. Therefore the Federal Reserve can loan me $3,000 today. I can now buy 2 more $1,000 properties and sell them for $2,000, finance them myself (thereby fixing the value) and get a loan from the Federal Reserve for $6,000” The ponzi scheme depends on people opening savings accounts and buying CD’s at low interest rates to create the cash flow during the period between reselling of property at higher values supplemented by “Drug Money”. The “Adjustable Rate Mortgage” part is a ploy to get people in at the end of the ponzi scheme suckered into being left holding the bag when the scheme collapses. Before the collapse the banks shift/trade known bad loans into a few selected banks, and then those banks go belly up or are bailed out by the Government.
What to look for in the near future: What happened to the “Drug Money” investments, Wells Fargo and their investment group, Large Foundations “pull-out” of funds and how that precipitated current situation.

http://oregonhousing.blogspot.com/2009/02/skin-in-game-it-matters-who-makes-down.html
"

Saturday, February 14, 2009

Skin in the Game: It Matters Who Makes the Down Payment.

Study HERE from January 2009 Journal of Housing Research, is by staffer at Federal Housing Finance Agency.

".. borrowers who provide even modest down payments from their own resources have substantially lower default propensities than do borrowers whose down payments come from relatives, government agencies, or nonprofits. Borrowers with down payments from seller-funded nonprofits, who make no down payment at all, have the highest default rates.""

I would not take very well to ANYONE! shooting ANYTHING at my home or in the air, or around my home, have people completely lost all sense? In the middle of the night in Sister's OR, AN EDIOT WAS SHOOTING at racoon's, I didnt have a clue, I can tell you with 30 minutes of shooting, a 2 year old child in my home, no phone, not knowing what was happening, placing my child in what i thought was the safest place i could, was a 2 am i'll never forget. complete EDIOT'S! Take your weapon's of all kind's far out in the woods to play or lock them in your home for your protection but dont horrify the rest of the world with them.

HEY MISTER SISTER,  IDIOT, JUST SO YOU CAN SPELL IT NEXT TIME

Thank you for the correct spelling, It use to be perfect as i get older it slip's however that wasnt real bright as i know how to spell idiot, also just learning the computer, excuse me.

Woody, when I read your post, I saw the play on the spelling, not even once considering you mis-spelled the word EDIOT.  Congrats on getting on this blog, please speak your mind and do not worry about spelling or correct grammar; I applaud you for learning to use a computer, at whatever your age. 
Your experience with the coon hunter sounds very scary and I am sorry you experienced that. 
In my experience, the landlord had threatened to kill me, and then while we sat in the front yard, he actually leveled the shotgun at us, and shot four times.  We started running for cover after the first shot, the second echoed out quickly; so it was not simply him shooting at turkeys, we were the only metaphorical turkeys around.  That man referred as his previous tenants dogs as "cows" and used other slang metaphorical language to describe a past tenant with panic attacks.  His intentions were mean and the police should have taken his gun, arrested him, but he is/was a long term land owner and business owner with police friends, and at one point claimed to an ex law man himself.  He was abusive, nothing less.  Shooting at someone is in most jurisdictions "attempted murder", considering his previous threats when I insisted upon a 24 hour notice before coming onto the property; he set out to upset me, scare me, and violate my rental rights.  Setting my disabilities aside, he broke landlord tenant rights more times than I can write about by his many prior assaults: cussing me out, spraying me with poison while in my organic garden, walking in the house without knocking or notice, and more..........more..........then some more.  I asked for my 24 hour notice many many times, each time he threatened to evict me for expecting my rights to fair notice, his vulgar names (I do not understand that vernacular as a way to communicate). 
The investigations continue, because we are not letting this go........the statute of limitations for our case start running for a two year period at the end of the last violation....in this case, when Liane Ricardson counsel for Lane County refused to give us access to county information in her possession and lied about having already giving it to us.

Thank you so much for your kindness,It's people like you that make this a better world, Thank you. As for your terrible experience, I Cant imagine how frightening that must have been, dont give up and the best of luck. Looking forward to hearing from you again. Thank you. ps I'm 55 have never used a computer or typed until recently, I spent my year's raising 5 children and at 42 had my daughter now 12 who has helped mom learn a little, it's slow. So for the person who had to point out my mistake, it was also early morn and kinda dark in the room plus the keyboard was at neck level, getting a computer desk ready, so hopefully that will help detour people who just feel the need to be ugly,in which i kinda had to work at not being ugly back. Thank you Magicbus

Marvelous

Not only marvelous, but totally fantastic!

DON`T KNOW ANY OF THE ACTUAL DETAILS THAT HAPPENED ON THAT DAY BACK IN 2006. HOWEVER , DOES THAT ONE LANDLORD MAKE THE ENTIRE STATE A RACIST STATE. BESIDES, AFTER HE SHOT AND MISSED. WELL ! I GUESS THE STATE OF OREGON HAD SOLD THE VERY LAST WEAPON THEY HAD IN THE STATE, ESPECIALLY AFTER THE CLAIM THAT A PEACE OFFICER SIMPLY LAUGH AND SEEMED TO HAVE AGREED WITH THE LANDLORD`S VIOLATION OF A RULE OF LAW. IF IN FACT ALL FACTS ARE AS STATED, WITH NO MARGIN FOR ERROR .
THEN CRIMINAL CHARGES SHOULD BE FORTHCOMING, ALONG WITH THE CIVIL ACTION.  ARE YOU SURE THERE ISN`T MORE TO THIS? SOME PUZZLE PIECES ARE MISSING AS I TURN THIS YARN OVER IN MY MIND.  AT ANY RATE, GOOD LUCK!

Arthurleedavis, Thank you for taking the time to read this thread. I’m intrigued by your comments.
How about this:  What if you play the role of cross-examiner and ask the questions you feel need to be asked and I will respond with truthful answers and posted documents?

1,861  2/20/2009 10:24 AM
1,921  2/20/2009 6:18 PM
1,973  2/21/2009 7:57 AM
1,991  2/21/2009 11:33 AM

Woody, Thank you, that was really sweet!  Again, I applaud you!!

If you would like to help get rid of our current County Commissioners read the information below.  If you believe that County Commissioners used known bogus documents to protect a non profit organization on which Commissioner Faye Stewart sat on the board, in violation of Federal Law, Contact: Mr. Fennerty FBI, Eugene, Oregon, telephone number (541) 343-5222 and/or him at his email address that he gave to us.... Augustus.fennertyiv@ic.fbi.gov and let him know that you support their investigation into Lane County Board of Commissioners.

As for my offer that arthurleedavis cross examine me I submit this first document as my deposition.  

The first part is Commissioner Fleenors reply to the second email requesting help in this situation, and giving background information.  Briefly, Lane County Commissioners signed a contract involving Federal Housing Money.  Later on, they used known bogus fraudulent documents to remove a disabled minority person from the Federally Funded Housing Program.  When asked to be supplied required County documents we were told we would have to pay a fee that is well above required of regular citizens.  Lane County Counsel also misrepresented that the County had already provided these documents as part of their reply to a lawsuit filed in Federal District Court.  

==============================================================
“Mr. X,

 Thank you for providing an extensive background of the matter we discussed on the phone – it is greatly appreciated.

However, on advise of County Council, I will forward this to her office for consideration.

I wish you and your family the best,

Bill F.”

 “From: Y [mailto:Y@y.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 4:49 PM
To: FLEENOR Bill A
Cc: Y
Subject: as per our conversation of Thur. Feb. 12 noon

from Z X as per our conversation of Thur.  Feb. 12 noon


Bill.fleenor

Background:  The State of Oregon receives Federal Housing Funds that it puts into the HOME Tenant Based Assistance Program ((503) 986-2117).  The State subgrants the money to Lane County Board of Commissioners.  LCC subgrants the money to a not for profit (Community Sharing Program of Cottage Grove  541-942-2176).  Commissioner Faye Stewart sits on the Board of Directors of Community Sharing Program of Cottage Grove.  

The HOME TBA program is based off of the rules of HUD Section 8 TBA, according to Mary Gentry with State of Oregon Housing and Community Services Division (HOME Tenant-Based Assistance Mary Gentry, Program Coordinator Ph: (503) 986-2117 Email: Mary.Gentry@hcs. state. or). My wife and I were participants in the HOME TBA program through Community Sharing of Cottage Grove between 2005 and 2007.  We had a complaint about our caseworker David Flores in that he was not providing the services required by the HUD Regulations.  We contacted Mary Gentry.  David Flores met with us the next day and said, “You stirred up a hornets nest with your call to the state and now you will have to pay for it.”  He removed my wife from the Case File, ignored her approved accommodation and proceeded on a paperwork plan to remove us from the program.  In June of 2006 Nancy Waggoners office (Human Services Commission) faxed our Landlords attorney Dean Kaufman, a known bogus “month to month rental agreement”.  Dean Kaufman used this document as a basis for an eviction inconsistent with HUD Regulations.  Nancy Waggoner sent us a letter ( attachment: Wagonner June 20_2006.jpg ) stating that she would no longer pay the rent subsidy because of this eviction and that we were not complying with David Flores’s “Plan for Self Sufficiency”.  This letter of denial of services was inconsistent with HUD Regulations, relied upon two known bogus documents and did not contain required HUD information concerning notice of appeals and access to information.  It was also premature in cutting off funds before the eviction would be held in court.

