Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
Glass ceiling broviedcht wrote:Mr ZR, are you insinuating that dp-r is a functioning rxt@rd and a political shxte@ter, or that there are political influencers at work keeping one lil Indian girl from being appointed to a State Agency? Of what benefit may that be to anyone? [emoji849]zoom rader wrote:All dis because she is non red gravaments
zoom rader wrote:Glass ceiling broviedcht wrote:Mr ZR, are you insinuating that dp-r is a functioning rxt@rd and a political shxte@ter, or that there are political influencers at work keeping one lil Indian girl from being appointed to a State Agency? Of what benefit may that be to anyone? [emoji849]zoom rader wrote:All dis because she is non red gravaments
If a woman is on top the glass ceiling and a man is below, is that considered sexual harassment?zoom rader wrote:Glass ceiling broviedcht wrote:Mr ZR, are you insinuating that dp-r is a functioning rxt@rd and a political shxte@ter, or that there are political influencers at work keeping one lil Indian girl from being appointed to a State Agency? Of what benefit may that be to anyone? [emoji849]zoom rader wrote:All dis because she is non red gravaments
Has nutting to do being a woman.timelapse wrote:If a woman is on top the glass ceiling and a man is below, is that considered sexual harassment?zoom rader wrote:zoom rader wrote:All dis because she is non red gravaments
The_Honourable wrote:EOT challenges Bhajan’s lawsuit
The Equal Opportunity Tribunal (EOT) and its chairman Donna Prowell-Raphael have challenged a judge’s decision to grant EOT lay-assessor Veera Bhajan leave to pursue a judicial review lawsuit against them for allegedly blocking her from taking up her appointment.
In the application, filed last Monday lawyers for the EOT and Prowell-Raphael claim that High Court Judge Avason Quinlan-Williams should set aside her decision to grant Bhajan leave to pursue the judicial review lawsuit because Bhajan and her legal team did not disclose pertinent evidence central to the case before Quinlan-Williams made the preliminary determination on September 22.
The application was raised when the case, which is set to go on trial on November 12, came up for virtual hearing before Quinlan-Williams yesterday afternoon. Senior Counsel Alvin Fitzpatrick, who leads Bhajan’s legal team, submitted that the application should be heard and determined simultaneously with Bhajan’s substantive case to save time and legal expenses.
Attorney Rishi Dass, who led the legal team for the Office of the Attorney General, supported Fitzpatrick’s position as he noted that Quinlan-Williams had the discretion to decide how to deal with the application based on her previous case management directions.
Dass suggested that it would be counterproductive to split the case as the EOT and Prowell-Raphael could delay the hearing of the substantive issues if Quinlan-Williams rejected the application and they chose to appeal the decision.
Responding to the submission, the EOT and Prowell-Raphael’s attorney Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj, SC, denied that the application was designed to delay the case. “I am surprised that they believe this application was filed to delay any matter. This is a serious matter with serious issues involved,” Maharaj said.
He also questioned whether both the application and the substantive lawsuit can be heard at the same time.
“It would be unjust and inconsistent with the overriding objectives,” Maharaj said. After hearing the submissions, Quinlan-Williams agreed with Bhajan and the AG’s Office and ruled that both would be dealt with simultaneously.
According to her court filings, obtained by Guardian Media, the issue arose after Bhajan received her appointment from President Paula-Mae Weekes on March 17. Bhajan claimed that she made numerous attempts to contact the tribunal in order to take up her appointment before Prowell-Raphael responded on May 19.
In the correspondence, Prowell-Raphael claimed that her services were not required as the tribunal did not have the “financial wherewithal” to accommodate a second lay-assessor and that the tribunal’s current work flow did not require it.
Prowell-Raphael also accused Bhajan of using improper channels to enquire about her position.
In a legal opinion issued by the tribunal’s legal research officer Mintri Beharrylal on August 26, the tribunal claimed that the President was wrong to appoint Bhajan, as she (Bhajan) did not have sufficient qualifications for the post as required under the Equal Opportunity Act (EOA).
Beharrylal claimed that when Bhajan was first appointed, Prowell-Raphael informed the President that she (Bhajan) did not qualify for appointment as she did not have the prerequisite of 10 years experience as an attorney.
She claimed that after the communication, the President revoked the appointment and reappointed Bhajan based on having combined experience in law and social work for 10 years. She alleged that Bhajan still did not qualify under combined experience.
The opinion also stated that Prowell-Raphael had a legitimate expectation to be consulted by the President before the appointment and would have pointed out deficiencies in candidates.
Through the lawsuit, Bhajan is seeking a series of declarations against the tribunal and Prowell-Raphael that they acted in excess of their jurisdiction and in abuse of their power. She is also seeking an order quashing the decision and another mandating that she take up the appointment.
Bhajan, who is claiming that she quit her law practice to take up her appointment, is also seeking compensation for the monthly remuneration she was supposed to receive after being appointed.
While the Office of the Attorney General was listed as a respondent to Bhajan’s claim, it supported her legal action when her attorney Rajiv Chaitoo wrote to it before filing the lawsuit.
The AG’s Office said that it could not rectify the situation as it had no power over the tribunal or Prowell-Raphael.
Under the EOA, the tribunal consists of a Chairman and two lay-assessors appointed by the President. While the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC) advises the President on the appointment of the Chairman, the lay-assessors are selected solely by the President.
The tribunal is mandated to hear and determine discrimination complaints under the legislation, which are referred to it by the Equal Opportunity Commission. Bhajan, who was born without arms, was awarded the Hummingbird Medal (Silver) in 2011.
She is also being represented by Rajiv Persad, Michael Rooplal, Shari Fitzpatrick, and Gabriel Hernandez.
The EOT and its chairman are also being represented by Leon Kalicharan, Kiel Taklalsingh, and Karina Singh.
zoom rader wrote:Has nutting to do being a woman.timelapse wrote:If a woman is on top the glass ceiling and a man is below, is that considered sexual harassment?zoom rader wrote:All dis because she is non red gravaments
It's because she is injun
Redman wrote:Glass ceiling being enforced by two women.
Political victimisation by the PNM of a person who was awarded scholarships and National awards by the same PNM?
What else we can pelt?
Redman wrote:You saying that one side should fold because of the optics?
Maybe they feel they have a case.
On one hand you castigating the President as a waste of time...yet here you are in full support just because she supporting Veera.
So she ballzing up on one SC but perfect on the other.
Let it go to court..let the court set the precedent to avoid this happening again
The PROCESS is what is in question...and whatever the decision would set precedent for the President's actions going forward.
Redman wrote:So we agree that the President is not infallible.
Yet in this case you already know that it's the PNM that wrong and the Prez right.
You don't know what the Prez did or didn't do.
You don't know what the EOT chair did or didn't do.
Butyuh quick to spew the PNM blah blah blather.
Veera has one SC and 5 lawyers representing her, her case is partially built on financial hardship...you eh have a problem with that.
..yet you think the EOT shouldn't argue their case?
Try at least to be even in your thinking.
We have an argument between lawyers about a lawyer lawyering
It have to end up in court.
Redman wrote:As I said in this case...you do not know what any one did or didn't do.
Did the Prez act on advice..or not...was she required to?
If Prez was advised that the EOT did not have the need or financial or physical resources to support the need for another LA can she force the load on the EOT?
Does that make sense?
Veera is entitled to pursue her case and hire who she wants
And the state is also entitled.
Before you reply with your rabid blather, you should try to understand that both sides have their position and again whatever the result will set precedent.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests