Synopsis of my case: Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment 2

In the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia

Alexandria Division

MONA CHU, )

)

Plaintiff in Pro se )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 1:15cv01375

)

UNITED STATES )

PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, )

Under Secretary and Director ) Jury Trail Demanded

Michelle K. Lee )

) Jan. 25, 2015

Defendant )

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment

Plaintiff, Mona Chu appearing PRO SE, hereby files Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgement prior to Discovery [FRCP Rule 56 (d) (1)(2)] would be improper and premature as there are still clear issues of fact which preclude a proper summary judgment or dismissal at this time.

Defendants’ Motion must be denied because there are genuine material facts in dispute and Defendants are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. As discuss below - Plaintiff’s Rebuttal to Defendant’s Memorandum and in the Complaint, the Defendant submits that the motion is not supported by facts or law and should therefore be denied.

Plaintiff here Motion to move to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Title V: Disclosures and Discovery.

As a Pro Se, Ms. Chu, while suffering from PTSD, in her limited capacity, will limit in quoting law case history as the Judge and all the Defendant attorneys are well verse in such. A dilettante such as Ms. Chu should not make a fool out of herself in front of the professionals.

RESPONSE TO: Notice of Appearance

No offense to the United States Attorney-Eastern District of Virginia, but shouldn’t the United States Attorney-Eastern District of Virginia excuse themselves from this case for fear of conflict of interest, since the Plaintiff filed the civil case with the Eastern District of Virginia? As a none-legal professional, common sense said there is a conflict of interest.

OBJECTION TO: Motion to Dismiss and for summary judgement

For the following reasons:

This case has not been through the fact-finding process of - Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Title V. DISCLOSURES AND DISCOVERY.
According to FRCP Rule 56 (d) When Facts Are Unavailable to the Nonmovant. If a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may:

1) Defer considering the motion or deny it;

2) Allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery;

Nearly all Defendants’ purported material facts had been refuted as shown below - Rebuttal to Defendant’s Memorandum and in the Complaint.
There is a genuine issue of material fact to support Ms. Chu’s wrongful termination due to discrimination toward Ms. Chu as a woman and an Asian case where Ms. Chu was terminated under the pretext of low performance as stated in the termination letter (Exhibit 170), when Plaintiff Ms. Chu’s Supervisor Paul Rodriguez admitted in his email to Director Garber “production was not the basis of the decision” (Exhibit 140 page 620), where Director Garber also said “Just because she's smarter than you doesn't mean she should be retained. :-)” (Exhibit 140). The termination was the resulted of 9 months of careful planning by Paul Rodriguez, as Ms. Chu shown in her Complaint and in this Opposition, when Ms. Chu had an apodictic first patent case that was known to many supervisors as well the then Undersecretary Mr. David Kappos; using every dirty tactic to undermine Ms. Chu’s performance from the get-go by Paul Rodriguez due to his discrimination toward Ms. Chu as a woman and as an Asian/Chinese that excelled in the job. Despite working in such hostile environment, Ms. Chu still met every stringent requirement (DEX DOC 12-1 page19 ¶50) by working nearly 24/7 as evidenced by her computer log time.

The low performance was just a pretext to terminate Ms. Chu as the real reason was discrimination toward Ms. Chu as a woman and an Asian/Chinese. There was no requirement for Probationary Employee as stated in Paul Rodrigues’ Affidavit (DEX DOC 12-1 page 17 ¶35) and Director Garber’s Affidavit (DEX DOC 12-1 page 132 ¶31) “…. she does not have a production requirement”. Additionally, in Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Summary Judgement [“Def Motion to DaSJ”] DOC 12 page 20 ¶2 “Standard productivity expectations for GS-9 examiners in Plaintiff’s technical field were two cases per bi-week, and three in simpler field such as GUI”. These requirements are for exempt employees, not probationary employees such as Ms. Chu. Yet both Paul Rodriguez and Director Garber demanded that Ms. Chu do 3 cases per biweek for Class 703 as well Class 715 GUI. So why such stringent requirements for Ms. Chu but not from her peers? Obviously, it is due to discrimination toward Ms. Chu as a woman and an Asian/Chinese that excelled in the job, and had already intended to set Ms. Chu for termination from the get-go. Additionally, Ms. Chu did meet the stringent requirements as indicated by Paul Rodriguez’s Affidavit (DEX DOC 12-1 page19 ¶50) that Ms. Chu’s production reports were as follows:

June 7- 3 cases per bi-week. (First pay period after the June02 meeting, a total of 5 days to finish 3 COPA cases)

June 22 - 3 cases per bi-week.

Ms. Chu’s Productivity was at 119% and 103% for this period (DEX Doc 12-1 page 288).

Ms. Chu had proven she not only could do the job, but excelled with an apodictic first patent case that was known to many Training SPE as well the then Undersecretary Mr. David Kappo; Ms. Chu may be the first woman to hold such honor for Patent Class 703, as well the USPTO.

None of the AU2123 or sister unit AU2128 patent examiner had any industry experience in Class 703’s Emulation; nor the replacement to replace Ms. Chu after her wrongful termination due to discriminations, or even comparable to Ms. Chu qualification of extensive industry experience in the Patent Class 703. Ms. Chu has a Master’s degree in EE, was an Electrical Engineering Adjunct as well as an Applied Physics researcher with published paper (Exhibit 120); in addition to all the outstanding accomplishments Ms. Chu have throughout her career. Ms. Chu was one of the few people in the world that uniquely qualified for this Patent Class 703 with her industry experiences as a pioneer in the Emulation field. Neither Paul Rodriguez nor Director Garber had any technical training. But both of them are in management nevertheless while the infamous USPTO’s Patent backlog continues to plague the USPTO, the High Tech industry, as well US’s economy.

There is also a matter of whether Paul Rodriguez and Director Garber ignored President Obama’s mandate to clear the infamous Patent backlog that’s been around for over a decade, in term plaguing the innovations in America, that leads to harming economic progress; by terminated women and/or minorities that excelled in the job such as Ms. Chu; and as such, Patent Class 703 been problematic due to mismanagement.

As to the Defendant’s accusation “seek relief for actions taken after the of Plaintiff’s tenure…” Ms. Chu had followed the law and procedure to file the case with the EEOC first and gained permission to file a Federal case with the Civil Court (Exhibit 110). It took about 4 years to go through the EEOC process to get to this point, while Ms. Chu couldn’t work due to PTSD as the resulted of Defendant USPTO’s hostile working environment and treatment, as well defamation that instigated in the USPTO where it followed Ms. Chu wherever she goes, aka trolling in similar fashion as Washington Post journalists has been troll (Exhibit 330), except Ms. Chu is being trolling in real life and is more deadly that resulted in 2 failed attempt beheadings on her (Exhibit 150) that worsen her PTSD. And at age 53, Ms. Chu is too old to go back to work at this point while suffering from PTSD. The Defendant USPTO, using all their influence and power, supported by their army of lawyers, had rendered a highly productive woman to homeless as a way to keep Asian women down.

As shown further below - Plaintiff’s Rebuttal to Defendant’s Memorandum, however, Defendant United States Patent and Trademark Office’s [USPTO] motion does not meet the standards set by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure [FRCP] 12(b) (6) or FRCP Rule 56 for a dismissal or summary judgement for failure to state a claim. By and large, Defendant USPTO’s strategy in this motion is to use sophistries, misleading information, out-of-context statements, and purported as material facts to make their point; which Ms. Chu had fully refuted with genuine facts below. Additionally, Defendants had provided misleading to falsify evidence on the probationary employees Employee A-F. The Defendant should be found in contempt of court should such be the case. It is especially shameful the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s army of attorneys, including the United States Attorney-Eastern District of Virginia resort to such dirty tactic. How are you different from Iran or North Korea? Therefore, it is necessary to move to Discovery to gather the material facts; as well a Jury Trial to ensure justice is served. If there should be a summary judgement, the only just is to rule in Plaintiff’s favor.

Rebuttal to: Defendant’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgement [“Rebuttal to Defendant’s Memorandum”]

REBUTTAL To: Introduction

In regard to Defendant the United States Patent and Trademark Office [USPTO, Agency]’s quoting MSPB and EEOC decisions as a reference, MSPB indicated Ms. Chu’s case was DISMISSED for lack of Board jurisdiction (DEX 26 Doc 12-1 page 298) as Ms. Chu was a Probationary Employee. Any legal professional worth his/her salt should know this. The USPTO deliberately directed Ms. Chu to the MSPB such she would miss the deadline to file her wrongful termination due to discrimination case with the EEOC, then influence the EEOC to rule in the USPTO’s favor. In additional to tried to stop Ms. Chu from collecting Unemployment Insurance (UI) from the Employment Compensation Commission (Exhibit 270); despite USPTO couldn’t provide any prove, the Employment Compensation Commission stopped Ms. Chu’ s UI nevertheless cited a specious reason. Ms. Chu also couldn’t collect Food stamp, Medicaid/Medicare, or any government assistance that applied on Ms. Chu’s behalf by the Hospital and the Social Service, due to the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s influence. The USPTO also put Ms. Chu on their “do not hire back” list to ensure Ms. Chu can NOT secure a job, while the defamation of Ms. Chu instigated in USPTO the first month on the job been promulgated everywhere she went, especially in the DC metro, that resulted in sexual harassment, abuses, can’t secure a job, as well physical harm and rape threats; and now 2 failed attempt beheadings on her that was meant to kill her to make this lawsuit go away. Ms. Chu is still suffering from PTSD as the resulted.

