Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Glenn Velasquez Complaint

    Uploaded by

    Dave Clark
    12K views20 pages
    State Senate candidates Chris Velasquez and Annette Glenn, and Dow Silicones Corporation, are being sued in a 14-page complaint that was filed July 21 in 42nd Circuit Court of Midland County by Sharon Schram.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    State Senate candidates Chris Velasquez and Annette Glenn, and Dow Silicones Corporation, are being sued in a 14-page complaint that was filed July 21 in 42nd Circuit Court of Midland County by Sharon Schram.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    12K views20 pages

    Glenn Velasquez Complaint

    Uploaded by

    Dave Clark
    State Senate candidates Chris Velasquez and Annette Glenn, and Dow Silicones Corporation, are being sued in a 14-page complaint that was filed July 21 in 42nd Circuit Court of Midland County by Sharon Schram.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 20
    STATE OF MICHIGAN CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF MIDLAND SHARON SCHRAM, runt cuore 19% 0 v. Hon: DOW SILICONES CORPORATION formerly HON, STEPHEN P CARRAS known as DOW CORNING CORPORATION, P6270 CHRISTIAN VELASQUEZ, CHRISTIAN VELASQUEZ FOR STATE SENATE, ANNETTE GLENN and [ANNETTE GLENN FOR STATE SENATE Defendants ‘THE MASTROMARCO FIRM VICTOR J. MASTROMARCO, IR, (P34564) KEVIN J. KELLY (P74546) Attorney for Plaintiff 1024 N. Michigan Avenue Saginaw, M 48602 (989) 752-1414 ‘ymastromarco@mastromarcofirm com. kelly@mastromarcofirm.com / ‘There is no other pending or resolved civil action arising ‘out of the transaction occurrence alleged in the complaint. PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY NOW COMES Plinff, SHARON SCHRAM, by and through he attomeys, THE ‘MASTROMARCO FIRM, and hereby complains aginst the Defendants, DOW SILICONES CORPORATION formerly known as DOW CORNING CORPORATION (berinate refered tos “DOW"), CHRISTIAN VELASQUEZ, CHRISTIAN VELASQUEZ FOR STATE 1 ‘THE MASTROMARCO FIRM | 1024 N, Michigan Avenue | Saginaw, Michigan 48602 | (989) 752-1414 SENATE, ANNETTE GLENN, and ANNETTE GLENN FOR STATE SENATE, stating 5 follows: COMMON ALLEGATIONS 1. That Plaintfisa resident ofthe County of Malan, State of Michigan 2. That the Defendant DOW isa foreign profit comporation authorized to conduct business in the State of Michigan and doing so in the County of Midland, State of Michigan. 3. ‘That at al times material hereto, Defendant VELASQUEZ isa resident of the County of Midland, State of Michigan. 4, Thatat all times material hereto, that Defendant GLENN is @ resident of the County of Midland, Stat of Michigan, 5. ‘That Defendant GLENN FOR STATE SENATE (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant GLENN’) is a nonprofit corporation existing under the laws ofthe State of Michigan, and doing business in Midland, Michigan 6, ‘That Defendant VELASQUEZ FOR STATE SENATE (hereinafter refered to as “Defendant VELASQUEZ”) is a nonprofit corporation existing under the laws ofthe State of Michigan, and doing business in Midland, Michigan. 7. ‘That the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000.00 exclusive of cost, interests and attorney fees 8. Thaton or about May 1986, Plaintiff began her employment with Defendant andor its predecessor, specifically the Dow Coming Corporation. 9, ‘That on or about December 12,2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the US District Court of Eastem District of Michigan represented by ECF DOCH! at pg. 1 of 16, 10. That said mater has been resolved, 2 ‘THE MASTROMARCO FIRM | 1024 N. Michigan Avenue | Saginaw, Michigan 48602 | (989) 752-1414 11. That thereafter, Defendant GLENN announced her run for the 35¢ Senate seat which comprises Saginaw, Midland, and Bay Counties 12, That ator about the same time, Defendant VELASQUEZ announced in March of 2022, that he was running for the same Senate sat a that being sought by Defendant GLENN. 13, ‘That both Defendant GLENN and Defendant VELASQUEZ are Midland residents 14, That on July 2,2022, and during the couse ofthe eletion campaign, Defendant GLENN published a post and advertisement ina flyer regarding her opposing candidate VELASQUEZ. 15, That the post above provided a synopsis ofa case involving Plaintiff but did not include her name or identity which was purposely removed from the post, and referred to Pints the “female plait,” presumably to preserve her privacy 16, That however and also within sai post, was link to an Opinion issued by the Honorable David Lawson, United States District Court Judge which did contain Plaintiff's name. 17, Thatafter the post, critical comments were made in the press and diferent mediums by het ‘opponent VELASQUEZ attacking sad post and characterizing the subject ofthe post as misleading, hal-rths and les. 18, That in response to the VALEQUEZ attacks on hee campaign for posting the flyer, Defendant GLENN in an attempt to bolster her poston inthe flyers began to specifically publish Plaintf’s name inher later posts, and no longer referred to he as the “female plain.” 19, That for example, on July 8, 2022, Defendant GLENN began to publish Plaintif's name in her Facebook post, and campaign ads, and continued to do so thereafter in subsequent poss 20, ‘That by Defendant GLENN publishing said lawsuit, and publishing Plaintif's name, Defendant GLENN was attempting to gain an advantage for purposes of her benefit, 3 ‘THE MASTROMARCO FIRM | 1024 N. Michigan Avenue | Saginaw, Michigan 48602 | (989) 782-1414 21. ‘That in addition, Defendant GLENN posted on Facebook the URI. tothe Opinion on July 2, 2022, July 5, 2022, and twice on July 14, 2022, at 6:21 am and 6:48 am. 22. That as such, she used Plaintiff's nume, “SHARON SCHRAM", and identified Plaintt? without her permission, as more fully set forth below, and invaded her privacy. 23. That as more fully set fort below, the actions of GLENN and VELASQUEZ brought the Plaintf, without her permission, into their mudslinging campaigns end in doing so attempted to advance both oftheir political agendas atthe expense ofthe Plant. 24, That prior tothe mudsinging campaign tactics, Defendant VELASQUEZ and Defendant DOW had entered into certain agreements asi related tothe litigation refered to above. 25. That at the time of said lawsuit filed by Plantift SHARON SCHRAM, Defendant \VELASQUEZ was an employee ofthe Defendant Dow Chemical or its predecessor Dow Silicones andlor its predecessor Dow Corning. 26, That Defendant VELASQUEZ. has admited to the MIRS News, that he signed an agreement with Defendant DOW when the lawsuit settled, binding him to sid Agreement between Defendant Dow and Plait. 27. That in an article published by MIRS News, Defendant VELASQUEZ stated that he “signed a non-disclosure agreement when Dow settled the lawsuit.” (See Exhibit 1- GLENN’s post quoting MIRS News article dated July 6, 2022) 28. That as such, Defendant VELASQUEZ knew, according to his admission that he was not to comment about the laut 29. That in response to what Defendant VELASQUEZ viewed as negative campaign ates by Defendant GLENN, Defendant VELASQUEZ did comment and speak about the lawsuit that had been resolved. 4 THE MASTROMARCO FIRM | 1024 N. Michigan Avenue | Saginaw, Michigan 48602 | (989) 752-1414 30, ‘That Defendant VELASQUEZ told MIRS News thatthe accusations were “half the fact, ‘or quarter of the facts accusation” and that Defendant VELASQUEZ, commented “I fired no one it) happened years down the road from a different department.", and “the emails were taken out of ‘There's no judgement against me. Dow settled it", “Whatever happened with (the pl content” (See Id, at paragraph 23 supra), 31. That infact, Defendant VELASQUEZ, id participate in or contributed to public and private discussions andlor other publicity relating to said lawsuit an the fats therein 32, That Defendant VELASQUEZ also did join in negative or critical discussions or other communications which otherwise disparaged SHARON SCHRAM in @ manner related to the litigation, or the facts giving rise tothe litigation, or his role in the litigation, and otherwise Aispraged Plinti's ligaton 33. That Defendant VEL ASQUET also attempted to minimize his involvement inthe Hitgation by claiming he was the “manager ofthe manager managing the position’, indicating thatthe Ttgation was “halfeocked” and otherwise disparaged the Plaintiff and the litigation as more fully set forth in alter authored by Sentor Horn to the editor ofthe Midland Daily News, which was ‘made after a discussion between Defendant VELASQUEZ and Senator Horn 34. ‘That despite Defendant VELASQUEZ indicating he wasn't diet involved withthe ase ‘or Plant, Defendant VELASQUEZ personally appeared at Plitf's hous, he called Plintit ‘on ber home phone, and atempted to solicit her vote for his personal politcal gain. 35. That as such, Defendant VELASQUEZ. did breach the agreement, and because of his actions has caused the Defendant DOW to breach the Agreement withthe Plaintif. 