Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/120700642/Civil-Lawsuit-Brief
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 16:03:13+00:00

Document:
No. 11-1332 United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit _______________________ ROY A. SLAY Plaintiff – Appellant v.
.........2 STATUTES AND REGULATIONS…....... II.....8 I...........................15 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ADDENDUM .TABLE OF CONTENTS Page STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION………………………………………………..4 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS…………………………………………………....2 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES…………………………………………………....ii - .. Statutory Background……………………………………………………....................12 ARGUMENT…………………………………………………………………….....14 I..8 Facts and Prior Proceedings…………………………………………………………….. CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………......3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE………………………………………………...11 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT………………………………………………….
1969) (broad interpretation of protected activity). Farmers State Bank. Haley v.S. 494 (2000) (limiting availability of RICO). Retsinas. 1999) (emotional distress damages included in special damage award) New England Stone. 1997) (Privacy Act permits claims for damages resulting from “leaks” of confidential information). 529 U. 138 F. Ackerley. 866 F. Conte et al. Supp. 383 U. 1999) Linn v. 180 F.D. American Cast Iron. 411 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. Beck v.C. LLC v. 62 (1966) (applying First Amendment principles to definition of protected speech under NLRA) Neal v. 191 F.3d 1245 (8th Cir.TABLE OF CASES Alexander v. Rouse v. 1998) Lambert v.3d 827 (7th Cir.2009) Pettway v.2d 998 (5th Cir. 971 F.I. 962 A. 53. Prupis. 1191 (N.2d 30 (R.S. 603 (D. Honeywell. United Plant Guard. Supp. Iowa 1994) (interpreting law broadly to protect whistleblowers) -iii- .D. FBI.
5.A. Slay filed timely notice of appeal on March 25. Following the district court’s entry of dismissal. § 1291 : US Code . Whether management at Bank of America N. Whether management at Bank of America N. 4.A.A. Whether the False Claims Act.A. § 1331 : US Code . Whether the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was violated by management at Bank of America N. 6. violated Rhode Island Title 28 Labor and Labor Relations. Employment Security . 2011. Whether the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was violated by management at Bank of America N. 2.Benefits. § 28-44-18. The United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U. 3.Appellee. violated Rhode Island Whistleblower Laws. Retaliation Against AWhistleblower. § 28-50-3 & § 28-50-4.Section 1331. -2- .C. 7.C. Whether management at Bank of America N. violated the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.A.STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The United States District Court For The District Of Rhode Island had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.A. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES 1. § 28-50-1. Roy A. Whistleblower Antiretaliation is applicable to Plaintiff .S.Section 1291: Final decisions of district court. Whether management at Bank of America N.S. conspired in the Obstruction of Justice.
damage. STATUTES AND REGULATIONS Federal Laws Sarbanes-Oxley Act Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act Bank Secrecy Act 15 U. Computer Crime. Whether Rhode Island Title 11 Criminal Offenses. § 11-52-2. were violated by management at Bank of America N.A. § 2087 : Consumer Product Safety Act of 2008 18 U.Whether Rhode Island Title 28 Labor and Labor Relations.S. Section 28-5-7 (i) & (6) Fair Employment Practices. were violated by management at Bank of America N. § 1513 : Obstruction of Justice.C.A.S. Retaliation Against Whistleblowers 31 U. 10.C. §§ 3729-3733: The False Claims Act State of Rhode Island General Laws § 11-52-2 : Access to computer for fraudulent purposes § 11-52-3 : Intentional access. were violated by management at Bank of America N. alteration.8.C.S.A. § 11-523 & § 11-52-6. Whether Rhode Island Title 19 Financial Institutions.9-5 Rhode Island Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. § 19-14. 9. or destruction -3- .9-4 & § 19-14.
