Ahmad Belion FCHR No.

201700197
(Charging party )

v.

Trane US Inc.
(Respondent)

Employment Investigation Unit

Florida Commission on Human Relations.
4075 Esplanda Way
Room 110
Tallahassee Florida 32399-70250.

TO: Mr. Lucas DeVoe

Lucas.DeVoe@fchr.myflorida.com

RE: FCHR Charge No. 201700197

Charging Party: Ahmad Belion
Rebuttal to Respondent, Ingersoll Rand's Position Statement

REBUTTAL TO THE INGERSOLL RAND REPONSE

COMES NOW, the Charging Party; Ahmad Belion pursuant to FMLA 29 USC §§ 2601-2654
and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 procedure, and moves this investigation in the
Rebuttal to the Ingersoll Rand Response, and asserts the forgoing:

1
 TABLE OF EXHIBITS AND DOCUMENTS

1). Mr. Belion would initiate written statements from coworkers to Matt Manderville (production
Leader), concerning behavior issues of Bill Jordan in reference to harassment and discrimination.
(see Packet (c) pg 1-5).

2). Mr. Belion asserts that more written statements had been brought to Manderville concerning
hostile work environment developing between two employees. Manderville decided to separate
the employees by moving them to different work areas. (see Packet (c) Pg 8,9).

3). A continuance of written statements brought forth concerning its hostile work environment
after Manderville moved the employees. (see packet (c) pg 24,25).

4). During Mr. Belions employment and leadership position he would experience issues with
defects discovered by engineers and the leadership. (see packet (c) pg 10-14).

5).Thus, Manderville had acknowledged such defects. (see email: packet (c) pg 15).

6). It had been brought to Mr. Belion’s attention that such defects had been purposely covered
up.(see packet (c) pg 16).

7). Mandeville than for a second time, threatens to fire Mr. Belion and Menzo Lewis for not
participating in covering up a defect. Thus, suspending Mr. Belion. (see Menzo Lewis as
witness) (see also Packet (a).

8). Furthermore; Mr. Manderville would train employees on mew equipment, authorizing
operating unauthorized equipment. (see emails from engineers complaining). (see also packet
(c) pg 17).

2
9). Written statement from Chelsey Childers, confirming equipment is unauthorized. (see packet
(c) pg 18).

10). Written statement from Chelsey Childers, conforming Mr. Manderville infringed upon
company policy for unauthorized equipment. (see Packet (c) pg 19).

11). Written statement from Chelsey Childers, deciding not to operate unauthorized equipment,
stating Manderville told her to infringe upon the company policy.(see packet (c) pg 20).

12). Written statement from Chris Nielens, stating Chelsey Childers did not operate unauthorized
equipment. (see packet (c) pg 21).

13). Written statement from Chelsey Childers, confirming Mr. Manderville enforce 1st shift
operate unauthorized equipment. (see packet (c) pg22).

14). 9 step problem solving experiment completed by Mr. Belion, to ensure unauthorized
equipment will not be operated again without engineer authorization. (see packet (c) pg 23).

15). Mr. Belion had been Granted leave, to begin November 12, 2015, and had been required to
resume employment on February 2, 2016. (see exhibit I ).

16). Mr Belion tried to return to work on the date, and time in which he should return, and had
been denied by Katherine Nauman (HR) requiring him to attend multiple meetings pertaining to
his position, and to discuss his return.(see packet (b) pg 1-6).

(17) Terminated by Ms. Nuaman on February 19, 2016 via text message without a clear founded
reason. (see packet (b) pg 8).

(18) February 24, 2016. Filing to Reemployment Assistance Program initiated. (see exhibit F).

3
(19). February 26, 2016. An Apology by Ms. Nauman , and request for his return (see packet
(b) pg 9).

(20). Further request to return by Ms. Naumen (see exhibit H ).

4
 INTRODUCTION

1). On or about November 14, 2016 Ahmad Belion, had entered a complaint into the United
States Employment Opportunity Commission in civil nature for employee discrimination a
violation of FMLA policy (see FMLA 29 USC §§ 2601-2654). (see exhibit A)

2). The Mr. Belion avers, that such complaint had been referred to the Florida Commission on
Human Relations. (see 760.01-760.11 Florida Statute)

Such complaint had been transcribed by the Department for purposes of assisting and bring forth
comprehensive understanding of the direction of complaints in civil nature, from whom has
brought forth its allegation.(see FLMA Policy)

3). The Mr. Belion contends, that such Department has the responsibility to concert all aspects of
assertion into a short synopsis of details and exclamation, clearly orchestrating a complainants
direction of civil nature. (see exhibit B)