36, That, furthermore, Defendant GLENN, in response to comments made by Defendant \VELASQUEZ did contact the Midland Daily News and its editor, David Clark 5 ‘THE MASTROMARCO FIRM | 1024 N, Michigan Avenue | Saginaw, Michigan 48602 | 989) 752-1414 37. That upon information and belief, Defendant GLENN did contact David Clark (herein after “Clark for purposes of atempring to have him run an article on sid lawsuit filed by Paint ‘against Defendant DOW. 38. ‘Thatas such and in an attempt to convince or eajle Cla into writing an atcle Defendant GLENN specifically indicated that it was okay to run the article because Plaintiff “SHARON SCHRAM is dead” 39. That fact, on July 12,2022, lak left voicemail message, stating the reason he was calling was to find out whether or not Plaintiff is dead since he claimed that Defendant GLENN had been telling multiple news outlets that Plant is dead 40, ‘That Defendant GLENN's aim wast portray Plitilfas dead, knowing that «dead person oes not have a right to privacy 41. Thatas such, Defendant GLENN statements othe Midland Daily News were malicious and reckless and were made forthe purposes of her own financial gin and political gin, 42. That on July 20, 202, the Plainti demanded a reaction by Defedant GLENN of her false and defamatory statements tothe Midland Daily News, aS: pe, (See Exhibit 2- Retraction Letter to GLENN) 43. That thereaferand at 6:04 pm, Defendant GLENN retracted the statements made to the Midland Dally News attempting to claim that their misinformation was though an unidentified “Dow Coming retiree.” 44, That prior to the above email retacting the statements, Defendant GLENN sent an emai to Schram counsel stating in a patroniaing manne “lad to hear your client is not deceased”, in this way GLENN attempted to make light of her defamatory statements, 6 ‘THE MASTROMARCO FIRM | 1024 N. Michigan Avenue | Saginaw, Michigan 48602 | (989) 752-1414 45, That ination to GLENN’s activites above, Defendant VALESQUEZ in his attempts to undermine th litigation, bas engaged in an invasion of Plintif?'s privacy by praying he in a false light, which is evidenced by his breach of the agreement and by his attempts to spin his involvement inthe litigation by specifically indicating o Todd Gambrell, that Defendant GLENN’s ad was “willy distoned and intentionally misleading” and then further defumed the Plant by telling Gambricl, also in breach of the agreements, that Pint’ Iitgaton was a “ease hat never ‘went anywhere and ony involved Defendant VELASQUEZ because he was leader atthe Dow Coming Corporation ” 46. That inthis way Defendant VELASQUEZ imparted false information which was repeated by his hends and compatriots 47. Thatas such, not only has Defendant VELASQUEZ breached his resent but Defendant DOW, through Defendant VELASQUEZ, has published information allegedly concerning the lawsuit 48, That atthe same time, Plants fre from any wrongdoing in the premises COUNT LINY, (OF PRIVACY-FALSE LIGHT-VELASQUEZ 49. That Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 48 of her Common Allegations word for word and paragraph for paragraph, as if fully restated herein 50. That s noted more flly above, nthe Common Allegations Defendant VELASQUEZ did attribute “tothe Plaintif, characteristics, conduct, or beliefs that were false and placed the Plant ina false postion” Durand vs. Detroit Nows, In, 200 Mich App 622, 632 (1993). 