One should feel sad and ashamed that the EEOC had been a kangaroo court, and made the mockery out of America’s judicial system. Any legal professional has any respect for America’s judicial system should feel insulted. Instead of upholding the laws, these courts chose to abuse their power and helped to suppress women in the Technical field. As such flagrant miscarriage of justice, Ms. Chu has been taken her fight to social medias such as blog, twitter, Washington Post, etc. and will continue to take this fight to the Supreme Court if needs be, to ensure women get equal rights and equal opportunities in the STEM field/Silicon Valley/Tech industry. If she failed, women from behind will continue the fight, and Ms. Chu will be there to help.

Pro Se Ms. Chu had demanded a Trial by a Jury of one’s peers, as guarantee by the United States Constitution for every American citizen.

The USPTO’s army of attorneys instead of presenting their legal argument in good faith, they resulted to dirty tactics such as taken text out of context, provided misleading evidence and sophistries such as in this Defendant’s Exhibit [DEX] 17-18, where Ms. Chu pointed out and disproved fully in this email exchange (Exhibit 250), as well disproved every sophistries and purport claims of DEX 17-18 in Plaintiff’s Exhibit 260. USPTO ran the clock out and refused to provide the requested documents during EEOC Discovery as displayed in above email exchange (Exhibit 250) between the USPTO’s army of attorneys and Plaintiff Ms. Chu. This is a very typical dirty practiced by the USPTO to make the “most damaging revelation disappeared” as noted by this Washington Post article (Exhibit 290).

USPTO then hasted EEOC AJ to make a Summary Judgement against Plaintiff Ms. Chu when she Motion to Compel the Defendant for the requested documents. It was obvious that the Defendant gave false and misleading evidence had the Defendant USPTO provided necessary documents as requested in the email (Exhibit 250), and would have found in contempt of court. The Defendant USPTO is still using the same dirty tactics in this Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Summary Judgement [“Def Motion to DaSJ”] which Ms. Chu will show with material facts below. And again the Defendant further making the mockery of the whole judicial field; while Ms. Chu conducted in good faith and with utmost respect for our judicial system. The most shameful part was the EEOC AJ Nancy Graham in her final judgement somehow came up with “constructive discharge” that Ms. Chu had never claimed or implied in anyway, and ruled against Ms. Chu despite overwhelming evidence to support Ms. Chu’s case,. AJ cited Ms. Chu resigned when clearly Ms. Chu was terminated with a termination letter (Exhibit 100: termination letter) and affidavits from all management sworn Ms. Chu did not resign (Exhibit H8 ¶6, H9 ¶9, H10 page 4 ¶7).

All these AJs knew Ms. Chu was NOT in any way a legal professional as indicative from her pleadings, yet they went out of their way to find a pretext (“constructive discharge”) to rule against her as if they were the Defendant’s attorney; despite all the overwhelming evidence to support Ms. Chu was terminated, wrongfully. This is America’s justice? These courts are no different than Iran and North Korea court toward women and foreigners such as Americans. No wonder so many sought to do their own justice, some used guns, others joined Islamic Extremists/ISIS, also gave rise to “Black Live Matter” movement, as flaw as their thinking had been. This is why Ms. Chu chose to have a jury trial.

Defendant’s Def Motion to DaSJ Doc 12 page 15 claimed “The EEOC AJ concluded that Plaintiff voluntarily resigned….., “, despite Plaintiff Mona Chu stated over and over in the EEOC pleadings that Ms. Chu DID NOT VOLUNTARY RESIGN in her EEOC responses, nor had Ms. Chu ever utter the word RESIGN at any time at the last week of her employment with the USPTO. As a matter of fact, Ms. Chu had exhausted all remedies to remain employed as stated in her Complaint. Ms. Chu had provided the following overwhelming evidences repeatedly to disprove of the accusation of “voluntary resign”:

1. A termination signed by Director Garber Exhibit 100.

2. Affidavits from all management sworn Ms. Chu did not resign, Exhibit H8, H9, H10.

a. In Exhibit H9 ¶9, Mr. Paul Rodrigues indicated ““Ms. Chu am not personally aware of the circumstances under which Ms. Chu tendered her resignation……Ms. Chu did not resign at the time. Ms. Chu did not resign to, or in front of Ms. Chu”. Exhibit H9 ¶5 “my role with respect to Ms.Chu’s termination.......Ms. Chu recommended to Ms. Garber that Ms. Chu be terminated from employment …..”.

b. In Exhibit H10 ¶6, Director Garber stated “Ms. Chu terminated Ms. Chu’s employment ……”, Exhibit H10 ¶7 “ Ms. Chu did not resign to, or in front of Ms. Chu”.

c. In Exhibit H8 ¶6, Jessica Patterson an Employee Relations (ER) Specialist indicated “Ms. Chu have no recollection of Ms. Chu resigning to Ms. Chu….Ms. Chu telework from my residence on Friday. Ms. Chu have no record that Ms. Chu worked at the Agency’s Alexandria…”. ¶7 “none of the Human Resource Specialists has any specific recollection of Ms. Chu’s resignation”

3. Even a government entity, the Virginia Employment Commission, admitted Ms. Chu was terminated and granted Unemployment Compensation when the Defendant USPTO failed to provide proves (Exhibit 270), but still managed to stop the Virginia Employment Commission from giving Ms. Chu Unemployment Compensation. This is obviously the doing of the USPTO in retaliation against Ms. Chu for filing an EEOC.

4. Additionally, in Defendant’s Def Motion to DaSJ Doc 12, page 12 shows the Plaintiff HAD NEVER MENTION RESIGN:

a. In the August 11 meeting, Ms. Garber told Complainant that she had the option to resign in lieu of termination and told her to call Jessica Patterson, an Employee Relations Specialist, if she had any questions. (Ex. 1 – Chu Dep. at 112-13.) Complainant did not ask Ms. Garber and Mr. Rodriguez any questions about the option of resigning, and they had no further communications with her. (Id.)

b. Complainant gave the SF-52 Form to an employee in the Office of Compensation and Benefits, and did not discuss her decision to resign with anyone at THE USPTO. DEX 4 at 114-19.

5. Ms. Chu also explained in detail that she DID NOT resigned in her Deposition DEX page 96-97.

The Defendant’s weak claim of “voluntarily resign” had been fully and completely disproved.

In response to Agency’s “Plaintiff cannot identify any similarly-situated comparators outside of her protected class who were treated more favorably”. Not only Ms. Chu’s Complaint provided with overwhelming evidenced in her Complaint proven that was treated with an adverse employment action, from stringent requirements, unreasonable demands, to deliberately put difficult and complex patent cases that’s been around for over a decade because no one understood the patent to ensure the Plaintiff Mona Chu could not meet the stringent requirement to give a reason for termination, but Ms. Chu did meet the requirement by working nearly 24/7 and will show below further of the disparate treatment toward Ms. Chu that ended with an adverse employment action. Even the Washington Post aware that the USPTO treats male patent examiners favorably such as this male examiner (Exhibit 300) “turned in work that was garbage……a poor performer for years who was never disciplined, came and went as he pleased”. “He frequently told colleagues he was leaving work to go to the local golf driving range, play poor or grab a beer – then claimed a full day on his time sheet” etc.

If Ms. Chu is a male, she would not have been terminated in such haste without any regard.

In Director Garber’s Affidavits for June 02 meeting (DEX Doc 12-1 page 133 ¶1), she demanded “The first pay period you fail to meet this requirement will likely be your last pay period” meaning Ms. Chu must do 3 cases per biweek by June 07, the first pay period after the meeting, otherwise Ms. Chu will be terminated. Ms. Chu did meet the stringent requirements as indicated by Paul Rodriguez Affidavit (DEX DOC 12-1 page19 ¶50) that Ms. Chu’s production reports were as follows:

June 7- 3 cases per bi-week. (First pay period after the June02 meeting, a total of 5 days to finish 3 COPA cases)

June 22 - 3 cases per bi-week.

Ms. Chu’s Productivity was at 119% and 103% for this period (DEX Doc 12-1 page 288).

As for the beheadings (Exhibit 150), the only people shown such hatreds toward Ms. Chu are the people working in the Patent and Trademark Office [USPTO] since the first month Ms. Chu started her job, and instigated by Tuan Nguyen and his countrymen/women, who I had never met in my life. It is also known as trolling (Exhibit 330) and there are many reports. Ms. Chu is from NYC and moved to the DC metro for this job. Ms. Chu doesn’t know anyone in the DC metro and rarely leave her room since the wrongful termination as Ms. Chu has been suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder [PTSD] as the resulted of hostile working environment and the wrongful termination by the USPTO; as Ms. Chu knew the people from USPTO are out to harm her which Ms. Chu stated in her Complaint. The perpetrator specifically targeted Ms. Chu to cut her throat in an attempt to behead Ms. Chu (see pic in Exhibit 150). This was report to the Arlington Police/Detective; finger prints and forensics is aiding the police to find the perpetrators.

In short, the Plaintiff had already establish a prima facie case of discrimination in her COMPLAINT, what the Defendant did in their Def Motion to DaSJ has been taken text out of context and sophistries as always, as Ms. Chu will prove with genuine material facts. Therefore, motion should be DENIED.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

I. Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss

Defendant UPSTO has filed a Motion to Dismiss based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff opposes the Motion.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint should not be dismissed if “it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 563 (2007). Indeed, “Rule 12(b)(6) motions are viewed with disfavor and are properly granted” only “under extraordinary circumstances.” Yordy v. Astrue, No.1:09-cv-03028-NJV, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14966, *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2010).

A complaint need only allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, “construe the pleading in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and resolve all doubts in the pleader’s favor.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 340 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Deepakkumar Himatlal Soneji v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 525 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1157 (N.D. Cal. 2007). The Court reads the complaint “as a whole, not parsed piece by piece to determine whether each allegation, in isolation, is plausible.” Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009). Moreover, “Twombly and Iqbal do not require that the complaint include all facts necessary to carry the plaintiff’s burden.” Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 580 F.3d 949, 977 (9th Cir. 2009), rev’d on other grounds, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (2011). “Asking for plausible grounds to infer the existence of a claim for relief does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage; it simply calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence to prove that claim.” Id. “If there are two alternative explanations, one advanced by defendant and the other advanced by plaintiff, both of which are plausible, plaintiff’s complaint survives a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).” Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 2101

Plaintiff has been provided ample genuine material facts in her Complaint as well in this Opposition; while as shown below, Defendant had NOT been able to prove their case with purported material facts as refuted fully and completely by Ms. Chu.

