Secretary Giannoulias:

Ya got trouble … that's right, ya got trouble ... right here in River City!

TOPIC 1:

As you have been advised in my letter / e-mail of October 31, 2025, my e-mail of December 2, 2025,  my e-mail of January 3, 2026 and my e-mail of February 3, 2026 (copies are provided in the https://secretary-alexi-giannoulias-unhappy-camper-website.com),  my  employment  was terminated, via a letter hand-delivered to me by Jeremy McAlpin, Regional Director / Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”), Office of the Illinois Secretary of State, the morning of October 21, 2025 @ the Bloomington, IL DMV facility.   (As you recall, I  was offered  a  full time Public Service Representative position [via Steven T. Miller, Personnel Associate] later that same afternoon!)   The 1st paragraph of this letter reads:  “This letter is to advise you that you are being discharged as a probationary employee with the Office of the Secretary of State.  Your probationary discharge is effective at the close of business on October 21, 2025.   (Is it just a coincidence that October 21, 2025 is a mere ten [10] days from the end of my six [6] month probation period [as you know or may not be aware, post probation affords me Loudermill rights and protection]?)(1)  This action is In accordance with Department of Personnel Rule 420.430(j).(2)   The reason for the discharge is as follows:

STATEMENT OF POLICIES

Charge #1:  Failure to treat all members of the public and other employees promptly, fairly, impartially, and with equal dignity; in violation of the Office of the Secretary of State Policy Manual, Chapter 1, Number 1, Article 1: Courtesy, paragraph 1.1.l(a).

Charge #2:  Engaging in any conduct unbecoming and / or activities on or off duty which might result in or  create  the  appearance  of  affecting adversely the confidence of the public and the integrity of the office; in violation of the Office of Secretary of State Policy Manual, Chapter 1, Number 1, Article 3: Professionalism, paragraph l.1.3(b)(3). 

Charge #3:  Disrespect to or maltreatment of any person; in violation of the Office of Secretary of State Policy Manual, Chapter 1, Number 1, Article 5: Standards, paragraph 1.l.5(e)(l).

Charge #4:  Harassing behavior such as Constant or consistent teasing or ridicule because of an individual's protected class that leads to workplace interference. Comments that a reasonable person would characterize as "crossing the line" that is beyond casual rudeness (hostile work environment); in violation of the Office of Secretary of State Policy Manual, Chapter 2, Number 22, Workplace Harassment and Discrimination, paragraph 2.22.2(15).”

TOPIC #1:

Is  it  standard  practice  to  accept  whatever  is  written  in  Roth's letters  as  gospel?   --->This practice certainly denies me the requisite due process.<---   Additionally and as written above, is it just a coincidence that October 21, 2025 (date of my termination) is a mere ten (10) days from the end of my six (6) month probation period (as you may or may not be aware, post probation affords me Loudermill rights and protection).(1)

TOPIC #2: 

Illinois Administrative Code Title 80 § 420.430(j) (Discipline, Discharge and Termination /  Discharge or Suspension of Probationary Employee) reads:

“Discharge or suspension of a probationary employee may be initiated by filing written charges with the Director of Personnel in the form and manner prescribed by the Director of Personnel.   Written charges shall  contain  a clear  and concise statement of  facts(2A)  showing  good  cause  for  suspension  or discharge  and  other supporting documentation(2B) if applicable.   No suspension or discharge of a probationary employee shall be effective without the approval of the written charges by the Director of Personnel or designee.(2C)

2A)   “Written  charges  shall contain a clear and concise statement of facts showing good cause for suspension or discharge … ”

         ●     My response (a copy of the October 31, 2025 letter provided in the https://secretary-alexi-giannoulias-unhappy-camper-website.com link) to these “facts”; specifically, that I never was – not once – criticized, counseled and / or admonished … ” of the four (4) reasons for discharge as written above thoroughly debunked these allegations;
 

2B)    “ … and other supporting documentation if applicable.”

          ●     “Other supporting documentation” were requested via my:

                 1)    letter / e-mail of October 31, 2025,

                 2)    my e-mail of December 2, 2025,

                 3)    my e-mail of January 3, 2026 and

                 4)    my e-mail of February 3, 2026.

