This is a sequel to the Unwholesome Story 1, where I talk about the irrational, vindictive, capricious, retaliatory, and discriminatory treatment I received from part-time supervisors at the Vermont Country Store, while I worked in their distribution center in North Clarendon, VT, and where I muse about how such deplorable corporate behavior may negatively impact the process of welcoming the soon to be arriving contingent of Syrian refugees to central Vermont.

The sequel is necessary, because it shows how the system, supposedly designed to prevent the corporate arrogance and punish employers for retaliatory behavior, essentially, and, perhaps, intentionally, facilitate employers impunity.

First, there is the State of Vermont Labor Relations Board. This great institution, however, has jurisdiction to resolve grievances filed only by State employees, State Colleges employees and University of Vermont employees. Private employers may do as they please with their employees, I learned from the VLRB executive director, Timothy Noonan.

Noonan wrote: "The Labor Relations Board has jurisdiction to resolve certain matters involving employees of private employers under the State Labor Relations Act. However, the Board does not have jurisdiction to resolve matters involving applicants for employment with private employers."

Aha! This about solves my enigma why the Vermont Country Store did not fire me immediately after they received my email about how I wanted to be re-assigned to a position within the Distribution Center, where I would be more efficient and productive. I mean, if they already concluded that I was "argumentative, aggressive, confrontational, upset, difficult, and disagreeable", and therefore "not a good fit" for the company, why did they wait until the next season to tell me that?

It can only be that firing me right there on spot after that email would raise concerns that it could fit into those "certain matters" involving employees of private employers that the Labor Relations Board has jurisdiction over. So, it was safer to wait until the end of season, to exit me as a "seasonal layoff," and then, only when I seek re-hire, tell me that I was "not eligible for future job opportunities at VCS."

Because then I would be an "applicant for employment with private employer" and as such automatically ineligible for protection by the Vermont Labor Relations Board. Out of jurisdiction! Out on the street. With nowhere to go. Fair and just, isn't it?

But how could VCS put up with me, being so "argumentative, aggressive, confrontational, upset, difficult, and disagreeable," until the end of the season? Wouldn't they want somebody like that out of their company as soon as possible? That's if they were telling the truth, of course. What if I was none of that? Did they offer any evidence to back up any of those qualifiers they attached to my name?

No. Worse, nobody asked them to do so. The truth is that there is no evidence to support their claim. I was a "no problem" employee that performed well, worked hard, and got along excellently with my co-workers. Yet, a couple of capricious, malicious, indolent, and vengeful supervisors wrote up those words on my record at the end of the season, with sole purpose of preventing my re-employment.

And the lesson is that it can be done: that nobody will question what they wrote, that nobody will hold them accountable for their mendacity, that employment in this State is not only at will, but also at mercy of incompetents, who only got their positions through connections, favoritism, and nepotism.

Concluding that the Labor Relations Board has no jurisdiction over my case, Noonan suggested ("you may wish") to contact the Civil Rights Unit of the Vermont Attorney General's Office, which I subsequently did. I basically sent them the copy of the same letter I sent to VLRB. Only later I checked their web site and downloaded their form.

And when I downloaded their form, I realized that alleging discrimination is not that easy. So, when I received their answer (signed by Jonathan Goddard, Investigator), I was disappointed, but not surprised with it: "You alleged Respondent did not rehire you because of your national origin and place of birth. Based upon the information you provided, it is our determination that there is insufficient evidence to initiate a charge of employment discrimination on your behalf."

In my letter to VLRB I alleged discrimination, but I did not exactly allege the basis for discrimination: I merely noted that I was foreign born, and that I had an accent, and that I believed (and still believe) that played a role in the VCS decision not to re-hire me. This could be interpreted by the OAG as an allegation of discrimination based on my national origin and place of birth.

I understand how difficult is this to prove under the narrow boxed in interpretation by the OAG. First, I was born in Germany. That should, perhaps, work to my advantage with Schauwecker, whose last name suggests German ancestry (more than mine, at least, given that I am German through the mother side of my family). Although, I don't know whether he or anyone else at the VCS knew my place of birth. Thus, in my opinion, it is probably impossible to prove any connection between my place of birth and the VCS decision not to hire me.

But I do think there is a connection between me being not a native-born and the VCS decision not to hire me. The fact that I am a foreigner is easily discernible through my accent. And can be a possible cause for discrimination, particularly in these dark times of hatred against the "aliens." I think someone can be discriminated against for not being native-born, without actually being discriminated because of his specific ancestry, national origin, or place of birth, yet, remarkably, the questionnaire, provided by the Civil Rights Unit of the Office of Attorney General, fails to recognize that.

For example, I think I told everyone who asked that I was from Croatia. But I don't think and I don't have evidence to claim that I was discriminated because of that exact national origin. Again, I think it is more about not being from around here than being from exactly there. The perceived foreign-ness is discriminated against, and not being Croatian. And I was discriminated against.

My story clearly shows that the company denied me employment because I asked for re-assignment and because I legally checked public records of my supervisors. My story clearly shows that the company waited until the end of season purely to avoid legal inconvenience. Actually, it should be obvious to the reader that the company prizes convenience and comfort of their supervisors above everything else. They can be pedophiles, adulterers, cons, or whatever else, as long as they are local buddies. There is not a single minority person, or God forbid, an immigrant, in the supervisory position at the Vermont Country Store North Clarendon Distribution Center.

But, of 26 factors, that could be claimed as basis for discrimination, on that OAG questionnaire, I think I can only claim one under those restrictions: "complaining of employment discrimination" - and that is iffy, too. The questionnaire did not consider outspoken immigrants from war torn countries, who come here with undiagnosed PTSD from past persecution, and are then persecuted again, because they do not fit the companies perception of model employees.

This saddens me. I believed that the US was a developed country where labor grievances could be settled in a civilized manner through a fair and impartial hearing that gives equal opportunity to both employees and employers to voice their concerns. On the other hand, maybe this is the dawn of American Spring? All this talk about the revolution, maybe finally comes true?

When official bureaucratic paths to voice grievances are closed, the low of the low have no other recourse but to douse themselves with gasoline and set themselves ablaze, as the Arab Spring in Tunisia started. The insults, the indignities, the offenses that they are expected to suffer without even talking back, at certain point cross over that thin line where personal safety is still a concern, and people do things that are irrational and disturbing to the society at large.

To be fair, I admit that every negative determination letter so far (both from VLRB and OAG CRU) came with the information where could I bring my complaint further (just not to them), preserving the civilized official bureaucratic face of the path to resolve grievances. My complaint is now going to leave Vermont and go to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Boston, MA. On 10/25/2017 the EEOC Boston Area Office (Charge 532-2017-00235) issued the Right to Sue (under Title VII, and ADA), and the case 2:17-cv-182 is presently before judge Reiss in the US District Court for Vermont.

Also, there is important empirical evidence from the US and from the EU that children that grow up seeing their immigrant parents being bullied, harassed, discriminated against, retaliated against, grow up bitter, vengeful, and hateful of their host society, sometimes with dire consequences. Which is why it is incredibly important to have a fair, just, and compassionate way set in place to deal with grievances like this.

Unfortunately, it looks like Vermont is lagging behind, shuttling me over to a federal agency, which reinforces my opinion from the previous article - that we here are just not ready yet to welcome Syrian refugees.