51. That in an attempt to undemnine the lawsuit previously fled by Plaintiff, Defendant ‘VELASQUEZ broadcasted through his Facebook post, specific facts regarding his characterization 1 ‘THE MASTROMARCO FIRM | 1024 N. Michigan Avenue | Saginaw, Michigan 48602 | (989) 752-1414 ofthe lawsuit, characterizing his postion in said lawsuit s ame “witness” and that the “campaign piece [by Defendant GLENN] s misleading and unre. and ies.” 52. Tht Defendant VELASQUEZ continued to psnt the Paintin false light, by stating to the City Paper, that “they're making it scem like I'm the Defendant and was merely a witness, 1 was the manager of the manager managing this person.” In this way, Defendant VELASQUEZ attempts t remove his involvement, and late telling individuals, who broadasted to the news media, that said lawsuit was “half-cocked and less than half factual” and “I've spent 30 years fighting this kindof nasty pois, and all hat time protecting my constituents fom half -euhs,.” as repeated by Ken Hom. 53, That Ken Horn was tol this information by the Defendant VELASQUEZ on information and belie ‘4, That in fact, Senator Ken Hom wrote in his Facebook post on July 5, 2022, that he had “a direct conversation withthe candidate [Defendant VELASQUEZ] in question and made it clear that | would comment on the campaign style before day's end” (See Exhibit 3- Ken Hom’s post, dated July 5,2022,) 55. Tatas Horn further claimed to farther Defendant VELASQUEZ 'S agenda, “Dow Corning doesn't deserve to have is name dragged trough the mud of desperate polities” 56, That Defendant VELASQUEZ als old Todd Garbrel tha the case was “wildy distorted and intentionally misleading” and that the “case never went anywhere and only involved Defendant ‘VELASQUEZ because he was a leader atthe Dov Corning Corporation” 57. Thats such, the Defendant VELASQUEZ specifically attempted to portay Plt and her lawsuit in a false ight, specifically tempting to minimize his involvement, and characterize 8 ‘THE MASTROMARCO FIRM | 1024 N. Michigan Avenue | Saginaw, Michigan 48602 | (989) 752-1414 {hough his frends and constituents thatthe post made by Defendant Glenn and her flyer concerning Plaine vas false 58, Furthermore, Defendant VELASQUEZ attempted to further paint Plant in a fale light, by negating any wrong-doing claiming that “During my 29 years with Dow and Dow Comin, 1 ‘worked with thousands of women, eameda reputation for being fir, and am credited as an advocate ‘throughout their career journeys. My commitment to ensuring equal opportunities forall people is unwavering” (See Exhibit 4 July 7,202, post by Defendant VELASQUEZ) 59. That as such, Defendant VELASQUEZ attempted to further undermine Plani’s lkgation and Plaintiff by claiming that he would never be unfiir to a woman, Le, tht the allegations were false. (60. That beceuse of Defendant VELASQUEZ'S actions in concert with Defendant GLENN, they projected Plaintiff's name tothe public through various news agencies including “the Citizen,” “The Chemical City Paper,” “MIRS News", “GONGWER NEWS”, “Midland Daily News”, and rik News 61. That Defendant VELASQUEZ di at with malice andlor recklessness ‘62. That as such, Plaintiff claims damages against Defendant VELASQUEZ for same. 63. Thatasa direct and proximate resultof Defendants unlawful ations, Plaintiff has sulered and will continu to suffer non-economic damages, including but nt Limited to, motional dstess, mental anguish, shock, fight, embarassment, humiliation, nervousness, anxiety, depression, disruption of lifestyle, and denial of socal pleasures, WHEREFORE, Pleintifrespectlly requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment Jn her favor inan amount in excess of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($75,000.00) in addition to costs, interest, and attomey fees along with any and all legal and/or equitable relief ° ‘THE MASTROMARCO FIRM | 1024 N. Michigan Avenue | Saginaw, Michigan 48602 | (989) 752-1414 this Court deems just ‘COUNT I1-DEEAMATION - VELASOUEZ, NN 64. That Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 48 of her Common Allegations and paragraphs 49 through 63 of Count I, word for word and paragraph fr paragraph, as if fll estated herein 65. That Defendant VELASQUEZ did defame the Plaintf, a Facebook post, on July 5, 2022, where Defendant VELASQUEZ characterized PlaitifP's lawsuit, contained in Defendant GLENN'S campaign mal yer and Facebook poss as “isleading and untrue. lis." 66, Tht said statements by Defendant VELASQUEZ ate false. 