II. Rule 56 Motion for Summary Judgement

Defendant UPSTO has filed a Motion for Summary Judgement based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 56. Plaintiff opposes the Motion.

As the party moving for summary judgment, the Defendant bears the burden of showing that there is “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); Versai Mgmt. Corp. v. Clarendon America, 597 F.3d 729, 735-36 (5th Cir. 2010). The non-moving party with the burden of persuasion can overcome summary judgment by showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-249 (1986); QBE Ins. Corp. v. Brown & Mitchell, Inc., 591 F.3d 439, 443 (5th Cir. 2009). This can be accomplished by showing that a reasonable jury could find for either party. Id. Additionally, the court must view all evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp, 475 U.S. 574, 587-588(1986); United Fire & Cas. Co v. Hixson Bros. Inc., 453 F.3d 283, 285 (5th Cir. 2006).

In order to prevail on this motion, Defendant would have to make an affirmative showing that none of the material facts presented by the Plaintiffs could be construed as creating an issue of material fact. In this case, Defendant cannot meet this burden.

REBUTTAL TO: Defendant’s Undisputed Material Facts

I. Background

3. Although Paul Rodriguez did interview Ms. Chu on the phone, but Ms. Chu was NOT hired by him but by Kamini Shah of AU2128 as stated in Defendant’s Def Motion to DaSJ DOC page 7 ¶9. Ms. Chu was transferred into Paul Rodriguez’s AU2123 in April 2011 for diversity purpose, when 5 patent examiners transferred out of Mr. Rodriguez group into AU2122, and a few others such as Randy Shaffer transferred into other groups. Ms. Chu heard it was because Mr. Rodriguez didn’t understand Patent Class 703 technology and created a hostile working environment for them with unreasonable demands. Ms. Chu was in the process of finding out what and why so many patent examiners left Mr. Rodriguez’s group during the EEOC Discovery, when the AJ abruptly accepted the Defendant’s Summary Judgement and ruled in the Defendant’s favor. Of course, Mr. Rodriguez no longer the Supervisor of AU2123 group and relegated to other duty as the resulted wrongfully terminated Ms. Chu. Director Garber also no longer responsible for Patent Class 715 as the resulted of wrongfully terminated Ms. Chu.

8. The Training class mostly consisted of employees from other Art Unit such as GUI (Graphical User Interface) of patent class 715. To compare with other Art Unit would be analogous of comparing apples and oranges. Case in point, in AU2123 of Patent Class 703, one of the patent cases Ms. Chu examined was on an atomic probe which scanned for the atomic shape as well the forces (electromagnetic as well gravitational forces) that broke Quantum Mechanic 101 law – introduced an external element changes the state of specimen under test. (This patent would be the building block of a Transporter from Star Trek if anyone is going to build one, and will.) Compare this to her other Art Unit cases where one, for example, a patent on the collage of icons, their border, the size and shape of the icons, similar to the display on iPhone. Need I say more? As someone like Mr. Rodriguez been a supervisor since March 5, 2006, yet failed to understand the complexity of the patents, what does that say about Mr. Rodriguez's technically background? Ms. Chu, on the other hand, done research in Applied Physic with published paper (ROI page 000028), and extensively industry in this same field as the Patent Class 703 of AU2123 where Ms. Chu led projects (see her resume Exhibit 120). Also resulted in an air-tight first case as Ms. Chu followed the progress of this patent topic - VLIW since 1995.

While in the PTA, Ms. Chu explained every patent Ms. Chu examined in front of the class of 15 including a Primary Simon Ke (Peng Ke), just as Ms. Chu had when Ms. Chu was an EE adjunct in college.

9. Ms. Chu hired by Kamini Shah and had Ms. Shah as her first-line of supervisor from day one, including the time in the PTA. Ms. Shah reviewed Ms. Chu’s Office Action while Ms. Chu was in the PTA, that resulted in an apodictic first patent case that was known to many SPE Trainers, as well the then Undersecretary Mr. David Kappos. Paul Rodriguez was a SPE Trainer for the class which Ms. Chu was in. While reviewing GUI (Patent Class 715) patent cases for the other students, Paul Rodriguez make a comment of “even I can understand this”, Ms. Chu stuck her head out of her cube and nob her head in agreement with Paul Rodriguez. Paul Rodriguez then commented “she knew”. Of course Ms. Chu knew, she was one of the engineers helped built these personal computers in the Silicon Valley. The first-line supervisors of some of the GUI students had to re-do the work Paul Rodriguez did.

Low quality? From Paul Rodriguez, a salesman that never had any technical training? This is why such huge patent backlog for over a decade. Ms. Chu had an apodictic first patent case when she was in AU2128, and Ms. Shah actually understands Patent Class 703 technology. What a breath of fresh air.

10. Ms. Chu was transfer into Paul Rodriguez’s AU2123 in April 2011 for diversity purpose, when 5 patent examiners transferred out of Mr. Rodriguez group into AU2122, and a few others from Paul Rodriguez’s group transferred into other groups. Ms. Chu heard it was because Mr. Rodriguez didn’t understand Patent Class 703 technology and created a hostile working environment for them with unreasonable demands.

11. Ms. Chu was in AU2123 from the end of April/May 2011 to August 12, 2011. Ms. Chu was hired by Ms. Kamini Shah and worked under her from Nov. 2010 to March/April 2011

12. Mr. Rodriguez and Ms. Chu communicated via office action and emails mostly, hardly in person as to avoid insidious defamation that instigated by Tuan Nguyen and his countrymen the first month on the job; such as Paul Rodriguez played favoritism toward women, and only liked to talk and help women; or that good looking woman had it easy because guys like to help them, etc., that promulgated throughout the class; in reference to Ms. Chu talked to Paul about patent cases; to which Ms. Chu had to keep a distance such not to create resentment toward either one of us. If Ms. Chu didn’t stop talking to Paul, the next slander would be to accuse Paul and Ms. Chu having an affair. This type of rumor is very typical when a man and a woman working closely together, particularly so in the Third World culture or in the 1950s.

Paul Rodriguez never provided one-on-one training on Amendments and Allowability. It was the continuation from the PTA (Exhibit 320 page 1). Ms. Chu only met with Mr. Rodriguez about 3-5 times while had him as her SPE. Ms. Chu rarely leaves her office as evidenced by her computer log time. Any time when Mr. Rodriguez wanted to meet Ms. Chu, he would send Ms. Chu an email. Mr. Rodriguez need to provide proves for these meetings he claimed. Additionally, every hour was account for in our time sheet (bathroom break was the only exception), including trainings.

13. Jason Procter substitute for Mr. Rodriguez when Mr. Rodriguez was away/vocation, mainly to review AU2128 examiners’ work, not just Ms. Chu’s work. Jason Procter and Dwin Criag were primaries for AU2128, and so function as such. They were not specifically assigned to help Ms. Chu. As a Primary, their job function was to help all examiners in that particular group. As for Primary Simon Ke, who was a Primary for Patent Class 715, when Ms. Chu asked Simon (aka Peng Ke) for help as Ms. Chu was new to this Patent Class 715 GUI; Mr. Rodrigues stopped Ms. Chu and cited a specious excuse (Exhibit 310) even though Simon was assigned to help Ms. Chu.

15. This Six-Month Evaluation was on June 02, 2011 (DEX 2 Doc 12-1 page 20 ¶45) with Director Garber, as Ms. Chu started her job in Nov. 2010. But Mr. Rodriguez initiated the meeting in May 2011 (Exhibit 320 page 2), a month after Ms. Chu had Paul Rodriguez as her first-line supervisor where she encounter production issues as Paul Rodriguez wanted things done differently, unpredictable and rejected Ms. Chu Office Action for specious reasons.

Ms. Chu transferred into Paul Rodriguez’s AU2123 in April 2011. From Nov. 2010 to March/April 2011, Kamini Shah had been her first-line Supervisor, which also resulted in an apodictic first patent case that was known to many, included Mr. David Kappo - UNDER SECRETARY PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. Most of the patent cases Ms. Chu finish were done with Supervisor Kamini Shah at this point with AU2128’s signature in those patent cases, a total of 8 office actions according to Defendants Def Motion to DaSJ page 8 ¶15. So, basically, Ms. Chu was in Paul Rodriguez’s group for about a month when Paul Rodriguez already decided to terminate Ms. Chu because Ms. Chu is a woman and an Asian. Everything he did after were to ensure Ms. Chu won’t be able to get anything done such to set Ms. Chu up for termination. It is obvious that he would give negative opinions. But don’t confuse opinion with facts; you are entitled to your opinions but not material facts.

Defendant’s references DEX 4 at 78-79 or DEX 10 did not indicate the six-month evaluation was on May 12, 2011. These are bogus references.

REBUTTAL TO: D. Meeting on June 2, 2011 and Plaintiff’s Transition to GUI Application.

16. Emails between Ms. Garber and Mr. Rodriguez on the 6^th month review indicated it was just a typical review where Wendy said “Are we giving her a pep talk or “do work or else” talk?”(Exhibit 320 page 2). Sounds like a good cop bad cop squeeze tactic (Ms. Chu used to run multimillion dollars Emulation projects).

For some reason, Director Garber was surprised that Ms. Chu was able to speak English as if Ms. Chu had just arrived in America. Obviously, she was aware that Ms. Chu is not White, and is a woman and an Asian. Ms. Chu grew up in NYC and did most of the talking during the meeting.