  After many phones calls we were granted a hearing through the Human Services Commission.  In this hearing conducted by e-mail they relied upon a bogus document purporting to be from our Community Sharing case file.  When we asked them to fax David Flores’s Plan for Self Sufficiency from our case file that they used in their decision they faxed us a document that they got from the internet.  In an email they admitted that the document came from the internet and not from our Community Sharing case file.  This is in direct violation of the notice against using fraudulent writings to deny someone benefits under the HOME TBA lease.  The Human Services Commission upheld denying HOME TBA funds based on that fraudulent writing and Nancy Wagonner’s letter denying funds based on a fraudulent eviction notice.  Again after many phones calls we were able to get a hearing by the Lane County Board of Commissioners.  They also relied upon these two bogus documents and upheld the denial of housing funds.  

The eviction notice based on the bogus month to month rental agreement by Dean Kaufman did not go to court.  Through a series of emails Mr. Kaufman became aware that his eviction was based on the wrong document and offered that we pay no additional rent till the end of the lease period.  Not long after this the landlord starting shooting at us with a shotgun.  He shot at us 14 times over a two week period.  There are two Lane County Sheriff Reports (reports), a video tape where you hear the shotgun blast and the pellets hitting the house, a 911 tape of that incident also exists, and an email from Dean Kaufman stating that his client did in fact shoot at us.  The Lane County District Attorneys Office has this case still open but are not pursuing it.  

According to President Obama’s first official law, The Lilly Ledbetter Law, a discrimination of this sort occurs every time the housing subsidy payment was not made.  That is, for the months of July 2006 through February 2007.

We have filed a HUD complain through the Department’s Region X Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Seattle Washington pursuant to the Fair Housing Act, X v. Community Sharing Program, HUD Case Number 10-07-0085-8.  The department dismissed our complaint with a determination of “no reasonable cause” on April 19, 2007.  We have a filed a request for reconsideration with HUD FHEO Office of Enforcement Washington, DC. Turner Russell Director Enforcement Support Division, January 27, 2009.

We have contacted the Eugene Branch of the FBI, Agent Fennerty.  He is looking into this.  We have contacted the Inspector Generals Office Washington, DC.  

We filed a Federal Lawsuit against the County in US District Court in Eugene, but later withdrew it because the Judge would not appoint an attorney for us.  We are considering re-filing a modified version of that complaint for $10 million dollars, if no settlement can be reached.  

We plan on pursuing the prosecution of the County Commissioners involved in this incident to the extent of removal from office and jail time for failure to uphold their duties relating to protection of participants in a federally funded housing program under their control.  As stated above pertaining to the Lilly Ledbetter Law they would be held accountable for eight (8) instances on the payment of Housing Subsidy Funds, two (2) counts of using fraudulent writings to deny someone their rights under a Federally Funded Housing Lease, and multiple charges for failure to protect in the case of the shooting incidents.  Faye Stewart could be charged with engaging in a conspiracy involving a criminal enterprise designed to de-fraud the Federal Government of Housing Funds, by his close involvement with the Board of Directors of Community Sharing Program.  Besides Federal Prison terms and large fines these offenses carry the penalty of having the involved agencies being barred from handling Federal Housing Funds for five (5) years.  These are serious charges which carry serious penalties and consequences for the Federally Funded Housing Programs for all of Lane County because of the actions of a few County Commissioners.  Since the discriminatory practices were directed towards a person with a recognized disability federal law allows triple fines in this case.  We have worked consistently through the system as it exists in Lane County to solve this problem.  We were denied required access to information and treated vastly different than a regular citizen of Lane County(emails).  We believe that this stems directly from Faye Stewarts involvement with Nancy Glines former Executive Director of Community Sharing Program of Cottage Grove(now  Development Director, Majestic Theatre Management Inc).  These links between Faye Stewart, Nancy Waggoner and Nancy Glines can be traced through the organizational websites of foundations in which they are members.  Those links to funding foundations would be brought up in Federal District Court and would include: The Ford Family Foundation, The Oregon Community Foundation and The Cottage Grove Community Foundation and could result in asset seizure through RICCO Laws similar to the situation with the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals, the KKK asset seizures and current Madoff securities investigations. Since the Court trials awards would be at the discretion of a jury there would not be a limit to the County’s exposure. We look forward in your assistance in this matter.
 

Z X

Y@y.com
 

HOME TBA Contract

Attachments:  
zTBAcontract000 thru 009


Emails From Human Services Commission

The attachment ALLDREDGE Diana.htm is the email confirming that HSC sent document that was not from Community Sharing case file. The extra computer information will allow you to locate the email hearing emails by date


HUD Report contained in

Fwd email from

Yvonne Marte
Region X
Enforcement Branch Chief
909 First Avenue, Suite 205
Seattle, WA 98104-1000
206-220-5297-telephone
206-220-5447-fax

    Subject Fw: HUD case reactivation

We are having this reviewed by the FHEO Enforcement division Washington DC because Camille Johnson did not request or use the David Flores “Plan” from our case file or address the bogus “month to month rental agreement” provided by Nancy Wagonner to the attorney for the landlord in the improper eviction notice. She did not address the improper notice of cut off of funds in Nancy Wagonner’s letter of June 2006 or the shooting incidents.


Emails From Liane Richardson

This shows that Liane Richardson has put unreasonable costs on our receiving documents that are required to be provided to us. Nancy Wagonner’s letter of June 2006 was supposed to inform of of our access to documents and how to obtain them according to HUD regulations. This shows a pattern of denying access to documents unfavorable to Lane County.  

_“Liane Richardson
County Counsel”

Mr. X, I don't know what you mean when you refer to "the entire email hearing proceedings from human service commission and the Lane County Board of Commissioners"  What hearing?  What date did this hearing occur?" This information concerning times and which hearings would be in our file. Are you telling me there is no reference to hearings in our file?

“To my knowledge, the Board of County Commissioners do not hold any proceedings via email." Both of our hearings were held via email, as per my wife’s approved accommodation.
 
"I know that the "Plan for Self Sufficiency" was sent to you after you filed your lawsuit against the County regarding this issue.  It appears it was also provided to you when you appealed your removal from the program.   In any event, you had it posted on your own website at some point in time, so we will not be providing it to you again. "

No documents were sent to me after I filed our lawsuit in federal court. That case I chose to withdraw at that time so that we would be able to include additional information. The only document that was faxed to me purporting to be from our Community Sharing file was the one mentioned in the email we requested at the end of the previous email 2 below. You will notice that that email as well as you in your email state that it is not from our HOME TBA file.  What we asked for then and we will ask now is we want an official copy of the David Flores "plan for self sufficiency"  What was sent to us would be classified as a bogus document, a fraudulent writing. It did not come from our official file. Sending it under color of stating that it came from our official case file is a violation of the federal notice at the end of the HOME TBA Lease. As County Counsel I ask that you inform the proper authority to get that looked into for possible violation of federal law. As you know, if a violation of civil rights involves a disabled person the fines triple.

To point of getting the original copy of David Flores’ “Plan for Self Sufficiency” signed by David Flores, Z X and Y is that no such document exists in any of our HOME TBA files. When the Human services hearing said they relied on that file from the Community Sharing file they were lying and they attempted to cover-up the fact by faxing a known bogus substitute that they later admit came from the internet and not from any HOME TBA file. When the Lane County Board of Commissioners hearing relied on this same bogus document they also were in violation of federal law.

The eviction notice of June 2006 was predicated on a known bogus document faxed by Nancy Wagonner’s office to Dean Kaufman. Dean Kaufman sent us a copy of that document. No Lane County entity has sent us that document. We have received a copy of the HOME TBA lease, but that was not the document Nancy faxed Dean. By faxing a known bogus “month to month rental agreement” to Dean Kaufman Nancy was violating the federal law referenced at the end of the real HOME TBA Lease.

----- Original Message -----

From: RICHARDSON Liane I

To: Y
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 4:58 PM
Subject: RE: I contacted Home tba jenelle wooten

Mr. X, I don't know what you mean when you refer to "the entire email hearing proceedings from human service commission and the Lane County Board of Commissioners"  What hearing?  What date did this hearing occur?  To my knowledge, the Board of County Commissioners do not hold any proceedings via email.  I need more information before I can act on this portion of your request.  If you are asking for all emails the Commissioners had or Lane County had regarding your removal from the program, this issue was already addressed in prior requests you made.  We informed you of the cost for the search for any such emails that may exist and you refused to pay the cost.  You appealed our decision to the Lane County District Attorney's Office, which found that we were not denying you the documents.  If you are now willing to pay the cost, we will give you a revised estimate of the cost to search for any emails that may satisfy your request.

I know that the "Plan for Self Sufficiency" was sent to you after you filed your lawsuit against the County regarding this issue.  It appears it was also provided to you when you appealed your removal from the program.   In any event, you had it posted on your own website at some point in time, so we will not be providing it to you again.   

