Greenwich Housing Authority discrimination motion

Kristi Wachter <humanrights@racerrecords.com>
Greenwich Housing Authority discrimination motion
18 Sep 2002

Pardon the formatting - I wanted to get this up quickly.

It's available from the court clerk of the US District Court for the District of Connecticut.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
____________________________________

URSULA MILDE,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:00 CV 2423 (AVC)
THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE
TOWN OF GREENWICH; THE
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE
TOWN OF GREENWICH BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS; and BENJAMIN
LITTLE, CEO,
September 9, 2002
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TO THE COURT'S ENDORSEMENT DATED AUGUST 28, 2002 GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE

The Plaintiff, Ursula Milde hereby submits this Memorandum of Law in support of her Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Endorsement dated August 28, 2002, denying her relief to file her Sixth Amended Complaint to include religious discrimination based on Scientology, pursuant Title VII, 42 U.S.C. S 2000e.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

The Plaintiff, Ursula Milde ("Plaintiff") brought this action for damages by Complaint dated December 20, 2000, alleging six causes of action, including gender discrimination, age discrimination, retaliation, first amendment violations, and associated state law tort and contract claims. Thereafter, the complaint was twice amended, once so that the Plaintiff could allege additional facts in support of her claims, and once to withdraw a state law contract claim. The Plaintiff thus filed a Second Amended Complaint on July 16, 2001 [Doc.#22], and a revised Second Amended Complaint on October 1, 2001 [Doc.# 35].

The Court endorsed the Parties' Planning Report on August 3, 2001. Up this point, no discovery could commence in this case, pursuant to the Local Civil Rules.

Thereafter, on January 25, 2002, this Court ruled on a Motion to Dismiss and Strike directed to the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. The Court ruled that the Plaintiff was to file another amended complaint that set forth a "short and plain statement of the claim." The Order did not provide additional guidance as to a "short and plain statement of the claims." The Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint on February 13, 2002, which fully complied with the Court's January 25, 2002 Order.

Despite the Plaintiff's compliance, on March 21, 2002, the Defendants again moved to strike the Third Amended Complaint on the ground that, as drafted, it fails to comply with F.R.C.P. 8 because it is not a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." [Doc.#50]. Plaintiff sought leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint on April 12, 2002. [Doc.#52]. On the same date, She also filed a motion to extend discovery until July 1, 2002. [Doc.#53], which was Endorsed on April 16, 2002. On April 26, 2002, the Defendants filed yet another motion to strike. [Doc.56], which was Endorsed on June 13, 2002. On May 30, 2002, the parties filed a joint motion to extend discovery [Doc.#59], which was Endorsed on May 31, 2002. On June 10, 2002, Plaintiff sought leave to file Fifth Amended Complaint. [Doc.#61], which was Endorsed on June 13, 2002.

On July 8, 2002, Plaintiff sought leave to file her Sixth Amended Complaint pursuant to the Court's Order dated June 13, 2002. The Sixth Amended Complaint sought to include Plaintiff's religious discrimination claim based on Scientology. On July 29, 2002, the parties filed another joint motion to extend discovery, with no definite dates provided, which was Endorsed on August 1, 2002 and setting the discovery cutoff date as November 1, 2002. Also on August 1, 2002, the Court Endorsed Plaintiff's motion to file the Sixth Amended Complaint. However, the Defendants filed their respective Motion to Dismiss and Strike as to the Sixth Amended Complaint. [Doc.#75] The Defendants filed a Motion to Reconsider the Court's August 1, 2002 Endorsement granting leave to file the Sixth Amended Complaint. [Doc.#76], which was Endorsed on August 27, 2002 and again on August 28, 2002. Although requested by motion [Doc.#79], Plaintiff was never given an opportunity to file and be heard on a Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and their Motion for Reconsideration. Had Plaintiff been allowed to file such objections, then this would have alleviated the need to file the instant Motion for Reconsideration.

II. ARGUMENT:

1. Plaintiff Should be Allowed to Amend her Complaint Asserting a Claim for Religious Discrimination and Receive a Hearing on the Merits

A. Plaintiff Requests that the Court Reconsider the Denial of Motion to

Amend the Complaint.

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court reconsider its August 28, 2002 decision denying her the right to amend her complaint to including religious discrimination pursuant to Title VII, 42 U.S.C. S 2000e and granting the Defendants Motion to Dismiss.