18. In Director Garber’s Affidavits for this June 02 meeting (DEX Doc 12-1 page 133 ¶1), she demanded “The first pay period you fail to meet this requirement will likely be your last pay period” meaning Ms. Chu must do 3 cases per biweek by June 07, the first pay period after the meeting, otherwise Ms. Chu will be terminated. Ms. Chu did meet the stringent requirements as indicated by Paul Rodriguez Affidavit (DEX DOC 12-1 page19 ¶50) that Ms. Chu’s production reports were as follows:

June 7- 3 cases per bi-week. (First pay period after the June02 meeting, a total of 5 days to finish 3 COPA cases)

June 22 - 3 cases per bi-week.

Ms. Chu’s Productivity was at 119% and 103% for this period (DEX Doc 12-1 page 288).

After Ms. Chu met the 3 case per biweek in June 7, Paul Rodriguez and his co-conspirator Kieu Vu proceeded to put the most complex and difficult COPA patent cases that’s been around for over a decade because no one was able to understand the patent, such to ensure Ms. Chu couldn’t meet the stringent requirement (Exhibit 160) and terminated, because Ms. Chu is a woman and an Asian/Chinese. Nevertheless, Ms. Chu did meet the 3 cases per biweek again in June 22 (DEX DOC 12-1 page19 ¶50).

After that, Mr. Rodriguez hastened Ms. Chu’s termination (Exhibit 200) before her 1 year probationary period is over on Nov, 9, 2011, by making every effort to make her job difficult from confined to use only Agency’s EAST tool to not allowed helps from Simon Ke (Exhibit 220), to demand Ms. Chu to add 2-3 more references to each patent case (Exhibit 220 page 395), in addition to the already difficult and complex COPA cases in Ms. Chu’s docket (Exhibit 160).

When that didn’t work, in July, 2011, Mr. Rodriguez asked Ms. Chu to re-do a case that’s already accepted for credit and refused to accept anything from Ms. Chu (Exhibit 220), (DEX Doc 12-1 page 91-92) to justify his termination of Ms. Chu as indicated in their July 27-28 email (Exhibit 200 & 220) which already decided to terminate Ms. Chu.

Ms. Chu had given a biweekly account from June02 meeting on how Mr. Rodriguez and his co-conspirators did everything they could to ensure Ms. Chu’s termination in Exhibit 340 page 8-12 and DEX Doc 12-1 page 91-92. Also a discussion on the politic of patent examining in DEX 91-94

Ms. Chu had proven she’s not only can do the job, but excelled with an apodictic first patent case that was known to many Training SPE as well the then Undersecretary Mr. David Kappo; Ms. Chu may be the first woman to hold such honor for Patent Class 703, as well the USPTO.

Furthermore, Ms. Chu was still using antediluvian computer hardware (Pentium 4 CPU!!) and software (no intelligent in the search engine whatsoever, as dumb as a rock!!) from the Stone Age to do her job as a Patent Examiner. It was just simply cruel and unusual punishment for someone like Ms. Chu from the Silicon Valley where she used the most advance computing technology. Additionally, Ms. Chu had Amendment training with the PTA, and focused on Amended cases for the first time, that Rodriguez, or Primaries Dwin and Jason wasn’t helpful as shown in those emails.

Also, Director Garber DID NOT says “The first pay period you fail to meet this requirement will likely be your last pay period” to Ms. Chu at that meeting nor at any time after, she lied under oath. Ms. Garber said this in her affidavits to justify the unjust termination of Ms. Chu because the real reason has been discriminations toward Ms. Chu as an Asian/Chinese and a female whom she deem as smart, “Just because she's smarter than you doesn't mean she should be retained. :-)” (Exhibit 140 page 1 of 1). Also, according to supervisor Paul Rodriguez in his email to Director Garber “production was not the basis of the decision” (Exhibit 140) referring to the reason for her termination; because the real reason was discrimination toward Mona Chu as a woman and an Asian/Chinese.

Furthermore, there was no requirement for Probationary Employee as stated in Paul Rodrigues’ Affidavit (DEX DOC 12-1 page 17 ¶35) and Director Garber’s Affidavit (DEX DOC 12-1 page 132 ¶31) “…. she does not have a production requirement”. In Defendant’s DEF MOTION TO DASJ DOC 12 page 20 ¶2 “Standard productivity expectations for GS-9 examiners in Plaintiff’s technical field were two cases per bi-week, and three in simpler field such as GUI”. These requirements are for exempt employees, not probationary employees. But both Paul Rodriguez and Director Garber demanded that Ms. Chu do 3 cases per biweek for Class 703 as well Class 715 GUI. So why such stringent requirements for Ms. Chu? Obviously is due to discrimination toward Ms. Chu as a woman and an Asian/Chinese that excelled in the job.

From April to July 27, 2011, that’s 4 months after Ms. Chu transferred into Paul Rodriguez AU2123, where Paul Rodriguez and his co-conspirators did everything they could to set up Ms. Chu to be terminated in August 12, 2010 because Ms. Chu is a woman and an Asian that excelled in the job.

19. Ms. Chu doesn’t see “great job” being mention in DEX 4 at 91-94. Often, when Ms. Chu had to say something negative, she always said something nice first such as “I love you to death, but…..” as a diplomatic way not to hurt anyone’s feeling.

21. And Paul Rodriguez and his co-conspirators did everything they could such Ms. Chu couldn’t do her job Exhibit 340 page 8-12 and DEX Doc 12-1 page 91-92. It was hellish.

22. Ms. Chu had given a full biweekly account from June02 meeting on how Mr. Rodriguez and his co-conspirators did everything they could to ensure Ms. Chu’s termination in Exhibit 340 page 8-12.

REBUTTAL TO: E. Plaintiff’s Eight-Month Evaluation on July 19, 2011

23. - 24. Paul Rodriguez and his co-conspirators did everything they could such Ms. Chu couldn’t do her job Exhibit 340 page 8-12 and DEX Doc 12-1 page 91-92 and was ready to termination Ms. Chu. It was hellish.

REBUTTAL TO: F. Notice of Termination on August 11, 2011

25. Paul Rodriguez and his co-conspirators did everything they could such Ms. Chu couldn’t do her job Exhibit 340 page 8-12, Exhibit 220, DEX Doc 12-1 page 91-92 to justify his termination of Ms. Chu as indicated in their July 27-28 email (Exhibit 200 & 220) which already decided to terminate Ms. Chu.

26. -28. Ms. Chu was one of the few people in the world that uniquely qualified for this Patent Class 703 position with extensive industry experiences in this patent class 703, as well an pioneer in the Emulation field where she was a project lead and tech lead (http://www.deepchip.com/posts/0343.html#06); and was the first person able to complete one of the most complex Emulation project in Chip design process on time and within budget. None of the Patent Examiners in Patent Class 703 has emulation industry experience at the time when Ms. Chu was there. Ms. Chu has a history of outstanding accomplishments. Ms. Chu also has a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering (EE), was an EE adjunct as well an Applied Physics researcher with published paper (Exhibit 120). Neither Director Garber nor Paul Rodriguez, who was a salesman, has any technical training. Director Garber was from Chemical Art. Additionally, the people hired to replace Ms. Chu did not have the qualification Ms. Chu has.

29. Director Garber said in her affidavits that she had never given Ms. Chu the option of resign. Here she said she did. She continues to mislead to outright lies in her testamentary. Ms. Chu had given detail description on August 11, 2011 in her Complaint page 21. Ms. Chu had never uttered the word “word”.

REBUTTAL TO: G. Plaintiff Resignation on August 12, 2011

30. Ms. Chu had never uttered the word “resign” during her tenure in the USPTO. Ms. Chu did NOT utter the word “resign” during her last week of employment with the USPTO. Ms. Chu is not a legal professional. For a layman, the word “resign” means separation of company. SF-52 was amount a pile of papers Ms. Chu had to sign in order to get her last paycheck. No one had ever told Ms. Chu that SF-52 was in anyway a resignation letter. Ms. Chu believed it was just part of existing paper work Ms. Chu had to follow in order to get her last paycheck; as threatened by the USPTO’s termination letter (Exhibit 100 last page) “You are required to report to the Compensation and Benefits Division in the Office of Human Resources to complete the necessary paperwork for out-processing…..Unless you complete these requirements, you may not receive your final salary payment.” SF-52 was a form given to Ms. Chu by the Defendant to sign, therefore, it is obvious that the Defendant was setting Ms. Chu up for termination, and then says Ms. Chu signed SF-52, therefore, Ms. Chu “resigned”. This shown pre-mediated setup to terminate Ms. Chu, and trying to get away using sophistry.

30. Taken out of context as disproved fully at REBUTTAL TO: Introduction, above.

31. No, Mr. Rodriguez DID NOT supervise the listed people. The following is from Exhibit 350 page 12-13.

Employee A (Erick A. Butzlaff) hired on 5/27/2008 (DEX page 195), the Agency provided Biweekly report (page 1401 – 1416) from 1/6/09 to 4/14/09 only, which he completed 1 case and finalized 2 cases in 3 months; where Ms. Chu completed 19 cases already by this time, with 93% productivity, yet Ms. Chu was terminated.

Employee B (Aniss Chad) had a different Supervisor the first 6 months, and on the 8th month with Paul Rodrigues as his supervisor, his productivity was at 92% (DEX DOC12-1 page183), which lower than Ms. Chu’s at 93% (Exhibit 130 page 7). He wasn’t fired but Ms. Chu is. Mr. Chad most likely a re-hired, just like Carlos Ortiz-Rodriguez was a re-hired by the Agency on February 5, 2007 as indicated by Defendant’s attorney Ms. Siehndel in Exhibit 250, that Ms. Chu via email request Agency to fulfill their obligation during EEOC Discovery. The Defendant USPTO never did provided any prove as that would indicate the Agency provided misleading to outright lies as evidence. The Defendant then moved to Summary Judgement, and the EEOC AJ Nancy Graham ruled in the USPTO’s favor. That’s why the EEOC is no different Iran or North Korea court. As of Jan. 16, 2016, Iran court released Jason Nazianz, a Washington Post journalist jailed for no reason. So the EEOC is now worst then Iran court.