I know that "the document that Nancy Wagonner sent to Dean Kaufman when he requested our HOME TBA Lease" was also sent to you after you filed your lawsuit against the County regarding this issue, and that it appears to have been provided to you when you appealed your removal from the program.  Are you stating that wasn't the case?

If you did not receive the document identified in the paragraph immediately preceeding this one, we will  need to retrieve it from archives.  There will be staff time involved in retrieving the files and finding the document you are requesting.  Additionally, we will either make copies for you or allow you to come in and inspect those document.  If you wish to have copies made, there will be a charge.  If you wish to inspect the document, there will be a charge for staff time to accompany you while you are inspecting the document.  Either way, there will be a charge accompanying your request.  We estimate it at $30.  If you are sure you did not recieve the document, and are still wishing to obtain them, please send a check payable to Lane County.  We will begin to act on your request after we've received your payment.  If the actual cost to the County is less than $30, we will refund the difference.  If it is more than $30, we will request the additional amount prior to delivering the copies to you.  We are not required to provide the documents electronically and will not do so.

As I've told you before, we are not the custodians of record for Community Sharing.  If they are covered by the public records law, you will need to contact them for the documents you are requesting.

You cannot infer Lane County has destroyed any documents, or that any documents existed to begin with due to my responses or failure to respond.  For example, if you continue to make requests that have already been responded to, I will discontinue responding to you.  I have kept all of the prior requests you have made to the County regarding this issue and the responses.  I have too much work to do to deal with issues that have been dealt with once already.   No response from the County does not equal any admissions by the County.  Lastly, your emails to me and to other County employees will not contain personal attacks.  If they do, I will ask to have your email blocked county-wide and you will need to find another way to make your requests and correspond with County employees.

Liane Richardson
County Counsel

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Y [mailto:Y@y.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 4:23 PM
To: RICHARDSON Liane I
Subject: Re: I contacted Home tba jenelle wooten

Liane Richardson

“You received copies of everything in your file and concerning this issue back when you appealed being removed from the program and again when you filed a lawsuit against the County”

You are stating as County Counsel that what was sent to me was my total case file of our HOME TBA.

We are talking about our official HOME TBA case file that is required by law to be kept for 5 years.

 I request that you send to me the entire email hearing proceedings from human service commission and the Lane County Board of Commissioners. I request the official copy from my file of our “Plan for Self Sufficiency”. I request the document that Nancy Wagonner sent to Dean Kaufman when he requested our HOME TBA Lease. Is that plain enough for you to understand?

.  “We are not required to continue to provide documents to you that have already been provided.”

 I have not been provided any information from the “Community Sharing” file. Please send copy of their complete file and any complaints that they have had and any mention of deficient paperwork pertaining to their participation in the HOME TBA Program.

  “If you believe there are additional documents you have not received, identify those documents specifically and we will see if such documents exist.”

Please send the email detailed below, failure to send complete email confirms that Lane County has destroyed parts of our HOME TBA file.


From: "ALLDREDGE Diana Y"

To kX@lycos.com
Cc:
 "MANELASteve M" <Steve.Manela@CO.Lane.OR.US>, "WAGGONER Nancy L"<Nancy.Waggoner@CO.Lane.OR.US>, "WILLIAMS David B"<David.Williams@CO.Lane.OR.US>

Subject:: Home TBA documentation

That starts with “Dear Mr. =X,

After speaking with =Nancy Waggoner,  I understand that the Self-Sufficiency Plan =original = that you requested be faxed to you was found on your website, =AtticJewelry   http://www.atticjewelry.com/”

 

“As to your other questions, the public records law, which I've referred you to on numerous occasions, specifies what can be charged and what can be asked for.  Public entities are not required to create documents that are not in existence nor answer questions.   The County complies with the public records law, and charges for staff time, research, copying, and legal time whenever those resources are used in responding to a public records request, as allowed by law.  The fee we quoted you for legal time is actually less than the fee the departments are charged for legal time, and less than the going rate for a lawyer with comparable skill and experience out in the community.”

 I would assume that using someone with comparable skill to Lane County Counsel would result in sub-par representation.

The question you did not answer was: under what circumstances are emails sent and received by lane county commissioners’ not public documents? If privileged information is discussed in a public forum, i.e. official email, it is no longer privileged information. It appears that your office is censoring public documents to cover-up federal crimes.
 

“Liane Richardson
County Counsel”
Is this your official title?

___________________________________________________________________________________

----- Original Message -----

From: RICHARDSON Liane I

To: Y

Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 12:24 PM

Subject: RE: I contacted Home tba jenelle wooten

You received copies of everything in your file and concerning this issue back when you appealed being removed from the program and again when you filed a lawsuit against the County.  We are not required to continue to provide documents to you that have already been provided.  If you believe there are additional documents you have not received, identify those documents specifically and we will see if such documents exist.

As to your other questions, the public records law, which I've referred you to on numerous occasions, specifies what can be charged and what can be asked for.  Public entities are not required to create documents that are not in existence nor answer questions.   The County complies with the public records law, and charges for staff time, research, copying, and legal time whenever those resources are used in responding to a public records request, as allowed by law.  The fee we quoted you for legal time is actually less than the fee the departments are charged for legal time, and less than the going rate for a lawyer with comparable skill and experience out in the community.

Liane Richardson
County Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Y [mailto:Y@y.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 12:13 PM
To: RICHARDSON Liane I
Subject: I contacted Home tba jenelle wooten

Z X and Y

 Y@y.com

Thursday, January 29, 2009

<Liane.RICHARDSON@co.lane.or.us> ;

     We contacted Home TBA, Janelle Wooten, in reference to getting records from our HOME TBA file and from the Community Sharing’s file. We were told that your office has those files. Is this true? We were supposed to be advised that we would have access to these files in the cut-off of HOME TBA  letter sent by Nancy Wagonner June of 2006. She did not mention our right of access to our records. Since my wife has a recognized accommodation for her PTSD, it would be contrary to require us to get these files in person. We request that you have all files pertaining to our HOME TBA case burnt to a DVD and mailed to us. I expect a list of the included document file sources to be emailed to us by return email with the approximate page sizes.

     In our previous correspondence concerning access to public domain Lane County Board of Commissioners emails you quoted a fee “for my review of the documents to determine if there are documents that are not discoverable under the public records law. That charge would be a reduced rate of $110/hr."

 Is this fee based on your regular Lane County wage scale?

Is this the same fee you charge other people requesting public documents?

Is this the same process your office has for other people requesting public documents?

 

Z X and Y

Y@y.com

____________

_Liane Richardson

“You received copies of everything in your file and concerning this issue back when you appealed being removed from the program and again when you filed a lawsuit against the County”

You are stating as County Counsel that what was sent to me was my total case file of our HOME TBA.

We are talking about our official HOME TBA case file that is required by law to be kept for 5 years.

 I request that you send to me the entire email hearing proceedings from human service commission and the Lane County Board of Commissioners. I request the official copy from my file of our “Plan for Self Sufficiency”. I request the document that Nancy Wagonner sent to Dean Kaufman when he requested our HOME TBA Lease. Is that plain enough for you to understand?

.  “We are not required to continue to provide documents to you that have already been provided.”

 I have not been provided any information from the “Community Sharing” file. Please send copy of their complete file and any complaints that they have had and any mention of deficient paperwork pertaining to their participation in the HOME TBA Program.

  “If you believe there are additional documents you have not received, identify those documents specifically and we will see if such documents exist.”

Please send the email detailed below, failure to send complete email confirms that Lane County has destroyed parts of our HOME TBA file.

 

From: "ALLDREDGE Diana Y"

To kX@lycos.com

Cc:
 "MANELASteve M" <Steve.Manela@CO.Lane.OR.US>, "WAGGONER Nancy L"<Nancy.Waggoner@CO.Lane.OR.US>, "WILLIAMS David B"<David.Williams@CO.Lane.OR.US>

Subject:: Home TBA documentation

That starts with “Dear Mr. =X,

After speaking with =Nancy Waggoner,  I understand that the Self-Sufficiency Plan =original that you requested be faxed to you was found on your website, =AtticJewelry   http://www.atticjewelry.com/”
 

“As to your other questions, the public records law, which I've referred you to on numerous occasions, specifies what can be charged and what can be asked for.  Public entities are not required to create documents that are not in existence nor answer questions.   The County complies with the public records law, and charges for staff time, research, copying, and legal time whenever those resources are used in responding to a public records request, as allowed by law.  The fee we quoted you for legal time is actually less than the fee the departments are charged for legal time, and less than the going rate for a lawyer with comparable skill and experience out in the community.”

 I would assume that using someone with comparable skill to Lane County Counsel would result in sub-par representation.

The question you did not answer was: under what circumstances are emails sent and received by lane county commissioners’ not public documents? If privileged information is discussed in a public forum, i.e. official email, it is no longer privileged information. It appears that your office is censoring public documents to cover-up federal crimes.

“Liane Richardson

County Counsel”

Is this your official title?

___________________________________________________________________________________

----- Original Message -----

From: RICHARDSON Liane I

To: Y

Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 12:24 PM

Subject: RE: I contacted Home tba jenelle wooten


You received copies of everything in your file and concerning this issue back when you appealed being removed from the program and again when you filed a lawsuit against the County.  We are not required to continue to provide documents to you that have already been provided.  If you believe there are additional documents you have not received, identify those documents specifically and we will see if such documents exist.

