About Martin Luther King and Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act - #Michael Ayele (a.k.a) W

22. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission San Francisco District Office 450 Golden Gate Avenue 5 West, P.O. Box 36025 San Francisco, CA 94102 NOTICE OF CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION (This Notice replaces EEOC FORM 131) DIGITAL CHARGE SYSTEM November 6, 2020 To: Kelly Barns Interim Director of Human Resources COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT KBarns@co.humboldt.ca.us This is notice that a charge of employm the EEOC against your organization by Civil Rights Act (Title VII) and The Amer circumstances of the alleged discrimination are based on Retaliation, Race, and Disability, and involve issues of Wages, Suspension, and Reasonable Accommodation that are alleged to have occurred on or about Jul 29, 2019 through Jul 15, 2020 and may be continuing. ion has been filed with , under: Title VII of the abilities Act (ADA). The The Digital Charge System makes investigations and communications with charging parties and respondents more efficient by digitizing charge documents. The charge is available for you to download from the EEOC Respondent Portal, EEOC’s secure online system. Please follow these instructions to view the charge within ten (10) days of receiving this Notice: 1. Access https://nxg.eeoc.gov/rsp/login.jsf 2. Enter this EEOC Charge No.: 550-2020-01658 3. Enter this temporary password: pa9332xj EEOC’s secure online system: Once you log into the system, you can view and download the charge, and electronically submit documents to EEOC. The system will also advise you of possible actions or responses, and identify your EEOC point of contact for this charge.

23. If you are unable to log into the EEOC Respondent Portal or have any questions regarding the Digital Charge System, you can send an email to SANFGOV@eeoc.gov.

24. Preservation of Records Requirement EEOC regulations require respondents to preserve all payroll and personnel records relevant to the charge until final disposition of the charge or litigation. 29 CFR §1602.14. For more information on your obligation to preserve records, see http://eeoc.gov/employers/recordkeeping.cfm. Non-Retaliation Requirements The laws enforced by the EEOC prohibit retaliation against any individual because s/he has filed a charge, testified, assisted or participated in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under these laws. Persons filing charges of discrimination are advised of these Non-Retaliation Requirements and are instructed to notify EEOC if any attempt at retaliation is made. For more information, see http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/facts-retal.cfm. Legal Representation Although you do not have to be represented by an attorney while we handle this charge, you have a right, and may wish to retain an attorney to represent you. If you do retain an attorney, please provide the attorney’s contact information when you log in to the online system. Please retain this notice for your records.

25. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission FEDERAL INVESTIGATION: REQUEST FOR POSITION STATEMENT AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE EEOC hereby requests that your organization submit within 30 days a Position Statement setting forth all facts which pertain to the allegations in the charge of discrimination under investigation, as well as any other facts which you deem relevant for EEOC’s consideration. We recommend you review EEOC’s resource guide on “Effective Position Statements” as you prepare your response to this request. Fact-Based Position Statement This is your opportunity to raise any and all defenses, legal or factual, in response to each of the allegations of the charge. The position statement should set forth all of the facts relevant to respond to the allegations in the charge, as well as any other facts the Respondent deems pertinent to EEOC's consideration. The position statement should only refer to, but not identify, information that the Respondent asserts is sensitive medical information, or confidential commercial or financial information. EEOC also requests that you submit all documentary evidence you believe is responsive to the allegations of the charge. If you submit only an advocacy statement, unsupported by documentary evidence, EEOC may conclude that Respondent has no evidence to support its defense to the allegations of the charge. EEOC may release your position statement and non-confidential attachments to the Charging Party and her representative and allow them to respond to enable the EEOC to assess the credibility of the information provided by both parties. It is in the Respondent’s interest to provide an effective position statement that focuses on the facts. EEOC will not release the Charging Party’s response, if any, to the Respondent. If no response is received to this request, EEOC may proceed directly to a determination on the merits of the charge based on the information at its disposal. Signed by an Authorized Representative The Position Statement should be signed by an officer, agent, or representative of Respondent authorized to speak officially on its behalf in this federal investigation.