These  “supporting documentation,  as  of  the  date  of  this  e-mail (March 7, 2026), have not yet been provided; therefore, one could only assume there were no “supporting documentation” contemporarily created (like not after the fact?) with my termination.

2C)   “No … discharge of a probationary employee shall be effective without the approval of the written charges by the Director of Personnel … ” … does this not make the Director of Personnel the judge, jury and executioner?

TOPIC #3:

As the Secretary of State Department of Personnel records will reflect, my employment was terminated on October 21, 2025; a Claim was filed with the IL Department of Employment Security (“IDES”) on January 7, 2026.   The IDES “Determination” letter of January 29, 2026 reads:  “The evidence shows the claimant was discharged from Secretary of State because the claimant was accused of violating the employer’s policy with comments made to customers.   However, the claimant stated the comments were done jokingly and when asked to stop, he complied.   Since the claimant’s action, which resulted in his discharge was not repeated by the individual following warnings or explicit instructions, the claimant is not ineligible for benefits from 01/04/2026 in regard to this issue.”

●     The IDES – resident expert in determining IL unemployment benefits  –  found that I, in fact, was not discharged for misconduct.

●     The four (4) allegations found in Roth’s October 21, 2025 letter – justifying my termination – asserted that my:

        1)    “Failure to treat all members of the public and other employees promptly, fairly, impartially, and with equal dignity … ”;

        2)    “Engaging in any conduct unbecoming and / or activities on or off duty which might result in or create the appearance of affecting adversely the confidence of the public and the integrity of the office … ”;

        3)    “Disrespect to or maltreatment of any person … ” and

        4)      “Harassing behavior such as Constant or consistent teasing or ridicule because of an
individual's protected class that leads to workplace interference … ”

were not mentioned – not mentioned at all in the IDES January 29, 2026 “Determination Letter” as reason(s) given by the DMV for my termination.   Rather, this “Determination Letter reads: “The evidence show the claimant was discharged from Secretary of State because the claimant was accused of violating the employer’s policy with comments made to customers.”   How can the allegations found Roth’s October 21, 2025  termination  letter  be  totally different / disparate / dissimilar from the accusations written in the IDES January 29, 2026 “Determination Letter" (kinda sounds like a 4-alarm fire (Roth’s Termination Letter) vs.  a  campfire  roasting weenies (IDES January 29, 2026 “Determination Letter”)?  Purely conjecture on my part but I believe it stands to reason that the Associate who composed this October 21, 2025 termination letter (a boiler plate letter as suggested in my October 31, 2025 letter?) knew of the pain and penalties associated with employers (and those employer’s agents) “ … who lie, misrepresent facts, or provide false information to the IDES … ”:

Employers (including those employer’s agents)  in  Illinois  who  lie,  misrepresent  facts,  or  provide false information to the IDES face  severe  penalties,  including potential felony charges,  mandatory restitution, and hefty fines.   Penalties include a 25-100% fraud penalty on improperly denied / received benefits, criminal prosecution, and up to180 days in prison.

Key Penalties for Employer (including those employer’s agents) Misrepresentation:

●     Criminal Charges:  Knowingly providing false or misleading information to IDES is a crime.   It can be a Class 4 felony (if less than $300 is involved) or a Class 3 felony ($300 or more).

●     Monetary Penalties:  Employers may be assessed a penalty equal to 25% of the amount of benefits fraudulently obtained or denied.   If it is a repeat offense, this can increase to 100% of the amount.

●     Restitution:  The employer may be ordered to repay all benefits wrongfully received or denied.

●     Audits and Interest:  If  an  employer  is  audited,  they  may  face  a  fraud  penalty  up  to  60%  of the contributions owed.

●     Legal Action: The U.S. Department of Justice may also prosecute in federal court.

Fortunately,  there  are  also pains  and  penalties  when  an employer  (including  those  employer’s agents) make misrepresentations in written form; specifically, LIBEL and DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER as written below: