We’ve already done Part I of this. Get updated if you didn’t see the background of this yet. 

We’ll continue on with part II of our reaction with a second excerpt from a public court document related to this case.

Here’s what was said:
“(G.C. Ex. 3B at 41-42 of 159) (emphasis added). Ghirmatzion directly threatens the employees who had sent the e-mail with reprisals for having done so, and clearly and explicitly expresses her animus toward the workers who embarrassed her in front of her supervisors on the Board. Following up further on Ghirmatzion’s direct threats, in the first of a series of apparently punitive steps, Cejka was immediately cut off from her Salesforce software account that is central to performing her work for Respondent on August 7, 2020 without explanation. (Tr. 66). When Cejka reached out to an employee who was in charge of IT support, she was informed that Bishop had contacted him to specifically request that Cejka’s Salesforce access be removed. Id. Shortly thereafter, on August 10, Ghirmatzion and her subordinate Deputy Director Harper cancelled a planned team retreat scheduled to take place on August 11 “until further notice,” while noting that the cancellation was happening because of the “e-mail that the Org Team sent to the Board of Directors” and what it had since triggered. (G.C. Ex. 4 at 146 of 159). Bishop also cancelled a “Midwest Academy” training until a later postponed date because he wanted to “include everything that needs to be talked about.” Id. The language used by Ghirmatzion consistently throughout her response to the August 6 e-mail indicated she took the clear impression that Cejka and her coworkers were engaged in concerted activity and seeking more control over their working conditions by having transparency and influence on the budget process. Ghirmatzion stated as such when she noted that, “some of you said, we did this in solidarity,” before questioning whether they had “solidarity” with other employees at the company or solidarity with their managers. (G.C. Ex. 3B at 41-42 of 159). It is also quite possible Ghirmatzion was fearful of employees in the other departments learning from the Organizing Department’s request and asking for similar information and input, and she essentially stated as much when she mentioned that other employees would be “[starting] the same [budgeting] process that we started with the organizing department.” (G.C. Ex. 3B at 41-42 of 159).

With respect to Johnson, who had been employed with Respondent since 2006 as a Canvasser employee, Community Outreach Coordinator, and Tenant Advocacy worker, her termination was equally swift after the August 6 e-mail and August 7 hostilities from the executive director. On August 27, 2020, Johnson was called into a meeting with Harper, Ghirmatzion, and Wells-Clyburn for the purpose of discussing her “role at PUSH.” (Tr. 105- 106). During that meeting, which was conducted via Zoom, Harper, Board of Directors Chairwoman Nikki Rodriguez, Ghirmatzion, and Human Resources Manager Mary Davis were all present. Id. Immediately when the meeting started, despite her many years of service to the non-profit and being “the first employee [of the company]” aside from its two co-founders, Johnson was told bluntly and callously by Ghirmatzion that she was being fired effective immediately. (Tr. 107-108, 169). In response, Johnson asked why she was being fired, to which Ghirmatzion responded that she had not been “following through on her job description” that she had signed with Harper. Id. Johnson was not aware of any task or job duty she had been deficient in performing and had not been made aware of any issues by the company prior to the call. Id. Respondent’s counsel later attempted to obscure the record by asking Cejka and Johnson a series of questions during the hearing about unrelated issues they each had during their employment. This included a question about a performance improvement plan Cejka had been assigned and completed successfully, and irrelevant questions about whether Johnson had ever talked about retirement at work or raised her voice at work. Although she was placed on a work improvement plan temporarily, Cejka successfully completed the plan shortly after it was assigned to her, and Johnson did not receive discipline for either situation the company’s attorney asked her about. (Tr. 99-100, 188-192, 220-221). Throwing additional shifting pretextual reasons into the mixture, Ghirmatzion also claimed that Johnson’s performance had been a problem since 2019 while also claiming that it was certain problems unique to the COVID-19 pandemic, i.e., a need for tenant advocates to meet with people physically in-person, that led her to fire Johnson. (Tr. 188-192). Moments later she said that these issues weren’t really that difficult for the company and that they were planning to create an “ambassador” program job with Johnson specifically in mind. (Tr. 192). Ghirmatzion admits directly she never issued any type of warning or discipline to Johnson during the entire lengthy time-period from 2019- 2020 that she vaguely described as being “poor performance” by Johnson. (Tr. 188-192, 220- 221). With regard to Cejka, Ghirmatzion claims that Cejka was fired for being rude to her once in “mid-July” of 2020, an incident which Cejka does not personally recall and which did not result in any discipline or actions toward Cejka until after the protected concerted e-mail to management on August 6, 2020. Id. In contrast to the many confusing and contradictory reasons provided by the company for firing these employees, it is undeniable that the best evidence is truly the video-recorded statements made by Ghirmatzion about directly firing employees and implementing “staffing changes” as a punishment for the August 6 e-mail are directly in the record, and she followed through on the threats a few days later. (G.C. Ex. 3B at 41-42 of 159).”

From this excerpt you can see and read more of how the PUSH Buffalo Senior Management Team gets down. They get down just like big corporate and extractive America. Once you as the employee stand up for yourself and fellow co-workers in the nonprofit industrial complex, you are shunned, isolated, targeted by high paid corporate hacks and you are destroyed. In order for these types of executives to maintain power inside the organization, and maintain secrecy and control over grant money flowing into the organization, all those low-level workers who are trying to do the right thing by organizing for better working conditions (in this case transparency in the budget) must be silenced and/or terminated. This is exactly what happened to Aminah Johnson (former PUSH Tenant Advocate) and Kat Cejka (former PUSH Logistics Coordinator). As you have seen the organization wasn’t even trying to hide or finesse the fact that they were in the wrong. They kept changing their reasons for firing both, they didn’t even have a disciplinary process, there was no so-called ‘restorative justice’ that Miss Ghirmatzion likes to talk about, there was nothing.They didn’t care. In their rush, thirst, and greed to maintain an iron grip over the money coming in and the potential for more money to come in, they carelessly fired Johnson and Cejka, using them as examples for any employees who would dare try to challenge their power inside the organization. Sadly, they (Johnson and Cejka) aren’t the only ones. There have been others before and after them that have been subjected to overlordship of PUSH Senior Management. Johnson and Cejka were exercising their rights to “Concerted Activity” in the workplace which is protected under U.S. law. Obviously, the ‘social justice’ organization known as People United For Sustainable Housing or PUSH Buffalo is now learning this fact. Concerted Activity is when employees organize for better working conditions in a workplace. This is what the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found.

So what happens next? We are all waiting for the judge to make a decision and publish his “opinion”, which is a written document where he lays out his decisions on the facts of the case, applies the law to those facts, and decides whether or not PUSH actually violated the National Labor Relations Act. Stay tuned!