Timeline of facts Discharged as adverse employment action Received 'after the fact' harrassment letter Filed EEOC complaint, all correct boxes were checked on the form 5 charge form, EEOC proclaimed they had, through their obligation, filed a copy of the charge with the south carolina human affairs department, the SCHAD never received such charge. No response to confirmation Forced confirmation No action (long time) (repeated attempts to secure request for right to sue letter under the 180 day limit) Set up fact finding meeting Fact finding meeting canceled Thompson settlement License deadline Complaint to Senator's office Meeting with Sanders Twisted letter threatening what would happen from EEOC Complaint seeking internal investigation at EEOC Response to complaint ignores allegations, sets up Feb 9 on site meeting No due process Meeting held without complainant creates response Issue of dismissal letter and right to sue (learn who represented defendants) Received harrassment letter, postings to internet and letter advising of government's 'feelings' from fired former employee Filed federal complaint Received harrassment letter Complaint answered but not received (learned who represented defendants, first knowledge of defendant counsel) Filed motion to disqualify counsel and firm as first opportunity upon knowledge Response to motion filed in perjury, served after filing with court Motion for sanction filed in perjury (harrassment continues) IF: and it appears to be so, the defendants were in anyway involved in knowing about or taking part in the delay of the charges before EEOC for the purpose of ignoring the charges in order to file a license renewal, wherein that license renewal was not factual at all, then the acts taking place during the EEOC period are harrassment after discharge and covered by the law. The on site meeting was so definitive that the engineer felt compelled to rub it in, and a former employee, fired by the company felt compelled to proclaim the government thought plaintiff was 'crazy'. Such acts are not without knowledge of those who took part in that meeting. Counsel's potential knowledge of that meeting may show a continuation of harrassment past the point of discharge through a government official acting under the color of law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (covering federal courts in Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina) has also recently dismissed claims where plaintiffs failed to check the right boxes on EEOC forms or otherwise failed to comply with the strict requirements that they file a claim with the appropriate state agency prior to filing a claim with the EEOC. A series of recent cases have held that courts do not have jurisdiction over Title VII claims when the plaintiff did not properly file a claim with the state agency first. These decisions have held that a failure to file with the state agency means that the charge was never properly pending before the EEOC, and therefore no suit can be brought in federal court under Title VII. Failure to adhere to the strict requirements of any step of the statutory scheme deprives the federal court of subject matter jurisdiction to try the case. In the event of a favorable judgment, the court of appeals must dismiss the case, even if it has already been through trial. If a charge is filed with EEOC and also is covered by state or local law, EEOC "dual files" the charge with the state or local FEPA, but ordinarily retains the charge for handling. This case was notated as being dual filed with the local office of SC Human Affairs but according to them was never received. http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html IX. What Agency Handles a Charge that is also Covered by State or Local Law? Many states and localities have anti-discrimination laws and agencies responsible for enforcing those laws. EEOC refers to these agencies as "Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs)." Through the use of "work sharing agreements," EEOC and the FEPAs avoid duplication of effort while at the same time ensuring that a charging party's rights are protected under both federal and state law. If a charge is filed with a FEPA and is also covered by federal law, the FEPA "dual files" the charge with EEOC to protect federal rights. The charge usually will be retained by the FEPA for handling. If a charge is filed with EEOC and also is covered by state or local law, EEOC "dual files" the charge with the state or local FEPA, but ordinarily retains the charge for handling.