As to your other questions, the public records law, which I've referred you to on numerous occasions, specifies what can be charged and what can be asked for.  Public entities are not required to create documents that are not in existence nor answer questions.   The County complies with the public records law, and charges for staff time, research, copying, and legal time whenever those resources are used in responding to a public records request, as allowed by law.  The fee we quoted you for legal time is actually less than the fee the departments are charged for legal time, and less than the going rate for a lawyer with comparable skill and experience out in the community.

Liane Richardson

County Counsel

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Y [mailto:Y@y.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 12:13 PM
To: RICHARDSON Liane I
Subject: I contacted Home tba jenelle wooten

Z X and Y

 Y@y.com

Thursday, January 29, 2009

<Liane.RICHARDSON@co.lane.or.us> ;

     We contacted Home TBA, Janelle Wooten, in reference to getting records from our HOME TBA file and from the Community Sharing’s file. We were told that your office has those files. Is this true? We were supposed to be advised that we would have access to these files in the cut-off of HOME TBA  letter sent by Nancy Wagonner June of 2006. She did not mention our right of access to our records. Since my wife has a recognized accommodation for her PTSD, it would be contrary to require us to get these files in person. We request that you have all files pertaining to our HOME TBA case burnt to a DVD and mailed to us. I expect a list of the included document file sources to be emailed to us by return email with the approximate page sizes.

     In our previous correspondence concerning access to public domain Lane County Board of Commissioners emails you quoted a fee “for my review of the documents to determine if there are documents that are not discoverable under the public records law. That charge would be a reduced rate of $110/hr."

 Is this fee based on your regular Lane County wage scale?

Is this the same fee you charge other people requesting public documents?

Is this the same process your office has for other people requesting public documents?

 

Z X and Y

Y@y.com

________

You received copies of everything in your file and concerning this issue back when you appealed being removed from the program and again when you filed a lawsuit against the County.  We are not required to continue to provide documents to you that have already been provided.  If you believe there are additional documents you have not received, identify those documents specifically and we will see if such documents exist.


As to your other questions, the public records law, which I've referred you to on numerous occasions, specifies what can be charged and what can be asked for.  Public entities are not required to create documents that are not in existence nor answer questions.   The County complies with the public records law, and charges for staff time, research, copying, and legal time whenever those resources are used in responding to a public records request, as allowed by law.  The fee we quoted you for legal time is actually less than the fee the departments are charged for legal time, and less than the going rate for a lawyer with comparable skill and experience out in the community.

Liane Richardson
County Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Y [mailto:Y@y.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 12:13 PM
To: RICHARDSON Liane I
Subject: I contacted Home tba jenelle wooten
Z X and Y
 Y@y.com
“Thursday, January 29, 2009
 <Liane.RICHARDSON@co.lane.or.us> ;

     We contacted Home TBA, Janelle Wooten, in reference to getting records from our HOME TBA file and from the Community Sharing’s file. We were told that your office has those files. Is this true? We were supposed to be advised that we would have access to these files in the cut-off of HOME TBA  letter sent by Nancy Wagonner June of 2006. She did not mention our right of access to our records. Since my wife has a recognized accommodation for her PTSD, it would be contrary to require us to get these files in person. We request that you have all files pertaining to our HOME TBA case burnt to a DVD and mailed to us. I expect a list of the included document file sources to be emailed to us by return email with the approximate page sizes.

      In our previous correspondence concerning access to public domain Lane County Board of Commissioners emails you quoted a fee “for my review of the documents to determine if there are documents that are not discoverable under the public records law. That charge would be a reduced rate of $110/hr."

 Is this fee based on your regular Lane County wage scale?

Is this the same fee you charge other people requesting public documents?

Is this the same process your office has for other people requesting public documents?”

Z X and Y

Y@y.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Why would Liane Richardson do this? Faye Stewart is a member of and received “leadership training” from The Ford Family Foundation, Liane received “leadership training” through the Pacific Leadership program. These two groups are linked. The purpose of the programs according to their website is: “Graduates of the Pacific Program enter into a web of alumni that are supported through on-going educational opportunities, regular communications, and a cadre of relationships with other public sector leaders at all levels that can help when faced with difficult challenges and the need to forge partnerships in the public interest.”

Faye Stewart , Bobby Green and Nancy Glines are linked through the Ford Institute Leadership Program? http://www.ripplenw.org/rdi/ripple/info/C10 with the same stated goals of one hand washing the other.  Faye Stewart , Bobby Green as well as the president of the OCF and The head of the oregon housing and community Services Victor Merced are all members of ALF, American Leadership Forum, http://www.alfo.org/people/?function=all_fellows&PHPSESSID=ef789f016e465e6cb9f0f3ea662c70cb  .

 The Oregon Community Foundation helps fund these organizations. I realize that this part sounds like a “conspiracy” rant, but consider that the OCF has over 200 “not for profits” under its control, over a billion dollars in tax exempt funds, has a “pooled investment” fund structure where all funds benefit the whole. In other words if Faye Stewart gets funds into the OCF, his own assorted foundations benefit. These funds are out of the State and County tax base. In the last few years by withholding funds to various school and civic organizations a crisis in funding has been made to occur.  Faye Stewart has over a million family dollars in the tax free “pooled investment” fund of OCF. When Faye Stewart used his Lane County Commissioner email to promote a senior meals sub-foundation of the OCF he was diverting money that was willed to a Lane Council of Governments program in a way that bypassed governmental oversight to a fund that directly benefited him and his family’s Oregon Community Foundation “pooled investment” funds. In a letter from the Lane Council of Governments website they say they set up this sub-fund of OCF because there are things that the County can not legally invest in. This is clear evidence that Faye Stewart is concerned with the OCF instead of the county. Nancy Glines is now with Majestic Theatre Management Inc in a position totally funded by a $45,000 grant from the OCF, Nancy Wagonner is now sitting on a “scholarship review board” for a sub-foundation of the OCF.

What I am trying to say is that this group is using behind the scenes funding to manipulate public opinion and increase funds going into the “pooled investment fund” of the OCF.     

Correspondence from Glines, Waggoner and Flores

In our HOME TBA file with Liane Richardson. I would appreciate it if you would get copies of the our HOME TBA case file, our Community Sharing case file from Community Sharing and the community sharing program file from Human Services Commission. These should all be available to you as a County Commissioner.
 
Link to Utube video of one shooting incident
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQQ4ystsAWo

 ======================================================
Obama Lilly Ledbetter Law

LILLY LEDBETTER FAIR PAY ACT OF 2009
AND
PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT

by President Obama Thursday, January 29, 2009



you will note in the quoted part below that "to clarify that a
discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful
under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the
discriminatory compensation decision or other practice"

This means that each time the HOME TBA issued a subsidy check to the
Johnson's'
and he was violating the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and each
month when the HOME TBA was not issuing a subsidy check from July 2007
through January 2007 a separate violation was occurring. That would
increase the single fine and possible lawsuit award by a factor of 24.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Below is full text of bill.

1st Session

H. R. 11

AN ACT

To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and to modify the operation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice
that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid
pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, to
amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective
remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis
of sex, and for other purposes.

END


Complete text

LILLY LEDBETTER FAIR PAY ACT OF 2009
AND
PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT
Passed by the House of Representatives and sent to the Senate
on January 9, 2009
 