.A. Anderson. obstruction of justice. I the Plaintiff – Appellant Roy A.9-5 : Communication in connection with debt collection § 28-5-7(4)(i) & (6) : Unlawful employment practices § 28-44-18 : Discharge for misconduct § 28-50-1 : The "Rhode Island Whistleblowers' Protection Act" § 28-50-3 : Protection § 28-50-4 : Relief and damages STATEMENT OF THE CASE This case involves the computer system information security breech. by Kenneth D. Bank of America. Reason given at time of termination by Randel George. We are releasing you from -4- . we can’t have you making threats against management. (Ken) Lewis (former CEO and President of Bank of America Corporation). “You are a threat to management. Slay was terminated on the morning of 03/09/10 around 10:12 am after arriving to work for my 9:30 am to 6:00 pm shift by manager Randel George and the call center director David K. Slay v. abuse of authority. N.§ 11-52-6 : Civil action § 19-14. retaliation against a Whistleblower the Plaintiff – Appellant in this case Roy A.9-4 : Acquisition of location information § 19-14. his management team at Bank of America and Ernst & Young. gross mismanagement.
” I replied. I replied ok. let me finish logging my last call. “I said I think it was my letter that got him fired.” I replied with disbelief. “Roy we have heard that you said you got Peter Connell fired. I say hello to Dave and take a seat at a small table facing Randel with my back to Dave. I think it was probably my letter. “We need to talk”. (Randel) “Roy the reason for the meeting is we just got some disturbing news.” On 03/03/2010 around 1:20 pm shortly after the half hour lunch break. my new manager Randel George comes over and tells me to log off the phone. we’ve got a problem”. I finish and log off the phone and locked my computer and walk over to his cubical and he is not there. one week prior to my termination. “Threaten him?” (Randel) “You said to him. yes or no?” I replied. -5- . “Did you say you got him fired. we wanted to be clear. Did you say this to an associate. “Ok. Will Torres said you threaten him. “Yes!” I replied. I’m at lunch and he comes by and sees me. “What letter? was my name in it?” (Randel) replies. I replied “yes. ok.” I replied.your assignment.” (Randel) replies. Slay. yes or no. he asks what’s going on Roy?”( Randel) replies. Mr. I hear him calling me from Dave Anderson office. so you had this information when we meet earlier today?” (Randel) replies. I proceed into Dave office. “No! what I said was. I then proceed to look for him.” (Dave Anderson) replies.
” (Randel) then states that all he wanted when we were in the meeting with Dave is a. I take a seat as he shut the door. “We’re good!” (Randel) “I’m going on vacation and I don’t plan on coming in here tomorrow. Slay submitted to the Rhode Island Department of Business Regulation Division of Banking regarding a serious computer system customer information security breach at Bank of America. (Randel) “Are we good?” I replied. he then confided with other management and HR on how to get rid of me. (Randel) leads me to the old managers Edna Coleman office he replaced. I wished him a pleasant vacation. Listen to what I’m saying. I sign off the phone and lock my computer and go over to his cubical. I should have followed his lead. (Randel) sends me an instant message to come over to his cubical. “No problem.(Randel) replies. around 3:40 pm. I replied. The termination of Plaintiff – Appellant Roy A. Once David K.” With that. with the -6- . Anderson got a copy of my complaint and read it. “you can go. Slay by Randel George and David K. Anderson was in retaliation for the complaint I. then states that he wants me to do the right thing and apologize to Will.” I said ok. “yes or no answer. (Randel).” Later that day. Please apologize to Will. So. Mr. Dave didn’t need to know about the letter.
Mr. After 2 ½ years of service. I Roy A. Associate had also taken responsibility for the termination of a previous leader -7- . not one reprimand in my employee file. Slay didn’t threaten any manager at Bank of America N. What was the final incident? Explain in detail what happened. ( Nathan Vinson) “which took over representation of Bank of America’s claims from TALX effective 01/01/2010. Slay Unemployment Insurance was denied due to false & inaccurate documentation provided by Nathan Vinson at Ernst & Young Unemployment Insurance Department. when. When Roy was confronted with these allegations he admitted to saying this but provided no reason for his comments. For what purpose? I have never had an employer accuse me of threating management and then terminate my employment for it during my 25 plus years of work history. My. Vinson email to Randel George regarding an Unemployment Insurance Claim for me Mr. Threats were unfounded and unnecessary. “Associate threatened to have senior management fired to his fellow peers. I was accused of making threats against management.” In Mr.second hand reports he received on my comments taken out of context by coworkers. Vinson. David K. Mr. where.A. Vinson answer to question (1). and who was involved. Mr. Anderson had nothing else he could use to terminate my employment. Slay.
