I could not do it online, I will file in person tomorrow.
Whatever the reason for not being able to file electronically was user error or something else. I swear by my words as I have since 2019. My filing is true or student status, employ, or alumni well aware of what came into my life prior and who thought they had a free pass. Anything below would be a freedom of information anyways and sworn testimony by the Plaintiff. (I)
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CHATHAM COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
PHILIP BONNEAU
Plaintiff,
v.
THE SAVANNAH COLLEGE
OF ART & DESIGN
Defendant.
Case No.:
COMPLAINT
1. PLAINTIFF, proceeding pro se, brings this complaint against DEFENDANT and alleges as follows:
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
2. Jurisdiction and venue in this Court is proper per O.C.G.A 9-10 because Defendant resides in Chatham County.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff is an individual and a resident of Chatham County.
4. Defendant is a entity doing business in Chatham County.
FACTS ALLEGED
1. On June 1, 2019. (June 3, 2019 by Defendant’s multiple records), Plaintiff began
full-time employment with Defendant as an assistant manager of Defendant’s restaurant, Art’s Café located at 345 Bull Street in Savannah, GA. This decision was made by
The Plaintiff and was accepted so by The Defendant through meetings with the
Hiring Coordinators, The Manager of Arts (Male, Caucasian, under 40) and proper background checks.
2. It was noted post interview the smell of The Plaintiff’s clothes and brought about in second-hand conversation by the General Manager (female, Americanized Spanish decent) to The Plaintiff (Male, under 40 at the time, Caucasian) after interview, whom they had lunch with prior to the interview and was not a part of the interview process. It was at this lunch and prior conversations where The Plaintiff past employment history was brought up leading to their suicide attempt on Feb. 21, 2019 and stated that the number 1 priority was to find employment and of the General Manager on a personal level to get The Plaintiff health insurance to re-introduce required treatment based on mental health and based on prior work-place experiences. The General Manager was not part of the hiring decision process.
3. As part of the employment package of benefits considered taxable income, Plaintiff was able to begin Master’s Studies in a Degree-seeking Program of Secondary Education after 6-months of consecutive employment at capped rate of 1 class per quarter award. Plaintiff was accepted into the On-line Masters of Fine Arts - Photography program on November 7, 2019. They began student studies in Winter Quarter January 2020 with an estimated graduation date of 18-quarters from time of entry plus 3 pre-requisite classes for a total of 21 quarters to completion. This would equate to 5.25 years of study with no quarter breaks at 4 classes available per calendar year in conjunction to a guaranteed assumed 5.25 years of full-time employment co-currently by Plaintiff towards their degree-seeking incentive for employment. Each Master’s study class is currently valued at $4,450 per class of taxable income with around the first $5000 considered non-taxable annually before taxable status begins as income and withheld each paycheck for tax liability purposes. As of January 2020, the Plaintiff was considered officially both an Employee and a Student to The Defendant.
4. The Plaintiff is already of Alumni Status with a Bachelor’s of Fine Art Degree – Graphic Design earned from the Defendant from 2001-2005, in their 4-year degree-seeking bachelor program through student loans, scholarships, personal income, investment of time, creative-skills and life experience. As part of the requirement to earn a degree from The Defendant, The Plaintiff and other investors of degree-seeking nature have to maintain a 3.0 GPA throughout their course of study to satisfy graduation requirements as well as have all debt of payments secured before receiving official diplomas and certifications. Failure to do so extends the length of degree-seeking nature.
5. It was during this time that a trial was being held for a previous manager(male, Caucasian, under 40) of Gryphon who suffered a mental-break due to interactions with the General Manager that led to arson of The Scottish Rite Temple where Art’s Café/Gryphon share space in the building and downstairs basement areas for operations. Discussions of the trial were had as both the manager and general manager were called witnesses, while cited conflict of text messages between That manager and that of The General Manager leading to agitation and conflict leading up to the multiple attempts of arson within The Scottish Rite on The Gryphon side of the building. This was second-hand to The Plaintiff by first-hand witnesses.
6. Due to COVID, the restaurant and in-personal classes were shut down from March 18, 2020—May 5, 2020. During that that time period The Plaintiff was ‘furloughed’ and receiving paychecks from accrued time-off, government stimulus and the equivalent of 1 to 2 weeks of unemployment benefits before coming back to work as one of 3 essential workers towards the reopening of Art’s Café. It was noted that the unemployment checks where mis-addressed to my previous residence of 18 years prior when I was in undergrad and did not receive it until brought back into active employment status. The Defendant had the proper address on file. During that time, active student status was held and continued classes in ‘Heroes + Villains: The Age of Quarantine’ with PHOT 503 – Portfolio Process.
7. From May 6 2020 —March/April 2021, Art’s Café ran on a reduced staff of 3 full-time employees, (The Plaintiff, The Manager and The other Assistant Manager (female, under 40) of Equal Status to The Plaintiff since beginning of employment also utilizing the employee/student benefit. They were employed slightly longer than The Plaintiff. The day-to-day operations were held by the three where during the week of on-boarding before re-opening it was verbalized the disdain of coming back to work by The Manager and The other assistant manager while no complaints from The Plaintiff. It was during the on-boarding of reentry a tipping structure was already in place that never went to the managers and the need to modify that as no student work-study was to be employed for months. It was verbalized by The General Manager, ‘The minute the students come back, tips are gone.’ That staffing situation occurred for several months where there was the inclusion of a 4tth, 5th, and 6th employee of part-time status to alleviate the responsibilities of what once was 3 full-time employees +250 allotted work-study hours per week. It was noted plans to bring back 90 work-studies hours per week although sales numbers were same if not higher per date to the same time last year. A difference of 250 weekly hours was absorbed by 3 employees, and then 4 or 5 in unprecedented times without proper compensation.
8. 3/27/2021, an official letter was sent to The Plaintiff’s direct supervisor of Manager of Art’s Café and their supervisor, The General Manager of auxiliaries. Both are salaried employees of The Defendant where the General Manager has been employed by the Defendant for around 20 years of employment and the then Manager was employed by the defendant was employed for a few years prior to the Plaintiff’s employment until their resignation from The Defendant around June/July 2021. The letter states clarification on tipping structure proposed that was told indirectly, how it did not make sense and questions of pay changes and work-study employment pre- and post-COVID isolation required by The Defendant and Federally Mandated.
9. On 4/1/2021, an email response from the General Manager was received by The Plaintiff. It was documented in correspondence change of responsibilities while attempting to cite error to my increase in wages while not answering the question on number of bodies/added responsibility. As understood by The General Manager’s official response, my compensation is defined. A response from The Plaintiff was sent back with clarification of response, acknowledged the position responsibility has been changed, while citing unhealthy workplace conditions, lack of breaks (especially due to reduced numbers) while citing health concerns of other employees and myself while noting ‘free class’ as something that is not free to The Plaintiff. It is noted that the General Manager had discussions with her supervisor (Caucasian, male) about some of the discussion points, but it is unclear if the General Manager sent the email to her boss for proper consideration or discussion.
10. On 4/1/202, a separate email was sent to both the Manager and General Manager citing an incident report with another coworker (Presumed Latino male of Puerto Rican decent) on matters of unhealthy work conditions and lack of breaks leading toward their physical and mental health. Pay issues and conversations were also noted of created workplace environments by management decisions.
11. On 4/13/2021, an official complaint was sent to the Head of HR (Caucasian, Male), full-time salaried for The Defendant, about the initial correspondences and additional talking points confidential to HR, citing change of behavior by the General Manager towards The Plaintiff with cited examples. In addition to the previous talking points, workplace questions on legal work-break laws were included where The Plaintiff cited and corrected federal law to both General Manager as well as the Head of HR who did not provide the correct information on such to the General Manager to pass down to The Plaintiff and others. The letter brought to attention to the right internal department disputes and questions of pay/wage changes and threats of garnishment/allocations based on emotional decisions by The General Manager that The Plaintiff professionally asked for clarification on as well as unhealthy work conditions based on practices and mental health awareness of both The Plaintiff and one other coworker (both male). It further cites scheduling conflicts that goes against The Defendant’s Employee Handbook (User Manual), lack-of-staffing and adequate work-study employment that was available leading to compensation and duty issues and questions. The Plaintiff noted threats from the General Manager against their student status, employment status with confidentiality breaches that brought in-direct conflict from workplace into private life. The letter discloses mental health issues to HR and that the General Manager was aware of such and events surrounding it in past employments outside The Defendant. Citation made of the presence of retaliation by General Manager whom they have known for about 20 years personally and professionally as they were his direct supervisor at The Defendant’s other restaurant, The Gryphon Tea Room (Now known as The Gryphon) from 2003—2005. The correct length of time in 2021 is 18 years known.
12. Response was had from The Defendant’s Head of HR and a meeting was schedule with The Plaintiff, The General Manager’s Superior and the VP of the department that The Plaintiff resides in. It was in this unpaid meeting that the Head of HR raised concerns about the initial email and that they vocalized to the other two and The Plaintiff that it has been escalated to compliance while questions were asked pertaining to several aspects to the initial email and compliant. A scheduled meeting was to be placed separately with compliance by The Plaintiff.
13. Meeting was had off-site, unpaid with Compliance Officer regarding the initial complaint via zoom at The Plaintiff’s place of residence. In that meeting it was further discussed what had occurred in the letter while citing again workplace conditions and mental health. As confidential as the meeting is supposed to be outside of The Defendant’s purview, it is later questioned after Feb.10, 2022 if that is possible as compliance officers have a @scad.edu email address. Interview was had, documents were forwarded to compliance officer and interviews with coworkers occurred where I know of at least the general manager and manager to be had. Concern later is had that if confidential investigations are occurring and confidential information is sent through The Plaintiff’s @scad.edu address, what confidentiality privilege is there in potential breach of trust?
14. It is noted during the next several months from compliance investigations occurring, the agitation of the General Manager in conversation with the Manager (male). No discussion points were expressed of the meeting to The Plaintiff outside of ‘It was intense.’ Spoken by the Manager to I. It is over-heard by The Plaintiff comments from the General Manager from their office and I the basement where I worked of such comments during that time as, ‘I am not about to lose my job over this sorry person.’, ‘I’ve seen his penis.’ And ‘They have tried this before and I am not going to let them do this to him.’ This caused mental health to be exasperated with The Plaintiff as it was overheard over the span of the investigation which went far beyond the initial good-faith discussion with supervisors, HR and compliance. Behavior patterns changed where General Manager avoids discussion with The Plaintiff or minimal interaction. Other Assistant Manager is told to stay away from certain topics with The Plaintiff and left as that without going into detail, citing mental health. Manager does have a background in Mental Health and Rehabilitation and since the beginning was aware with compassion and expertise on the manner. It is understood there was probable discussion surrounding both the investigation and emails pertaining to such. As Manager and General Manager were privy to the initial correspondence, the HR email contains private matters that were not resolved. I’ve interacted with the Compliance Officer on some of the documented behavior asking for a clarification on if that was said or not for my own mental health and what had occurred in patterned behavior of past employment history. It is noted as the Manager telling The General Manager that, ‘You are setting yourself up for a lawsuit.’ During this this time that conflicts existed into legal questioning. While heated discussions had between the two that does not occur with any of her female counterparts, I heard a great deal of things on many occasions where I was not afforded the chance to leave nor asked to do so as job responsibilities were to be met.
