Info. From YMCA Deposition of Mr. Noack
The pages below are very few of the many, many pages - again, all accessible to anyone via FOIA (Freedom of Information Act). -Sweet, huh? - :) They seemed to just grill the man - lots of pages - but the content is mostly deleted except as convenient to the YMCA, as they were the side that filed these pages attempting to use them (and many more from their deposition of Noack) against him. I have found out that Mr. Noack himself had been so poor he could not afford to do any depositions of his own, nor would the court appoint counsel to him as he'd requested. (The Houston YMCA is huge & influential, and one news story has reported about the exhorbitant salary of it's CEO & other top leaders.)
Also, it seems Noack didn't even have the money for a copy of the YMCA deposition; so, much of the content of the rampantly blanked pages is anyone's guess, really. Loads of info here that shows clear evidence/testimony of what sure looks like discrimination, lol. Oh, btw, the blacked-out names, arrows and marker writing are not on the originals - just my being careful and making some pointed comments.
Nevertheless, what is in some of these pages is also too much to simply disregard. It is clearly a matter of evidence, and it is my understanding that courts may not legally, forcibly lay aside such sworn testimony of alleged wrongdoing without a jury trial. If a case is weak, it would fail at trial, but judges are not the ones to decide the honesty of just any party they wish to, especially in a case like this where the YMCA rather than Mr. Noack seems to have evidently failed the honesty-barometer. This plus the prior sworn affidavit clearly incidates something rotten going on in the courts and legal system, IMO.
An important complication is Mr. Noack apparently was not allowed the legally-mandated cross-examination when deposed. Self-represented, he didn't seem to be permitted "defensive" statements in response to the questions. FRCP Rule 30 (c)(1) states, "The examination and cross-examination of a deponent proceed as they would at trial..." (seen via this link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_30).
Remember, the claims in these documents are the views of the plaintiff in the case.
There has been no trial. No jury was allowed to decide who was telling the truth.
Allegations are a part of any legal case & they are a view from one of the two or more parties in a legal case.
They are here to help show the plausibility of inappropriate court activity, as a public service for the cause of justice.
Also, it seems Noack didn't even have the money for a copy of the YMCA deposition; so, much of the content of the rampantly blanked pages is anyone's guess, really. Loads of info here that shows clear evidence/testimony of what sure looks like discrimination, lol. Oh, btw, the blacked-out names, arrows and marker writing are not on the originals - just my being careful and making some pointed comments.
Nevertheless, what is in some of these pages is also too much to simply disregard. It is clearly a matter of evidence, and it is my understanding that courts may not legally, forcibly lay aside such sworn testimony of alleged wrongdoing without a jury trial. If a case is weak, it would fail at trial, but judges are not the ones to decide the honesty of just any party they wish to, especially in a case like this where the YMCA rather than Mr. Noack seems to have evidently failed the honesty-barometer. This plus the prior sworn affidavit clearly incidates something rotten going on in the courts and legal system, IMO.
An important complication is Mr. Noack apparently was not allowed the legally-mandated cross-examination when deposed. Self-represented, he didn't seem to be permitted "defensive" statements in response to the questions. FRCP Rule 30 (c)(1) states, "The examination and cross-examination of a deponent proceed as they would at trial..." (seen via this link: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_30).
Remember, the claims in these documents are the views of the plaintiff in the case.
There has been no trial. No jury was allowed to decide who was telling the truth.
Allegations are a part of any legal case & they are a view from one of the two or more parties in a legal case.
They are here to help show the plausibility of inappropriate court activity, as a public service for the cause of justice.
Alright, the document above and the first three below have to do with a dispute Noack had about gender-bias which he filed an EEOC complaint about and apparently withdrew it mere days later, supposedly hoping to work things out with the YMCA. The EEOC had the complaint for such a short time (possibly less than 3 days) that the YMCA might not have known it was filed, but other court documents show they did know of the incidents involved and apparently heard his complaints in person. The man mentioned on line 10 is interesting, as it indicates again that the YMCA was indeed aware of such prior problems in which Mr. Noack felt there was disparate treatment. However, (according to records filed as evidence) the YMCA evidently told the labor board they never knew of any of these kinds of problems in all Noack's years with them - up to the time they got the labor-complaint letter sent after Noack resigned.
This shows again that they did know and simply didn't tell the truth to the labor board! That should be reason in itself for the EEOC to reopen the case, I would think. Noack also filed records showing the labor board then merely dropped the case without apparently talking to anyone or asking any questions of his supervisors or coworkers - he actually submitted EEOC case logsheets detailing all contacts made by them to either party and what they were for.
This shows again that they did know and simply didn't tell the truth to the labor board! That should be reason in itself for the EEOC to reopen the case, I would think. Noack also filed records showing the labor board then merely dropped the case without apparently talking to anyone or asking any questions of his supervisors or coworkers - he actually submitted EEOC case logsheets detailing all contacts made by them to either party and what they were for.
Questioning about other things then begins (below), not all pages are consecutive.
The above page is especially interesting as Mr. Noack refers to the person as his supervisor. I think that's the person gave sworn testimony trying to indicate she was not his supervisor when he became a site director and so could never have denied him a position due to gender-bias. However, other court records show her signature on his promotion documents. That's perjury, and this sworn testimony reinforces the matter I think. At any rate, it is sworn testimony of outright discrimination, and if in conflict with YMCA testimony, had there been no promotion documents with her signature, it still would indicate a jury being needed to decide this issue.
Haha - the dude seems nervous, above - "more Prairie View A&M staff -- I mean..." (blah, blah). Lol, I can imagine it must be a pressure-cooker to be in that kind of Q & A thing and the other side trying to catch you in anything they can use on you with all your words said under sworn oath!
The last page above is interesting!
CollegeData.com (https://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg06_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=937) shows Prairie View A&M Univ. to be 89.1% black/african-american. That means Noack's comments are largely accurate, IMO - that's almost 90% black students. This has nothing to do with racism on Mr. Noack's part I think - grades, not race, make the student. Among mostly white colleges, there are some good ones and some not so good ones. I think Mr. Noack knew something and stuck his neck out at work in trying to make it right, and hey, who knows what else was said, whether he gave other qualifying information with it or what, as so much was blanked out by the YMCA before submitting it to court. I don't like that - it seems dishonest. Maybe using a highlighter would be better so judges can see all words in context.