” STATEMENT OF THE FACTS I. Major components put into place to govern the collection. whether a financial institution discloses nonpublic information or not. Statutory Background A.(Peter Connell) and that was not the case. GLB compliance is mandatory. public company boards. management and public accounting firms. enacted July 30. disclosure. B. also known as the 'Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act' (in the Senate) and 'Corporate and Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act' (in the House).S. 2002). The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB). which set new or enhanced standards for all U. and protection of consumers’ nonpublic personal information. 2002. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. there must be a policy in place to protect the information from foreseeable threats in security and data integrity. also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. is a United States federal law enacted on July 30. or personally identifiable information includes: -8- .
Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010. or otherwise known as the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act) requires financial institutions in the United States to assist U. Specifically.000 (daily aggregate amount). the act requires financial institutions to keep records of cash purchases of negotiable instruments. to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices. and to report suspicious activity that might signify money laundering. Subchapter I. to end "too big to fail". Financial Privacy Rule  Safeguards Rule  Pretexting Protection 15 USC. and file reports of cash purchases of these negotiable instruments of more than $10. government agencies to detect and prevent money laundering. Sec. and for other purposes. tax -9- . The Dodd-Frank Act is to promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system. to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts. 6801-6809 Disclosure of Nonpublic Personal Information. The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (or BSA. D.S. C.
Rhode Island Fair Employment Practices § 28-5-7(4)(i) &(6) : Unlawful employment practices M. F. or other criminal activities. Rhode Island Whistleblowers' Protection Act § 28-50-1 : § 28-50-3 : Protection & § 28-50-4 : Relief and damages -10- . §§ 3729-3733: The False Claims Act I. § 2087 : Consumer Product Safety Act of 2008 G.S. damage. United States Code 31 U.9-4 : Acquisition of location information K.9-5 : Communication in connection with debt collection L. United States Code 18 U.C.C. Rhode Island Fair Debt Collection Practices Act § 19-14.S. § 1513 : Obstruction of Justice.S. evasion. or destruction : & § 11-52-6 : Civil action J.C. alteration. Rhode Island Computer Crime § 11-52-2 : Access to computer for fraudulent purposes § 11-52-3 : Intentional access. Rhode Island Employment Security – Benefits § 28-44-18 : Discharge for misconduct N. Rhode Island Fair Debt Collection Practices Act § 19-14. United States Department Of Labor 15 U. Retaliation Against Whistleblowers H.E.
My case was closed on 03/16/2011due to Magistrate Judge David L. I submit a request to have him removed due to interest. 10-5127 was removed to the United States District Court For The District Of Rhode Island by Bank of America. Slay v. Judge Almond didn’t have the complete file for my suit and didn’t know what a computer name is. Martin bias hearsay Report and Recommendation without a jury trial per my “Due Process claim as granted under the Fourteenth Amendment. N. A Motion to Dismiss my case was held. Bank Of America Corporation 1. Facts and Prior Proceedings A. Judge Almond proceeded to ask me questions and point out that I didn’t have a case. Judge Almond had to disclose at the end of the hearing that he was once employed by the Defendant – Appellee council law firm. Factual Background I the Plaintiff – Appellant in Roy A. Bank Of America Corporation filed this case in Rhode Island Superior Court on 09/13/10. Civil Action. Judge Almond didn't allow me to finish my prepared statement or inform him on what happen. -11- . My case.A.II. presided over by Magistrate Judge Lincoln D. on 10/04/2010. File No. Roy A. Slay v. Almond.