15. Correspondence was had with HR on request to transfer or apply for other positions via email. Resumé was sent.
16. 6/4/2021 Plaintiff reaches out to Compliance officer on updates to investigation that has been on-going since March. Noted effects on my mental health from unresolved aspects, change of behavior. I cite a desire for FMLA not from my detriment of leave time and noted the mirrored effects of past employment occurring that had not occurred at any point in my employment prior to my initial email to my General Manager. I cited in email for the crassness of a 2-sentence letter towards the termination of a student and how The General Manager wanted me to terminate at the end of their shift which I handled differently and compassionately in letting them know immediately and giving them the chance to solve the issues with The Defendant in a manner they felt appropriate. I cite in Compliance, I am not in a position of hiring/firing and that responsibility goes through the General Manager and more than likely HR. I mention due to the repeat exposure that I have not been able to sleep where at the time of email I had been awake from 24-36 hours straight.
17. 6/4/2021 The Plaintiff checks into ER to seek treatment on not-sleeping after regular psychiatrist unavailable for meeting, discussion or prescription. The Plaintiff is treated for Acute Stress and to help with the sleeping disorder.
18. It was soon after the initial investigation was completed where they found no proof of retaliation, there was kick-back to the Head of HR, my questions needed then went unanswered and it was cited confidential and personal that I was not to be privy to anything else pertaining my initial claims.
19. 6/7/2021 The Plaintiff requested FMLA information. They did not choose to take it out of responsibility of others in their employment. They took a quarter off of school to do what they could to recover while not affecting other people’s employment.
20. Direct Supervisor, Manager, resigns from salaried position at the end of July. The Plaintiff and other Assistant Manager absorb responsibilities of Manager without compensation. Job posting for position is published. The Plaintiff advertised for it socially on 7/3/2021. The Plaintiff officially applies for the position and others on August 9, 2021 and does not tell anyone to not create conflict, but if doing the work anyways, might as well be compensated for it. I interview with Hiring Coordinator and General Manager’s Supervisor aware of prior Compliance/Complaint. The Plaintiff’s actual resumé was supplied and discussed while The Plaintiff was not offered the position nor an email that stated they were not selected. The Manager position went unfilled until abolished 6 months later towards the end of The Plaintiff’s employment. Staffing minus 1 salaried employee and buffer between The Plaintiff and General Manager.
21. From August —December 2021, The Plaintiff, was absorbed of partial Manager responsibilities where student work-study reliance was necessary yet still in contention of hours allotted, yet did get advanced from the previous 90. From there mostly in basement settings, the job normally of 2-3 full-time employees was now met with 1 for a period of time with 2 at overlap on most days except for twice out of the week where there is only 1 full-time manager on-site to account for days off on the others. Exasperated work conditions continue as mentally pulled from one position to the other with no time to talk, think or act accordingly. Mental processing still occurring from unresolved compliance. Months of pulled in multiple directions from positions formerly required of many. It is here re-staffing and support for the Gryphon was had by General Manager while ignoring the obligations towards success of Art’s Café. Although some help provided on the Gryphon-side, it was non-permanent with expectations of The Plaintiff to continue prepping for a restaurant they are not hired to be a part of. The same support is done in the bakery setting of added on teams of help and the advancement of salary of the lead baker by the General Manager in advice, suggestion and resumé writing while the Art’s Manager position remains unfilled and not of their concern. It is noted at this time, responsibility is higher than it was at the same rate and expectations rose. Singled out behavior continued from General Manager towards Plaintiff in unwarranted and unnecessary quips and comments directly solely towards The Plaintiff (male). That behavior was witness to occur with the Manager now resigned(male) and is again noted to not be ever expressed towards any female. The distance of behavior is perceived by The Plaintiff as a possible ripple effect from initial compliance meeting unresolved.
22. December 2021, The inclusion of two other assistant managers into Art’s Café from sister restraurant Café 78, which is overseen by General Manager who did not visit or directly supervise as their main priority was Gryphon. As not normally interactive with others, the General Manager states before they work with I, ‘Do not treat them like your students.’. The comment was translated by The Plaintiff as hostility, possible discrimination from her or the other two who I had not interacted with and non-knowledge-based off how I interact with the students as they do not monitor that interaction of such in their job title position. Grades drop with the first non-A in Masters study course due to workplace environment, coping and exhaustion.
23. The Plaintiff took a week long vacation during the Thanksgiving Holiday to Paris, France. Approved by former Manager before they resigned from the position.
24. December 29, 2021. The Plaintiff, still looking to be transferred or hired for positions outside Art’s Café and internally within The Defendant’s entity, takes note of a prior position applied for of SCADpro Director back in 2019. Now combined as a position of SCADpro Director/SCAD ArtSales Director, a confidential email is sent to the president of the college and their husband (also a VP of the school) introducing myself, asking questions in introductions and where I could see things going for or against the position in change for the entire program. That email was sent through my private email and noted myself as an employee. It was responded positively.
25. The Plaintiff requested Feb 23—March 3rd off for vacation to New Orleans. Request went to General Manager. Request sent Jan 3, followed up the next day in person where General Manager said they had to check schedules and would get back to The Plaintiff on the matter. Plaintiff approached all managers/Full-time employees on Art’s Café side that day and found no conflict of schedule and roped back around to General Manager who said they would get back to me. A week later, I follow-up again with them and their supervisor on the request. Vacation request approved on Jan. 13, 2022.
26. January 7, 2022 – The Plaintiff was confronted and blindsided by the three female assistant managers where hostility was noted and built-up aggression from the three of them towards The Plaintiff was noted and expressed. Meeting was held outside General Manager’s purview. Cited vocalizations by The Plaintiff professionally in prior manager meetings and in GM singling out behavior of 2 of the assistant managers not clocking out for breaks longer than 15 minutes. Perceived and probable retaliation on their part as they overheard it and it was stated to directly the first time. It is noted by the hostile Assistant manager that she mentioned cigarette smell to the moderator assistant manager, yet The Plaintiff does not smoke in public, nor while working and had not done so for months. It is noted as fact The Plaintiff clocked-out with permission to go for a walk while the other two assistant managers did not clock out, removed themselves from the building and were not doing their official duties while on the clock. Plaintiff returned from his requested 10-15 minutes and performed business as usual clocked back in. Questions arise by The Plaintiff as such as Plaintiff never discussed habits had or changed in that regard, but of interest as Plaintiff is the only He in that regard and the talking point of discussion at the time. It would be unknown knowledge one way or the other from the other assistant manager and still would be an ADA violation if it was a problem, regardless of whomever they were speaking about.