4). Mr. Belion further asserts, that the original and initial complaint entered into the United
States Employment Opportunity Commission by him for the purpose of transcription, had been
subverted from its original content and foundation, rendering its expression void of concept and
a detour from its originality. (see uniform evaluation system on evaluating job performance
at 601-35.601 scope and purposes of the Department Management Service under Chapter
60L-35

a).Such transcription had been consisted with error, and vague description of Mr. Belion’s
allegation of FLMA violation.

b). There had been nonsensical information implied deferring it from the foundation of this civil
complaint.

c).That such complaint transcribed by the Department, does not express the values and purpose
of entering such complaint into civil nature under FMLA violation.

5). Moreover; in retrospect and hindsight, it is the concerns of Mr. Belion to clarify and establish
the meritorious expressions delivered by this civil complaint in a sufficient and diligent mender.

5
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1). On or about August 15, 2011 the complainant Ahmad Belion had been employed by the
Ingersoll Rand .

2). On or about May 2014 Mr. Belion had been promoted to Group Leader position, with a job
discretion of enforcing company policy.

3). Mr. Belion asserts, that upon his leadership role, as indicated in his job description; provides
that he shall.

a) Provide a safe and health working environment.

b) Training all employees.

c) Immediately reporting, investigating, and resolving unsafe conditions and acts

(see Safety and Security 7 (Exhibit C)

4). That Mr. Belion’s sole purpose of employment are to meet the burden of submitting
information indicating the particular quality, safety, malfunctions and company violations
apprehended by such employee and subordinates of the company.

5). Furthermore, he is authorized to enforce particular rules and regulations mandated in such
company style manual. (see above)

6
 Assertion of Discrimination and Harassment

Mr. Belion experienced discrimination and harassment throughout his employment at

Ingersoll Rand. In the summer of 2013, Ingersoll Rand employees David Laster, Joe Myers, Cliff
Fairbanks, and Terri Fairbanks made comments that Ingersoll Rand would not hire any more
“bomb builders,” referring to one applicant with the name “Rashad” on the new hire list of
employees. The Ingersoll Rand employees ridiculed Rashad for being a “terrorist name” and Joe
Myers remarked to Mr. Belion that his named was also a terrorist name, and the group continued
to make ridiculing remarks.

In March of 2014, as part of the Team Leader Development Program, Katherine

Naumann of human resources spoke only to Ingersoll Rand’s African American employees,
including Belion, telling them that they should not wear hats, wear sagging pants, and that they
needed to dress presentably. Ingersoll Rand did not have this same discussion with its white
employees. Ms. Naumann also made a comment to Mr. Belion during another meeting that his
hair (worn in dreadlocks) was a distraction and that it averted her attention during Belion’s
presentation.

In the summer of 2014, Charles Abbinanti, Operations Leader, confronted Mr. Belion
about Mr. Belion’s granting of vacation time to James Barker, another Ingersoll Rand employee.
Mr. Abbinanti told Mr. Belion that it did not look good that Mr. Belion granted Mr. Barker’s
vacation, because Mr. Barker was also African American.

In June of 2015, Mr. Mandeville, Mr. Laster, Mr. Fairbanks, Ms. Fairbanks, and Mr.
Myers called Mr. Belion into the office to show Mr. Belion a video of an African American man
being physically beaten by a white man. These individuals laughed at Mr. Belion, and Mr.
Belion took this action as a direct threat.

In the summer of 2015, Mr. Belion was called into Ms. Naumann’s office and when he
entered Ms. Naumann was telling a racist joke in which she referred to the individuals in the joke
as “colored people.”

In July of 2015, Mr. Abbinanti prevented Mr. Belion from obtaining a promotion with
Ingersoll Rand by telling Mr. Belion that he should be happy with the job-status he currently had,
and that Mr. Belion hadn’t been in leadership long enough to want to excel, and that Mr.
Abbinanti would speak with HR about the promotion, only to result in Mr. Belion not getting the
promotion.

Also in the summer of 2015, Matt Madeville, Production leader, and Mr. Abbinanti
criticized Mr. Belion for not completing certain reports. Mr. Belion had previously complained
that he was never given a laptop computer to enable him to complete certain reports, and that no
other leaders in his position were actually required to complete the same reports.

7
 On August 5, 2015, Mr. Laster called Mr. Belion a “good little nigger.” Mr. Laster made
racist comments to Mr. Belion through his employment at Ingersoll Rand.

