I have just been so remiss~!

So effen remiss in updating this blog the last couple days, and again, to my regular readers, I am very sorry. I know your numbers might be no more than several dozen, and mostly in Japan; but, I do appreciate that you check me out online.

What happened over the past week is that International Business Machines in America—and this would be through the person of Julie London, Esq.—finally gave something more like a substantive response to an administrative charge that I filed close to two years ago. The filing was with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and so the Commission, through the investigator, asked that I respond by September 24.

I had already done a lot of the legwork on any potential rebuttal, so I spent the last 72 hours putting it together and getting it out. There may still be questions and issues, but I don’t take 22 months to respond to the U.S. Government. Not even 22 days . . .

It turns out that IBM USA did not have anything new to say than what it would have said 22 months ago. So the intervening time has just been dilatory, stalling. A waste.

I try to explain Japanese law to the best of my ability. I am only an attorney in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, not here. But there is plenty of translation and commentary about it available from authoritative sources through the internet. A U.S. federal judge, applying Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 44.1, would use the same resources, among others.

The thing that disappoints, and grates a bit, is that I can get back easily within 22 days, but I have the feeling the Commission is going to allow IBM another 22 months to respond to the rebuttal points. They control the investigation. I don’t.

But you’d think that two years’ worth of delaying tactics would indicate something, and the government would move fast to put relief in place.