27. January 12, 2022 12:21AM– Letter sent to Head of HR and General Manager’s Supervisor in preparation for a meeting that specifically outlines and documents with evidence The Plaintiff being discriminated against, retaliated and false accused of things they did not do. Head of HR and GM Supervisor both had this evidence prior to the meeting and chose not to act on it accordingly. General Manager was not copied on the email. The email outlines specifically the Events from Jan 5- Jan 11th, with screenshot evidence provided by students to support my claim or discrimination, retaliation and factual reasons to be transferred. In email form, my resumé is sent again on request to be removed from the basement position. In preparation for meeting it was requested that the senior-employed assistant manager be present for the meeting as she was a mediator to the meeting that was put together by herself.
28. Jan. 12, 2022 – Meeting is had, and request for assistant manager to be present is denied. In the meeting, Plaintiff was made out to be the problem by the moderation of Head of HR despite evidence proving otherwise. intimidation of The Plaintiff occurred in 4 against 1 settings where nothing from the email was addressed in that meeting despite The Plaintiff citing it and acknowledgement of HR having it. I don’t recall if they read it at the time, but was willing to showcase it from my phone. It is possible GM’s supervisor may had read it. The meeting caused The Plaintiff to get emotional to the point of tears and to leave the room when the thought of physicality was mentioned after months of abusive aspects of employment psychologically already occurred. Plaintiff stepped outside, was talked to privately by Head of HR and returned to finish up the meeting. One-on-one meetings were set-up afterwards only with The Plaintiffs and none of the other assistant managers despite the evidence already provided to them. Afterwards the General Manager is seen and heard after the meeting breaking confidentiality trying to figure out what was in the email that was sent to HR and their supervisor. On phone call immediately after the meeting, GM mentioned in quote, ‘He wrote the president…’. As questions remain on which president they were speaking about, it denotes someone of information-needing searching for information or providing it to someone. When it comes to presidential correspondence in email form, that information would only be privy to that of The Defendant’s presidential office or if observing social media in policy would be in reference to a tweet on Jan. 9, 2022 when The Plaintiff wrote The President of The United States of America about opening of conversation about a literary work written by The Plaintiff and copyright protected in December 2019 and impeded on. That book is ‘Curated Jellyfish: A Paradise Lost.’ In any regard, it denotes a breach of confidentiality on the part of one or multiple entities of The Defendant as any interested parties were in the meeting that had nothing to do with the president on either side of discussion. The GM’s other comment of ‘I got one thing he wrote…’ denotes either outside influence/sharing or a need to understand what The Plaintiff did or didn’t write wondering one thing or another about course of actions during meetings by interested parties.
29. January 25, 2022 Employee Performance Review compiled and sent to The Plaintiff by their request to have a copy of such. Performance Review is skewed, in-accurate and misleading. Date created was not the date supplied to The Plantiff. Upon receipt, Plaintiff added onto the review to paint a more accurate picture of Head of HR and General Manager’s Supervisors notes and returned back to intended parties the same day unpaid. That was sent to both of them in response and an in-person follow-up meeting was had with a handed print-out of my version from the General Manager’s Supervisor to I. The Defendant’s HR only supplied their original version to the EEOC without the marks of good-faith that were in The Plaintiff’s.
30. Continual meetings occur from that point on, where again pointed discussions and decisions made from 2nd hand experience and without proper documentation. As all female managers and GM have already expressed and proven retaliation, discrimination and lack of consideration for mental health or a decent work environment as others would refuse to even say hello when greeted, The Plaintiff in a meeting with The Defendant’s Head of HR and GM’s supervisor expressed, ‘we have passed the point of no return’ on damage and this has caused mental harm. Another plea asking to be transferred while told by HR, ‘We can’t just put you anywhere.” While The Plaintiff also cited the riding of the clock and the GM’s disregard of the claim and allowance of such in favoritism towards female co-workers and the discard of the male Plaintiff status. Plaintiff was not transferred and it was at this point the it was expressed by entities of The Defendant that the Manager position has been dissolved. The Plaintiff brought up initial questions needed to be answered from Compliance, to no answer while saying the initial complaint went unresolved since April 2021.
31. Towards the end of January, an email was sent to General Manager about a discriminatory policy towards students held that assistant managers do not have to follow through on. Plaintiff cites discrimination by the other assistant manager towards students and is quipped at in the same regards. The Plaintiff sends a letter General Manager asking in good-faith for clarification. 1/31/2022, General Manager sends out a group response, calling out The Plaintiff, once again unnecessarily, while trying to resolve issues and still proving discrimination towards students on policies.
32. 1/27/2022 Plaintiff sends email to compliance, HR and blind-copies one other entity within The Defendant’s entity. It documents illegality, lack of procedure, what is occurring, the mental health aspects of the what is being presented, alleges abusive tactics and is presented with respect of the institution from both a employee and as a student. In yet another scheduled escalation from entities of The Defendant, a required meeting was scheduled the next day with Head of HR, GM’s Supervisor and VP of the Auxilleries. The Plaintiff, refused the meeting, disclaimed he has an interview the next day for SCADpro Director/SCAD ArtSales Director Position tomorrow and that they do not have to singled-out and forced into meetings when not the problem. Compliance was notified and Head of HR and VP dropped out of the meeting yet it was still told to be mandatory by GM’s Supervisor. In good-faith, I accepted the meeting and it was discussed my amended performance review and frivolous topics of Edamame as being of importance that again was not created by The Plaintiff with arguments had over a salad in front of coworkers.