On August 18, 2015, Mr. Belion spoke with Mr. Mandeville about the racism and
harassment he was experiencing, and that he was not being respected. In response, Mr. Belion
was walked out of the plant, his badge was taken, and he was suspended.

On August 24, 2015, Mr. Mandeville threatened to terminate Mr. Belion’s employment
because Mr. Belion refused to break Ingersoll Rand company policy. Specifically, Mr. Belion
and his team had refused to braze on a charged / pressurized coil, which is one of Ingersoll
Rand’s “cardinal rules.” Mr. Mandeville told Mr. Belion that he was going to “clean house”
because Mr. Belion had instructed his team to not break Ingersoll Rand safety protocols.

On October 5, 2015, Mr. Mandeville confronted Mr. Belion in response to Mr. Belion
giving another employee the ethics hot-line number to report a workplace harassment issue. Mr.
Mandeville threatened Mr. Belion and told him that Mr. Belion was being investigated for
having given another employee the hot-line number.

On October 13, 2015, Mr. Belion met with Ms. Naumann and disclosed to her that Mr.
Mandeville had engaged in improper conduct. Mr. Naumann told Mr. Belion that she would
speak with Mr. Mandeville. On November 5, 2015, Mr. Mandeville called a meeting with Mr.
Belion. After Mr. Belion brought up some of the issues he was having with Mr. Mandeville, Mr.
Mandeville took Mr. Belion’s badge and suspended him. Mr. Mandeville threatened to call the
police on Mr. Belion if he did not immediately leave the plant, and Mr. Belion had to call for
security to retrieve his property before leaving.

The next day, on November 6, 2015, Ms. Naumann sent Mr. Belion a text message to
schedule a meeting for November 9, 2015. Mr. Belion arrived at Ingersoll Rand for the meeting
on November 9, 2015, and was surprised to see Mr. Mandeville in attendance at the meeting, as
Mr. Mandeville had suspended him and threatened to call the police. During this meeting, Ms.
Naumann and Mr. Mandeville accused Mr. Belion of issues that had previously never been
addressed, and for which Mr. Belion had no written complaints or write-ups of any kind. Ms.
Naumann also acknowledged that Mr. Belion had complained of Mr. Mandeville’s hostile
behavior, but she did nothing with the information because Mr. Belion had told her “in
confidence.”

Mr. Belion indicated that he was not comfortable continuing the meeting with Mr.
Mandeville present, after Mr. Mandeville’s continuous hostile conduct toward him, and Ms.
Naumann offered to have Cliff Fairbanks come in instead of Mr. Mandeville. Mr. Belion
indicated that he would not be comfortable with Mr. Fairbanks either, as Mr. Fairbanks was
yelling at and hostile toward Belion along with Mr. Mandeville the previous week. Ms.
Naumann indicated that they would not be able to come to a resolution, and Mr. Belion pleaded
for a chance to simply tell his side of the story.

8
 Ms. Naumann brought Mr. Fairbanks in to ask him what happened on the day that Mr.
Mandeville threatened Mr. Belion and suspended him, and before Mr. Fairbanks could answer,
Ms. Naumann answered for him, stating that Mr. Belion got to a point where he needed to be
suspended. Mr. Belion insisted that he wanted to escalate his concerns, and Ms. Naumann agreed
to let Mr. Belion speak with the Plant Manager.

Mr. Belion met with Plant Manager Billy Smith, Plant Manager, and Ms. Naumann on
November 11, 2015, and voiced his concerns regarding Mr. Mandeville’s hostile and threatening
conduct. Mr. Smith told Mr. Belion that his only option was to put everything behind him and
work together with Mr. Mandeville moving forward. Mr. Belion indicated that his concerns were
valid and he told Mr. Smith that if he and Ms. Naumann refused to do anything about his
concerns, he would be forced to escalate them even higher.

Mr. Smith and Ms. Naumann then left the room and Mr. Mandeville and Mr. Abbinanti
entered the meeting. Mr. Mandeville accused Mr. Belion of “playing the race card” and Mr.
Abbinanti made threatening remarks to Mr. Belion, including telling him to “wipe that smug
look off your face.” Ms. Naumann came back into the office and Mr. Belion indicated again that
he felt he was being harassed, that he was in a hostile work environment, and that he wanted to
escalate his concerns through Ingersoll Rand’s hotline.

