Robert Riggs, ) CLASS ACTION ADMINISTRATIVE PETITION and others similarly situated ) AS A MATTER OF GREAT PUBLIC INTEREST: Petitioner, ) PROSPECTIVE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO PREVENT AND ) PROHIBIT EMPLOYERS FROM CONDUCTING LITIGATION vs. ) BACKGROUND CHECKS (UNDER TITLE VII and A.D.A.) ) USING "PACER" SYSTEM (PUBLIC ACCESS TO COURT JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF ) ELECTRONIC RECORDS); BECAUSE ACCESS AIDS AND THE UNITED STATES, ) ABETS ILLEGAL RETALIATORY REFUSAL TO HIRE AND Respondent ) RETALIATORY ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION Dated: 2000/04/06 Amended: 2000/04/30 UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES Synopsis of Substantive Law: 42 U.S.C. §12203(a), 2000e-3(a), Const. Amend. 14 Synopsis of Procedural Law: 42 U.S.C. §2000e(a), §200e-5(a), §2000e-5(f)(1), 28 U.S.C. §331, E.O. 12050(1-2,3) Synopsis of Facts: Employers can use the "PACER" system, to screen out job applicants who have filed "civil rights - employment" civil actions in Federal Court, or to take adverse action against employees. This access is rapidly getting progressively easier, and the critical threshold is now at hand, of the formation of a new class of unemployable persons; unless action is taken now. Synopsis of Legal Contentions: The Judicial Conference of the United States, by allowing unrestricted access to data for which is illegal for employers to use, is thus (unintentionally) aiding and abetting illegal employer Retaliation. Synopsis of Relief Sought: Petitioner seeks the implementation of prospective actions and measures, which hamper and create barriers to this illegal hiring and employment practice, for the Class as a whole. Petitioner, Robert Riggs, alleges: 1. Petitioner, Robert Riggs, is a member of the Class of persons, with a public record of having filed Discrimination civil actions against employers in Federal Court. 2. Petitioner believes, based upon an eighteen month active search for work Nationwide, without any success whatsoever; that employer background checks for a history of employment Discrimination litigation is (at least part of) the cause of Petitioner's continuing Unemployment. 3. Petitioner, and others similarly situated, are thus now being rendered effectively unemployable, which is resulting in grave Damage to many Class members. This is now also rapidly becoming a social and legal issue of great public importance, as "PACER" access becomes progressively easier with time. 4. Petitioner sent an informal Email inquiry to a representative of the Respondent. The response reveals that the Respondent fails to allege that employee or applicant background checks by employers, for a history of "civil rights - employment" litigation, is illegal. 5. The Retaliation provisions of the A.D.A. and "Title VII", (42 U.S.C. § §12203(a) and 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a) respectively, clearly outlaw and prohibit employers from screening out job applicants, or taking adverse action against employees, based upon a history of employment Discrimination litigation. 6. The Respondent, by making employer background checks, using the "PACER" system, progressively easier to perform, without restriction, is thus aiding, facilitating, and abetting this illegal Retaliatory employment practice. As an example, individual case docket information is available now (2000/04/27) that was not available by Internet on the initial Petition date, (2000/04/07). 7. Respondent has a statutory duty, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §331, to "review rules prescribed ... for consistency with Federal Law." 8. Since the "Y2K" Information Technology "bump in the road" is now past, ease of "PACER" access has now reached the "critical mass" for this situation to develop into an "almost society-wide resistance to ... civil rights ... closing opportunities" to the Class. Internet "PACER" access is now very effective, efficient, and convenient (and fast-increasingly universal), for the first time. 9. Thus, the time is ripe for Respondent to take appropriate remedial action. If this petition is denied, the situation arguably may rise to the level of a Civil Conspiracy, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1985 and S1986, per Travis vs. Gary Community Health Center, 921 F.2d 108 (7th Cir. 1990), at 110. 10. Additionally or in the alternative, Respondent's current legal position, "under color of Law", arguably could rise to a deprivation of the civil rights of the Class, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, if this Petition is denied. Bivens vs. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 408 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999 (1971). 11. The Administrative Forums for this Petition, the Attorney General and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, have statutory authority to take actions in behalf of the Class, including even Federal Court civil action, if necessary, to grant appropriate Relief, as requested by the Petitioner for the Class. 12. Although "Exhaustion of Administrative Remedy" may not be an absolute legal requirement, it is hoped that a relatively informal inter-agency communication and proceeding results in prompt Relief. Petitioner believes this Petition is the most expeditious, inexpensive, and effective means of obtaining the Relief sought; without resort to more complex legal actions. 13. The availability of court records, to employers, of the civil litigation record of applicants and employees constitutes a denial of the Equal Protection of the Laws. Those persons who have exercised their Federal statutory right to file a civil action under Title VII and the A.D.A. are subjected to a form of employment discrimination; which other persons who are likewise aggrieved, but who have not yet filed a civil action to obtain redress, are not. 14. Thus, the Respondent's "prescribed rules" violate not only Federal Law, but also the Constitution. Hence, the duty of Respondent to "review" and modify the "prescribed rules" at issue is not discretionary, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §331, but is Constitutionally mandatory. 15. This Petition states a valid Charge, even though the Respondent is a Federal Government agency, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1). The Commission is to try to "secure a conciliation agreement", and the Respondent is to confer and negotiate in good faith, pursuant to Executive Order 12050 §1-2, §1-3.