HR 11 EH
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 11

AN ACT
To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and to modify the operation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
TITLE I--LILLY LEDBETTER FAIR PAY ACT OF 2009
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the `Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The Supreme Court in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), significantly impairs statutory protections against discrimination in compensation that Congress established and that have been bedrock principles of American law for decades. The Ledbetter decision undermines those statutory protections by unduly restricting the time period in which victims of discrimination can challenge and recover for discriminatory compensation decisions or other practices, contrary to the intent of Congress.
(2) The limitation imposed by the Court on the filing of discriminatory compensation claims ignores the reality of wage discrimination and is at odds with the robust application of the civil rights laws that Congress intended.
(3) With regard to any charge of discrimination under any law, nothing in this Act is intended to preclude or limit an aggrieved person's right to introduce evidence of an unlawful employment practice that has occurred outside the time for filing a charge of discrimination.
(4) Nothing in this Act is intended to change current law treatment of when pension distributions are considered paid.
SEC. 3. DISCRIMINATION IN COMPENSATION BECAUSE OF RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN.
Section 706(e) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(3)(A) For purposes of this section, an unlawful employment practice occurs, with respect to discrimination in compensation in violation of this title, when a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted, when an individual becomes subject to a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, or when an individual is affected by application of a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, including each time wages, benefits, or other compensation is paid, resulting in whole or in part from such a decision or other practice.
`(B) In addition to any relief authorized by section 1977A of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981a), liability may accrue and an aggrieved person may obtain relief as provided in subsection (g)(1), including recovery of back pay for up to two years preceding the filing of the charge, where the unlawful employment practices that have occurred during the charge filing period are similar or related to unlawful employment practices with regard to discrimination in compensation that occurred outside the time for filing a charge.'.
SEC. 4. DISCRIMINATION IN COMPENSATION BECAUSE OF AGE.
Section 7(d) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 626(d)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively; and
(B) by striking `(d)' and inserting `(d)(1)';
(2) in the third sentence, by striking `Upon' and inserting the following:
`(2) Upon'; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
`(3) For purposes of this section, an unlawful practice occurs, with respect to discrimination in compensation in violation of this Act, when a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted, when a person becomes subject to a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, or when a person is affected by application of a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, including each time wages, benefits, or other compensation is paid, resulting in whole or in part from such a decision or other practice.'.
SEC. 5. APPLICATION TO OTHER LAWS.
(a) Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990- The amendments made by section 3 shall apply to claims of discrimination in compensation brought under title I and section 503 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12111 et seq., 12203), pursuant to section 107(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 12117(a)), which adopts the powers, remedies, and procedures set forth in section 706 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-5).
(b) Rehabilitation Act of 1973- The amendments made by section 3 shall apply to claims of discrimination in compensation brought under sections 501 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791, 794), pursuant to--
(1) sections 501(g) and 504(d) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 791(g), 794(d)), respectively, which adopt the standards applied under title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 for determining whether a violation has occurred in a complaint alleging employment discrimination; and
(2) paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 505(a) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 794a(a)) (as amended by subsection (c)).
(c) Conforming Amendments-
(1) REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973- Section 505(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794a(a)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting after `(42 U.S.C. 2000e-5 (f) through (k))' the following: `(and the application of section 706(e)(3) (42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(e)(3)) to claims of discrimination in compensation)'; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting after `1964' the following: `(42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) (and in subsection (e)(3) of section 706 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-5), applied to claims of discrimination in compensation)'.
(2) CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964- Section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-16) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(f) Section 706(e)(3) shall apply to complaints of discrimination in compensation under this section.'.
(3) AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1967- Section 15(f) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 633a(f)) is amended by striking `of section' and inserting `of sections 7(d)(3) and'.
SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This title and the amendments made by this title, take effect as if enacted on May 28, 2007, and apply to all claims of discrimination in compensation under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 621 et seq.), title I and section 503 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and sections 501 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, that are pending on or after that date.
TITLE II--PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the `Paycheck Fairness Act'.
SEC. 202. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Women have entered the workforce in record numbers over the past 50 years.
(2) Despite the enactment of the Equal Pay Act in 1963, many women continue to earn significantly lower pay than men for equal work. These pay disparities exist in both the private and governmental sectors. In many instances, the pay disparities can only be due to continued intentional discrimination or the lingering effects of past discrimination.
(3) The existence of such pay disparities--
(A) depresses the wages of working families who rely on the wages of all members of the family to make ends meet;
(B) undermines women's retirement security, which is often based on earnings while in the workforce;
(C) prevents the optimum utilization of available labor resources;
(D) has been spread and perpetuated, through commerce and the channels and instrumentalities of commerce, among the workers of the several States;
(E) burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce;
(F) constitutes an unfair method of competition in commerce;
(G) leads to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce;
(H) interferes with the orderly and fair marketing of goods in commerce; and
(I) in many instances, may deprive workers of equal protection on the basis of sex in violation of the 5th and 14th amendments.
(4)(A) Artificial barriers to the elimination of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex continue to exist decades after the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000a et seq.).
(B) These barriers have resulted, in significant part, because the Equal Pay Act has not worked as Congress originally intended. Improvements and modifications to the law are necessary to ensure that the Act provides effective protection to those subject to pay discrimination on the basis of their sex.
(C) Elimination of such barriers would have positive effects, including--
(i) providing a solution to problems in the economy created by unfair pay disparities;
(ii) substantially reducing the number of working women earning unfairly low wages, thereby reducing the dependence on public assistance;
(iii) promoting stable families by enabling all family members to earn a fair rate of pay;
(iv) remedying the effects of past discrimination on the basis of sex and ensuring that in the future workers are afforded equal protection on the basis of sex; and
(v) ensuring equal protection pursuant to Congress' power to enforce the 5th and 14th amendments.
(5) The Department of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have important and unique responsibilities to help ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work.
(6) The Department of Labor is responsible for--
(A) collecting and making publicly available information about women's pay;
(B) ensuring that companies receiving Federal contracts comply with anti-discrimination affirmative action requirements of Executive Order No. 11246 (relating to equal employment opportunity);
(C) disseminating information about women's rights in the workplace;
(D) helping women who have been victims of pay discrimination obtain a remedy; and
(E) being proactive in investigating and prosecuting equal pay violations, especially systemic violations, and in enforcing all of its mandates.
(7) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the primary enforcement agency for claims made under the Equal Pay Act, and issues regulations and guidance on appropriate interpretations of the law.
(8) With a stronger commitment by the Department of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to their responsibilities, increased information as a result of the amendments made by this Act to the Equal Pay Act of 1963, wage data, and more effective remedies, women will be better able to recognize and enforce their rights.
(9) Certain employers have already made great strides in eradicating unfair pay disparities in the workplace and their achievements should be recognized.
SEC. 203. ENHANCED ENFORCEMENT OF EQUAL PAY REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Bona-Fide Factor Defense and Modification of Same Establishment Requirement- Section 6(d)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(d)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking `No employer having' and inserting `(A) No employer having';
(2) by striking `any other factor other than sex' and inserting `a bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience'; and
(3) by inserting at the end the following:
`(B) The bona fide factor defense described in subparagraph (A)(iv) shall apply only if the employer demonstrates that such factor: (i) is not based upon or derived from a sex-based differential in compensation; (ii) is job-related with respect to the position in question; and (iii) is consistent with business necessity. Such defense shall not apply where the employee demonstrates that an alternative employment practice exists that would serve the same business purpose without producing such differential and that the employer has refused to adopt such alternative practice.
`(C) For purposes of subparagraph (A), employees shall be deemed to work in the same establishment if the employees work for the same employer at workplaces located in the same county or similar political subdivision of a State. The preceding sentence shall not be construed as limiting broader applications of the term `establishment' consistent with rules prescribed or guidance issued by the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission.'.
(b) Nonretaliation Provision- Section 15 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 215(a)(3)) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking `employee has filed' and all that follows and inserting `employee--
`(A) has made a charge or filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any investigation, proceeding, hearing, or action under or related to this Act, including an investigation conducted by the employer, or has testified or is planning to testify or has assisted or participated in any manner in any such investigation, proceeding, hearing or action, or has served or is planning to serve on an industry Committee; or
`(B) has inquired about, discussed or disclosed the wages of the employee or another employee.'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(c) Subsection (a)(3)(B) shall not apply to instances in which an employee who has access to the wage information of other employees as a part of such employee's essential job functions discloses the wages of such other employees to individuals who do not otherwise have access to such information, unless such disclosure is in response to a complaint or charge or in furtherance of an investigation, proceeding, hearing, or action under section 6(d), including an investigation conducted by the employer. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the rights of an employee provided under any other provision of law.'.