Ms. Naumann became upset that Mr. Belion wanted to escalate his concerns, and called
him “crazy.” She told him that he would be committing career suicide and that if she were to act
like he was, she would be fired. Mr. Belion reiterated that he was doing what he felt was right by
escalating his concerns, and Mr. Mandeville apologized for losing his temper and yelling at Mr.
Belion in front of his team. Mr. Belion thanked Mr. Mandeville for his apology but indicated that
he would still need to escalate his concerns. Ms. Naumann became upset again and told Mr.
Belion that he was forbidden from speaking with her boss until the middle of the next week. She
then offered Mr. Belion approximately $3,000.00 to not return to Ingersoll Rand after Mr.
Belion’s FMLA leave expired, but Mr. Belion refused.

9
 ARGUMENT

The Charging party contends, that he had been wrongfully terminated, and had been denied
opportunity to return to employment after he had been Granted FMLA leave for a medical
condition in violation of FMLA Rule 29 USC §§ 2601-2654

1). Mr. Belion asserts, that he had been officially granted FMLA leave to begin November 12,
2015. (see exhibit I)

2). He further avers, that there are particular rules and regulations to govern the rights of
employees for the return to their rightful employment after being Granted leave for Medical
Condition, and asserts.

a). Liability: Any employer who violates section 2615 of the above title shall be liable to any
eligible employee affected. (Further quoting).

Subsection (A) (i), the amount of any wages, salary employment benefit or other compensation.

Furthermore; section 2651 emphasizes and establishes that nothing in this Act or any
amendment made by this Act shall be construed to supersede any state or local law that provides
greater family or medical leave rights than the rights established under this act or any
amendment made by this Act.

3). The complainant avers, that Ingersoll Rand has incorporated policy are to ensure the rights of
their employee and has expressed it value in their Employee Equal Opportunity (EEO) policy
which states; (see exhibit D).

“ Its EEO policy will not discriminate based on race, sex, color, nationality, origin, creed,
religion, pregnancy, age, disability, military / veteran status, genetic information, marital status,
or any legal protected status”.

4). The Complainant contends, that he shall demonstrate that Ingersoll Rand has infringed upon
FMLA, and its policy of a protected status causing injury.

10
5). To establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge under the method of FMLA, Mr.
Belion must require and establish mensrea.

a) He engaged in a protected activity.

b) That Ingersoll Rand had took adverse employment action against him.

c) That there is a causal connection between Mr. Belion’s protected activity, and Ingersoll Rand
adverse employment.

(see Adonissomy v Hewlett- Packard Co, 547, F.3d 841, 850 (7th Cir. 2007).

6). Ingersoll Rand alleges in its vague and ambiguous response, that Mr. Belion had been
insubordinate towards the company prior to taking his FMLA leave, but however never asserts
that such alleged behavior had been so atrocious rendering him unable to perform his job or any
alleged adverse behavior at the time of his FMLA leave.

7). During such time of granted leave, it had been a lengthy duration from the time of the alleged
insubordination brought forth in August – compared to November 12, 2015 Thus, rending a
casual FMLA leave.

Had such alleged insubordination been so monstrous, he would had been directed to the
regulatory policy mandated in the company style manual which indicates Progressive Discipline
Policy (see exhibit E).

a) Written warning.

b) Final Written Warning

c) Suspension ( if applicable)

d) Termination

“The longer the time period between those two events, the less reasonable the termination
decision will appear, and it shall be viewed as retaliation and a interference with FMLA policy”.

8). Moreover, Ingersoll Rand cannot demonstrate, that such FMLA leave of Mr. Belion
permitted the employer to discover the behavioral problems which it alleges.

(see Kohls v Beverly Enter. Wis., Inc., 259 F.3d 799, 806 (7th Cir 2001)

11
In Cracco, Vatran discovered problems at Markham terminal, after Mr. Cracco took for FMLA
leave. It then began an investigation which came to belief that Mr. Cracco was responsible for
the problems and terminated his employment upon his return to work. Such situation is not
sufficient to establish a causal connection under the direct method of prohibited animus.

(see Cracco v Vitran Express Inc at No 07-3827. see also ( Elkhatib v Dunkin Donuts, Inc
493 F. 3d 827, 829 (7th Cir 2007)

9). Ingersoll Rand alleges in its response located on pg 3. That Mr. Belion expressed “weariness”
over continuing to work and requested to withdraw his 401k. However; Mr. Belion avers, that
such allegation is false and untrue. Whereas, Mr. Belion cannot possibly express “weariness,”
and a request to be terminated simultaneously.

10). “Weariness” is a belief of uncertainty, and a withdraw is a demand of termination.

Therefore, Mr. Belion cannot be uncertain, and demand for termination at the same time. Thus;
rendering the above statement an oxymoron, contradiction, and inconsistency of collaborated
statement.