it was a group effort by management at Bank of America to maneuver me into a position of servitude. tells the co-work in the call center that she was calling to collect on a debt and that she was going to garnish my wages and hangs up. defense is based on second hand hearsay. Slay provided documentation to back up my case. I was under Oath during the Motion to Dismiss hearing. I went to my manager Peter Connell and explained the situation and asked him to have a discussion about how to handle a call like that. The Defendant – Appellee Bank Of America. In essence.A. I had to endure embarrassment when a collection agency kept calling my place of work and the rep for the collection agency finally gives up in trying to speak with me. Talk about unprofessional and to and to the embarrassment this co-worker brought up the incident a couple of days later. “Roy. by asking me. N. you’re on the up and up with us?” Another co-worker nearby nearly fall off his chair from laughing so hard. There are State and Federal laws that are in my favor. My co-worker yells over to me in the Bank of America Order to Pay Call Center.SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT This case is basically he said. I the Plaintiff – Appellant Roy A. “Roy. she said. she said she was going to garnish your wages!) loud enough for 20 other co-workers to hear her. He went to his manager Edna Coleman and she decided it -12- .
I was never informed of any action taken. -13- . Some co-worker got away with doing things that was against policy like visiting inappropriate websites on their work computer and making inappropriate comments about customers or hanging up on a customer would be grounds for termination per management had repeat offenders and they either got promoted to other departments or left on their own accord. I haven’t had any disciplinary actions against me before I was terminated by Randel George and David K. Bank of America has the emails that I received from customers and sent. recorded phone calls.wasn’t an issue. I called Advice and Council and informed the rep on what had transpired. My termination was simply retaliation. I was advised to call the Advice and Council line by a rep on the employee assistance line. I have done nothing but try to be a productive citizen in society. I was threatened by my manager Peter Connell upon arrival to work. Never the less. Inappropriate emails were constantly been sent to me. a valued employee at every job I have ever had. Anderson at Bank of America or for any job I’ve held in the past 25 year of employment. attendance record and computer record. this was one of several calls to Advice and Council regarding matters that Management in the call center were hostile with regarding me. None of this was subpoena for this case. It was a serious matter and I was told something would be done. performance evaluations.
N. I have been denied that right. Slay have presented evidence and Statutes and Regulations that reinforce my argument. -14- . has no evidence. Its argument is based on hearsay by those individuals cited.ARGUMENT This case needed to go to a Trial Jury.A. I the Plaintiff – Appellant Roy A. The Defendant – Appellee Bank Of America.
CONCLUSION The forgoing motion should be granted per the Federal and State of Rhode Island Statutes and Regulations. Respectfully Submitted. Pro se. RI.Slay 131 Canonicus Street Tiverton. Roy A. 02878 TEL: (401) 636-1371 -15- .
Pro se. RI. contains 2.P. 2011. I hereby certify that this brief complies with the type-volume limitation in Rule 32(a)(7)(B). day of July.32 (a)(7)(B)(iii). R.CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Pursuant to Rule 32(a)(7)(C) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. as counted by Microsoft Word 2010. this 14th. Slay 131 Canonicus Street Tiverton. This brief. App. The foregoing brief is presented in proportionally-spaced font typeface using Microsoft Word 2010 in 14-point Times New Roman font. excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Fed. Roy A. 02878 TEL: (401) 636-1371 .990 words.
2011. Bank of America N. Turcotte &Barbara V.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Re: Roy A. has been forwarded via overnight mail.: 11-1332 I hereby certify that I the Plaintiff – Appellant Roy A. I further certify that a copy of the Brief. Parker 111 Huntington Avenue Boston. Roy A. Pro se. 02199 this 14th. postage prepaid. United States Court Of Appeals For the First Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. MA. to: EDWARD ANGELL PALMER & DODGE LLP c/o Caroline F. Slay filed the Brief with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit by overnight mail. RI. 11-1332. day of July. 02878 TEL: (401) 636-1371 . Slay v.A. Appeals Case No.G. Slay 131 Canonicus Street Tiverton.

References: v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1291
 § 1331
 § 28
 § 28
 § 28
 § 28
 § 11
 § 2087
 § 1513
 § 11
 § 11
 § 11
 § 11
 § 19
 § 19
 § 28
 § 28
 § 28
 § 28
 § 28
 v. 
 § 19
 § 19
 § 28
 § 28
 § 28
 § 28
 § 2087
 § 19
 § 1513
 § 11
 § 11
 § 11
 § 28
 § 19
 v. 
 v.