Somebody asked me, in the context of the extraterritorial Title VII case going on, why it has been stretched out for so long? The events were in 2008, and so, in a number of months, we are coming up on four years.
Well, it isn’t me.
When I first officially raised the issue in October 2008, there was no response. My notarized charge went as a follow-up to the New York office of EEO in November 2008. The response that came from IBM headquarters was in late February 2009. It said, basically, no answer—because they felt Title VII did not apply.
The EEO then spent months and months on this issue. Even though, as regular readers know, it’s the Tangoods example from this link. I don’t know why that all took another year to nail down, but by then we were in 2010.
I feel, when the EEO finally got to putting it to IBM to answer, they could have had a turnaround in a week or two. Instead, it was another several months–until mid-September 2010. Finally, in November 2010, I got the “unable to determine” notice, the so-called “Notice of Rights”. The issue of mistake (that is, unilateral mistake and, therefore, breach) wasn’t part of the determination.
I sent several e-mails to the IBM HQ, during the winter, which were not responded to.
Finally, when the complaint was on its way, I got a message from Paul Hastings.
Now, if you look at all this, this is stuff that could be taken care of inside of six months. We live in a high-technology world compared to the 1970’s. So communication is by-and-large instantaneous.
I get the sense, though, that the other side has dragged it out on purpose. But for what purpose? Because, if as they say, there is no claim, I would think you’d want that wrapped up sooner rather than later. “There is no claim, and let’s take years to resolve it!” doesn’t make sense to me. Does it to you?
We are going through this step now, in regard to the dismissal and objection (opposition) memoranda. You would think that if a 12(b) dismissal has been raised, and the opposition is already filed, the next thing would be a letter from the other side, telling the judge “no reply brief” and putting the thing in the hopper.
I have a feeling though, that even though the opposition papers are in seven weeks early, the reply brief is still going to wait until January (2012).
Remember, in a “sei sha’in”, or regular employment relationship in Japan, the paycheck meter keeps running. This means, every month is another 1,000,000 yen. Of course, I am going to ask for this, even if it means the employment had been for ten months, and the waiting for thirty-six.
I don’t see why resolving the matter should take so long. So there you have why.
Hoofin 