(c) Enhanced Penalties- Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216(b)) is amended--
(1) by inserting after the first sentence the following: `Any employer who violates section 6(d) shall additionally be liable for such compensatory damages, or, where the employee demonstrates that the employer acted with malice or reckless indifference, punitive damages as may be appropriate, except that the United States shall not be liable for punitive damages.';
(2) in the sentence beginning `An action to', by striking `either of the preceding sentences' and inserting `any of the preceding sentences of this subsection';
(3) in the sentence beginning `No employees shall', by striking `No employees' and inserting `Except with respect to class actions brought to enforce section 6(d), no employee';
(4) by inserting after the sentence referred to in paragraph (3), the following: `Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, any action brought to enforce section 6(d) may be maintained as a class action as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.'; and
(5) in the sentence beginning `The court in'--
(A) by striking `in such action' and inserting `in any action brought to recover the liability prescribed in any of the preceding sentences of this subsection'; and
(B) by inserting before the period the following: `, including expert fees'.
(d) Action by Secretary- Section 16(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216(c)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence--
(A) by inserting `or, in the case of a violation of section 6(d), additional compensatory or punitive damages, as described in subsection (b),' before `and the agreement'; and
(B) by inserting before the period the following: `, or such compensatory or punitive damages, as appropriate';
(2) in the second sentence, by inserting before the period the following: `and, in the case of a violation of section 6(d), additional compensatory or punitive damages, as described in subsection (b)';
(3) in the third sentence, by striking `the first sentence' and inserting `the first or second sentence'; and
(4) in the last sentence--
(A) by striking `commenced in the case' and inserting `commenced--
`(1) in the case';
(B) by striking the period and inserting `; or'; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
`(2) in the case of a class action brought to enforce section 6(d), on the date on which the individual becomes a party plaintiff to the class action.'.
SEC. 204. TRAINING.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, subject to the availability of funds appropriated under section 210, shall provide training to Commission employees and affected individuals and entities on matters involving discrimination in the payment of wages.
SEC. 205. NEGOTIATION SKILLS TRAINING FOR GIRLS AND WOMEN.
(a) Program Authorized-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of Labor, after consultation with the Secretary of Education, is authorized to establish and carry out a grant program.
(2) GRANTS- In carrying out the program, the Secretary of Labor may make grants on a competitive basis to eligible entities, to carry out negotiation skills training programs for girls and women.
(3) ELIGIBLE ENTITIES- To be eligible to receive a grant under this subsection, an entity shall be a public agency, such as a State, a local government in a metropolitan statistical area (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget), a State educational agency, or a local educational agency, a private nonprofit organization, or a community-based organization.
(4) APPLICATION- To be eligible to receive a grant under this subsection, an entity shall submit an application to the Secretary of Labor at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary of Labor may require.
(5) USE OF FUNDS- An entity that receives a grant under this subsection shall use the funds made available through the grant to carry out an effective negotiation skills training program that empowers girls and women. The training provided through the program shall help girls and women strengthen their negotiation skills to allow the girls and women to obtain higher salaries and rates of compensation that are equal to those paid to similarly-situated male employees.
(b) Incorporating Training Into Existing Programs- The Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education shall issue regulations or policy guidance that provides for integrating the negotiation skills training, to the extent practicable, into programs authorized under--
(1) in the case of the Secretary of Education, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.), the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.), the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), and other programs carried out by the Department of Education that the Secretary of Education determines to be appropriate; and
(2) in the case of the Secretary of Labor, the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.), and other programs carried out by the Department of Labor that the Secretary of Labor determines to be appropriate.
(c) Report- Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education shall prepare and submit to Congress a report describing the activities conducted under this section and evaluating the effectiveness of such activities in achieving the purposes of this Act.
SEC. 206. RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND OUTREACH.
The Secretary of Labor shall conduct studies and provide information to employers, labor organizations, and the general public concerning the means available to eliminate pay disparities between men and women, including--
(1) conducting and promoting research to develop the means to correct expeditiously the conditions leading to the pay disparities;
(2) publishing and otherwise making available to employers, labor organizations, professional associations, educational institutions, the media, and the general public the findings resulting from studies and other materials, relating to eliminating the pay disparities;
(3) sponsoring and assisting State and community informational and educational programs;
(4) providing information to employers, labor organizations, professional associations, and other interested persons on the means of eliminating the pay disparities;
(5) recognizing and promoting the achievements of employers, labor organizations, and professional associations that have worked to eliminate the pay disparities; and
(6) convening a national summit to discuss, and consider approaches for rectifying, the pay disparities.
SEC. 207. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL AWARD FOR PAY EQUITY IN THE WORKPLACE.
(a) In General- There is established the Secretary of Labor's National Award for Pay Equity in the Workplace, which shall be awarded, as appropriate, to encourage proactive efforts to comply with section 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(d)).
(b) Criteria for Qualification- The Secretary of Labor shall set criteria for receipt of the award, including a requirement that an employer has made substantial effort to eliminate pay disparities between men and women, and deserves special recognition as a consequence of such effort. The Secretary shall establish procedures for the application and presentation of the award.
(c) Business- In this section, the term `employer' includes--
(1)(A) a corporation, including a nonprofit corporation;
(B) a partnership;
(C) a professional association;
(D) a labor organization; and
(E) a business entity similar to an entity described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (D);
(2) an entity carrying out an education referral program, a training program, such as an apprenticeship or management training program, or a similar program; and
(3) an entity carrying out a joint program, formed by a combination of any entities described in paragraph (1) or (2).
SEC. 208. COLLECTION OF PAY INFORMATION BY THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.
Section 709 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-8) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(f)(1) Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall--
`(A) complete a survey of the data that is currently available to the Federal Government relating to employee pay information for use in the enforcement of Federal laws prohibiting pay discrimination and, in consultation with other relevant Federal agencies, identify additional data collections that will enhance the enforcement of such laws; and
`(B) based on the results of the survey and consultations under subparagraph (A), issue regulations to provide for the collection of pay information data from employers as described by the sex, race, and national origin of employees.
`(2) In implementing paragraph (1), the Commission shall have as its primary consideration the most effective and efficient means for enhancing the enforcement of Federal laws prohibiting pay discrimination. For this purpose, the Commission shall consider factors including the imposition of burdens on employers, the frequency of required reports (including which employers should be required to prepare reports), appropriate protections for maintaining data confidentiality, and the most effective format for the data collection reports.'.
SEC. 209. REINSTATEMENT OF PAY EQUITY PROGRAMS AND PAY EQUITY DATA COLLECTION.
(a) Bureau of Labor Statistics Data Collection- The Commissioner of Labor Statistics shall continue to collect data on women workers in the Current Employment Statistics survey.
(b) Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs Initiatives- The Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs shall ensure that employees of the Office--
(1)(A) shall use the full range of investigatory tools at the Office's disposal, including pay grade methodology;
(B) in considering evidence of possible compensation discrimination--
(i) shall not limit its consideration to a small number of types of evidence; and
(ii) shall not limit its evaluation of the evidence to a small number of methods of evaluating the evidence; and
(C) shall not require a multiple regression analysis or anecdotal evidence for a compensation discrimination case;
(2) for purposes of its investigative, compliance, and enforcement activities, shall define `similarly situated employees' in a way that is consistent with and not more stringent than the definition provided in item 1 of subsection A of section 10-III of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Compliance Manual (2000), and shall consider only factors that the Office's investigation reveals were used in making compensation decisions; and
(3) shall reinstate the Equal Opportunity Survey, as required by section 60-2.18 of title 41, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on September 7, 2006), designating not less than half of all nonconstruction contractor establishments each year to prepare and file such survey, and shall review and utilize the responses to such survey to identify contractor establishments for further evaluation and for other enforcement purposes as appropriate.
(c) Department of Labor Distribution of Wage Discrimination Information- The Secretary of Labor shall make readily available (in print, on the Department of Labor website, and through any other forum that the Department may use to distribute compensation discrimination information), accurate information on compensation discrimination, including statistics, explanations of employee rights, historical analyses of such discrimination, instructions for employers on compliance, and any other information that will assist the public in understanding and addressing such discrimination.
SEC. 210. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated $15,000,000 to carry out this title.
(b) Prohibition on Earmarks- None of the funds appropriated pursuant to subsection (a) for purposes of the grant program in section 205 of this Act may be used for a Congressional earmark as defined in clause 9(d) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
SEC. 211. SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE.
(a) Effective Date- This title and the amendments made by this title shall take effect on the date that is 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Technical Assistance Materials- The Secretary of Labor and the Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall jointly develop technical assistance material to assist small businesses in complying with the requirements of this title and the amendments made by this title.
(c) Small Businesses- A small business shall be exempt from the provisions of this title to the same extent that such business is exempt from the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act pursuant to section 3(s)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) of such Act.
SEC. 212. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this title, or in any amendments made by this title, shall affect the obligation of employers and employees to fully comply with all applicable immigration laws, including any penalties, fines, or other sanctions.
Passed the House of Representatives January 9, 2009.
Attest:
Clerk.
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 11
AN ACT
To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and to modify the operation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes.
END
LILLY LEDBETTER FAIR PAY ACT OF 2009
AND
PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT
Passed by the House of Representatives and sent to the Senate
on January 9, 2009
 