33. 1/28/2022 – Plaintiff was scheduled for in-person meeting for SCADpro Director/SCAD ArtSales Director Position. Originally scheduled for in-person, it was changed at the last minute to zoom and conflict of such occurred as Plaintiff did not want to have interview at The Scottish Rite Temple. The Plaintiff made every attempt to honor the zoom meeting dressed for such an interview in confidential space of The Defendant’s property outside The Scottish Rite Temple. The Plaintiff was able to hold that Zoom meeting/interview within a classroom setting via telephone more than likely recorded by The Defendant with not all parties prior reserved for such present. The Plaintiff had done their research on the position, applied for a SCADpro as a student in good-faith to understand a proper assessment of how the assets are treated to other investors of The SCADpro program and was ready to discuss it in interview if needed. In the interview, acknowledgement of the original email to The Presidents was had but not discussed. After a successful interview, the Plaintiff returned to work, changed back in clothes of normalcy and completed the work shift as if nothing had occurred and business as usual.
34. February 2, 2022 – In-person compliance meeting held on-site of The Defendant’s property. Cited complaints and documentation already provided via email to compliance and to HR. In it discussed retaliation documented, wrongfully accused constantly as the only male working with 3 female assistant managers and one female General Manager who continually discriminates and retaliates. It is during the meeting on The Defendant’s property that The Plaintiff cites in the interview, ‘These walls are thin.’ As The Plaintiff hears commentary on the discussion had in the compliance meeting. It is acknowledged by the compliance officer as much as the commentary gave great pause as if a ‘red flag’ was raised. Regardless if that was able to proven one way or another, a Defendant hired 3rd party was present upon exit of the meeting being visually 15-17 ft. from the same thing walls sitting in a chair to upstairs rooms of possibility and probability.
35. Feb 4, 2022 – Another letter sent to compliance on what is occurring at work in singled out behavior towards I that I am not responsible for the same reasons/behavior of intital confrontation/discussion/meeting. A blame for what is other people’s responsibility and was exactly where items were supposed to be. A continual aspect of still no direct response from coworkers on good mornings, despite being told by GM to say it to everyone. Multiple attempts had to no response to rule out ‘they didn’t hear you.’ Scheduling which is again not The Plaintiff’s responsibility and conflict that escalates that comes from lack of oversight by the managers and General Manager.
36. Feb 5, 2022 – Through the Defendant’s supplied evidence, actions taken negatively against The Plaintiff based on Female Assistant Manager Account without due process towards escalation of detriment to employment, income and education. Cited evidence, that conversations had still with GM of skewed retaliation and discrimination when it comes to job responsibilities of The Plaintiff. Denotes biased despite evidence already submitted to HR and GM’s supervisor proving statements inaccurate, out-of-bounds and liability had transferred to The Defendant.
37. It is understood from The Freedom of Information Act., the evidence that The Defendant had available to them of a same-position manager writing out-of-protocol to Head of HR, GM and GM’s supervisor frustration on Feb.4, 2022. This was done after-the-fact that The Plaintiff had already cited the initial confrontation and reason to invite one-on-one meetings was actually by their hands and not of The Plaintiffs fault. This denotes, retaliation in good-faith discussions of what occurred professionally in awareness, that this also is past the date of ‘The battle for the Soles’ where discrimination on their hand has already been reported and asked for review. This evidence was available and supplied by The Defendant. It was not viewed or known until after EEOC investigation and upon request denoting The Defendant’s awareness, Federal awareness and the choice to have one suffer without remedy.
38. Feb 5, 2022 – Due to work environment, being singled out completely, taken away from my own time and made to be perceived as the problem, The Plaintiff files a Temporary Grade of Incomplete as another quarter of school is affected by what should had been resolved in transfer, known affecting of Mental Health and status. Protocol apparently changed from previous quarter where Plaintiff was told it had to be done during quarter and then told this time it has to be done after quarter to accept an incomplete. It is noted that despite best good-faith efforts, HR and The Defendant are perceived not doing so in reciprocate. The student side of The Plaintiff’s identity is being destroyed based on Employee-Employer sanctioned behavior.
39. Feb. 7, 2022 – A rejection letter is sent to The Plaintiff for SCADpro Director/SCAD ArtSales Director, although it is not opened or seen until Feb. 9, 2022. The Plaintiff responded on 2/9/2022 that he will take his business elsewhere understanding the privileged information of the original email and ownership. ‘Awesome. Thank you for your consideration and I’ll share my business concepts originally sent to the presidents with other interested parties. Thank you for your time.’