Employee C (Bernard Cothran) (DEX DOC 12-1 page 186), had a completely different supervisor until his 23 month when he had Paul Rodrigues as his supervisor. Employee C was in AU4173, NOT AU2123 of Paul Rodriguez. Completely misleading information intended to deceive. Ms. Chu asked for similar-situated probationary employee in their first 8 months. Furthermore, on Mr. Cothran's 8^th month, he only had Productivity #11 at 71%, where Ms. Chu had 93%, yet Ms. Chu is terminated; clearly discriminations toward Ms. Chu as a Chinese and a woman.

Employee F (Benyam Solomon) (DEX DOC12-1 page 193) had 27% on his 8th month evaluation; Ms. Chu had 93% and finished 19 cases. This page is also highly suspicious as it is on a separate sheet and a new format, not the old form of 2009 (DEX DOC 12-1 page 1487) from the same employee. Ms. Chu believed this is a falsified document to fool the judge and making the mockery out of this legal process. Ms. Chu invited the Judge to take legal action.

As for Employee E (Carlos Ortiz-Rodriguez) DEX DOC 14-1 page 28. There is no FCIP or any data provided as to when he was hired, or who was his first 8 month supervisor. What the agency provided is Mr. Ortiz-Rodriguez’s Biweekly Report at GS-11 level, which means he’s been with the Agency for years and years, NOT his firsts 8 months. It is misleading information intend to deceive. According to the Agency February 12, 2013 email “Carlos Ortiz-Rodriguez was re-hired by the Agency on February 5, 2007 at a level that did not require him to attend the Patents Training Academy, and as such, he does not have an FCIP report” (Exhibit 250).

So neither Bernard Cothran nor Carlos Ortiz-Rodriguez remotely close to fit such criteria as the first 8 months as probationary employee supervised by Paul Rodrigues.

And since Paul Rodriguez and his co-conspirators did everything they could to set Ms. Chu for termination from the get-go, it is expected everything being said and done had been to achieve such result.

32. What the Defendant provided were either NOT probationary employees, did not have Paul Rodriguez as his first-line of supervisor during his probationary period, or probationary employee that had 27% when Ms. Chu had 93%. Defendant CAN NOT find probationary employee in Paul Rodriguez’s AU2123 with outstanding performance as Ms. Chu.

33. Mona Chu was the only Chinese-American woman patent examiner in Paul Rodriguez’s AU2123, while sister Unit AU2128 were predominately Asian and women, most used to have Paul Rodriguez as a supervisor. When Ms. Chu compelled the Defendant the Patent and Trademark Office to provide the history of probationary employees supervised by Paul Rodriguez (Exhibit 280), the Defendant moved the AJ to Summary Judgement which the AJ ruled in the Defendant’s favor, while there are overwhelming evidence to support Ms. Chu’s case. When this case move to Discovery, the Plaintiff will demand the Defendant to provide a list of female and Asian Examiners supervised by Paul Rodriguez since 2008.

34. A. Ms. Chu didn't know who or where to report harassments, discriminations or hostile working. Ms. Chu found EEOC via MSPB where they pointed out probationary employee is not under MSPB's jurisdiction, that Ms. Chu needed to report to the EEOC.

B. Ms. Chu was also afraid to report this because:

a. Ms. Chu was targeted the first month on the job in the Training Academy, also as soon as Ms. Chu joined the Art Unit and never stop since, then Ms. Chu was terminated by consensus according to Paul Rodriguez disclosed to Michael Salley- an EEO counselor, when Ms. Chu worked nearly 24/7, stay in her office or her cube during the Training Academy, what kind of place is this, North Korea? You bet Ms. Chu was afraid to say the wrong thing and make the wrong move by reporting to the EEO. Ms. Chu could easily have her head chopped off….. and did happened on June 1, 2013 to make the EEOC case go away (Exhibit 150). Ms. Chu was afraid to leave her house ever since the wrongful termination on August 2011 and been suffering from PTSD since.

b. Ms. Chu was on her 1 year probation; USPTO could easily terminate Ms. Chu just to avoid troubles; as evidenced by her termination with accomplishments few could match as well a history of outstanding accomplishments in the High Tech industry as well academia, while worked nearly 24/7. Defendant USPTO obviously have no qualm of firing someone whatsoever, whether justified or not. Even as Ms. Chu went through EEOC process, Ms. Chu was constantly undermined by the EEO counselors such as Darnella Mcguire, EEOC AJ Nancy Graham. Ms. Chu doesn’t see how she could get a fair treatment either by the Defendant – the Patent and Trademark Office, or the EEOC; that now ended up in the Federal Court.

c. Ms. Chu barely have time to sleep, reporting this would take time out of her patent examining time as Ms. Chu didn't know who or where to report sexual harassment, discriminations and hostile working environment. Ms. Chu often had to minimize bathroom, lunch and dinner time to maximize patent examining. Also, Ms. Chu was so entrenched in her patent examining job, even after Ms. Chu heard the news Ms. Chu was going to be fired, as soon Ms. Chu got back to her office, Ms. Chu sat down and still tried to finish a patent case, that’s how crazy her working condition was. This can be verified by checking her computer log on the day Ms. Chu had the meeting with Paul Rodriguez. Ms. Chu was not able to think of anything else other than patent examining. Ms. Chu had to meet production or be terminated according to Paul Rodriguez and Director Garber. Apparently, Ms. Chu am terminated even though Ms. Chu am one of the top performers in AU2123 with Productivity at 93% on the 8th month Employee/Evaluation/Assessment/Individual Development Plan and finished 19 cases with an air-tight case as her first case.

d. Retributions from the people Ms. Chu reported; been done to Ms. Chu before in the Silicon Valley. These people-from-Asia are still targeting Ms. Chu in a well-organized and well-planned way using social networking on the Internet and the word-of-mouth, and threatened Ms. Chu with physical harms in the Silicon Valley which Ms. Chu had to abscond from. Ms. Chu is still afraid to go back to the Silicon Valley.

e. Ms. Chu asked POPA-the Union from Nathan Hillery to Howard Locker to interfere on the day of her termination as it was a short notice. As a matter of fact, nearly all TC2100 POPA representatives unwilling to help Ms. Chu. Even though Howard Locker did send an email to Wendy Gerber, but he said there was not much they could do as Ms. Chu was a probationary employee. Union Head Howard Locker also noted that Ms. Chu’s docket was very low that did not compliance to the docket management standard; meaning she was very productive. It is obviously they had been hearing the smear campaign against Ms. Chu as most of her Training Academy were in the same 4th floor and in close proximity as these Union Representatives. That’s why the USPTO in such a rush to terminate Ms. Chu - a top Chinese female performer, as a way to keep Chinese women down; Ms. Chu have very little protection and rights as a probationary employee from the USPTO as well the Union.

f. To ensure the USPTO get away with such atrocity, and been doing so, they misled terminated probationary employees to file with the MSPB (Exhibit 100) that would not be in time to file with the EEOC. MSPB does not take probationary employee cases.

35. Patents Training Academy aka Boot Camp where Probationary Employees attended 125 lectures (DEX 238-243) in less than 3 ½ months, only one harassment related lecture. Then according to Mr. Rodriguez, Ms. Chu should be doing 3 cases-per-bi-week right away, otherwise terminated. Ms. Chu had to work nearly 24/7 to meet the stringent requirements and hadn’t seen daylight since.

36. Harassment Training was so rare, that the Defendant couldn’t even find a copy of the Training as indicated in Defendant’s footnote 13. No one pays attention to anything unrelated to production. All Ms. Chu thought about 24/7 was patent examining cases as she was pressure to achieve 3 cases-per-bi-week or else termination by Paul Rodriguez and Director Garber. Ms. Chu even carried her cases to the bathroom. Ms. Chu was given extremely stringent requirements while there was no production requirement for all other probationary employees as stated in Paul Rodrigues’ Affidavit (DEX DOC 12-1 page 17 ¶35) and Director Garber’s Affidavit (DEX DOC 12-1 page 132 ¶31.

37. Nothing in DEX4 61-62 that indicated Ms. Chu didn’t complained of harassment. DEX24 Nos 6-cc where Ms. Chu list of harassments she had to endure in the period of 9 months while employed by the Patent and Trademark Office.

Paul Rodriguez saw Randy Shaffer sexually harassed Ms. Chu in front of him. It makes Ms. Chu sick to her stomach that Ms. Chu almost throws up. It reminded Ms. Chu of working in the Silicon Valley where Ms. Chu was often the only woman engineer in an Engineering Dept. of >100+ male engineers in their 20s and 30s, most were from a 3^rd world such as Asia where women been treated not much better those in the Middle East under Islamic Extremists. Ms. Chu was sexually harassed and abused on a daily basis. Ms. Chu had to abscond from the Silicon Valley due to physical harm threats by an Asian coworker and an Asian gang. Ms. Chu was targeted the first month on the job in the Patent and Trademark Office by Tuan Nguyen and his countrymen/women, who Ms. Chu had never met in her life, where Ms. Chu was wrongfully terminated, and two failed attempt beheadings on Ms. Chu here in Arlington, VA (Exhibit 150).

38. DEX 25 at ¶12 Jessica Hughes’ Affidavit. Ms. Chu had never meet Jessica Hughes. DEX 27 and DEX 3 are Affidavits from Paul Rodriguez. DEX 26 MSPB indicated Ms. Chu’s case was DISMISSED for lack of Board jurisdiction (DEX 26 Doc 12-1 page 298).

