No. 19-260

Candice Lue v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al.

Lower Court: Second Circuit
Docketed: 2019-08-28
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: 42-usc-1981 civil-rights civil-rights-act eeoc eeoc-charge employment-discrimination racial-discrimination racial-retaliation retaliation section-1981 title-vii workplace-harassment
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity DueProcess EmploymentDiscrimina
Latest Conference: 2019-10-11
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Do Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 protect a Black employee from retaliation for taking a stance against being stereotypically and disparately treated as the 'help/house slave' for the non-Black team members of JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s Asset Management Counterparty Risk Group and for filing a charge reporting the said discrimination and retaliation to the EEOC?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

question presented is: Did the District Court abuse its discretion in granting Defendants’ JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al’s August 1, 2017 Letter Motion to arbitrarily strike my issued Subpoena and all my (including my Affidavits and Exhibits) to their Motion for Summary Judgment to dismiss my Employment Racial Discrimination and Retaliation lawsuit against them with prejudice without a valid and/or legal explanation and without convening a hearing for me to argue against the said motion? 3 Under 18 U.S.C. § 1621 Whoever in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe ii to be true is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. The question presented is: Did six (6) of the eight (8) for whom overwhelming proof was provided that they lied in their 28 U.S. Code §1746 Declarations commit the crime of perjury? 4 Under 18 U.S.C. § 1505 Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so shall be fined under this title/imprisoned not more than 5 years The question presented is: Did JPMorgan Chase obstruct justice by using three of its 28 U.S. Code §1746 to lie on their behalf under penalty of perjury? . iii

Docket Entries

2019-10-15
Petition DENIED.
2019-09-18
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2019.
2019-09-13
Waiver of right of respondents JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al. to respond filed.
2019-07-17
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 27, 2019)

Attorneys

Candice Lue
Candice Lue — Petitioner
Candice Lue — Petitioner
JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al.
Robert S. WhitmanSeyfarth Shaw LLP, Respondent
Robert S. WhitmanSeyfarth Shaw LLP, Respondent