67. Tat Plintif, whose same appears throughout the post by Defendant GLENN is the subject of Defendant VELASQUEZ'S claims a8 misleading and untrue 68. That furthermore, Defendant VELASQUEZ told his fiend Ken Hora, thatthe asi was “palfeocked", “ess than half factual” and “half-truths.” (69. That sad statements made by Defendant VELASQUEZ. and were supplied to misinform Ken Hor, ae false 70, That Defendant VELASQUEZ also told Todd Gambrell false statements that Defendant Glenn's post was “wildly distorted and intentionally misleading” and thatthe “case never went anywhere and only involved Defendant VELASQUEZ because he was leader a the Dow Coming Conporation’ 71, That Defendant VELASQUEZ has also atempted to minimize his role in soi case and ‘commented tothe effect that he would never demean any woman, thus agin atempting to defame Plaintiff's position. (See Ex 4- July 7, 2022, post by Defendant VELASQUEZ). 0 ‘THE MASTROMARCO FIRM | 1024 N, Michigan Avenue | Saginaw, Michigan 48602 | (989) 752-1414, 72, That Defendant VELASQUEZ's statements do defame Plaintiff in her profession and ‘employment, and further appear to retaliate aginst her for bringing a lawsuit. 173. That furthermore, Defendant VELASQUEZ"s statements are malicious since they violate the contract as more fully set fort nthe next count. See Count IV. 74, That, furthermore, Defendant GLENN, in response to comments made by Defendant VELASQUEZ did contact the Midland Daily News and its editor, David Clark 75, That upon information and belief, Defendant GLENN did contact David Clan (herein after “Clark” for purposes of attempting fo have him run an article on said lawsuit filed by Plaintft against Defendant DOW. 176. Tatas such, and in anatemptto convince or cajole lat nto writing an ats Defendant GLENN specitically indicated that it was okay to run the aticle because Plintif “SHARON SCHRAM is dead.” 77. ‘That in fact, on July 12,2022, Cac left voicemail message, stating te 1eason be was calling was to find out whether or not Plaintiff is dead since he claimed that Defendant GLENN had ben telling multiple news outs tat Plait is dead 78. ‘That Defendant GLENN’ aim was o portray Plt as dead, knowing that dead person does not have a right to privacy 79, That as such, Defendant GLENN's statements to the Midland Daly News were malicious and reckless and were made for the purpses of her own financial and political gain 80. That on July 20, 202, the Plant demanded a retraction by Defendant GLENN of her false and defamatory statement othe Midland Daily News, a 51pm. (See Exhibit 2- Retraction Letter to GLENN) u ‘THE MASTROMARCO FIRM | 1024 N. Michigan Avenuc| Saginaw, Michigan 48602 (989) 752-1414 81, That thereafter, and at 6:04 pm, Defendant GLENN retracted the statements made to the Midland Daily News attempting to claim that thei misinformation was through an unidentified “Dow Coming retiree.” 482, That prior tothe above email retracting the statements, Defendant GLENN sent an ems to Schram’s counsel stating ina pstronizing manner “pled to hear your client isnot deceased”, in this way GLENN attempted to make light of her defamatory statement. 83, That said statements by Defendant GLENN are untue and defamatory and would deter a person from associating with her, ie, because sheis dead. 44, That said comments made by Defendant GLENN, were allegedly made to multiple individuals aceording to Clark, eto of the Midland Daly News 85, That sid statements are fale since Plants alive. 86, Thatasa direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawfl ations, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer non-economic damages, including, bt not limited o, emotional distress, ‘mental anguish, shock, fight, embarassment, humiliation, nervousness, anxiety, depression, disruption of lifestyle, and denial of social pleasures WHEREFORE, Plait espctlly requests that his Honorable Court enter judgment inher fvor in an amount in excess of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($75,000.00) in addition to cost, interest, and attorney fees slong with any and all legal andlor equitable relief this Court deems just. YUNT Il BREACH OF cr 87. That Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 48 of er Common Allegations, paragraphs 49 through 6¢ of Count, nd paragraphs 65 through 86 of Count I, word for word and paragraph for paragraph sf flly restated herein. 