CHEV RG ‘Champion brought on one of he nation's premier Itgation firms in defending companies against unjust federal government actions. {Cooper & Krk has sent a letter directly to the Chairwoman ofthe EEOC in Washington DC. We fel very strongly tha his sa rogue aor and that once leadership understands we were never even given a chance to respond tothe allegation and we rein fact 100% innocent that they will step into help "esove this ease, The EEOC hes fr too much power to allow rogue agents to push agendas and shakedown a small model family owned company ike Champion and all without a shred of due process. ‘800 Kietake Lane * Reno, Nevada 89502-2095 P.O. Box 7277 « Reno, Nevada 89510-7277 « (775) 786-3111 « Fax (775) 786-4397 ‘wanw.championchevroletveno.comCooper & Kirk Lawyers Brian W, Barnes 23 New Hampahire Avenue, NAW. (ann 220.9600 ‘oanes@evoperkinkcom ‘Washington, D.C. 20036 ax (200)20.9601 August 30,2019 Janet Dhillon, Chair U.S. Equal Employment Cpportunity Commission 131M Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20507 Re: EEOC Charge Number $50-2017-00626 Dear Ms. Dillon: | write on behalf of my client, Heeb Hallman Chevrolet, Ine. D/BIA Champion Chevrolet Champion”), to bring to your attention the rogue behavior ofthe San Francisco District Office. (Champion is a family owned and operated business that has been a pillar of the Reno, Nevada ‘community for over thirty years through its involvement in numerous civic and charitable activities. Earlier this wee, however, the San Franeiseo District Office brought an employment discrimination suit against Champion in the U.S. District Court forthe District of Nevada, While ‘Champion has uncovered absolutely zero evidence tht would support the claims agains it, the ‘purpose of ths letter isto ring to your attention the patently deficient process that preceded the ing ofthe suit. That proess was punetuated by an inflammatory press release alleging that ‘Champion "Bullied Lone Female Salesperson” and that invoked the "#MeToo movement.” In its eagerness to signal its support forthe #MeT0 movement, the San Francisco District Oice ‘has neglected the due process protections tha are the constitutional bedrock of our system of government. ‘The EEOC’s investigation process typically begins when “a charge is filed by or on behalf ofa person claiming to be agerieved." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b). Upon receiving such @ charge, the EEOC is required to “serve a notice ofthe charge (inching the date, place and circumstances of the alleged unlawful employment peaetie)" on the accused employer. fd. This notice provides the employer with an opportunity to investigate and seek to rebut the charges ‘against it If the EEOC delermines that there is reasonable cause to believe the charge i re, i is directed not to file suit immediately but rates to “endeavor to eliminate any sul alleged unlawful employment pratice by informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion.” 1d. Only these efforts fa! may the FEOC institute a civil ation. ld. § 2000-5. ‘This process broke down in this case. Inthe Spring of 2017, a male former Champion employee filed a claim agnnst Champion, alleging age discrimination in violation of the ADEA and retaliation in violation of Title VIL The recent suit brought by the San Francisco District "Sue Pres Release, EEOC, Cspion Chew aby EEOC fr Sex Disriinon (Ave 28,2019), nnn nseomleasl.28-12h fn.Janet Dhillon ‘August 30,2019 Page 2 0f 2 Office alleges sex discrimination against a diferent former Champion employee, Dens Palme. ‘Me, Palmer never Filed a charge against Champion. The San Francisco District Ofiee never notified Champion ofthe ate, pace and circumstances ofthe unlawful practices it allegedly ‘gaged in with respecte Ms. Palme, And the San Francisco Distt Oe failed to engage in ‘ny meaningful efforts at sonference, conciliation, and persuasion, Indeed, conspicuously absent from avy ofthe San Francisco Distt office's ‘communications with Champion is any indication of wo engaged inthe alleged misconduct toward Me, Palmers when it sae allged ta have happened and who eperfeally woe allel sid or dane, The San Francisco District Office appears to have made up its mind about this ease ‘tthe outset, going through the motions ofthe determination and conciliation process bt ling to provide Champion with any meaningful notice and opportunity tobe ear despite Champion's insistent and repeated request for information about the charges against it and failing to budge one cent om its iil setement offer despite multiple counter-offes from Champion. This makes a nockery ofthe process that Section 2000-8 cll for before the EEOC say file suit against an employer Sincerely. 3 WB Bron Wares ce: Sharon Fast Gusttion, General Counsel