HR 11 EH
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 11

AN ACT
To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and to modify the operation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
TITLE I--LILLY LEDBETTER FAIR PAY ACT OF 2009
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the `Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The Supreme Court in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), significantly impairs statutory protections against discrimination in compensation that Congress established and that have been bedrock principles of American law for decades. The Ledbetter decision undermines those statutory protections by unduly restricting the time period in which victims of discrimination can challenge and recover for discriminatory compensation decisions or other practices, contrary to the intent of Congress.
(2) The limitation imposed by the Court on the filing of discriminatory compensation claims ignores the reality of wage discrimination and is at odds with the robust application of the civil rights laws that Congress intended.
(3) With regard to any charge of discrimination under any law, nothing in this Act is intended to preclude or limit an aggrieved person's right to introduce evidence of an unlawful employment practice that has occurred outside the time for filing a charge of discrimination.
(4) Nothing in this Act is intended to change current law treatment of when pension distributions are considered paid.
SEC. 3. DISCRIMINATION IN COMPENSATION BECAUSE OF RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN.
Section 706(e) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(3)(A) For purposes of this section, an unlawful employment practice occurs, with respect to discrimination in compensation in violation of this title, when a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted, when an individual becomes subject to a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, or when an individual is affected by application of a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, including each time wages, benefits, or other compensation is paid, resulting in whole or in part from such a decision or other practice.
`(B) In addition to any relief authorized by section 1977A of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981a), liability may accrue and an aggrieved person may obtain relief as provided in subsection (g)(1), including recovery of back pay for up to two years preceding the filing of the charge, where the unlawful employment practices that have occurred during the charge filing period are similar or related to unlawful employment practices with regard to discrimination in compensation that occurred outside the time for filing a charge.'.
SEC. 4. DISCRIMINATION IN COMPENSATION BECAUSE OF AGE.
Section 7(d) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 626(d)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively; and
(B) by striking `(d)' and inserting `(d)(1)';
(2) in the third sentence, by striking `Upon' and inserting the following:
`(2) Upon'; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
`(3) For purposes of this section, an unlawful practice occurs, with respect to discrimination in compensation in violation of this Act, when a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted, when a person becomes subject to a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, or when a person is affected by application of a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, including each time wages, benefits, or other compensation is paid, resulting in whole or in part from such a decision or other practice.'.
SEC. 5. APPLICATION TO OTHER LAWS.
(a) Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990- The amendments made by section 3 shall apply to claims of discrimination in compensation brought under title I and section 503 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12111 et seq., 12203), pursuant to section 107(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 12117(a)), which adopts the powers, remedies, and procedures set forth in section 706 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-5).
(b) Rehabilitation Act of 1973- The amendments made by section 3 shall apply to claims of discrimination in compensation brought under sections 501 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791, 794), pursuant to--
(1) sections 501(g) and 504(d) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 791(g), 794(d)), respectively, which adopt the standards applied under title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 for determining whether a violation has occurred in a complaint alleging employment discrimination; and
(2) paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 505(a) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 794a(a)) (as amended by subsection (c)).
(c) Conforming Amendments-
(1) REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973- Section 505(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794a(a)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting after `(42 U.S.C. 2000e-5 (f) through (k))' the following: `(and the application of section 706(e)(3) (42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(e)(3)) to claims of discrimination in compensation)'; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting after `1964' the following: `(42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) (and in subsection (e)(3) of section 706 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-5), applied to claims of discrimination in compensation)'.
(2) CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964- Section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-16) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(f) Section 706(e)(3) shall apply to complaints of discrimination in compensation under this section.'.
(3) AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1967- Section 15(f) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 633a(f)) is amended by striking `of section' and inserting `of sections 7(d)(3) and'.
SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This title and the amendments made by this title, take effect as if enacted on May 28, 2007, and apply to all claims of discrimination in compensation under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 621 et seq.), title I and section 503 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and sections 501 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, that are pending on or after that date.
TITLE II--PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the `Paycheck Fairness Act'.
SEC. 202. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Women have entered the workforce in record numbers over the past 50 years.
(2) Despite the enactment of the Equal Pay Act in 1963, many women continue to earn significantly lower pay than men for equal work. These pay disparities exist in both the private and governmental sectors. In many instances, the pay disparities can only be due to continued intentional discrimination or the lingering effects of past discrimination.
(3) The existence of such pay disparities--
(A) depresses the wages of working families who rely on the wages of all members of the family to make ends meet;
(B) undermines women's retirement security, which is often based on earnings while in the workforce;
(C) prevents the optimum utilization of available labor resources;
(D) has been spread and perpetuated, through commerce and the channels and instrumentalities of commerce, among the workers of the several States;
(E) burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce;
(F) constitutes an unfair method of competition in commerce;
(G) leads to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce;
(H) interferes with the orderly and fair marketing of goods in commerce; and
(I) in many instances, may deprive workers of equal protection on the basis of sex in violation of the 5th and 14th amendments.
(4)(A) Artificial barriers to the elimination of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex continue to exist decades after the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000a et seq.).
(B) These barriers have resulted, in significant part, because the Equal Pay Act has not worked as Congress originally intended. Improvements and modifications to the law are necessary to ensure that the Act provides effective protection to those subject to pay discrimination on the basis of their sex.
(C) Elimination of such barriers would have positive effects, including--
(i) providing a solution to problems in the economy created by unfair pay disparities;
(ii) substantially reducing the number of working women earning unfairly low wages, thereby reducing the dependence on public assistance;
(iii) promoting stable families by enabling all family members to earn a fair rate of pay;
(iv) remedying the effects of past discrimination on the basis of sex and ensuring that in the future workers are afforded equal protection on the basis of sex; and
(v) ensuring equal protection pursuant to Congress' power to enforce the 5th and 14th amendments.
(5) The Department of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have important and unique responsibilities to help ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work.
(6) The Department of Labor is responsible for--
(A) collecting and making publicly available information about women's pay;
(B) ensuring that companies receiving Federal contracts comply with anti-discrimination affirmative action requirements of Executive Order No. 11246 (relating to equal employment opportunity);
(C) disseminating information about women's rights in the workplace;
(D) helping women who have been victims of pay discrimination obtain a remedy; and
(E) being proactive in investigating and prosecuting equal pay violations, especially systemic violations, and in enforcing all of its mandates.
(7) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the primary enforcement agency for claims made under the Equal Pay Act, and issues regulations and guidance on appropriate interpretations of the law.
(8) With a stronger commitment by the Department of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to their responsibilities, increased information as a result of the amendments made by this Act to the Equal Pay Act of 1963, wage data, and more effective remedies, women will be better able to recognize and enforce their rights.
(9) Certain employers have already made great strides in eradicating unfair pay disparities in the workplace and their achievements should be recognized.
SEC. 203. ENHANCED ENFORCEMENT OF EQUAL PAY REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Bona-Fide Factor Defense and Modification of Same Establishment Requirement- Section 6(d)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(d)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking `No employer having' and inserting `(A) No employer having';
(2) by striking `any other factor other than sex' and inserting `a bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience'; and
(3) by inserting at the end the following:
`(B) The bona fide factor defense described in subparagraph (A)(iv) shall apply only if the employer demonstrates that such factor: (i) is not based upon or derived from a sex-based differential in compensation; (ii) is job-related with respect to the position in question; and (iii) is consistent with business necessity. Such defense shall not apply where the employee demonstrates that an alternative employment practice exists that would serve the same business purpose without producing such differential and that the employer has refused to adopt such alternative practice.
`(C) For purposes of subparagraph (A), employees shall be deemed to work in the same establishment if the employees work for the same employer at workplaces located in the same county or similar political subdivision of a State. The preceding sentence shall not be construed as limiting broader applications of the term `establishment' consistent with rules prescribed or guidance issued by the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission.'.
(b) Nonretaliation Provision- Section 15 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 215(a)(3)) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking `employee has filed' and all that follows and inserting `employee--
`(A) has made a charge or filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any investigation, proceeding, hearing, or action under or related to this Act, including an investigation conducted by the employer, or has testified or is planning to testify or has assisted or participated in any manner in any such investigation, proceeding, hearing or action, or has served or is planning to serve on an industry Committee; or
`(B) has inquired about, discussed or disclosed the wages of the employee or another employee.'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(c) Subsection (a)(3)(B) shall not apply to instances in which an employee who has access to the wage information of other employees as a part of such employee's essential job functions discloses the wages of such other employees to individuals who do not otherwise have access to such information, unless such disclosure is in response to a complaint or charge or in furtherance of an investigation, proceeding, hearing, or action under section 6(d), including an investigation conducted by the employer. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the rights of an employee provided under any other provision of law.'.
(c) Enhanced Penalties- Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216(b)) is amended--
(1) by inserting after the first sentence the following: `Any employer who violates section 6(d) shall additionally be liable for such compensatory damages, or, where the employee demonstrates that the employer acted with malice or reckless indifference, punitive damages as may be appropriate, except that the United States shall not be liable for punitive damages.';
(2) in the sentence beginning `An action to', by striking `either of the preceding sentences' and inserting `any of the preceding sentences of this subsection';
(3) in the sentence beginning `No employees shall', by striking `No employees' and inserting `Except with respect to class actions brought to enforce section 6(d), no employee';
(4) by inserting after the sentence referred to in paragraph (3), the following: `Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, any action brought to enforce section 6(d) may be maintained as a class action as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.'; and
(5) in the sentence beginning `The court in'--
(A) by striking `in such action' and inserting `in any action brought to recover the liability prescribed in any of the preceding sentences of this subsection'; and
(B) by inserting before the period the following: `, including expert fees'.
(d) Action by Secretary- Section 16(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216(c)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence--
(A) by inserting `or, in the case of a violation of section 6(d), additional compensatory or punitive damages, as described in subsection (b),' before `and the agreement'; and
(B) by inserting before the period the following: `, or such compensatory or punitive damages, as appropriate';
(2) in the second sentence, by inserting before the period the following: `and, in the case of a violation of section 6(d), additional compensatory or punitive damages, as described in subsection (b)';
(3) in the third sentence, by striking `the first sentence' and inserting `the first or second sentence'; and
(4) in the last sentence--
(A) by striking `commenced in the case' and inserting `commenced--
`(1) in the case';
(B) by striking the period and inserting `; or'; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
`(2) in the case of a class action brought to enforce section 6(d), on the date on which the individual becomes a party plaintiff to the class action.'.
SEC. 204. TRAINING.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, subject to the availability of funds appropriated under section 210, shall provide training to Commission employees and affected individuals and entities on matters involving discrimination in the payment of wages.
SEC. 205. NEGOTIATION SKILLS TRAINING FOR GIRLS AND WOMEN.
(a) Program Authorized-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of Labor, after consultation with the Secretary of Education, is authorized to establish and carry out a grant program.
(2) GRANTS- In carrying out the program, the Secretary of Labor may make grants on a competitive basis to eligible entities, to carry out negotiation skills training programs for girls and women.
(3) ELIGIBLE ENTITIES- To be eligible to receive a grant under this subsection, an entity shall be a public agency, such as a State, a local government in a metropolitan statistical area (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget), a State educational agency, or a local educational agency, a private nonprofit organization, or a community-based organization.
(4) APPLICATION- To be eligible to receive a grant under this subsection, an entity shall submit an application to the Secretary of Labor at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary of Labor may require.
(5) USE OF FUNDS- An entity that receives a grant under this subsection shall use the funds made available through the grant to carry out an effective negotiation skills training program that empowers girls and women. The training provided through the program shall help girls and women strengthen their negotiation skills to allow the girls and women to obtain higher salaries and rates of compensation that are equal to those paid to similarly-situated male employees.
(b) Incorporating Training Into Existing Programs- The Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education shall issue regulations or policy guidance that provides for integrating the negotiation skills training, to the extent practicable, into programs authorized under--
(1) in the case of the Secretary of Education, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.), the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.), the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), and other programs carried out by the Department of Education that the Secretary of Education determines to be appropriate; and
(2) in the case of the Secretary of Labor, the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.), and other programs carried out by the Department of Labor that the Secretary of Labor determines to be appropriate.
(c) Report- Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education shall prepare and submit to Congress a report describing the activities conducted under this section and evaluating the effectiveness of such activities in achieving the purposes of this Act.
SEC. 206. RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND OUTREACH.
The Secretary of Labor shall conduct studies and provide information to employers, labor organizations, and the general public concerning the means available to eliminate pay disparities between men and women, including--
(1) conducting and promoting research to develop the means to correct expeditiously the conditions leading to the pay disparities;
(2) publishing and otherwise making available to employers, labor organizations, professional associations, educational institutions, the media, and the general public the findings resulting from studies and other materials, relating to eliminating the pay disparities;
(3) sponsoring and assisting State and community informational and educational programs;
(4) providing information to employers, labor organizations, professional associations, and other interested persons on the means of eliminating the pay disparities;
(5) recognizing and promoting the achievements of employers, labor organizations, and professional associations that have worked to eliminate the pay disparities; and
(6) convening a national summit to discuss, and consider approaches for rectifying, the pay disparities.
SEC. 207. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL AWARD FOR PAY EQUITY IN THE WORKPLACE.
(a) In General- There is established the Secretary of Labor's National Award for Pay Equity in the Workplace, which shall be awarded, as appropriate, to encourage proactive efforts to comply with section 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(d)).
(b) Criteria for Qualification- The Secretary of Labor shall set criteria for receipt of the award, including a requirement that an employer has made substantial effort to eliminate pay disparities between men and women, and deserves special recognition as a consequence of such effort. The Secretary shall establish procedures for the application and presentation of the award.
(c) Business- In this section, the term `employer' includes--
(1)(A) a corporation, including a nonprofit corporation;
(B) a partnership;
(C) a professional association;
(D) a labor organization; and
(E) a business entity similar to an entity described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (D);
(2) an entity carrying out an education referral program, a training program, such as an apprenticeship or management training program, or a similar program; and
(3) an entity carrying out a joint program, formed by a combination of any entities described in paragraph (1) or (2).
SEC. 208. COLLECTION OF PAY INFORMATION BY THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.
Section 709 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-8) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(f)(1) Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall--
`(A) complete a survey of the data that is currently available to the Federal Government relating to employee pay information for use in the enforcement of Federal laws prohibiting pay discrimination and, in consultation with other relevant Federal agencies, identify additional data collections that will enhance the enforcement of such laws; and
`(B) based on the results of the survey and consultations under subparagraph (A), issue regulations to provide for the collection of pay information data from employers as described by the sex, race, and national origin of employees.
`(2) In implementing paragraph (1), the Commission shall have as its primary consideration the most effective and efficient means for enhancing the enforcement of Federal laws prohibiting pay discrimination. For this purpose, the Commission shall consider factors including the imposition of burdens on employers, the frequency of required reports (including which employers should be required to prepare reports), appropriate protections for maintaining data confidentiality, and the most effective format for the data collection reports.'.
SEC. 209. REINSTATEMENT OF PAY EQUITY PROGRAMS AND PAY EQUITY DATA COLLECTION.
(a) Bureau of Labor Statistics Data Collection- The Commissioner of Labor Statistics shall continue to collect data on women workers in the Current Employment Statistics survey.
(b) Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs Initiatives- The Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs shall ensure that employees of the Office--
(1)(A) shall use the full range of investigatory tools at the Office's disposal, including pay grade methodology;
(B) in considering evidence of possible compensation discrimination--
(i) shall not limit its consideration to a small number of types of evidence; and
(ii) shall not limit its evaluation of the evidence to a small number of methods of evaluating the evidence; and
(C) shall not require a multiple regression analysis or anecdotal evidence for a compensation discrimination case;
(2) for purposes of its investigative, compliance, and enforcement activities, shall define `similarly situated employees' in a way that is consistent with and not more stringent than the definition provided in item 1 of subsection A of section 10-III of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Compliance Manual (2000), and shall consider only factors that the Office's investigation reveals were used in making compensation decisions; and
(3) shall reinstate the Equal Opportunity Survey, as required by section 60-2.18 of title 41, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on September 7, 2006), designating not less than half of all nonconstruction contractor establishments each year to prepare and file such survey, and shall review and utilize the responses to such survey to identify contractor establishments for further evaluation and for other enforcement purposes as appropriate.
(c) Department of Labor Distribution of Wage Discrimination Information- The Secretary of Labor shall make readily available (in print, on the Department of Labor website, and through any other forum that the Department may use to distribute compensation discrimination information), accurate information on compensation discrimination, including statistics, explanations of employee rights, historical analyses of such discrimination, instructions for employers on compliance, and any other information that will assist the public in understanding and addressing such discrimination.
SEC. 210. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated $15,000,000 to carry out this title.
(b) Prohibition on Earmarks- None of the funds appropriated pursuant to subsection (a) for purposes of the grant program in section 205 of this Act may be used for a Congressional earmark as defined in clause 9(d) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
SEC. 211. SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE.
(a) Effective Date- This title and the amendments made by this title shall take effect on the date that is 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Technical Assistance Materials- The Secretary of Labor and the Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall jointly develop technical assistance material to assist small businesses in complying with the requirements of this title and the amendments made by this title.
(c) Small Businesses- A small business shall be exempt from the provisions of this title to the same extent that such business is exempt from the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act pursuant to section 3(s)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) of such Act.
SEC. 212. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this title, or in any amendments made by this title, shall affect the obligation of employers and employees to fully comply with all applicable immigration laws, including any penalties, fines, or other sanctions.
Passed the House of Representatives January 9, 2009.
Attest:
Clerk.
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 11
AN ACT
To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and to modify the operation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes.
END”