2 ‘THE MASTROMARCO FIRM | 1024 N. Michigan Avenve | Saginaw, Michigan 48602 |(989) 752-1414 88. That a contact was signed between Plaintiff and Defendant DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY. 89. That Defendant VELASQUEZ was als a part of sid agreement 90, That Defendant VELASQUEZ. and Defendant DOW did breach sai agreement by their actions herein 91, That Defendant DOW is responsible for the actions of Defendant VALESQUEZ. both contractually and through the doctrine of respondeat superior ability 92. That said agreement will be supplied to the Court under separate protective order afer the fling of ths compine 93. Tha Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of Defendant's breach ofthe agreement. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for damages against the Defendant in an amount in exeess of $75,000.00, inclusive of costs, interest and attorney fees, fr all damages at lw oF inequity as decided by a jury herein Respctally submited, ‘THE MASTROMARCO FIRM ated: July 21, 2022 By: ( —_ VICTOR J. MASTROMARCO, JR. (P3564) KEVIN. KELLY (P74545) ‘Attomeys for Plaintitt 1024'N, Michigan Avenue Saginaw, Michigan 48602 (989) 752-1414 via mastroms com Kikeliyi@mastromarcofirm com 3 ‘THE MASTROMARCO FIRM | 1024 N. Michigan Avenue | Saginaw, Michigan 48602 | (989) 752-1414 unless otherwise expressly waived. Respectfully submitted, ‘THE MASTROMARCO FIRM Date: July 21,2022 Be aaa ‘VICTOR J. MASTROMARCO, IR. (P34564) KEVIN J. KELLY (P74546) Attorneys for Plaintiff 1024N. Michigan Avenue Saginaw, Michigan 48602 (989) 752-1414 ‘ymastromarco@mastromarcofirm.com kelly @mastromarcofirm.com a ‘THE MASTROMARCO FIRM | 1026 N, Michigan Avenue | Sapinas, Michigan 48602 | (989) 752-1614 (1) Anat ln fr State Sante | Fassbosk +08 & Rep. Annette Glenn Conservative for State Senate The strong voice we need for Bay, Midland, and Saginaw counties. Annette Glenn for State Senate 3.1K followers » 4 fallawing Follow — Q Search rasan 247 Pk (@yAerate Cnn r Sat San |Ferbk @ + o.8 “I feel awtul tor voters and especially donors to Mr. Velasquex’s campaign, who he misled by falling to fully disclose this federal court ruling up front,” Glenn said in an email statement, Glenn's statement also noted that she refunded $1,175 Velasquez contributed to her 2018 and 2020 campaigns for the state House post because she wants to "disassociate her current and past ‘campaigns’ from him after learning about the court case. Velasquez welcomed the donation refund, which he said “will help me put my daughter through college." “Just another example of me supporting women," he said about the donation, Velasquez said he is not allowed to discuss the case in detail because he signed a non-disclosure ‘agreement when Dow settled the lawsuit. He said Glenn and her husband have a history of regative campaigning and he questioned why they felt "that road” is the path to take, “Ifired no one. There's no judgment against me. Dow settled i he sid. "I worked with thousands of women throughout Dow... and yes, | managed a lot of women. ln fact, when | was going into that job, my last three hires before that were women... Whatever happened with (the Plaintiff) happened years down the road from a different department.” Velasquez said he wants to eliminate negative campaigning and as a result, he will nt disparage his opponents, including Glenn, who asked him during a prior campaign to help her, ‘The federal lawsuit, Schram v. Dow Corning Corporation, was dismissed with prejudice - which ‘means it couldnt be brought again ~ in March 2018 when the partes told the court they had reached a final settlement. The plaintiff, Sharon SCHRAM, sued Dow, alleging she was forced out after nearly 30 years with the company. She argued her firing was retaliation for exercising her rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act and amounted to gender and disability discrimination. In the case, Velasquez testified in a deposition that he worked as @ market director for Dow Coming or Dow Chemical for 25 years and in January 2015 he took over Diane Kelly's role in marketing, supervising her former staff for about three or four months. Court documents show that Velasquez had "some discussions" about placing a male into ‘Schramn’s marketing position, but he testified thatthe “final