Evidence of Intentional Fraud: DEI when convenient

1. Pretextual Termination After FAR Concerns Raised

On February 25, 2025, I was terminated by Intellect Solutions LLC without prior warning or documented performance issues—less than two weeks after raising red flags about pay disparities, DEI failures, and suspected FAR 52.219-14 violations. The abrupt firing violated the company’s own disciplinary protocols and occurred immediately before a whistleblower disclosure, making retaliation a near certainty.

---

2. Fabricated Grounds to Obscure Whistleblower Motive

The company accused me of “insubordination” for asking basic questions about who was added to the contract and for referencing publicly available salary data. These actions were explicitly tied to ethical concerns around equity, contract integrity, and compliance—none of which constituted misconduct. The accusation was used to conceal the real motive: silencing a whistleblower.

---

3. Documented Pattern of Retaliation for Raising DEI & Pay Equity Issues

Emails show I raised multiple DEI and compensation concerns, including the underpayment of a key Tableau developer by nearly $80,000 compared to my salary. Rather than investigate, Intellect offered him a temporary contractor raise to silence the issue—and added an unknown new worker to the contract without explanation. These are classic tactics of obfuscation and coercive cover-up.

---

4. Severance Offers Manipulated Post-Disclosure

The original severance agreement offered two weeks of pay. After I submitted a protected disclosure to the DHA COR (DeLisa Prater), Intellect Solutions escalated to three separate counteroffers over four days. This escalation confirms they were aware the legal risk had changed—because their termination was not legally defensible.

---

5. No Evidence Supporting Alleged Insubordination

Intellect Solutions has failed to produce a single internal report, witness statement, or formal complaint documenting insubordination. My request for this documentation has gone unanswered. Their inability to substantiate the claim supports the inference that it was fabricated post hoc to justify illegal retaliation.

---

6. Suppression of Identity and Speech (Pronoun Removal Incident)

On January 31, 2025, I was ordered to remove pronouns from my signature despite never using any—and while serving DHA, not the IRS. This unprompted directive signaled a pattern of suppression and subtle retaliation for visible difference or dissent.

---

7. Contract Integrity Undermined Through Secret Staffing Changes

When I questioned Alex Ames about AnneMarie’s sudden addition to the project—despite no communication to the team—I was later accused of “testing” his honesty. This accusation retroactively criminalized basic oversight and further confirms an intent to chill transparency.

----