11). On pg 3 of the Ingersoll Rand’s report alleges that ultimately, “Mr. Belion was only
discharged after he failed to return to work following his leave”. Mr. Belion objects.

12). It has been demonstrated through numerous of text messages, that Mr. Belion; has
expressed his desire to return, and “was planning to work on February 2, 2016”. Mr. Belion had
also scheduled multiple meetings with the staff, during the duration of time seeking his return.
Thus; upon proper conscience, it would indicate a sincere dire need to resume such employment.
(see packet (c) pg 1-7).

13). On pg 3 of Ingersoll Rand’s response report. Stated; that Mr. Belion sent Ms. Nauman a text
message stating that he would assume his employment had been terminated”. (see packet (c) pg
7-8).

Mr. Belion statement had only been directed as a question to the concern of his employment.
That he would assume termination based on the elapse of an answer, in which a reasonable
person would have come to the same conclusion.

12
14). On February 19,2016 Ms.Nauman; replied that she “will proceed with termination,” and
that he “needs and deserves closure”. (see packet c pg 8).

* Please reference the thesaurus below as to the meaning of “closure”.

Thesaurus; Webster US:

“Closure”.

Conclusion, finish, closing, termination, ending, shutting down, etc.

Upon the reply by Ms.Nauman, stating” she will proceed with termination and that he needs and
deserves closure,” created the presumption of an arbitrary discharge from the company.

15). Upon Ms. Nauman’s text message of termination. Mr. Belion then filed for Reemployment
Assistance Program on February 24, 2016 (see exhibit F).

16). On had been notified by authorities upon Mr. Belion’s filing to Reemployment Assistance
Program. (see exhibit G)

17). On February 26, 2016. Upon learning of Mr. Belion’s filing to Reemployment Assistance
Program; Ms. Nauman then recanted her arrogated termination. Thus, apologizing as to her
unorthodox, unethical, jingoistic unprofessionalism, and request his return. (see packet (c) pg 9)

The relevant judicial question at hand must be inquired; what reason and sole purpose of Ms.
Naumans apology to Mr. Belion? Obviously she made a mistake in terminating Mr. Belion; and
wanted his return, after his filing of Reemployment Assistance Program.

18). Due to above fact that he was termination by Ms. Nauman ultimately led to the conclusion
and clear understanding of discharge, which stemmed the filing of Reemployment Assistance

13
Program, which ultimately rendering the apology and request to return by Ms. Nauman null and
void. (see exhibit H).

19). Therefore, Ingersoll Rand cannot establish a probable interpretation on clear creditable
method of its discharge of Mr. Belion.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONCLUSION

1). Mr. Belion avers, that he has shown a clear precise prima facie case as to negligence and a
direct infringement upon the FMLA, and Ingersoll Rand EEO policy.

2). That Ingersoll Rand has not established its reasoning for arbitrarily terminating Mr. Belion.
However, there are rules, and regulation to govern the rights of employees, that they shall resume
to their respective positions after the return of FMLA leave.

3). It is clear within the foundation of mensrea in this case, that Mr. Belion rights had been
infringed, when Ms. Nauman came to the position to assert termination base upon her
frustrations due to Mr.Belions concern as to his status of his employment.

4). It is also clear, that any prior disciplinary issues subjecting Mr Belion to termination is
nonsensical, or Mr.Belion would have been terminated prior to this dialog and would have left
no room for argument.

5). It is also clear that Mr. Belion had not been terminated due to him failing to returning to work
after his return from leave, when such text messages had been exchanged by the parties
indicating dire concern.

6). It is clear that there had been an unconscious error made by Katherine Nauman, stemming an
apology after recognition of such inflammatory remark. And an expose-facto request to return
after a filing to Reemployment Assistance Program.

7). As a well-respected company, the Ingersoll Rand must be enforced to adhere to Federal law
and its provisions, and therefore should take notice and responsibility of its actions.

8). It is relevant to assert that due to the facts of Mr. Belion’s 5th, 8th, and 14th amendments of the
United States Constitution had been infringed. He has suffered mental anguish, loss of income,
defamation of character, an injury due to its violations, and wishes to mediate a resolution as to
this claim.

14
 OATH OF VERIFICATION

I Ahmad Belion Hereby attest that the above statement is a true and correct as to the best of my
knowledge.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY: that a true and correct copy of forgoing has been foregoing has been
furnished this Day of 2017 by U.S Mail to:
Florida Commission on Human Relations.
4075 Esplanda Way Room 110
Tallahassee Florida 32399-70250.

Ahmad Belion

Signature.

Date.

NOTORY PUBLIC

15