decision” was Kelly's and Kelly testified the final decision was made by another manager. However, US, District Judge David Lawson noted in his January 2018 order denying summary clisposition that Velasquez's claim "is belied by Kellys insistence that she was not involved, which is corroborated by her conspicuous silence during the December email exchange" in which Velasquez ~ and not Kelly - “pushed for an earl notification to Schram” about termination ‘because the male replacement was under a 60-day redeployment clock because his duties were being redistributed. Lawson noted that Velasquer’s involvement in the decision is substantiated by an email the male employee sent to Dow's human resources department stating that a "he" manager approved the hiring and relocation process. Velasquez said the use of the emails were taken out of content, but he reiterated he could not discuss details, Friends have turned to social media to show support for Velasquez. estnosboncorvAmateGlentaraaSanle or ewwe, a7 ew (Art tar State Saat Facebok @ 2 ‘campaigning trom the Glenn campaign was ugly enough to anger” him, ‘The literature that Ann Glenn sent out against Chris Velasquez was both half-cocked and less than half factual,” the Horn post reads. "Ive spent 30 years fighting this kindof nasty politics, ane all that time protecting my constituents from half-truths + Oo 8 Horn goes on to say that how a person campaigns is how he or she will govern, and Velasquez “is ‘2 good and decent man, who didn't deserve this unprovoked negative attack against him.” Dow Coming also didn’t deserve to be “dragged through the mud of desperate politics,” he added, Horn’s post was “liked by fellow Republican, Rep. Mike Mueller (R-Linden). Jimmy €. Greene, former CEO of ABC Michigan which endorsed Glenn, posted on Facebook that when politics “crosses a personal ne, that's when we all have to draw our own lines and speak up" “Christan is like a favored uncle to my chicks and they adore him and for good reason. Greene's Post reads. “He's as decent 2 man as one can find. 'd trust any of my daughters’ careers with him ina heartbeat. | didnt like what | tead or heard when | saw it and | hoped it would go away. But it didn't. “So here's what I'l say, whether or not he deserves to be a state senator is eft up to voters but hhow he is viewed as an individual, a man, a husband, a friend, a father, well that's upto us .. and voting has nothing to do with that. That's about fais,” he noted, adding, “And FYI, "6 defend ‘Annette under the same set of circumstances. In adaltion to Glenn and Velasquez, the Republican candidates on the August primary are Martin Blank and Tim Kelly. The lone Democratic candidate is Kristen McDonald Rivet, ‘The seat represents Bay, Midland and Saginaw counties. (Gnd of MIRS News story) With less than four weeks until the Aug. 2nd primary election, please make a contribution, request 2 yardsign, or volunteer today at AanetteGlenn.com, Thank you! SR Veer egiival cee VaTiT) Ho eet US Dire Cour ge BSED AUIS Gemicson” Soocwowe, ARCHULET RWC In © 9 on. David Mt Lawson Preece PARTON] sccm 0. cenER 1ScRIMNATON baccheenet re nad Sercintecntrandtniowemiennatoomnea ‘opponent, Chris Velasques, Em * ‘deicen von ne nae Serene See epsieneaboatconlRmetoGireaeSants THE MASTROMARCO FIRM. ‘ALnateoLnntry Comey Sonne ‘Wt eamowanen n+ BaF nonce July 20,2022 Mrs, Annette Glenn ‘Send Via Email: info@anneveglenn.com RE: Retraction Demand Deae Ms Glenn | represent Sharon Schram. This corespondence is being decd to you pureuant tothe Michigan Defamation Statue MCL 600.2911. Ichas come to aur attention tat you have made false, defamatory, and malicious ststements regarding Ms. Sharon Schram. Your actions in stating Sharon ‘Schram is deceased to multiple news outlets including the Daily News i wilfully misleading and Without merit, because Mrs. Schram isnot deceased, ‘The fale statement that you made i ecklocs and highly defamatory and has caused ay elent suffer harm to her character, status, and peace and enjoyment of life. Please consider this tequest ‘writen demand for retraction pursuant to MCL 600.291 |2Xb), This statute requires a potenti, defendant to publish or communicete a retraction in substantially the same manne the originel

    You might also like