Gender-discrimination

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In this case the petitioner whom is of female gender and a Citizen of the United States of America was terminated from her employment as a correction officer for being in contact with a former inmate while off duty and failure to cooperate. during an investigation while several correction officer’s whom are of male gender have had contact with former inmates while off duty have maintained employment. The questions presented to this Court are to reassess the need for change in the current federal law, state law, case law in relation to filing timely, whether the respondents abused the motion for reconsideration process and. respondent’s protection under claim preclusion. Should there be no change in these laws then discrimination eradication is nonexistent. The outcome of this case does not only affect the petitioner whom has been and continues to be a victim of gender discrimination; it affects all United States of America Citizens whom are victims of discrimination in all facets ie: race, religion etc...across this Country. The questions presented are: To clarify the validity of the right-to-sue letter issued to the petitioner from the EEOC. To clarify if the US District Court Worcester, Massachusetts appropriately approved the respondents motion for reconsideration when they presented Morris v. Gov't Bank of Puerto Rico, 27 F.3d 746 (1+ Cir. 1994). ‘ To clarify the need for the Federal Case Law change of Morris v. Gov't Bank of Puerto Rico, 27 F.3d 746 (1st Cir. 1994). To clarify the need for Massachusetts State Law change in Mass. Gen. Law Chapter 151 B Section9. To clarify if the respondents are protected under claim preclusion. . PARTIES TO THE PETITION The parties involved in the proceedings were the Petitioner Melissa Poirier, Pro Se and Respondent Massachusetts Department of Correction whom was and is represented by Attorney Daniel G. Cromack, Assistant Attorney General. : iii