In the following argument, Plaintiff will detail the events that led up to the filing of the Sixth Amended Complaint and the religious discrimination claim. She will further explain the alleged delay in bringing the claim and why this Court should reconsider the merits of her claim. She will explain in detail what Scientology is all about and how it played a substantial role in the Defendants discrimination against her, which eventually led up to her wrongful termination. She will explain that neither she nor her counsel had the evidentiary basis to file the religious discrimination claim until July 8, 2002. Finally, she will explain why her claim relates back to her original complaint and why the Defendants are not prejudiced by litigating the claim.

A. The Existence of Scientology Discrimination by Defendants Against Plaintiff: An Extraordinary Case of Employment Discrimination.

This is not a standard Title VII religious discrimination case. Defendant Little's actions were allegedly benign management practices used to help employees communicate more effectively. However, once you peel back the pages of his so called "management practices" you discover a remarkable plan of infiltration and control over the Housing Authority and its employees. You will also uncover the motive behind Defendant Little's action to wrongfully terminate Plaintiff. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court comprehend what Scientology is really all about, in order to understand the basis of her claim and why she should be entitled to a hearing on the merits.

The Church of Scientology was created by the late L. Ron Hubbard in the 1950's, the author of Dianetics. In 1993, the Eleventh Circuit confirmed that Scientology is a religion for all intent and purposes:

We need not reiterate this background because the district court found that no genuine factual issues existed to dispute Scientology's claim of being a bona fide religion. See 756 F.Supp. at 1502-04. The district court granted partial summary judgment to Scientology on that issue. Id. at 1532; accord Founding Church of Scientology, 409 F.2d at 1160; Christofferson, 644 P.2d at 600-01. As the City has neither appealed from that order nor argued that Scientology is not entitled to protection under the religion clauses of the First Amendment, we must assume that the district court was correct. In addition, without deciding the question ourselves, we note that research has not uncovered any holdings that Scientology is not a religion for First Amendment purposes. But cf. Church of Scientology v. Commissioner, 823 F.2d at 1316-18 (upholding Tax Court determination that Church of Scientology was not entitled to religious tax exemption under 26 U.S.C. S 501(c)(3) for certain years because its revenues inured to the benefit of individuals and non-religious entities).

Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc. v. City of Clearwater, 2 F.3d 1514 (11th Cir. 1993); See also, Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D.C. et.al. v. U.S., 409 F.2d 1146 (D.C. Cir.1969).

The United States Supreme Court described what is Scientology:

It is propagated today by a 'mother church' in California and by numerous branch churches around the world. The mother Church instructs laity, trains and ordains ministers, and creates new congregations. Branch churches, known as 'franchises' or 'missions,' provide Scientology services at the local level, under the supervision of the mother Church. (citation omitted) Scientologists believe that an immortal spiritual being exists in every person. A person becomes aware of this spiritual dimension through a process known as 'auditing'[FN2] Auditing involves a one-to-one encounter between a participant (known as an 'auditor'). An electronic device, the E-meter, helps the auditor identify the preclear's areas of spiritual difficulty by measuring skin responses during a question and answer session. Although auditing sessions are conducted one on one, the content of each session is not individually tailored. The preclear gains spiritual awareness by progressing in short blocks of time known as 'intensives.' (citation omitted) The Church also offers members doctrinal courses known as 'training.' Participants in these sessions study the tenets of Scientology and seek to attain the qualifications necessary to serve as auditors. Training courses, like auditing sessions, are provided in sequential levels. Scientologists are taught that spiritual gains result from participation in such courses. (citation omitted)

Hernandez v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 490 U.S. 680, 684-685, 109 S.Ct. 2136 (1989). Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Little also demanded that she submit to an "audit" by an individual of his choosing. In a declaration submitted in support of the instant motion, Plaintiff states the following in pertinent part:

I recall that sometime in the late Spring of 2000 Mr. Little informed me that he would audit Parsonage Cottage and my activities and I was to submit to an auditor of his choosing. At the time I assumed that this referred to a fiscal audit, and since PCSR was audited by various state agencies and always had to be ready for any surprise state survey, this did not cause me any concern. Now, understanding that the term 'audit' holds a very different meaning in the Scientology system, I realize that he was applying Scientology principles in influencing and managing me.

[part 2 to come]

--
Kristi Wachter the activist formerly known as "Jour" (before $cientology outed me)

If I am not who you say I am, then you are not who you think you are. - James Baldwin

I think $cientology is hurting people and breaking the law, and I want them to stop it. See http://www.scientology-lies.com for more.

KSW: http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/alteringtech.htm