__________________________________________________________________________________________
Arthurleedavis, Thank you for taking the time to read this thread. I’m intrigued by your comments.
How about this:  What if you play the role of cross-examiner and ask the questions you feel need to be asked and I will respond with truthful answers and posted documents?



_________________________________________________________________________________________
Woody, when I read your post, I saw the play on the spelling, not even once considering you mis-spelled the word EDIOT.  Congrats on getting on this blog, please speak your mind and do not worry about spelling or correct grammar; I applaud you for learning to use a computer, at whatever your age.  
Your experience with the coon hunter sounds very scary and I am sorry you experienced that.  
In my experience, the landlord had threatened to kill me, and then while we sat in the front yard, he actually leveled the shotgun at us, and shot four times.  We started running for cover after the first shot, the second echoed out quickly; so it was not simply him shooting at turkeys, we were the only metaphorical turkeys around.  That man referred as his previous tenants dogs as "cows" and used other slang metaphorical language to describe a past tenant with panic attacks.  His intentions were mean and the police should have taken his gun, arrested him, but he is/was a long term land owner and business owner with police friends, and at one point claimed to an ex law man himself.  He was abusive, nothing less.  Shooting at someone is in most jurisdictions "attempted murder", considering his previous threats when I insisted upon a 24 hour notice before coming onto the property; he set out to upset me, scare me, and violate my rental rights.  Setting my disabilities aside, he broke landlord tenant rights more times than I can write about by his many prior assaults: cussing me out, spraying me with poison while in my organic garden, walking in the house without knocking or notice, and more..........more..........then some more.  I asked for my 24 hour notice many many times, each time he threatened to evict me for expecting my rights to fair notice, his vulgar names (I do not understand that vernacular as a way to communicate).  
The investigations continue, because we are not letting this go........the statute of limitations for our case start running for a two year period at the end of the last violation....in this case, when Liane Ricardson counsel for Lane County refused to give us access to county information in her possession and lied about having already giving it to us.

If what you say is true and you have real evidence to support your claims then why not take it to the attorney general, this news station, the aclu or hire a attorney on a contigency basis. The system does work if you stay with it and again are telling the truth.

POSTALONE, We have notified the Attorney General of Oregon, We will re-contact them. We have sent information to virtually all media in Oregon. We did contact ACLU and Southern Poverty Law Center. Out of 30 attorneys only one replied with a price of $1,000 an hour.
Now ask specific questions. First watch Youtube video at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQQ4ystsAWo
, the Lane County Sheriff came 4 hours later, took a copy of the tape, questioned landlord the next day, filed report where they state “you can clearly hear the pellets hitting the house.” The attorney for the landlord sent us an email stating that his client did shoot in the direction of our house but “couldn’t conceive that it would reach them.” Case is currently in Lane County DA’s office.
 I will contact new DA to get a response from him Monday.
The matter is being looked into by the local FBI and HUD Washington DC.