Ms. Chu prays to have a jury trial.

REBUTTAL To: Procedural History

Ms. Chu disputed the EEOC and MSPB rulings fully in REBUTTAL To: Introduction at the beginning of this Opposition. MSPB indicated Ms. Chu’s case was DISMISSED for lack of Board jurisdiction (DEX 26 Doc 12-1 page 298) as Ms. Chu was a Probationary Employee. The EEOC latched onto one word “resign” that a non- legal professional/layperson such as Ms. Chu uses to describe “separation from the company/leaving the company”. But nevertheless, they ruled in favor of the Defendant despite overwhelming evidence to support her case. These courts are no different than the Iran or North Korea court for women and foreigners such as Americans. As of Jan. 16, 2016, Iran is releasing an American Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian that was jailed for no reason. So now Iran court is more Just then American’s EEOC court, and the EEOC is the same as North Korea court. How sad is America’s judicial system?

REBUTTAL TO: ARGUMENT

REBUTTAL TO: I. Plaintiff’s Disparate Treatment Claims are without Merit and should be dismissed.

The fact is Defendant’s purport material facts had been fully and completely disproved. They are either sophistry, taken text out of context to outright lies. Defendant has nothing stand on.

REBUTTAL TO: A. Plaintiff Cannot Establish the Prima Facie Elements of a Disparate Treatment Claim based on Race, National Origin or Sex.

All the claims the Defendant purport as material facts had been disproved fully and thoroughly. Ms. Chu was terminated under the pretext of low performance as stated in the termination letter (Exhibit 170), when Plaintiff Ms. Chu’s Supervisor Paul Rodriguez admitted in his email to Director Garber “production was not the basis of the decision” (Exhibit 140 page 620), where Director Garber also said “Just because she's smarter than you doesn't mean she should be retained. :-)” (Exhibit 140). Ms. Chu did meet the 3 cases per biweek per Paul Rodriguez’s Affidavit (DEX DOC 12-1 page19 ¶50). As soon as that happened, Mr. Rodriguez putted extremely difficult and complex COPA to ensure Ms. Chu couldn’t meet the stringent requirements (Exhibit 160), but no such requirements from her peers.

There was NO production requirement for Probationary Employee as stated in Paul Rodrigues’ Affidavit (DEX DOC 12-1 page 17 ¶35) and Director Garber’s Affidavit (DEX DOC 12-1 page 132 ¶31) “…. she does not have a production requirement”. Also in Defendant’s Def Motion to DaSJ DOC 12 page 20 ¶2 “Standard productivity expectations for GS-9 examiners in Plaintiff’s technical field were two cases per bi-week and three in simpler field such as GUI”. These requirements are for exempt employees, not probationary employees. Yet both Paul Rodriguez and Director Garber demanded a probationary employee Ms. Chu to do 3 cases per biweek for both Class 703 and Class 715 GUI. So why such stringent requirements for Ms. Chu?

3 males from the same Training Class, Shawn Joseph, Reza Nabi, and Daeoo Lee with lesser qualifications and less complex GUI patent cases were promoted, indicative of discriminations toward women.

Sister Unit AU2128 was predominately Asians and women that used to have Paul Rodriguez as a supervisor. Ms. Chu was transferred into Paul Rodriguez’s AU2123 for diversity proposes as there was NO Asian woman in Paul Rodriguez’s AU2123. Males in AU2123 with far lesser qualifications and were NOT undermined to setup to be terminated by Paul Rodriguez, a salesman with no technical background. The real reason for Ms. Chu’s termination has always been discriminations toward Ms. Chu as a woman and an Asian/Chinese-American.

Even the Washington Post aware that the USPTO treats male patent examiners favorably such as this male examiner (Exhibit 300) “turned in work that was garbage……a poor performer for years who was never disciplined, came and went as he pleased”. “He frequently told colleagues he was leaving work to go to the local golf driving range, play poor or grab a beer – then claimed a full day on his time sheet” etc.

If Ms. Chu is a male, she would not have been terminated in such haste without any regard.

REBUTTAL TO: 1. Plaintiff Resigned From Her Position Voluntarily.

Ms. Chu had provided the following overwhelming evidences repeatedly to disprove of the accusation of “voluntary resign”:

1. A termination signed by Director Garber Exhibit 100.

2. Affidavits from all management sworn Ms. Chu did not resign, Exhibit H8, H9, H10.

b. In Exhibit H10 ¶6, Director Garber stated “Ms. Chu terminated Ms. Chu’s employment ……”, Exhibit H10 ¶7 “ Ms. Chu did not resign to, or in front of Ms. Chu”.

4. Additionally, in Defendant’s Def Motion to DaSJ Doc 12, page 12 shows the Plaintiff HAD NEVER MENTION RESIGN:

b. Complainant gave the SF-52 Form to an employee in the Office of Compensation and Benefits, and did not discuss her decision to resign with anyone at THE USPTO. DEX 4 at 114-19.

5. Ms. Chu also explained in detail that she DID NOT resigned in her Deposition DEX page 96-97.

The Defendant’s weak claim of “voluntarily resign” had been fully and completely disproved.

To reiterate above, Ms. Chu had never resigned from the USPTO nor had anyone received a resignation letter from Ms. Chu as stated by overwhelming evidence every time when voluntarily resignation mention. Defendant had never been able to provide a termination letter. In desperation, the Defendant claimed SF-52 was Ms. Chu’s resignation letter when it was just part of the exit paperwork that the Defendant threatened Ms. Chu in the termination letter to sign in order to get her last paycheck.

According to the Defendant “Plaintiff repeatedly stated that she resigned…. Compl.at 52, DEX 1 ¶39, DEX 4 at 125-26” Def Motion to DaSJ Doc 12 page 18.

Compl.at 52 stated as such:

Wendy cited that Ms. Chu have the option of being terminated or resigned. If Ms. Chu didn’t resigned by 8/12/2011, termination will go on my permanent record. There seems to be no other alternative, this is final. So Ms. Chu said “is there other alternative?” Wendy said no in a stern face. Ms. Chu certainly didn’t want to be dragged out by security guards. It is clear that either Ms. Chu resigned or being terminated as which would go into my permanent record, and would not look good in seeking a new job, or my career for that matter if Ms. Chu ever wanted to work again, and Ms. Chu am a career woman with a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering. So Ms. Chu shook Paul Rodriguez’s hand and thanked him for teaching Ms. Chu patent examining and thanked Wendy for her time. Ms. Chu has always been a professional.

DEX page 96 at page 260-261 panel, Ms. Chu’s Deposition:

Q. What is your understanding – When resignation was proposed as an option, what was your understanding as to the result if you did not resign?

A. That – Well, I was terminated, so I—The thing was I didn’t want to be dragged out of the office. So what was I supposed to do? That I ought to tie myself – lock myself to a chair and stay in the office when I’m terminated and refuse to leave, right? That was my question.

And if I didn’t follow the termination letter that I didn’t go through the exit process I wouldn’t be able to get my paycheck. I mean, that was – So I had to go through the process.

It was not to me. It was just basically I didn’t want to be dragged out of the office and that would be – that could have easily been construed as something as misconduct if I didn’t do that.

So that would look bad in my record having the behavior problems in my record. So I just followed the termination letter and, you know, went through the exit process.

Obviously, in Compl. page 52, Ms. Chu was thinking to herself regarding Director Garber’s suggestion of “resigned”. For most non-legal professional such as Ms. Chu, the term “resigns” for most Americans means parting way with the company/separation of company/not coming to work in the morning. No reasonable person would interpret this as Ms. Chu’s resignation letter. Termination (the Terminator) means “to force out”, that a security guard would drag Ms. Chu out of the company by force if she stayed in her office refused to leave, as indicative from the look on both of their faces and the hostile treatment from them for months, as oppose to walk out on Ms. Chu 2 feet. This could easily be construed as misconduct if were dragged out by security guards. Ms. Chu had never heard of the term “termination”; typical term is “fired” such as “you are fired” ie Donald Trump. Ms. Chu worked in the private sector and “termination” was not a term commonly used. Ms. Chu had exhausted all remedies to remain employed as stated in her Complaint page 2. She even asked Director Garber “is there other alternative?” Also, according to the termination letter (Exhibit 100), if Ms. Chu didn’t complete the necessary paperwork from the Human Resources, she would not receive her final salary, which she will need now that she won’t have a job.

In short, there is a termination letter but never a resignation letter from Ms. Chu, ever!!

Ms. Chu now understand why the Defendant latched on to such term since the EEOC process, as the Defendant didn’t really have a case, and been using sophistries.

REBUTTAL TO: 2. Plaintiff was not performing her Job Duties at a Level that Met her Employer’s Legitimate Expectations.

According to supervisor Paul Rodriguez to Director Garber’s email, “production was not the basis of the decision” (Exhibit 140 page 620), where Director Garber also said “Just because she's smarter than you doesn't mean she should be retained. :-)” (Exhibit 140).

Also, there was no requirement for Probationary Employee as stated in Paul Rodrigues’ Affidavit (DEX DOC 12-1 page 17 ¶35) and Director Garber’s Affidavit (DEX DOC 12-1 page 132 ¶31) “…. she does not have a production requirement”. Also in Defendant’s Def Motion to DaSJ DOC 12 page 20 ¶2 “Standard productivity expectations for GS-9 examiners in Plaintiff’s technical field were two cases per bi-week, and three in simpler field such as GUI”. These requirements are for exempt employees, not probationary employees. Yet both Paul Rodriguez and Director Garber demanded a probationary employee Ms. Chu to do 3 cases per biweek for both Class 703 and Class 715 GUI. So why such stringent requirements for Ms. Chu? Additionally, Ms. Chu did meet the stringent requirements as indicated in Paul Rodriguez Affidavit (DEX DOC 12-1 page19 ¶50) that Ms. Chu’s production reports were as follows:

June 7- 3 cases per bi-week. (First pay period after the June02 meeting, a total of 5 days to finish 3 COPA cases)

June 22 - 3 cases per bi-week.