40. On Feb. 10, 2022, it was properly cited in the EEOC in events that occurred of the day. Retaliation, Discrimination and behavior that could had been prevented in proper training was allowed by The Defendant. A hostile work environment continued despite being properly reported with evidence. A planned occurrence happened while questioning who held a meeting and why was it scheduled during the middle of lunch while an assistant manager proclaimed, ‘Time to do what we need to do.’ Before entering into said meeting and refusing to come out when requested to help while on the clock. At the time of clock-out in proper protocol, fear of physicality and further confrontation occurred and was met in behavior not looked over by the Head of HR and for the supposed benefit of The Defendant yet proves to be detrimental. It is cited that The Plaintiff was relieved that one of the assistant managers finally responded to them when they said ‘Bye’ to the Plaintiff. It is noted willfully what they were doing. The Plaintiff removed themselves from the situation when the GM, not on site nor respondent to texts sent immediately after, vacated their position while HR was notified as The Plaintiff of reporting party status objectively notified of the events that occurred once again in repeated good-faith to what has been occurring under their supervision. Acting in official capacity, The Head of HR, did not follow protocol, was possibly biased based off past education or direction and understanding of past mistakes and misspoken examples cited by The Plaintiff. It was hours later when The Plaintiff was terminated via telephone outside of protocol by the Head of HR where questions were asked and proper procedure and investigation was not done. It was at this point The Plaintiff’s education was also affected from this termination with a screen saying their studies were suspended showcasing lack of distinguishing factors between employee and student in the matter. While looking for remedy or resolve, The Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated from lack of procedure, 2nd hand accounts and from biased opinions that lead towards discrimination and backed up by their 1st or 2nd hand accounts. Lack of training present where HR fully aware of the legality aspect of the environment The Plaintiff was put it and termination done from emotion-based responses. There is a negate of claim present that denotes presumed understanding of the situation where even after the initial first meeting with HR could had been rectified and changed course while discount to real world workplace issues and discount in The Defendant’s own supplied evidence to the EEOC any value to mental health by those of professional status to make such a call. The refusal of the head of HR to discuss how that decision came about towards termination, denotes lack of procedure and The Plaintiff was terminated without due process, in violation of worker’s rights as well as constant ADA complaints for simply a remedy to a situation that affected them as an Employee and as a Student to The Defendant before ever mentioning their Alumni status and obligation to proper work internally before external. It is noted in their own evidence, the awareness of such in that judgement calls where even the internal Defendant lawyer was aware of the initial complaint that went to compliance in April 2021. By the defendant’s own lawyers words, if provability could be found, The Defendant is liable. The evidence was there in February 2022 and proven in the EEOC investigation that started Feb. 28, 2022 and already concluded to the point of filing on my own regardless of money available on the other-side in a right to sue. The Plaintiff wrote a text message at the end of the day, thanking and understanding the original aspect of the relationship with the GM knowing they would not talk to them again.
41. It is noted that The Plaintiff filed with compliance the day of with documentation of retaliation. It was noted that they found no adverse affect to such and that there was no breach of governance despite it occurring from 2nd hand and liability of discrimination and retaliation based on protected classes. Actions maded by 2nd hand account where the only 1st hand on day off is by one of know retaliation and known discrimination by two 2 parties who never met The Plaintiff or acting in an official capacity prior to being told ‘Don’t talk to them like your students.’. Wrongful termination prior with the incident report with an accurate account of what occurred. It is noted that prior it took 3 months for an accurate Compliance investigation to conclude which occurred only after a request for answers and conclusion which did not resolve the mental health aspect of the case. Those findings and conclusions lead to an answer of non-conclusion and none of The Plaintiff’s business in their findings. ‘Personal matters’ matter. Especially for The Plaintiff and reporter which came from the HR department of The Defendant to get there. It is unlikely a thoughtful Compliance investigation occurred the final day of employment without The Defendant’s influence in such to denote a need for separation and understanding influence both from an HR stand-point and Federal based on Defendant supplied evidence of such. The Defendant’s evidence denotes wrong-doing of entities within The Defendant and where liability exists while understanding they were in communication with compliance the day off. The Defendant’s head of HR is not a licensed psychiatrist and does not hold a doctorate. They acted in complete disregard for up to 10 months of legitimate claims against mental health and workplace conditions where their educated guess does not hold legal standard of protocol. The Plaintiff acted in good-faith. The Defendant did not. It is the understanding of The Plaintiff that proper evidence was submitted to Compliance to support the claim of retaliation, discrimination and violations against ADA while possible understanding this is filed 10 months after date of incident noting basic rights to workplace conditions and what should be considered ‘standard’ for any workplace.
42. When filing for unemployment it is understood and documented that The Defendant’s official response to the State of Georgia was denial based on ‘bad attitude’. That denotes slander/libel in an official capacity to a state-entity while the causation for termination changed 4 times over to get to that point. Word of mouth is important in any institution. That causation was rejected by The State of Georgia and The Plaintiff was allowed to seek unemployment while question could arise on why that statement was made to begin with. It is already understood at this point breach of confidentiality. This action also denotes willful-intention to continually deny basic human rights under documented conditions based on emotional-based responses regardless of who responded to The State of Georgia as it would all be second-hand. First-hand account of HR denotes a willingness of The Plaintiff to resolve the issues, work towards functionality and keep the machine running on an employment aspect.
43. It is noted a request for payout of The Plaintiff’s accrued time-off on in February to an official response by The Head of HR on March 4, 2022. A confidentiality agreement was sent over by the head of Defendant’s HR, where 5 days required to sign and submit back for approval to release garnished wages and earned income. It was disputed the same day in handwriting on several points towards good-faith discussions internally while noting that the discussion has been removed from HR purview and that of legality. The trade-off presented from the beginning was the The Defendant would not be liable well beyond The Plaintiff’s lifetime for anything in regards of the amount of 1113. 13. The Plaintiff, on their own experience and looking over the documents, re-submitted back to The Defendant rebuttal commentary handwritten where they would have the same 5-day requirement to fulfill obligations with seeking council. That went unsuccessful in response and further void of argument. As already terminated upon receipt of agreement allowed to pay out, it does not hold towards confidentiality nor was there ever an agreement to what is consider ‘garnished/withheld income/wages’.
44. It is noted by The Plaintiff since wrongful termination, that they have been digitally attacked with evidence in regards to deletion of life’s work, creative property sent out via email not of his accord and the compromise of their intellectual property while a student and employee of The Defendant in which they benefit from the accused aspects of rationality that links to either Defendant interest or that of their partners.
45. It is understood Plaintiff was digitally attacked on Feb. 15, 2022. They sought an audience as shareholder in that regard since childhood against infringement already filed and claimed as social media posts were deleted that sparked reveal of assets and an understanding of what has already occurred and documented in one place or another.
46. It is understood to The Plaintiff that an April 1st, 2022 email was deleted privately from their personal email in regard to possible discussion point involving The Defendant or pointed in the right direction. Questions lead towards retaliation, but The Plaintiff cites fact in this section. It concerns politics, but also that of perception of The Defendant while also properly analyzing workplace conditions and looking at discrimination properly and at different angles.