26. Segregate Confidential Information into Separately Designated Attachments If you rely on confidential medical or commercial information in the position statement, you should provide such information in separate attachments to the position statement labeled "Sensitive Medical Information," "Confidential Commercial or Financial Information," or “Trade Secret Information” as applicable. Provide an explanation justifying the confidential nature of the information contained in the attachments. Medical information about the Charging Party is not sensitive or confidential medical information in relation to EEOC’s investigation. Segregate the following information into separate attachments and designate them as follows: a. Sensitive medical information (except for the Charging Party’s medical information). b. Social Security Numbers c. Confidential commercial or financial information. d. Trade secrets information. e. Non-relevant personally identifiable information of witnesses, comparators or third parties, for example, social security numbers, dates of birth in non-age cases, home addresses, personal phone numbers and email addresses, etc. f. Any reference to charges filed against the Respondent by other charging parties. Requests for an Extension If Respondent believes it requires additional time to respond, it must, at the earliest possible time in advance of the due date, make a written request for extension, explain why an extension is necessary, and specify the amount of additional time needed to reply. Submitting a written request for extension of time does not automatically extend the deadline for providing the position statement. Upload Respondent Portal You can upload your position statement and attachments into the Respondent Portal using the + Upload Documents button. Select the “Position Statement” Document Type and click the Save Upload button to send the Position Statement and attachments to EEOC. Oncethe Position Statement has been submitted, you will not be able to retract itvia the Portal. the Position Statement and Attachments into the

45. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 08/23/2022 W (AACL) Michael A. Ayele P.O.Box 20438 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia E-mail: waacl13@gmail.com ; waacl1313@gmail.com ; waacl42913@gmail.com Date.: August 23rd 2022 Hello, This is Michael A. Ayele sending this message though I now go by W. You may call me W. I am writing this letter to file a request for records with your office.i The bases for this records request are [1] the National Council on Disability (NCD) February 12th 2003 report on Rehabilitating Section 504; ii[2] the statements made by the NCD on the occasion of Martin Luther King’s day this Calendar Year of 2022.iii Request for Records I) Records Requested What I am requesting for prompt disclosure are records in your possession detailing [1] your discussions about Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act as “the first national civil rights law to view the exclusion and segregation of people with disabilities as discrimination;”iv [2] your discussion about the “month long occupation” of the (now defunct) U.S Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) building in San Francisco being instrumental for the enactment of Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act; v [3] your discussions about Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act as a civil rights law, which “was enacted without fanfare and with little notice;” [4] your discussions about the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as a “spending bill that authorized $1.55 billion in aid to people with disabilities;” [5] your discussions about Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act as a civil rights law, which was “modeled on the language of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;”vi [6] the information provided to employees of your city/county/state government about the mechanism of filing a complaint pursuant to Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act if/when they witness discrimination in the service of healthcare (on the basis of disability); [7] the information provided by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA)/Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to current/former taxpayers of the U.S.A about the mechanism of filing a complaint pursuant to Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act if/when a current/former taxpayer has witnessed discrimination in the service of healthcare (on the basis of disability);vii [8] the name(s), the academic background(s), the professional responsibility(ies) and annual salary(ies) of the person/people (in your city/county/state government), who are (in the regular course of a business day) tasked with responding to a complaint of discrimination filed pursuant to Section 504 of the 1973 W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 1

46. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 08/23/2022 Rehabilitation Act; [9] the extent of your knowledge on whether your hospitals, your nursing homes, your mental health centers and your human service programs receive financial assistance from (an) agency(ies)/department(s) of the U.S federal government; [10] the total sum of money provided to your hospitals, your nursing homes, your mental health centers and your human service programs by (an) agency(ies)/department(s) of the U.S federal government; [11] the total number of complaints filed against your hospitals, your nursing homes, your mental health centers and your human service programs for violating Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act); [12] the complaints filed against your hospitals, your nursing homes, your mental health centers and your human service programs (pursuant to Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act); [13] the outcome of the complaints filed against your hospitals, your nursing homes, your mental health centers and your human service programs (pursuant to Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act); [14] the total sum of money provided to your city/county/state government by (an) agency(ies)/department(s) of the U.S federal government; [15] the total number of complaints filed against your city/county/state government for violating Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act; [16] the complaints filed against your city/county/state government for violating Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act; [17] the outcome of the complaints filed against your city/county/state government for violating Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act; [18] your discussions about the NCD as a federal agency, which is very much a proponent of terminating federal funds for failure to comply with Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act;viii [19] the extent of your knowledge on whether federal funds were ever terminated as a direct consequence of a Section 504 violation; [20] your discussions about the circumstances, which led to the enactment of the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987. ix II) Request for a Fee Waiver and Expedited Processing The requested records do/will demonstrate that [1] the National Council on Disability (NCD) is a federal agency, which has credited Martin Luther King for the enactment of many civil rights legislations including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); [2] “of all forms of discrimination and inequalities, injustice in health is the most shocking and inhumane” (according to Martin Luther King); [3] Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act is “the first national civil rights law to view the exclusion and segregation of people with disabilities as discrimination;” [4] Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act was enacted after a “month long occupation” of the (now defunct) U.S Department of Health, Education and Welfare building located in San Francisco, California; [5] Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act is a civil rights law, which is “modeled on the language of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;” [6] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is a Black man, who was in Calendar Year 2013 employed for the Missouri Department of Mental Health (a state government agency); [7] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is a Black man, who was in Calendar Year 2013 witness to discrimination in the service of healthcare, while he was employed for the MODMH; [8] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is a Black man, who had in 2013 filed an internal complaint with the MODMH after having witnessed discrimination in the service of healthcare (on the bases of disability, racial W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 2

47. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 08/23/2022 background and national origin) at the Fulton State Hospital (FSH) now defunct Biggs Forensic Center (BFC) Social Learning Program (SLP); [9] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is a Black man, who was retaliated upon by the MODMH in 2013 for filing an internal complaint after having witnessed discrimination in the service of healthcare (on the bases of disability, racial background and national origin) at the Fulton State Hospital (FSH) now defunct BFC (SLP); [10] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is a Black man, who ultimately decided to file a charge of employment discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the MODMH toward the end of Calendar Year 2013; [11] the charge of employment discrimination filed by Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W with the EEOC was assigned Case No.: 28E – 2014 – 00485C; [12] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is a Black man, who had informed the EEOC that he was retaliated upon for filing an internal complaint with his former employers after having witnessed discrimination in the service of healthcare; [13] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is a Black man, who has asked for the EEOC and the MODMH to disclose pertinent information about the medical services offered to Muhammer Suljacer and Aschalew Belachew (who were in 2013 being held as patients/prisoners of the FSH) for the purpose of proving discrimination in the service of healthcare (on the bases of disability, racial background and national origin);x [14] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is a Black man, who has expressed grave concerns about the excessive use of force, which can be deployed against patients/prisoners of the MODMH (with an intellectual/developmental disability) as a form of cruel and unusual punishment (that would be inconsistent with the Eighth Amendment of the U.S Constitution);xi [15] Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is a Black man, who has previously corresponded with the Joint Commission about the complaints, which were filed with them against the MODMH; [16] the Joint Commission have informed Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W that 21 (twenty one) complaints had been filed with them against the MODMH (FSH) between April 24th 2011 and April 23rd 2014 for a wide range of issues, which include but are not limited to environment of care, provision of care, medication management, treatment and services etc; [17] the Joint Commission have referenced their April 23rd 2014 correspondence with Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W as Incident #71987CHS – 22110QXA. In my judgment, the facts presented in my request for a fee waiver and expedited processing are not the sort to bolster public confidence in the activities of the U.S government overall. As a Black man with a U.S college degree (who was previously employed as a mental health care worker), I would like to take this opportunity to denounce discrimination in the service of healthcare on the basis of disability status. I would also like to take this opportunity to denounce discrimination in the service of healthcare on the bases of gender, racial background, sexual orientation, religious affiliation and national origin. The core issues presented in this records request are as follows. 1) Have you had conversations about the circumstances, which led to the enactment of Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act? Have you had conversation about the “month long occupation” of the (now defunct) U.S Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) building located in San Francisco, California? If yes, will you disclose those records? 2) What information is provided to employees of your city/county/state government about the mechanism of filing a complaint pursuant to Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 3

48. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 08/23/2022 Act if/when they witness discrimination in the service of healthcare (on the basis of disability or potentially other reasons)? What information is provided by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA)/Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to current/former U.S taxpayers about the mechanism of filing a complaint pursuant to Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act if/when the current/former taxpayer has witnessed discrimination in the service of healthcare (on the basis of disability or other reasons)? 3) Does your city/county/state government keep records of complaints filed against them for violating Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act? If yes, will you disclose the total number of complaints that were filed? Will you also disclose the content of the complaint and the outcome of the complaint, which were filed against your city/county/state government? 4) To the extent of your knowledge, have federal funds ever been terminated as a direct consequence of Section 504 violation? If yes, will you disclose those records? This records request should be expedited because it puts into question the government’s integrity about the way that people are treated in the U.S.A on account of their gender, their racial backgrounds, their national origins and their disability status. My request for a fee waiver should be granted because [1] I have identified operations and activities of the federal government in concert with U.S city/county/state government as well as non-profit and for-profit organizations; [2] the issues presented are meaningfully informative about government operations or activities in order to be ‘likely to contribute’ to and increase public understanding of those operations or activities. Under penalty of perjury, I hereby declare all the statements I have made to be true and accurate. Be well. Take care. Keep yourselves at arms distance. W (AACL) Michael A. Ayele Anti-Racist Human Rights Activist Audio-Visual Media Analyst Anti-Propaganda Journalist W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 4

49. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 08/23/2022 Work Cited i Please be advised that I have previously disseminated a vast number of documents obtained through records request via Archive.org, Scribd.com, Medium.com and YouTube.com. These documents have been made available to the public at no financial expense to them. As a member of the media, I would like to take this opportunity to inform you that the records you disclose to me could be made available to the general public through the means I have mentioned above or other ones. On December 10th 2021, I have launched a website on Wordpress.com for the purpose of making the records previously disclosed to me by the U.S government further accessible to members of the general public interested in the activities of their elected and non- elected representatives. You can find out more about the recent publications of the Association for the Advancement of Civil Liberties (AACL) here.: https://michaelayeleaacl.wordpress.com/ iiSection 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act is acknowledged as the first national civil rights law to view the exclusion and segregation of people with disabilities as discrimination and to declare that the Federal Government would take a central role in reversing and eliminating this discrimination. Section 504, which prohibits federal agencies and federally funded programs from discriminating on the basis of disability, was designed to promote and expand opportunities for persons with a broad range of disabilities and offer broad-based protection from unwarranted discrimination stemming from prejudice, social stigmas, and negative assumptions about their ability to fully participate in the mainstream of society. Although there is some mystery as to how the language of Section 504 became part of what was clearly intended to be a funding bill, Section 504 would soon become the most important and embattled provision in the entire Rehabilitation Act. Once the legislation was passed, the pivotal question became whether Section 504 would be enforced with strong administrative rules. It took nearly four years with months of demonstrations and intense lobbying efforts before a relatively tough set of government-wide coordinating regulations was published by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) on April 28, 1977. Effective government-wide enforcement efforts were further delayed when, in 1980, President Jimmy Carter issued Executive Order 12250, which transferred lead agency authority to the Department of Justice (DOJ). DOJ reissued government-wide enforcement regulations on August 11, 1981, without changing the original HEW regulations. Because the issuing of the government-wide regulations was exceedingly slow, many federal agencies consequently delayed issuing their own regulations, and, in some cases, legal action was required to compel their issuance of Section 504 regulations. The supposed remedy for segregated public services and programs and the instrument for enforcing nondiscrimination, the Rehabilitation Act and its contemporaneously enacted regulations, unfortunately, were virtually dead on arrival. Because of the lack of sufficient resources, leadership, implementation, and enforcement of Section 504 and the trend of the courts to narrow the protections and scope of disability civil rights, as well as misportrayals by W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 5

50. REQUEST FOR RECORDS 08/23/2022 the media about the supposed overreaching of these laws, what once was the centerpiece of independence for persons with disabilities has become an afterthought. (…) The proponents of Section 504 embraced the federal financial assistance strategy of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. They knew that disability discrimination was so ingrained in the country's consciousness and so thoroughly cloaked in the mantle of beneficent charity that only a dramatic approach to enforcement was likely to work. The 1964 Civil Rights Act provided the model: to condition all federal grant dollars on compliance with the nondiscrimination mandate. Section 504 simply substituted the words "solely on the basis of handicap" to describe the type of discrimination barred in place of the words "race, religion, color and national origin" contained in Title VI. The reasons that the Civil Rights Act supporters chose to condition federal grant funds were equally valid for eradicating disability discrimination. The reasons were as follows: 1. Codify the illegality of funding "separate but equal" programs and invalidate the federal statutes that permitted the funding of such programs; 2. Reassure reluctant federal agencies that they did have the authority to prohibit discrimination in their assistance programs; 3. Eliminate repeated debates about prohibiting discrimination in every bill that extended federal assistance; 4. Establish an "effective alternative to litigation" and to its "arduous route"; 5. Prevent discriminatory uses of federal assistance from "defeating the program's congressionally imposed objective"; and 6. Halt the rampant discrimination in the states' implementation of federal programs. Rehabilitating Section 504. National Council on Disability (NCD).: https://www.ncd.gov/publications/2003/Feb122003 iii January 17th 2022. The Following is a statement by National Council on Disability Chairman Andres Gallegos Today we remember and celebrate the legacy of an American who fundamentally changed this country for the better. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. worked tirelessly and paid the ultimate sacrifice to bring greater equality to America and ensure civil rights for all people, regardless of race. W (AACL) – MICHAEL A. AYELE 6