Ms. Chu’s Productivity was at 119% and 103% for this period (DEX Doc 12-1 page 288).

After Ms. Chu met the 3 case per biweek in June 7, Paul Rodriguez and his co-conspirator Kieu Vu proceeded to put the most complex and difficult COPA patent cases that’s been around for over a decade because no one was able to understand the patent, such to ensure Ms. Chu couldn’t meet the stringent requirement (Exhibit 160) and terminated. Nevertheless, Ms. Chu did meet the 3 cases per biweek again in June 22 (DEX DOC 12-1 page19 ¶50).

Ms. Chu was setup to be terminated by Paul Rodriguez and Director Garber as shown in Ms. Chu Compl. Page 17-19 because of discrimination toward Ms. Chu as a woman and an Asian that excelled in the job, which perceived as getting “uppity”. In summary:

Paul Rodriguez set Ms. Chu up to be terminated from the get-go since the Training Academy of Dec, 2010 as Ms. Chu is Chinese and female by given her a poor performance review despite Ms. Chu already had an apodictic 1st patent case that reviewed by Ms. Chu’s first-line Supervisor Kamini Shah, and known to many Training SPEs as well the then Undersecretary/Director- Mr. David Kappos. Paul Rodriguez continue to give Ms. Chu poor performance review even after Ms. Chu met the 3 case per biweek that including COPA cases (DEX DOC 12-1 page19 #50). When Ms. Chu show she could do the 3 cases per biweek (Exhibit 130 #50 page 116) on June 7 and June 22, 2011, Mr. Rodriguez hastens Ms. Chu’s termination (Exhibit 200) before her 1 year probationary period is over on Nov, 9, 2011, by making every effort to make her job difficult from confined to use only Agency’s EAST tool (aka USPTO's search engine) after Ms. Chu effectively using Google to do the job, to not allowed helps from Simon Ke (Exhibit 220), then demand Ms. Chu to add 2-3 more references to each patent case (Exhibit 220 page 395), and put difficult COPA cases in Ms. Chu’s docket (Exhibit 160).

When that didn’t work, in July, 2011, Mr. Rodriguez asked Ms. Chu to re-do a case that’s already accepted for credit and refused to accept anything from Ms. Chu (Exhibit 220) to justify his termination as indicated in their July 27-28 email (Exhibit 200) which already decided to terminate Ms. Chu.

Additionally, as a probationary employee, Ms. Chu continues to attend training classes (Exhibit 230) that resulted in less Productivity. Other times, Ms. Chu was working in other patent examining but may not result in a finished patent case (Exhibit 230 page 5). Paul Rodriguez knew this and still using low performance as a pretext to terminate Ms. Chu due to discriminations.

Furthermore, insidious defamation also incited sexual harassment and abuses that resulted in a hostile working environment for Ms. Chu; in addition to extreme hostile working condition and the threats of termination from Paul Rodriguez and Director Director Garber which Ms. Chu had to work nearly 24/7 as evidenced by her computer log; in addition to sexual harassment and abuses by coworkers that stated in the Complaint Page 39-48, that she had to take frequent sick leaves in late June and July of 2011 (Exhibit 210). As the resulted, Ms. Chu’s Productivity dropped drastically from 119.8%, 103% to 50% in a short period of time (Exhibit 110).

REBUTTAL TO: Plaintiff was Not Treated Less Favorable than Similarly- Situated Employee and Cannot Present Other Facts Giving Rise to an Inference of Discrimination.

Ms. Chu had provided in her Complaint similarly-situated male employees treated favorable:

Complaint page 3, 11, 13, page 21¶2 “3 males from the same Training Class with lesser qualifications and less complex patent cases were promoted.

Complaint page 46, 54, 28 #28 “male top performers in my lab class such a Shawn Joseph, Reza Nabi, and Daeoo Lee were promoted, indicative of discriminations toward women.

Complaint page 33: “ ix. Male top performers in my lab class such a Shawn Joseph, Reza Nabi, and Daeoo Lee were promoted, Ms. Chu am terminated, a female. Interestingly, Shawn Joseph and Reza Nabi actively participated in defaming Ms. Chu as the resulted of discriminations toward women.”

If Ms. Chu is a male/White male, she wouldn’t have been terminated in such haste.

No, Mr. Rodriguez did not supervise the listed people as disproved fully in #32-#34 above.

In response to Defendant claim of “Mr. Rodriguez interviewed and was responsible for hiring Plaintiff”…..Although Mr. Rodriguez called Ms. Chu on the phone to interview Ms. Chu for the job, but he was not responsible for hiring Ms. Chu. Ms. Chu was hired by Kamini Shah of AU2128 and had Ms. Shah as Ms. Chu first-line supervisor from the first day Ms. Chu was hired - Nov.2010 to April 2011. Additionally, AU2128 - sister Unit of Paul Rodriguez’s AU2123, were predominately women and Asian that used to have Paul Rodriguez as their supervisor. It is obviously Paul Rodriguez had tried to terminate them as well.

In response to defendants claim “contradicts herself and claims that she was terminated not due to her gender, race or national origin, but because she was a “top performer””. This is such a weak argument that the defendant must be getting desperate. Below is Compl. At 32 ¶42.

“42. Top performers are a threat to low performers’ job security, bonus and promotion, particularly to people-from-Asia such as Tuan Nguyen and his countrymen, Susanne Lo’s friends-from-India and their countrymen, Hung Havan and Michele Choi, Nathan Hillery, Dwin Craig and Pete (of AU2122 with Kakali Chaki as SPE); and are systemically being targeted and terminated here in DC as well in the Silicon Valley. Women like Ms. Chu, a Chinese and on my first year probation, are an easy target for low performers.”

Ms. Chu standby all the claims Ms. Chu make in her Complaint.

Ms. Chu had disproved every sophistries make by the Defendant with material facts.

REBUTTAL TO: B. The Defendant Had Legitimate, Non-Discriminatory Reason for its Actions.

This is a logical fallacy “It is not in the UPSTO’s interest to hire patent examiner, and expend the significant resources entailed in training her, yet dismiss her within a year”.

Although it is not in the USPTO’s interest to dismiss a productive examiner, but discrimination is nothing new, and why laws such as Title VII existed to protect venerable class such as Ms. Chu who is a woman and an Asian/Chinese-American, especially in the STEM field.

The fact is, the USPTO hired somewhere from 3000 to 5000 new examiners per year for many years, but only 300 to 500 left after their probationary period. The only way to find the truth is through Discovery and a jury trial.

As for the pretext of poor performance, there was no requirement for Probationary Employee as stated in Paul Rodrigues’ Affidavit (DEX DOC 12-1 page 17 ¶35) and Director Garber’s Affidavit (DEX DOC 12-1 page 132 ¶31) “…. she does not have a production requirement”. Also in Defendant’s Def Motion to DaSJ DOC 12 page 20 ¶2 “Standard productivity expectations for GS-9 examiners in Plaintiff’s technical field were two cases per bi-week, and three in simpler field such as GUI”. These requirements are for exempt employees, not probationary employees. But both Paul Rodriguez and Director Garber demanded that Ms. Chu do 3 cases per biweek for Class 703 as well Class 715 GUI. So why such stringent requirements for Ms. Chu? Obviously is due to discrimination toward Ms. Chu as a woman and an Asian/Chinese that excelled in the job. Additionally, Ms. Chu did meet the stringent requirements as indicated by Paul Rodriguez Affidavit (DEX DOC 12-1 page19 ¶50) that Ms. Chu’s production reports were as follows:

June 7- 3 cases per bi-week. (First pay period after the June02 meeting, a total of 5 days to finish 3 COPA cases)

June 22 - 3 cases per bi-week.

Ms. Chu’s Productivity was at 119% and 103% for this period (DEX Doc 12-1 page 288).

Ms. Chu had proven she not only can do the job, but excelled with an apodictic first patent case that was known to many Training SPE as well the then Undersecretary Mr. David Kappo; Ms. Chu may be the first woman to hold such honor for Patent Class 703, as well the USPTO. Yet Paul Rodriguez continues to give Ms. Chu poor performance reviews to set Ms. Chu for the eventual termination as stated in detail above.

REBUTTAL TO: C. Plaintiff cannot establish that the Defendant’s Legitimate, Non-Discriminatory Reasons for its Actions Were Pretext for Discrimination.

Every Defendant’s purport material facts been disproved fully and thoroughly. There was nothing but sophistries, taken text out of context to outright lies. Ms. Chu doesn’t know how many times Ms. Chu can beat a dead horse. Any reasonable fact-finder could easily conclude that it is discrimination toward Ms. Chu as a woman and an Asian/Chinese-American that resulted in her wrongful termination.

As for Defendant’s desperately drawing weak claims to support their case such as “cumulative production rate of 46%”, that calculated based on Paul Rodriguez’s opinion, NOT empirical data such as Productivity or how many cases been done. Again, you are entity to your opinion, but not facts. Mr. Rodriguez, a salesman that never had any technical training, gave poor performance review on Ms. Chu who was one of the few people in the world had the necessary industry experiences in Patent Class 703 (Exhibit 120), and proven over and over again that she excelled in the job despite Paul Rodriguez and his co-conspirator did everything they could to undermine Ms. Chu’s performance.