47. The Plaintiff’s personal website has remained compromised with the unintentional nor authorized turning on of ‘The Path to Starving Artist’ which may denote Defendant interest or at least awareness while also citing major personal loss.
48. The Plaintiff suffered massive digital attacks after wrongful termination such as the deletion of photoshoots authorized on The Defendant’s property and in the invitation of discussion towards ‘recorded keystrokes’ mentioned at prior places of employment in 2018 with evidence to prove such. This was noted by The Plaintiff when they made a decision to not be halfway between their own life and their biological protection. A decision made. It was noted the RAW images of The Plaintiff’s ‘Walrus’ shoot instantly deleted which could denote Defendant interest as it is a property they own before understanding I got permission to shoot there. There is the understanding of personal interest and then that of the interest of partners.
49. The Plaintiff on March, 3, 2022 whistle-blew exploitation and possible racketeering by The Defendant towards their paying investors on the SCADpro program to The United Nations via blog at https://www.philipbonneau.com/new-blog/2022/3/3/an-open-letter-to-the-united-nations There is no traditional whistle-blowing website for such in this regard. The plaintiff looked up the websites to whistle-blow, none of which they spoke follows under such. The Plaintiff, publicly wrote on their own personally owned website and tagged the President of the United States in something that they don’t know the answer to but gave full disclosure of what happened on American Soil towards the International dream and investment.
50. The Plaintiff has been attacked very directly since their wrongful termination with evidence to question prior understandings of collegiate copyright that was handled on the BBB side of discussions by the same Defendant Attorney trying to avoid The Defendant’s liability in an area that involves looking at The Plaintiff as separately an Employee and Student which was failed to do so by The Defendant despite warning by The Plaintiff. It is noted even after The Plaintiff sought attorney council against The Defendant, that it could not be done without ‘recorded keystrokes’ present as of 12.13.2022 where it was documented as occurring and published on The Plaintiffs privately owned website. It denotes a failure of basic American liberties inside or outside The Defendant’s purview with perhaps Defendant knowledge. My last note to council in regards to such focused on what questions of what to do solo as I can’t seek council on what is the perameters of my whistleblowing? The answer was sent via phone text email on December 15, 2022, ‘Food for thought per our conversation. If what is occurring and discussed is from a revenue perspective of the student, it could also be looked at as a revenue reducer to the state of GA as their non-profit status denotes income out of state produced in state with the students as paying contract to hire on real world applications. Since the work creates revenue for the partner companies, world this be considered fraudulant work and income that could be taxed against state and federal as the students are considered in this capacity as "official working students" without proper training for the benefit of corporations in and out of state that could require a W2 on the company? Just thinking a bit more about state loss of income. ’ I have been attacked digitally which is either inside or outside the purview of The Defendant. My property while under the protection of The Defendant as Student and Employee has been affected and compromised. It has been documented in American Copyright Protection.
51. It is noted from evidence received from The Freedom of Information Acted that female entities acted in grudge towards The Plaintiff in both discrimination and in falsehood leading towards adverse work employment and decision making outside the scope of expertise towards rationally, professional decision outside the sole interest of The Defendant. In regards to 2nd hand accounts supplied by The Defendant to the EEOC, it is proveable with zero doubt that The Defendant and their Heads acted in accordance illegally and of biased of gender, mental health or ignorance of the law towards the detriment of The plaintiff’s employment and future cut off and gone in another direction from their liable actions. The Defendant willfully knew knew their liability 10 months ago before understanding the attorney hired and staffed knew their liability 20-months ago to The Plaintiff.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT 1:
Breach of Contract
52. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all prior allegations in this Complaint as if fully set forth here from both an employee side and that of a student. From GM’s words of official capacity, ‘Employee first, Student Second.’ Denotes rights on both sides. The Plaintiff reserves their right as Alumni according to The Defendant’s User Manual on either aspect of Student or Employee.
53. Defendant’s actions constitute a breach of contract entered into with Plaintiff, as describe above. Defendant’s actions have caused Plaintiff economic damages in a capacity where it was understood they were degree-seeking which would had went towards better places of employment at the proper pay-grade within their field that they were not resting in at the time, but building towards. It is understood in good-faith and based of social, internal and other records to find that the commitment of such is valid to support that the Plaintiff more than likely would had received their Master’s degree, went on to be either an educator or continue with their Doctorate in dissertations already worked towards while confined to a basement thrown under a double-decker bus.
54. Defendant breached contract not only on the employee aspect of the situation, but that of the student which holds higher priority in different capacity as the students pay the bills in certified relief and payments (not including interest, which wouldn’t go to The Defendant).
55. Defendant failed to separate the Employee from the Student, without taking the Alumni status into equation to denote failure on procedure and protocol to do such despite Plaintiff asking to do so of legally trained and allowed council.
COUNT 2:
Unjust Enrichment
56. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all prior allegations in this Complaint as if full set forth here. They do so without a train attorney because that is what life has been afforded with an understanding of evidence to provide or what has occurred of the setting up for success or the setting up of failure so that other’s can succeed off other’s successes. In the alternative, Defendant has been unjustly enriched as a result of the labor Plaintiff both from the employer status and from the of the protector status of ‘Secondary-Education’. In regards to whistle-blowing and questions of non-profit status, it was ascertained that status to held is not for the best interst of the student investors of degree-seeking nature to pursue understanding the value of innovation with questions of where that goes in what The Defendant does or does not do with intellectual property understanding their disregard for protected brands before going into those not established.
57. It is alleged where The Defendant could say one way or the other, if through their system based on fact, did they allow partners to impede in a capacity that denotes invasion of creative property and interest that was outside school or work employment for their own benefit and that of others in partnership.