Furthermore, insidious defamation also incited sexual harassment and abuses that resulted in a hostile working environment for Ms. Chu; in addition to extreme hostile working condition and the threats of termination from Paul Rodriguez and Director Director Garber which Ms. Chu had to work nearly 24/7 as evidenced by her computer log; in addition to sexual harassment and abuses by coworkers that stated in the Complaint Page 39-48, that she had to take frequent sick leaves in late June and July of 2011 (Exhibit 210). As the resulted, Ms. Chu’s Productivity dropped drastically from 119.8%, 103% to 50% in a short period of time (Exhibit 110).

The probationary employees provided by the Defendant are questionable at best as disproved above; one probationary employee’s document may have been falsified:

Employee F (Benyam Solomon) (DEX page 193) had 27% on his 8th month evaluation; Ms. Chu had 93% and finished 19 cases. This page is also highly suspicious as it is on a separate sheet and a new format, not the old form of 2009 (DEX page 191). Ms. Chu believed this is a falsified document to fool the AJ and making the mockery out of this legal process. Ms. Chu invited the Judge to take legal action.

There is nothing but undisputable facts based on emails, Affidavits and empirical data shown clearly Ms. Chu met every stringent requirement, and outperformed peers in her Unit AU2123 and sister Unit AU2128, yet she is terminated due to discriminations toward her as a Chinese and a female.

As for low quality, Paul Rodriguez had never told Ms. Chu such. This is a new accusation now that the Defendant ran out of pretext to justify their wrongful termination of Ms. Chu. Ms. Chu had an apodictic first patent case under supervisor Kamini Shad, who actually understands the technology in patent class 703, unlike Paul Rodriguez, who was a salesman. Ms. Chu was a pioneer in the Emulation field (Exhibit 120) of Patent Class 703. It is akin to a used car salesman acting as a Federal Court Judge and calling attorney’s case pleading “low quality”

Of course, if the court moves to Discovery, we will find the truth, especially on all the probationary employees since 2005 in this Electrical Art, especially under Director Garber and Paul Rodriguez. We will find out how prevalent and systemic women and/or Asians been discriminated against. So far, the Defendant’s claims been disproved fully with material facts. The only explanation for such adverse Employment Action of wrongful termination of Ms. Chu has always been discrimination toward Ms. Chu as a woman and an Asian/Chinese. Therefore, a Jury Trial is appropriate to ensure justice is served.

REBUTTAL TO: II. Plaintiff Cannot Establish the Elements of a Hostile Work Environment or Sexual Harassment Claim.

Ms. Chu had fully layout her case in Exhibit 350.

Any reasonable person would find being elbowed on the chest hostile and abusive, by 3 different people, no less; and one was her officemate Hung Havan, the other 2 were his friends Nathan Hillery and Michele Choi. Often, we see our office/cubicle as a safe place where one would take refuge from and retreated to, Ms. Chu didn't even have a place to escape sexual harassments and hostile treatment. The sexual harassments were so severe and pervasive that alter the conditions of her employment where Ms. Chu am terminated and did created an abusive working environment, even the Agency stated on Chu vs. USPTO – Agency's Motion for Decision without a Hearing.doc page 35 there were “10 named individuals and one unnamed(Tuan Va of AU2193) individual as having perpetrated harassment. (Ex. 1 – Chu Dep. at 54-61, 167-218, 281-82.)

It was not personality clash; it was pure and simple discriminations toward Ms. Chu as a Chinese American and a woman who outperformed them. In Ms. Chu’s old resume under Philosophy “you don't sweat the small stuff if you see the whole picture”, and under Personality/Characteristics “Career oriented professional. Love what Ms. Chu does, but with an easily to talk to, modest and unassuming personality (Ms. Chu like to keep things light), and eager to help and learn attitude.” Also, her email signature has been “Life is a journey, enjoy the trip”. With philosophies like these, how could Ms. Chu possibly not get along with anyone? Not to mention Ms. Chu worked nearly 24/7, and kept a low key and not be seen as Ms. Chu stated throughout her Formal Complaint and all documents. Furthermore, someone like Ms. Chu with a history of outstanding accomplishments in a male dominated Engineering field from the High Tech industry to academia where Ms. Chu was often the only female in the engineering classes and Professors told Ms. Chu women are not wired to think technically, as well in most High Tech companies where nearly 90+% of the engineers were from Third world culture such as Asia and the Middle East. The context of the environment Ms. Chu was in was akin to working in a Third World Company or America in the 1800s. There is only one answer: it wasn't Ms. Chu, it was them discriminated against Ms. Chu.

Finally, Ms. Chu was sexually harassed by Randy Shaffer in front of Paul Rodriguez, her Supervisor who terminated Ms. Chu. Paul Rodriguez was there as stated in her Formal Complaint, Ms. Chu was looking at her Supervisor Paul Rodriguez for help while he watched Randy Shaffer make hip thrust forward and backward sexual act movement which confirmed by the email between Mr. Rodriguez and Mr. Shaffer in the Exh. 112 - Supplement Production page 1493 where Mr. Shaffer said “Ms. Chu watched her face and she was distressed and angry”, that's because Mr. Shaffer appears to enjoy seeing Ms. Chu in distress as if he did that just to see Ms. Chu in distressed. When both Mr. Rodriguez and Shaffer left together after Ms. Chu refused to talk to them, Mr. Rodriguez asked Mr. Shaffer why did he did that; Mr. Shaffer shrug his shoulders and a never mind hand gesture as if he sexually harassed Ms. Chu to make himself feel better for being terminated and a Chinese woman still had a job.

The Defendant employed these wrong doers who had defamed, sexually harassed, abused, incited physical harm and rape toward Ms. Chu that now resulted in 2 failed attempt beheadings on Ms. Chu to make this lawsuit go away, and was instrumental in getting Ms. Chu terminated. Instead of punishing these wrong doers, the Defendant mobilized an army of lawyers to defend these wrong doers.

REBUTTAL TO: III. Events That Occurred after Plaintiff’s Employment Are Not Actionable.

It is offensive that the Defendant continuously denigrating the Plaintiff Ms. Chu throughout their Def Motion to DaSJ using words such as “rambling”, when the Defendant USPTO has an army of lawyers and an office full of supporting staffs to help them craft their Argument, and now the United States Attorneys of Eastern District of Virginia are joining the army of Defendant – United States Patent and Trademark Office; where Ms. Chu is just a common folk without any legal training to defend herself, while suffering from PSTD that caused by Defendant UPSTO’s hostility and discrimination, and continue to do so by rigging the system against her. Ms. Chu could barely function while suffering from PTSD, yet must write this Opposition to Defendant’s motion to Dismiss and Summary Judgement as she can’t afford to hire a lawyer due to the doings of Defendant USPTO. She can’t even afford to purchase a Microsoft Office due to the Defendant’s continuing influence to ensure Ms. Chu can’t secure a job, or receive any form of help, not even to collect unemployment (Exhibit 270), as well trying to behead her meant to kill to make this lawsuit go away. Obviously, the Defendant does not like any legal action filed against the Defendant, especially one such as Ms. Chu’s that any reasonable person/jury would find wrong doing. It is a continuation of abuses and hostility toward Ms. Chu since she joined the Patent and Trademark Office that ended in a wrongful termination due to discriminations toward Ms. Chu as a woman and an Asian/Chinese. And the Defendant would go to great length to make this lawsuit go away, and had achieved such in courts such as the EEOC and MSPB. It is easy to see that as powerful as the Defendant – The United States Patent and Trademark Office, their influence is unlimited.

The Defendant should know Ms. Chu is not going away. Ms. Chu will take this case to the Supreme Court and even after, the social media where this case will be forever propagated in the Internet in infamy. Ms. Chu will continue to fight for Equal Opportunities and Equal Rights for women in the STEM field/Silicon Valley/Tech Industry. Ms. Chu may fail, but women behind Ms. Chu will continue to fight, as sad as this may sound in this 21^st Century. The threat of have Ms. Chu killed or beheaded hadn’t stopped Ms. Chu nor will deter Ms. Chu.

The Defendant – The Patent and Trademark Office did attempt to stop Ms. Chu’s Unemployment Insurance by claiming she resigned, but provided no prove as stated in this letter from the Virginia Employment Commission (Exhibit 270). This was soon after the EEOC filed in 2012. But nevertheless, the Employment Commission stopped Unemployment Insurance for Ms. Chu using a specious reason when President Obama had signed to extend Employment Insurance. This is just one example that the Defendant retaliated against Ms. Chu for filing a legal action against the Agency. The Agency – The Patent and Trademark Office and its army of lawyers can certainly influence any government branch such as the Employment Commission and had shown as such.

The 2 failed attempt beheadings on Ms. Chu meant to kill her to make this lawsuit away, is a criminal case, and is up to the Police to investigate and apprehend the perpetrator. Ms. Chu doesn’t know how much she could disclose to the suspects – the Defendant – the United States Patent and Trademark Office employees.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and all the others discussed in the Plaintiff’s Complaint; also, the Defendant’s strategy in this motion to use sophistries, misleading information, out-of-context statements, and purported as material facts to make their point, are now fully and thoroughly refuted. Therefore, the Defendant’s motion to Dismiss and Summary Judgement should be DENIED. Court should move to Discovery and a Jury trial.

Respectfully submitted,

Mona Chu

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this January 25, 2016, the foregoing document case: 1:15-CV-01375 was sent to the below addresses by the delivery method of first-class mail, postage prepaid:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the Eastern District of Virginia

Civil Court

Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse

401 Courthouse Square

Text Box: Signature______________________________

Alexandria, VA 22314

Defendant:

AGATHA M. SWICK

Special Assistant United States Attorney

2100 Jamieson Avenue

Alexandria, VA 22314

Telephone: (703)299-3831

Fax: (703)299-3983

Email: Agatha.swick@usdoj.gov

Attorney General of the United States

Loretta E. Lynch

Main Justice Building

10^th & Constitution Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20530

Synopsis of my case

Monday, February 29, 2016

Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment 2

No comments:

Post a Comment