58. Defendant’s actions have caused Plaintiff damages in the amount of real world value of $2,963,112,84. That total is calculated with a combined figure of actual job at the time and where The Plaintiff would had done with their Masters degree post-employment into the educational system of secondary education at the median rate. That number is determined based on retirement age until 70 with noting that there was 3.5 years left of employment under the normal conditions to get to life outside a basement. Figures provided if necessary understanding both the multiplier aspect of such and the deterrent factor to behavior that should never be allowed. As it is understood The Defendant’s president makes 112-120 million a year, the deterrent is understood to be either acceptable and of value or something to take into consideration consider the president is first-hand involved in questions regarding this case. There is a times 5 factor to such in this regard where it is understood the basic factual aspects of such towards determination. My lifetime value outside of introduction of my personal/professional accomplishments comes to a total of $14, 815, 564.20 with the times 5 multiplier based on factual figures based on time of employment at $15.95 an hour towards the median salary online of a Defendant professor of which I would had been eligible to obtain status. That total is based on facts before looking at The Plaintiff’s life and what they contributed to society or themselves and what was compromised and sought after by others which is outside that figure and astronomical if taken into account. American copyright can attest to that statement. What I cannot take into account is what my salary would had been as Manager, SCADpro director/SCAD Art Sales Director/Photographer or Art Director in all positions applied for at The Defendant’s entity that I could had been transferred to or of qualifications to uphold but chosen not to despite an internal understanding of what was occurring in basements. The number increases with those variables while questioning why wasn’t The Plaintiff transferred while seeing in factuality what occurred internally or of partner privilege.
59. It is understood in partner privilege, as noted publicly and privately as there is no difference now for The Plaintiff with evidence that the detriment of partnership exceeds person gain and goes back to the initial whistle-blow to The United Nations.
60. It is understood in the unjust enrichment section that The Plaintiff still call out the non-profit status of The Defendant and state it is of a detriment to Student Degree-Seeking investors in their current make and model. If enrichment occurred from the sake of university status, then remedy should be reviewed of those exploited as student investors toward degree-seeking opportunities of higher pay of degree status.
61. It is understood that The Plaintiff argued their case without an attorney or law-firm as noted as prohibitive to EEOC claims where it must be stated as such internally and without outside council before escalation. It is noted The Defendant did so in a capacity of knowledge and understanding knowing The Plaintiff success argued against a degree/licensed attorney without one in return towards rationale and provability with The Defendant’s own evidence they were not afforded while an investigation was occurring. It is noted The Defendant proceeded weighing responsibility incorrectly on liability.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
62. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the following relief:
-A money award judgment entered against Defendant for Plaintiff’s damages in the amount of $14, 815, 564.20.
-An award of post-judgment interest on any money damages awarded at the current statutory rate citing my ignorance and that I’ve been forced to do this alone and in acknowledgement of financiers one way or another.
-There is an understanding The Plaintiff has been forced to do this without legal council and needs to make sure this never happens again in ‘acceptable losses’ of what occurred citing ignorance of the law and where The Plaintiff has been left at a disadvantage based on privilege and income available 10 months after-the-fact. Legal Compensation should be included in this aspect as The Plaintiff has been forced to do this as a ‘Starving Artist’ against an attorney that could advise one way or another towards what is factual. The understanding of possible ‘bleeding someone dry’ towards desperation exists where even the real world value is not even 20% of the annual salary of the president of The Defendant. A blip to one is not any resolution to the recourse of the problem that was attempted to be resolved in good-faith and met not in return.
-The Plaintiff does not know that actual value of what has been lost based on actual evidence. The Plaintiff can look at the fact that The Defendant’s partners invaded and impeded on my work while I was in good standing while employed and very directly afterwards leading towards choice to protect The Plaintiff’s biological family while still protecting their emotional family.
-It is an understanding based off of The Defendant’s practices that The Plaintiff calls into question their ‘School of Innovation’ and if they had any accord to such while still withholding where they faulter in such. It can’t even be questioned in this regard with proven beyond a shadow of a doubt recorded keystrokes. The Plaintiff contends ownership based on original idea that they were not qualified for the position and a determination of perpetual non-profit status of The Defendant in understanding of their make/model.
-Plaintiff's reasonable costs and disbursements for bringing this action.
This includes as The Plaintiff has less than 2000 dollars in their bank account and nothing for savings while still in the same boxes brought down from Atlanta in 2019, that The Plaintiff successfully argued their case in what was unnecessary, privileged in some and in that regard may had gone elsewhere. The plaintiff is not the only victim in this regard as already recorded back in 2019 before employment of The Defendant and years of consideration to take into account of The Plaintiff doing the right thing and reporting properly. The Plaintiff is not an attorney. The Plaintiff could have a life. The Plaintiff never had to go through this but others thought it was an acceptable loss. The Plaintiff is fighting for more than themselves but what carried on is separate from the flat out discrimination, retaliation and lack of procedure from heads of The Defendant’s entity. The defendant may be used to using money for things to go under the table in mock trials and situations. From April 2021, this was documented and recorded. 3rd parties have their own evidence and internally they have theirs. What led towards The Plaintiff’s termination on Feb.10, 2022 was also the termination of their college education where someone chose not to make a difference and there is zero trust present afterwards based on evidence to ever go back into the program. The Plaintiff’s statement is not just for themselves, but aware the breach of trust and knowing their BBB argument opens the door towards total Collegiate forgiveness based on facts and proven arguments.
-Any and all other relief the Court deems just and reasonable under the circumstances.
Respectfully submitted on: December 23, 2022
By: Philip Arthur Bonneau
Plaintiff, pro se
2309 New York Ave.
Savannah, GA, 31404
(404) 786-62621
philip@philipbonneau.com
VERIFICATION
I, Philip Arthur Bonneau, hereby declare that the above statements are true to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that I understand they are made for use as evidence in court and are subject to penalty for perjury.
Dated: December 23, 2022
By: Philip Arthur Bonneau
Plaintiff, pro se
‘Starving Artist’.
*This Article has been updated since publish with the date added at the end. 12.23.2022
